Privilege or Work Product Protections – Page 22

Int?l Med. Group, Inc. v. Walker, No. 1:08-cv-923-JMS-TAB, 2011 WL 1752101 (S.D. Ind. May 9, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where relevant evidence found on defendants? hard drive ?challenge[d]? defendants? prior assertions that they had not retained copies of certain communications and defendant Walker?s ?self characterization as a peripheral observer?, the court concluded that Plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of fraud and that defendants therefore waived their attorney-client privilege as to communications with counsel regarding: ?preservation, destruction, or location of documents or discussion of discovery obligations?

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to defame and tortuously interfere with business relationships

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., No. 2:1-cv-00068-PMP-VCF, 2011 WL 5598306 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Reasoning that the litigation holds were not discoverable but that the details surrounding them were, court ordered defendant to produce ?information surrounding the litigation hold? including when defendants learned of claims, when and to whom litigation hold instructions were sent, what categories of information were identified for preservation , etc.

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation holds

Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 219 (Fed. Cl. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), court entered protective order controlling the scope and production format of ESI as well as establishing that inadvertent disclosure would not result in the waiver of attorney-client privilege or work-product protection and establishing a protocol for how to notify opposing counsel of inadvertent production and counsel?s appropriate response

Nature of Case: Tribal trust case

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ypsilanti Comty. Auth. v. Meadwestvaco Air Sys., 2010 WL 200836 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, following an order to produce an amended privilege and a warning that ?it would not be given another opportunity to establish privilege,? defendant?s amended privilege log still contained mistakes and where, in its attempt to correct those mistakes and clarify its claims of privilege, defendant then produced a sworn affidavit which once again failed to properly identify privileged emails vs. non-privileged attachments, court found defendant failed to establish privilege as to the documents in the affidavit and ordered them produced

Nature of Case: Contracts product liabilty

Electronic Data Involved: Privilege emails, email attachments

Felman Prod., Inc. v. Indus. Risk Insurers, 2010 WL 2944777 (S.D.W.Va. July 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s objection to the magistrate judge?s finding of waiver based upon plaintiff?s failure to take reasonable steps to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, the district court found no error in fact or law and affirmed the order noting that ?the ridiculously high number of irrelevant communications and the large volume of privileged communications produced demonstrate a lack of reasonableness?

Nature of Case: Insurance litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

MVB Mortgage Corp. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 2010 WL 582641 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 11, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Answering question of whether inadvertent disclosure of privileged information to testifying expert resulted in waiver of privilege, court ?conclude[ed] that a claim of inadvertent waiver cannot be used to withhold information from opposing counsel once it has found its way into the expert?s hands ? however unintentional that may be.?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Mack v. HG Gregg, Inc., 2010 WL 342545 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel re-production of electronic spreadsheet in its ?original format? i.e. without a lock that prevented the manipulation of data, the court rejected defendants? arguments that plaintiffs request be denied because 1) the original format was protected work product, 2) the parties never agreed to a format of production, and 3) re-production would be unduly burdensome and granted plaintiffs? motion to compel

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet

Smith v. James C. Hormel School of the Va. Inst. of Autism, 2010 WL 3702528 (W.D. Va. Sept. 14, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to find privilege was waived as the result of a significant delay in identifying withheld privileged communications where defendants were aware that the pro se plaintiffs had consulted with counsel but failed to follow up regarding the existence of privileged communications, where defendants were not prejudiced by the delay, and where the court found no evidence of bad faith, but, noting that one plaintiff was a lawyer and should have known of the disclosure requirements, imposed a monetary sanction equal to defendant?s fees and costs for bringing the motion to compel

Nature of Case: Alleged violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Hilton-Rorar v. State and Fed. Commc?ns, Inc., 2010 WL 1486916 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 13, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Addressing several questions regarding attorney-client privilege and work product, court stated that ?attachments or other email communications that are not otherwise independently privileged? but are contained within or attached to a privileged email were protected by the privilege where ?the disclosure of those emails would necessarily reveal the substance of a confidential client communication made seeking legal advice? and declined to compel their disclosure or the disclosure of the emails to which they were attached

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

David v. Signal Int., LLC, 2010 WL 2723180 (E.D. La. July 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to hold defendant in contempt for its unilateral redactions of alleged personal and confidential information but, upon evidence of over-redacting, ordered plaintiffs to identify approximately 3000 documents (a number provided by plaintiffs) to be sent to defendant for verification of proper redacting and for the parties to confer to fashion an appropriate protective with regard to the documents redacted and/or withheld on the ground proprietary or business confidentiality privilege

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections