Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections

1
Colonial Bancgroup, Inc. v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP., No. 2:11-cv-746-WKW, 2016 WL 9687001 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 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
Cason-Merenda v. VHS of Michigan, Inc., 118 F. Supp. 3d 965 (E.D. Mich. 2015)
10
S.E.C. v. Blackburn, No. 15-2451-CJB-SS, 2015 WL 10911438 (E.D. La. Oct. 26, 2015)

Colonial Bancgroup, Inc. v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP., No. 2:11-cv-746-WKW, 2016 WL 9687001 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 22, 2016)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought production of specific folders from e-mail inboxes after defendant had already produced e-mails from those custodians as identified by keyword search terms r, the court found the request duplicative and denied plaintiff?s request. Where plaintiff sought to compel additional searches likely to capture information well beyond that to which plaintiff was entitled and resisted a compromise offer of running the searches with restrictive terms designed to weed out irrelevant information, the court granted the request for additional searches but also granted defendant?s request to include limiting terms to restrict the capture of irrelevant data. Where plaintiff requested a sworn affidavit detailing defendant?s litigation hold efforts including the ?specific actions? which hold notice recipients were directed to take and any enforcement efforts, the court agreed with defendant that specific actions and enforcement efforts were subject to attorney-client privilege but directed plaintiff to ?provide this information via ?sworn affidavit? in a manner which, does not invoke the work product doctrine or violate the attorney-client privilege OR to make a specific legal and factual showing [] as to any work product objection or attorney-client privilege claim? and also ordered production of the other requested information, including custodian names and document types subject to the hold.

Nature of Case: Professional Negligence

Electronic Data Involved: e-mail

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

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)

S.E.C. v. Blackburn, No. 15-2451-CJB-SS, 2015 WL 10911438 (E.D. La. Oct. 26, 2015)

Key Insight: No waiver of privilege resulting from inadvertent production (as a result of legal assistant?s accidental attachment of the wrong email folder when preparing initial disclosures) where steps to prevent disclosure were reasonable, including custodian?s specific identification of privileged material and trial attorney?s review of all non-privileged docs to be produced and where trial attorney immediately addressed inadvertent disclosure upon her discovery of it and return to her office

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.