Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections

1
Bagley v. Yale Univ., No. 3:13-CV-1890 (CSH), 2016 WL 7407707 (D. Conn. Dec. 22, 2016)
2
Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. U.S. Bank N.A. (D. S.C., 2016)
3
Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Inc. (ND Cal, 2016)
4
Portland Pipe Line Corp. et al. v. City of South Portland et al. (D. Maine, 2016)
5
David Mizer Enters. v. Nextar Broad., Inc. (Central District of Illinois, 2016)
6
Dynamo Holdings L.P. v. Commissioner, No. 2685-11, 8393-12 (Tax Ct. July 13, 2016).
7
In re Eisenstein (Supreme Court of Mo., 2016)
8
Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC (Northern District of Indiana, 2016)
9
Baranski v. United States, No. 4-11-CV-123 CAS, 2015 WL 3505517 (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2015)
10
Cason-Merenda v. VHS of Michigan, Inc., 118 F. Supp. 3d 965 (E.D. Mich. 2015)

Bagley v. Yale Univ., No. 3:13-CV-1890 (CSH), 2016 WL 7407707 (D. Conn. Dec. 22, 2016)

Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of litigation hold notices and related responses to a survey regarding recipients? computer use where, despite the absence of specific evidence of spoliation or a pending spoliation motion, the delayed (9-11 months) and rolling issuance of litigation holds was described by the court as ?leisurely, to an extent making it impossible to dismiss as frivolous [Plaintiff?s] suggestion that she might move for a spoliation sanction? and where the court reasoned that Plaintiff was ?entitled to discovery in these areas, in order to discern the merit or lack of merit of a formal claim for spoliation claim? [sic]; regarding assertions that the hold notices were privileged, the court reasoned that ?the predominant purpose of the communication was to give recipients forceful instructions about what they must do, rather than advice about what they might do?; court?s analysis included identification of six ?decisive questions? relevant to ?spoliation cases involving litigation hold notices? including, when the duty to preserve arose, whether litigation holds were issued, when they were issued, what they said, how recipients responded and what further action was taken beyond the litigation holds to preserve evidence

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation Hold notices and survey to recipients regarding computer use

Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Inc. (ND Cal, 2016)

Key Insight: Discovery is not disproportionate just because you say so. Insufficient privilege log.

Nature of Case: Class action involving alleged improper classification of independent contractor status.

Electronic Data Involved: Production of emails in response to Plaintiffs’ requests.

Keywords: Produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s search terms. Duplicative and not proportional.

View Case Opinion

Portland Pipe Line Corp. et al. v. City of South Portland et al. (D. Maine, 2016)

Key Insight: Two step process of TAR and manual review of privilege negated need for in camera review

Nature of Case: declaratory relief re environmental ordinance

Electronic Data Involved: emails

Keywords: in camera review

View Case Opinion

David Mizer Enters. v. Nextar Broad., Inc. (Central District of Illinois, 2016)

Key Insight: While privilege logs are not explicitly required when claiming privilege, they are the best way to properly assert attorney-client privilege

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents generally

Keywords: privilege log, website, servers, car,

View Case Opinion

Dynamo Holdings L.P. v. Commissioner, No. 2685-11, 8393-12 (Tax Ct. July 13, 2016).

Key Insight: Predictive coding may be used to conserve time and expense where e-discovery expertise applied

Nature of Case: Embezzlement/Fraudulent Transfers Action

Electronic Data Involved: Backup storage tapes of exchange server containing tax-related information

Keywords: “computer-assisted review [tools]” “privileged or confidential information” “universe of documents”

View Case Opinion

In re Eisenstein (Supreme Court of Mo., 2016)

Key Insight: Concealment and use of electronic evidence improperly obtained by a client.

Nature of Case: Divorce.

Electronic Data Involved: Email, hacked and stolen from the wife’s private email account.

Keywords: Unwarranted intrusions into privileged relationships. Stolen evidence.

Identified State Rule(s): 4-4.4(a); 4-8.4(c); 4-3.4(a)

Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC (Northern District of Indiana, 2016)

Key Insight: confidential settlement information in documents requested

Nature of Case: Negligence and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: communications between Amex Nooter and IOSHA

Keywords: Confidential Settlement information, motion to compel, impeachment

View Case Opinion

Baranski v. United States, No. 4-11-CV-123 CAS, 2015 WL 3505517 (E.D. Mo. June 3, 2015)

Key Insight: Court found privilege had been waived where at-issue documents were intermingled with non-privileged documents and produced in a consecutively numbered batch, where the government provided no information regarding how the documents were reviewed, where there was an almost 2 year delay until the production of the privilege log, where the documents were not marked as privileged, where approximately 10% (58/570) of the documents produced were privileged, where at least one privileged document was used as an exhibit in deposition without objection and where the government did not discover the allegedly inadvertent disclosure for nearly two years; where defendant provided evidence of the cost and burden of restoring backup tapes (14 weeks of work at a cost of approximately $85,400) court concluded that at-issue emails were not reasonably accessible and declined to compel production where plaintiff failed to establish that the emails may contain significant information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Cason-Merenda v. VHS of Michigan, Inc., 118 F. Supp. 3d 965 (E.D. Mich. 2015)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel Plaintiffs? production of all discovery produced by any party in the case for Defendant?s use where Defendant failed without adequate explanation to maintain all such documents throughout the pendency of litigation due, perhaps, to changes in ownership and legal representation and where Plaintiffs? compilation of such information was work product, but ordered Plaintiff to produce from its database any specifically identified documents at Defendant?s cost

Electronic Data Involved: Contents of Plaintiffs’ discovery database (i.e., the collection of discovery produced by any party during the litigation)

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.