Actually, that language doesn't assert a privilege. At all. That is, if a party submitted that language as an assertion of privilege in court, it would not be well-received, as it does not assert that ANY specific privilege applies to ANY specific request (and there are specific requests that have been made to which they could respond). Rather, it says, in simplified language, "if you don't follow the procedural rules that I alone decide apply and are binding, even though there is no authority making any such procedure binding, then I just won't respond, and I'm not waiving any privilege that might apply, and here, I'll list all of them, except the clergy privilege, but I might, because I said 'including,' which doesn't limit me."