The suspense and anticipation were fun while they lasted, but proved quite short-lived for those of us excitedly awaiting the US Supreme Court’s consideration of an interesting question regarding attorney-client privilege. While oral argument was held in the case of In re Grand Jury, the US Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case.
Read MoreBecause of the volumes of information and the complexities of data found in many cases that require extensive electronic discovery, issues related to attorney-client privilege can require significant attention during the document search, review, and production processes for these cases. Addressing attorney-client privilege requires particular nuance when considering “dual-purpose communications,” in which both legal advice and business guidance are discussed. By granting certiorari to hear arguments on In re Grand Jury, 23 F. 4th 1088 (9th Cir. 2022), the US Supreme Court will consider soon a split among federal judicial circuits regarding the test to use when assessing whether attorney-client privilege applies with regard to such “dual-purpose communications.”
Read MoreKey Insight: Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ claims of privilege should be overruled due to the crime-fraud exception. Defendants withheld emails claiming work product and attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs have not argued that the emails are not covered by either the work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege. The purpose of the crime-fraud exception is to assure that the “seal of secrecy” between lawyer and client does not extend to communications “made for the purpose of getting advice for the commission of a fraud or crime.” In order to avail itself of the crime-fraud exception, the party seeking disclosure must satisfy a threshold showing of “a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person that the [party asserting the privilege] was engaged in intentional fraud and communicated with counsel in furtherance of the fraud.” The court found that plaintiffs’ assertions do not satisfy the threshold showing as they amount to conjecture since there is no other evidence that the communications were made in furtherance of a crime or fraud.
Nature of Case: Antitrust
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight:
Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to produce audio recordings, hard drives, social media posts. Defendants’ Motion was granted. At least a portion of the data that Plaintiff was obligated to produce had been destroyed and/or missing due to a flood. After Plaintiff informed it of us, Defendant agreed to provide Plaintiff with an extension of time to correct his deficient discovery responses. Contingent on time for Plaintiff to allow his deposition to be retaken.
In his Response to Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff did not assert that he complied with his discovery obligations but rather than production of the information sought was unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. For approximately 18 requests for production, Plaintiff failed to provide a response or objection, and failed to timely supplement his responses.
The Court granted largely Defendant’s Motion to Compel, ordering Plaintiff to respond to its requests for production, and supplement his responses to interrogatories, but also limiting Plaintiff’s responses to documents that would not require disclosure of attorney-client privilege and/or information that was not overly broad. Moreover, the Court ordered Plaintiff to appear for an additional supplemental deposition and also state that electronically stored information relevant to the litigation was actually destroyed (due to flooding) and submit the damaged storage devises for expert inspection. The
respective parties were responsible for their own attorney’s fees and costs regarding the discovery issues.
Nature of Case: Employment Discrimination, Family and Medical Leave Act
Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drives, Audio Recordings, Social Media Posts
Key Insight: Work-product privilege protects documents prepared in anticipation by a party, its attorneys, or its consultants and agents. A consulting expert’s analysis and reports is protected work product. However, a consulting expert becomes a fact witness when it also acts a scheduler, inspector, or remediator. No protection would apply to those activities. The capacity in which the third party was acting will determine whether documents are work product. Raw data is not protected. However, the decision that certain subsets or compilations of data are relevant in advising the client or preparing the defense is protected. Opinions regarding such information to assist in advising or preparing the defense are also protected.
Nature of Case: Class Action, Tort
Electronic Data Involved: Raw Data, Report Logs, Electronic Documents Generally
Key Insight: The parties had cross motions requesting the production of purportedly (attorney-client) privileged documents at the end of discovery; the Defendants had been producing documents on a categorical basis. The Court had previously issued three discovery opinions that denied the assertions of privilege by Defendant(s). Defendants failed to rebut an argument by Plaintiff (opposing party) that the documents sought were confidential, accordingly, the Court order them to be produced.
In a final argument, Defendants advocated for the requested documents being produced on a document-by-document basis. The Court rejected this given Defendants previous agreement to produce the documents on a categorical basis; the Court granted the Plaintiff’s request for the production of documents.
Considering Defendants’ Motion, the Court implied that it was hypocritical for Defendants to be seeking privileged documents from Plaintiff that were similar to the same documents that they argued against producing to Plaintiff on the basis of privilege. Regardless, the Court ordered Plaintiff to produce some the purportedly privileged documents sought by Defendant. The documents that the Court stated that Plaintiff need not produce were documents not publicly available from an investigation and the tangentially related bankruptcy case concerning Plaintiff.
Nature of Case: Adversarial Bankruptcy
Electronic Data Involved: N/A
Key Insight:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel sought missing documents and communications from, and the correction of metadata “issues” from Defendant and its parent company (via third party subpoena), and sought an award of attorney’s fees and costs. The Court partially granted the Motion, requiring Defendant to produce responsive communications and documents in its possession, and to conduct a search for such documents and communications, and provide an affidavit detailing the steps it took to search for said items.
The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel insofar as it sought the metadata of documents responsive to its initial requests for production. Regarding the third party subpoena to Defendant’s parent company, the Court found that the office of the parent company subject to the subpoena was outside of the Court’s jurisdiction and consequently, denied Plaintiff’s Motion insofar as it sought to enforce the subpoena. Finally, Court awarded Plaintiff fees and costs regarding the missing documents, but not the “issues” with metadata.
Nature of Case: Breach of Contract
Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Metadata, PDFs
Key Insight: Defendant cannot be compelled to produce text messages from employees’ personal cell phones because they did not have possession, custody, or control of the devices. An employer has possession, custody, or control of a cell phone when the employer issued the cell phone, the cell phone is used for business purposes, and the employer has a legal right to obtain communications from the cell phone.
An email does not become privileged simply by including counsel as a recipient to an email. If the email was not sent with the purpose of obtaining legal advice, it is not privileged.
An independent forensic examination of electronic devices for electronic communications is appropriate when a party intentionally delays or withholds relevant and discoverable communications.
Nature of Case: Wrongful Termination, Employment Law
Electronic Data Involved: Text Messages, Email
Key Insight: Communications between a party and its hired legal consultant are work product if they are generated in anticipation of litigation. Work product containing mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories concerning the litigation is rarely discoverable and enjoy “near absolute immunity.” Documents subpoenaed from the legal consultant still retain work product privilege.
Instead of providing privilege logs, the court allowed the legal consultants to categorically withhold or redact privileged communications so long as they provided a certification that none of withheld or redacted documents were distributed to or reviewed by any other third parties. In lieu of such certification, the legal consultants would have to produce a privilege log.
Nature of Case: Property, Eminent Domain
Electronic Data Involved: Email, Electronic Communications
Key Insight: Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Compel to allow them unfettered access to all information located on a server. Defendant objected, claiming that Plaintiffs had no legal right to the server, and information on the server was irrelevant, confidential and/or privileged. The Court found that the request (Motion to Compel) was overbroad and premature, and denied Plaintiffs’ Motion.
Nature of Case:Fraud, Shareholder Suit, Diversity Jurisdiction
Electronic Data Involved: Hard Drive, Server,
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.