FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) or FRE 502 – Page 7 – Electronic Discovery Law

Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., No. 11 Civ. 8405 (CM)(JCF), 2012 WL 6732905 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed Plaintiff?s motion to compel production and declined to shift defendant?s discovery costs where defendant addressed only two of seven factors to be considered when seeking to shift costs but sua sponte entered a 502(d) order to ease defendant?s production burden if they chose to avail themselves of it; court?s analysis made clear that counsel?s resources are not an appropriate consideration in a cost shifting analysis

Nature of Case: Claims arising from insurance company’s alleged improper rate increase

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 571 (Fed. Cl. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court held that the deliberative process privilege was subject to a timeliness requirement and, where government asserted the possibility that documents used at deposition were subject to the deliberative process privileged at the end of a deposition but waited ?roughly six months? to definitively assert the privilege and another ?nearly four months? to communicate that assertion to Plaintiff, the court held the privilege had been waived

Nature of Case: Alleged violation of Cost Accounting Standards

Electronic Data Involved: String of emails

Excel Gold Products, Inc. v. MacNeill Eng?g Co., Inc., No. 11 C 1928, 2012 WL 1570772 (May 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Despite finding that plaintiff had not produced sufficient information regarding its review procedures to establish that reasonable steps were taken to prevent inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, the court found that concerns of ?overriding fairness? precluded waiver where plaintiff had attempted to enter into a clawback agreement and where defense counsel?s rejection of such an agreement (because there was a protective order) could ?readily? have been interpreted to mean that inadvertently produced materials would be returned without dispute; plaintiff was ordered to conduct privilege review of documents produced, to the extent not already done

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced ESI

Pac. Coast Steel v. Leany, No. 2:09-cv-2190-KJD-PAL, 2011 WL 4704217 (D. Nev. Oct. 4, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: [This amended order corrects an omission to the original order, Docket # 335] Where plaintiffs ?simply overlooked? and thus inadvertently produced 3 privileged documents along with 2.3 million other pages, despite conducting ?multiple? privilege reviews and where plaintiff immediately objected to the use of such documents upon their presentation at deposition and thereafter sought their return before the court, the court found that privilege was not waived

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dubler v. Hangsterfer?s Labs., 2011 90244 (D.N.J. Jan. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant produced privileged emails and sought to preclude waiver arising therefrom, the court rejected defendant?s assertions that it did not intend to waive privilege and, noting the lack of evidence regarding reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and that defendant had not yet requested the return of the documents at issue, found that privilege had been waived

Nature of Case: Employement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Stambler v. Amazon.com, No. 2:09-CV-310 (DF), 2011 WL 10538668 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties agreed on search terms to identify responsive materials and defendants (the producing parties) later argued that the terms had produced overly-burdensome results, court held that defendants had the burden of ?justifying non-production or reduced production? because they had agreed to the terms and that they had failed to ?justify protection under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)? but, acknowledging the expected costs of review and production, indicated that defendants could choose to produce documents without reviewing the results in light of the ability to identify privilege using key words and the parties? claw back agreement in their protective order; recognizing the potential burden to plaintiffs if defendants chose to produce documents without review, the court indicated the parties could confer to revise search terms if they so chose

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Seyler v. T-Sys. N. Amer., Inc., 2011 WL 196920 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of plaintiff?s claims of privilege resulting from the production of one privileged email where, pursuant to FRE 502(a) the waiver was not intentional as established by the sworn statement of plaintiff?s counsel that he was not aware that the plaintiff?s sister, the other party to the relevant email, was an attorney

Nature of Case: Hostile work environment, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Estate of Carlock v. Williamson, 2011 WL 308608 (C.D. Ill. Jan. 27, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege where the email at issue was inadvertently produced (as the result of plaintiff?s access to defendants? servers); where defendants took sufficiently reasonable steps to prevent disclosure as evidenced by the parties? ?repeated discussions about key word limitations? and ?broad protective order? and because ?Defendants repeatedly and specifically emphasized their concern over how Plaintiff was handling any attorney-client communications it came across?; and where defendants acted promptly to rectify the problem upon receiving notice of the inadvertent production. Accordingly, court granted defendant?s motion to strike plaintiff?s motion for sanctions which relied on the privileged email but left open plaintiff?s opportunity to re-file upon removing all reference to the privileged message

Nature of Case: Litigation arising from death of inmate while incarcerated

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold spreadsheet, privileged email

Datel Holdings, LTD v. Microsoft Corp., No. C-09-05535 EDL, 2011 WL 866993 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where despite reasonable measures to prevent the production of privileged materials a software glitch resulted in the failure to identify privileged portions of emails that were then produced and where, upon learning of the disclosure, counsel acted promptly to rectify the error, the court found privilege had not been waived by the inadvertent production pursuant to FRE 502; court?s analysis included discussion of meaning of ?inadvertent?

Electronic Data Involved: Email chain

In re Royce Homes, LP, No. 09-32467-H4-7, 2011 WL 873428 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court rejected employee of debtor?s assertions of privilege where employee failed to properly assert such privilege in his privilege log; assuming arguendo that emails were privileged, court found that employee had waived privilege in several ways: 1) employee had no reasonable expectation of privacy in communications sent or received on employer?s computer system and thus had no privilege in communications with his attorney; 2) employee provided unqualified access to emails by third parties, one of whom he asked to review his emails to identify which were privileged despite her lack of legal education; and 3) employee allowed trustee to have unqualified access to the emails by failing to object to their production to the trustee when informed that the emails would be produced

Nature of Case: Bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Emails between employee and attorney sent on company computer system

Tag:FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) or FRE 502