United States ex rel. Pietschner v. Petralia — Stipulated Privilege Log Protocol
- Date
- 2025-09-10
Summary
A Stipulated Privilege Log Protocol filed September 10, 2025 as Document 99 in United States of America ex rel. Paul Pietschner v. Kathryn Petralia, Robert Frohwein and Spencer Robinson, Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-110-SDJ, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The United States, the relator and the defendants agree on how privilege claims over withheld documents will be asserted and logged, including claims under the Bank Secrecy Act and SBA's examination privilege, 13 C.F.R. § 120.1060. The protocol lists required metadata fields, requires marked redactions and sortable logs, and sets rolling exchanges every 30 days. It exempts documents created after January 12, 2021 unless requested, communications with counsel preparing for the action, non-party discovery, and depositions or trial. It ends with an unsigned approval line and a certificate of service.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 99 Filed 09/10/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1041
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. )
PAUL PIETSCHNER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-110-SDJ
v. )
)
KATHRYN PETRALIA; ROBERT )
FROHWEIN; and SPENCER ROBINSON, )
)
Defendants. )
)
STIPULATED PRIVILEGE LOG PROTOCOL
1. Plaintiff the United States of America (the “United States”), Relator Paul Pietschner
(“Relator”), and Defendants Kathryn Petralia, Robert Frohwein, and Spencer Robinson
(“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties” and each a “Party”), stipulate and agree that in the
above-captioned litigation (the “Action”), notwithstanding any federal or local rule, case law, or
other potentially-applicable requirement, the following shall be the protocol used by the Party that
asserts that documents otherwise responsive to a written discovery request (a “Request”) directed
at that Party (the “Producing Party”) are not subject to discovery because such documents are
privileged or otherwise protected by the attorney-client, deliberative process, law
enforcement/investigative files, or other privilege, as attorney work-product or trial preparation
material, or by any other applicable privilege or protection from discovery (a “Privilege Claim”).
2. When responding to any Request, any and all Privilege Claims shall be initially
asserted in writing in the Producing Party’s response to the Request and need only set forth a
general assertion, made in good faith, that Request seeks information that is subject to a Privilege
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 99 Filed 09/10/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 1042
Claim. Nothing in this paragraph shall be considered a waiver of a Privilege Claim over documents
or material identified as protected after an initial written response is provided.
3. Should any documents be withheld, in whole or in part, by either Party on the basis
of attorney/client privilege, work-product privilege, a joint-defense privilege, the deliberative
process privilege, statutory or regulatory restrictions such as those arising under the Bank Secrecy
Act or relating to the examination or supervision of regulated financial institutions, including
SBA’s examination privilege, 13 C.F.R. § 120.1060, or any other applicable privilege, immunity,
protective doctrine, or regulatory restriction governing the production of documents, the parties
will exchange privilege logs.
4. A log of the documents withheld on the basis of privilege will be generated from
the following corresponding metadata fields to the extent they exist as electronic metadata
associated with the original electronically stored information:
a) Author
b) Subject
c) Title
d) File Name
e) Custodian(s)
f) Sender/From
g) Recipient/To
h) CC
i) BCC
j) Sent Date/Time
k) Created Date/Time
2
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 99 Filed 09/10/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 1043
l) Date/Time Last Modified
m) Family relationship (i.e., identifying an attachment’s parent document)
The parties will also include on the privilege log fields containing: (a) a unique document
ID or Bates number; (b) the privilege asserted (e.g., attorney-client, work product, deliberative
process); and (c) a categorical description of the withheld document or communication in a manner
that, without revealing information claimed privileged or protected, will enable a party to assess
the privilege claim. Where the United States asserts restrictions under the Bank Secrecy Act or
relating to the supervision or examination of regulated financial institutions including SBA’s
examination privilege, 13 C.F.R. § 120.1060, or law enforcement sensitivity as the basis of
withholding a document from production, no further categorical description of the document shall
be required.
Notwithstanding a claim of privilege, any document containing both privileged and non-
privileged matter must be produced with the purportedly privileged portion redacted, with the
redacted portion indicated on the document itself. All redactions will bear an indication for the
basis of the redaction (e.g. “AC privilege” or “work product”) and will not be made as unmarked
black boxes.
Privilege logs will be produced in an Excel format, or other agreed-upon format, which
allows the Receiving Party to search and sort any and all columns and entries of the privilege log.
Withheld attachments shall be logged as separate documents on the log, with their parent document
identified. Redacted documents do not need to be logged. The parties shall meet and confer in
good faith regarding any additional substantive and formatting requirements for privilege logs,
including a conspicuous method for identifying attorneys on the face of the privilege log. The
parties shall exchange privilege logs, which shall be produced on a rolling basis every 30 days
3
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 99 Filed 09/10/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 1044
from the date the Parties file this Protocol through the remainder of fact discovery, with a final
privilege log to be produced no later than 30 days after the close of fact discovery. The Parties
may mutually agree in writing to amend the schedule for the production of privilege logs.
5. A Producing Party need not prepare or produce any Privilege Log with respect to
Privilege Claims concerning responsive documents created after January 12, 2021, unless the
opposing Party requests a Privilege Log for particular documents or specific categories of
documents created after that date.
6. A Producing Party need not log privileged communications solely between the
Party and counsel preparing for this Action, including inter-agency and intra-agency government
communications in preparation for this Action.
7. This Stipulation does not apply to discovery taken of non-parties, unless and to the
extent the Parties and a non-party agree in writing that this Stipulation will extend to the non-
party’s assertion of Privilege Claims.
8. This Stipulation shall not govern Privilege Claims made during pretrial depositions
taken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 or at trial. Such Privilege Claims shall be subject
to rules, precedents, and other authorities that typically govern assertions of privilege or other
protections from discovery made in those settings.
Dated: September 10, 2025
4
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 99 Filed 09/10/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 1045
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Sharon K. Hogue
George P. Varghese (pro hac vice) BRENNA E. JENNY
Sharon K. Hogue (pro hac vice) Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
60 State Street JAY R. COMBS
Boston, MA 02109 Acting United States Attorney
Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Eastern District of Texas
Fax: (617) 526-5000
george.varghese@wilmerhale.com /s Betty Young____________
sharon.hogue@wilmerhale.com James G. Gillingham, Texas Bar
#24065295
Christopher E. Babbitt (pro hac vice) Betty S. Young, Texas Bar #24102498
Michaela S. Wilkes Klein (pro hac vice) Assistant U.S. Attorneys
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Eastern District of Texas
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 110 N. College Street, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20037 Tyler, Texas 75702
Telephone: (202) 663-6000 E-mail: James.Gillingham@usdoj.gov
Fax: (202) 663-6363 E-mail: Betty.Young@usdoj.gov
christopher.babbitt@wilmerhale.com (903) 590-1400
michaela.wilkesklein@wilmerhale.com (903) 590-1436 (facsimile)
Anjan Sahni (pro hac vice) Jamie A. Yavelberg
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP Colin M. Huntley
7 World Trade Center, 250 Greenwich Street Sarah E. Loucks
New York, NY 10007 Kelly E. Phipps
Tel: (212) 230-8800 Attorneys, Civil Division
Fax: (212) 230-8888 United States Department of Justice
anjan.sahni@wilmerhale.com P.O. Box 261
Ben Franklin Station
Melissa R. Smith Washington, D.C. 20044
Gillam & Smith LLP E-mail: Sarah.E.Loucks@usdoj.gov
303 South Washington Ave. E-mail: Kelly.E.Phipps@usdoj.gov
Marshall, TX 75670 (202) 616-4203
Telephone: (903) 934-8450 (202) 514-0280 (facsimile)
Fax: (903) 934-9257 Counsel for the United States of
melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com America
Counsel for Kathryn Petralia
Nicholas M. Mathews
Alexander J. Chern
McKool Smith, PC - Dallas
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 978-4258
5
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 99 Filed 09/10/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 1046
Fax: (214) 978-4044
Nmathews@mckoolsmith.com
Achern@mckoolsmith.com
Miranda Hooker (pro hac vice)
Kate E. MacLeman (pro hac vice)
Kara N. Czekai (pro hac vice)
Adam Slutsky (pro hac vice)
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
Telephone: (617) 570-1000
Fax: (617) 523-1231
MHooker@goodwinlaw.com
KMacLeman@goodwinlaw.com
KCzekai@goodwinlaw.com
ASlutsky@goodwinlaw.com
Counsel for Robert Frohwein
Henry W. Asbill (pro hac vice)
Christopher B. Mead (pro hac vice)
Lisa H. Schertler (pro hac vice)
Paola Pinto (pro hac vice)
Schertler Onorato Mead & Sears
555 13th Street NW Suite 500W
Washington DC 20004
Telephone: 202-628-4199
Facsimile: 202-628-4177
hasbill@schertlerlaw.com
cmead@schertlerlaw.com
lschertler@schertlerlaw.com
ppinto@schertlerlaw.com
Counsel for Spencer Robinson
IT IS ORDERED that the forgoing Agreement is approved.
Dated: ______________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Case 4:21-cv-00110-SDJ Document 99 Filed 09/10/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 1047
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 10, 2025, I caused the foregoing to be filed electronically
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing
to counsel of record.
Dated: September 10, 2025 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Sharon K. Hogue
Sharon K. Hogue (pro hac vice)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Fax: (617) 526-5000
sharon.hogue@wilmerhale.com
7
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.txed.204031.99.0.pdf
- Size
- 177,290 bytes
- SHA-256
- 275b2baf30058f9b66501c39dba712aa38d2fd4f96ac40d0a30e807530fad08e
- Original
- PACER (login required)