Privilege or Work Product Protections – Page 14

Pac. Packaging Prods., Inc. v. Barenboim, No. MICV200904320, 2014 WL 2766735 (Mass. Super. Ct. Jan 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After ten days of hearings on Plaintiff?s Emergency Motion for Judgment on All Claims Based upon Defendants? Fraud Upon the Court, court found that defendants violated preservation order and deliberately ignored preliminary injunction requiring defendants to turn over all written or digital materials taken from or generated by plaintiff, or derived in whole or in part from documents generated by plaintiff, that contain customer lists, pricing information or similar information, and not to retain copies of such materials, and that defendants spoliated evidence and committed a fraud upon the court; appropriate sanction was the entry of default against defendants, dismissal of the defendants? counterclaims, and an order requiring defendants to compensate plaintiff for attorneys? fees and costs incurred in litigating the motion; parties to submit memoranda describing their views regarding the extent of the default established and the future course of the litigation

Nature of Case: Distributer sued former employees who formed competing company

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, laptops, hard drives and other electronic storage devices

Gloucester Twp. Hous. Auth. V. Franklin Square Assocs., No. 12-0953 (RMB/AMD), 2014 WL 3974168 (D.N.J. Aug. 12, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court evaluated five factors to determine that defendant’s inadvertent disclosure waived the attorney-client privilege, where defendant did not describe the precautions taken, if any, to prevent the disclosure of privileged information, but instead relied on the purportedly voluminous nature of the production, the disputed letters set forth communications between attorney and client concerning clearly privileged, substantive information relating to the litigation, the letters were produced in the litigation on two separate occasions, and defense counsel waited over three months after the letters’ production before attempting to rectify the disclosures and only discovered the inadvertent disclosure while preparing for a deposition

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged letters

Green v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co., No. 1:14-cv-04074, 2014 WL 6668422 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Order Establishing Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information, which addressed search terms, production format, and various other e-discovery matters

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Dover v. British Airways, PLC (UK), No. CV 2012-5567 (RJD)(MDG), 2014 WL 4065084 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2014), affirmed, Dover v. British Airways, PLC (UK), No. CV 2012-5567 (RJD)(MDG), 2014 WL 5090021 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where parties entered into a stipulated protective order approved by the court that contained a provision concerning inadvertent disclosures, and plaintiffs inadvertently produced the protected information on the spreadsheets twice and conceded they were “careless,” court did not find plaintiffs’ conduct to be so “completely reckless” as to warrant a finding of waiver given the totality of the circumstances and particularly the nature of the production, plaintiffs’ prompt request for return of the protected information, and the overriding issues of fairness

Nature of Case: Class action alleging that defendant British Airways violated its frequent flyer program contract by imposing unlawful fuel surcharges on rewards flights

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets prepared by non-testifying, consulting experts

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ind. Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, 95 A.3d 1264 (Del. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Delaware Supreme Court affirmed rulings of Court of Chancery in all respects, finding no error in setting the range of dates for production, requiring Wal-Mart to produce officer-level documents, requiring Wal-Mart to collect and search data from disaster recovery backup tapes for two additional custodians where Wal-Mart had voluntarily collected disaster tape recovery data for nine other custodians, and invoking the exception articulated in Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970), to find that IBEW was entitled to documents protected by attorney-client privilege and work product protection in Section 220 litigation

Nature of Case: Pursuant to title 8, section 220 of the Delaware Code, shareholder brought action against corporation for production of documents related to alleged bribery scandal

Electronic Data Involved: Disaster recovery tapes for certain records custodians and documents related to company’s compliance with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc. v. Arctic Car, Inc., No. 12-cv-2706 (MJD/LIB), 2014 WL 10714011 (D. Minn. Dec. 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Addressing a myriad of motions, court declined to compel Defendant?s production of irrelevant ESI hit upon by agreed-upon search terms reasoning that the rules permit and even encourage relevancy screening ?in an effort to avoid large, largely nonresponsive documents dumps mean to obscure and cloak relevant documents? and that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant had withheld relevant materials or agreed to the production of all search hits; court declined to compel Defendant?s production of a 30(b)(6)(witness to provide ?discovery on discovery? reasoning that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the information sought was ?relevant to – or may lead to the discovery of information relevant to – any claim or defense at issue in the present case? and that the request ?treads dangerously close to encroaching on attorney work product privilege?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI search hits, “discovery on discovery”

AKH Co., Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 13-2003-JAR-KGG, 2014 WL 2760860 (D. Kan. June 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff requested that documents be produced in native format but defendant produced documents in both hard copy format and in a few very large PDF files, court found that defendant had adequately explained why the documents were not produced in their native format (proprietary nature of certain software used by defendant, defendant’s right to withhold privileged information, need to limit production of irrelevant information regarding unrelated policyholders, the added costs of re-producing information already submitted to plaintiff in converted PDF format), and ruled that, absent a need for metadata as to a particular document, it would not require defendant to re-produce the information

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and settlement of trademark dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Yasmin & Yaz (Drospirenone) Mkg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF, MDL No. 2100, 2014 WL 4961490 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court applied Rule 502 to conclude that disclosure of privileged slide presentations was inadvertent and did not waive attorney-client privilege; court ordered plaintiffs to return presentations and all copies to defendants and destroy all work product reflecting content from presentations, and directed clerk of court to strike from the court?s record certain exhibits containing references to the presentations

Nature of Case: 32 class actions relating to at least one of the drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives Yaz and Yasmin

Electronic Data Involved: Presentation prepared by defendants’ in-house counsel to convey legal advice to corporate employees and other presentations in which another employee conveyed the legal advice from the in-house counsel presentation to other corporate employees

Fleming v. Escort, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-066-BLW, 2014 WL 4853033 (D. Idaho Sep. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where allegations covered events occurring over past 15 years and defendant produced almost no email in response to 65 document requests and 12 interrogatories, and despite general claim of privilege defendant did not provide a privilege log, court granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered defendant to answer three questions to allow plaintiff and court to evaluate defendant’s claim that it had produced everything: 1) What search terms did you use? 2) What computers or repositories did you search within? and 3) What was the time frame for your search? If questions were not answered fully and completely in 10 days, plaintiff would be allowed to file a new motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Siani v. State Univ. of New York at Farmingdale, No. 2:09-CV-0407 (JFB) (WDW), 2014 WL 1260718 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on defendant campus counsel?s deletion of emails, because defendants produced emails from other custodians who did not delete them, and plaintiff failed to show that other deleted emails were relevant to the action and favorable to him; counsel?s deletion of email was not done in bad faith, but was instead part of his normal practice, he placed a litigation hold on the actual decisionmakers but did not include himself because he had a limited, non-decisive role, and, as an attorney, considered his own communications to be privileged and work product and any email not covered by these doctrines would be preserved by the parties subject to the litigation hold, making his own preservation redundant; court further denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails withheld on the basis of privilege after conducting an in camera review and finding defendants? objections to be well-taken

Nature of Case: Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections