context: Plaintiff has not contested DOJ's work product assertion and therefore has conceded the issue. Moreover, even if Plaintiff had contested the issue, as the courts concluded in Wright and Dorsey, the work product privilege covers the withheld materials.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 2015 WL 1431707, at *4
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that Title III authorization memoranda were covered by the work product privilege
citation_a.sentence: See Wright, 121 F.Supp.3d at 184-86, 2015 WL 4910502, at *10-11; Dorsey, 85 F.Supp.3d at 217, 2015 WL 1431707, at *4 (holding that Title III authorization memoranda were covered by the work product privilege); see also Wolfson v. United States, 672 F.Supp.2d 20, 30 (D.D.C.2009) (finding that memoranda recommending continued wiretap authorization were protected by attorney work-product privilege).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 672 F.Supp.2d 20, 30
citation_b.parenthetical: finding that memoranda recommending continued wiretap authorization were protected by attorney work-product privilege
citation_b.sentence: See Wright, 121 F.Supp.3d at 184-86, 2015 WL 4910502, at *10-11; Dorsey, 85 F.Supp.3d at 217, 2015 WL 1431707, at *4 (holding that Title III authorization memoranda were covered by the work product privilege); see also Wolfson v. United States, 672 F.Supp.2d 20, 30 (D.D.C.2009) (finding that memoranda recommending continued wiretap authorization were protected by attorney work-product privilege).