December 1, 2009 – Electronic Discovery Law

Communications with Attorney Using Company Computer and Email Account Not Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege

Dec 01 2009

Alamar Ranch, LLC v. City of Boise, 2009 WL 3669741 (D. Idaho Nov. 2, 2009)

In this case arising from a land use and permitting dispute, the court ruled that emails sent by a non-party to her attorney using her work computer and work-assigned email address were not protected by the attorney-client privilege. In so holding, the court relied in large part upon the existence of company policy which put the employee on notice that her emails were subject to monitoring and were not confidential. Emails sent by the attorney to the employee’s work account were likewise unprotected where the attorney was on notice of the employee’s use of company email and should have recognized the risk that such emails were unprotected. As for emails sent to the attorney by other clients and copied to the employee, the court reasoned that such emails retained their privileged status where the senders (non-employees of the relevant company) were not on notice of the potential exposure of their emails to outside scrutiny.

Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. CV 08-6237 SJO (FMOx), 2009 WL 10655335 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Defendant produced 138 emails whose attachments that were not linked, claiming it produced the documents in ?the normal course of business? and had no obligation to re-link the attachments. The court disagreed, stating that ?plaintiff must have the ability to identify which attachments belong to which emails.? Defendant argued it could not automatically re-link the emails with the attachments, but would have to ?employ a tedious manual process.? The court indicated Defendant ?cannot seek to preclude plaintiff from pursuing discovery based on a record-keeping system that is plainly inadequate.? The court found Defendant did not meet the burden to prove it would be unduly burdensome to re-link the message units and granted the motion (Defendant must provide data/software to allow Plaintiff to re-link or must re-produce the 138 emails with their attachments). The court denied the motion to compel Defendant to produce purchase and valuation documents, finding Defendant met its burden to show the requested information is not relevant to this case.

Electronic Data Involved: Email

S.E.C. v. Bank of Amer. Corp., 2009 WL 3297493 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court approved stipulated protective order allowing defendant to waive privilege and work product protections as to certain categories of documents without also waving ?such privilege and protection regarding other information that may be of interest in related private lawsuits?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

Barton Group, Inc. v. NCR Corp., 2009 WL 6509348 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s request to compel defendant to categorize its production and identify which documents were responsive to which requests where plaintiff and defendant previously agreed that defendant would produce all documents from certain custodians without prior review and where plaintiff therefore could not simultaneously benefit from avoiding the risk that defendant would unilaterally filter out responsive documents while at the same time seeking to have defendant ?provide the kind of classification that plaintiff would have gotten had it made a different choice?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Cinergy, Corp., 2009 WL 6327414 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Inadvertent production of privileged material by third party pursuant to subpoena waived defendants? privilege protection where third party?s disclosure was found to be tantamount to defendant?s disclosure because of the nature of their relationship and where defense counsel failed to take any steps to prevent the production of privileged materials despite being asked specifically if privilege issues were implicated in the production (to which he answered ?no?) and despite the low volume of materials produced; court noted that although there was no legal obligation for defendants to conduct a post-production review, ?had [they] done so, they might well have noticed the email at issue before Plaintiffs did, and the result in this case might have been different.?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Gotlin v. Lederman, 2010 WL 2843380 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: As sanction for plaintiff?s delayed production of untranslated medical records after the close of discovery, court precluded use of the late-disclosed records upon reasoning that the late disclosure was not substantially justified and resulted in prejudice to the defendants and upon reasoning that to allow such disclosure would result in continued delay of the proceedings in light of likely need to re-open expert disclosure, among other things

Electronic Data Involved: Late produced CD containing untranslated medical records

Callan v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 564(C.D. Cal. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants sought to compel plaintiff?s compliance with a clawback provision intended to control the return of inadvertently produced documents but failed to establish the nature of the privilege claimed or the precautions taken to prevent disclosure, court ruled that defendants had failed to establish that the production of any document was ?inadvertent? and denied defendants? motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ayers Oil Co. v. Am. Bus. Brokers, Inc., 2009 WL 4725297 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where a party to the litigation forwarded an email from his attorney to a third party, the court ruled that the attorney-client privilege had been waived because there was no shared legal interest between the litigant and the third party and thus the common interest doctrine did not apply but held that the protection provided by the work product doctrine had not been waived where the email was forwarded to ?a nonadversary third party? and where there was no basis for finding it likely that the third party would not keep the email confidential

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

S.E.C. v. Leslie, 2009 WL 4724242 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant produced responsive documents after the close of discovery and explained that he believed the documents had been previously produced by his prior employer based on his misunderstanding that all documents saved to his personal computer were also saved on the employer?s network (and thus collected from that source), the court reasoned that ?a trial on the merits of the case outweighs and prejudice to the plaintiff?, that the plaintiff had had more than a month to complete the review of the newly produced documents, and that defendant had fulfilled his obligation to supplement discovery and denied defendant?s motion to exclude plaintiff?s use of the documents; court allowed defendant to depose plaintiff for an additional two hours

Electronic Data Involved: Late produced ESI

Multiquip, Inc. v. Water Mgmt. Systs., LLC, 2009 WL 4261214 (D. Idaho Nov. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, as a result of the autofill function in email, defendant mistakenly sent a privileged communication to a third party which was thereafter forwarded to opposing counsel in the litigation, court undertook waiver analysis pursuant to ER 502 and found that privilege was not waived where defendant disclosed the communication inadvertently, where defendant?s reliance on ?a system that had worked in particular way in the past? was reasonable to prevent disclosure, and where defendant?s counsel took immediate steps to rectify the error upon learning of the disclosure

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Archive - December 1, 2009