Privilege or Work Product Protections – Page 27

Hope for Families & Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Warren, 2009 WL 1066525 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found emails withheld by non-party independent contractor were protected by attorney-client privilege (and work product in some cases) where independent contractor acted as representative of plaintiff for purpose of securing bingo license from the county and was authorized to communicate with counsel on plaintiff?s behalf, among other things, and where the subject communications satisfied the five-prong test borrowed from the ?corporate employee context? requiring that the communication was made for the purpose of securing legal advice for the corporation, at the direction of the corporation, that the subject of the communication was within the scope of the independent contractor?s duties, and that the communication was not disseminated beyond persons needing to know its contents; court found common interest doctrine applicable where non-party and plaintiff?s interests were identical pursuant to the terms of their consulting contract and the nature of their relationship

Dawe v. Corrections, USA, 2009 WL 3233883 (E.D. Colo. Oct. 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Citing a ?pervasive? level of ?distrust that permeates this litigation? and plaintiff?s ?adamant refusal to permit even a limited inspection? and citing defendants? representations that additional, relevant information remained on the laptop and that the laptop had been ?forensically cleaned,? court granted defendants? motion to compel inspection of plaintiff?s laptop but ordered defendants to bear the cost – if inspection revealed relevant information was withheld, court invited a motion to shift some or all of the costs to plaintiff(s)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, laptop

Clarke v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 2009 WL 1838995 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court upheld prior determination that email withheld as protected by attorney-client privilege should be produced where review of the email and affidavits of defendant?s employees showed that ?rather than having been asked to make a recommendation, in-house counsel had been charged with making a corporate decision as to whether certain jobs would be reclassified? and that the email informed the recipients of that decision and did not provide legal advice

Nature of Case: Class action alleging violations of Fair Labor Standards Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 2777334 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ruled on defendant?s objections to magistrate?s order, including, among other things, addressing issues of privilege pursuant to FRE 502(b) and analyzing the propriety of claims of privilege as to certain categories of documents, including those stored on a server that was available to all employees; court also ordered each party to bear the costs of production for the documents it requested (a direct contradiction to the presumption that the responding party must bear the expense of compliance) where such an order would ?curb [the] bilateral tendency? to broaden discovery demands to include both important and marginal information ?whose primary utility would be found in the burden and cost of production to the other side?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, statutory violations, tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gregorio v. Yellow Transp., Inc., 2009 WL 3756493 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found no attorney-client privilege protection preventing production of employee’s email write up of an accident where Illinois law makes clear that ?employees who supply only the factual bases upon which the decisionmakers predicate their opinions? are not within the protected ?control group? pursuant to the relevant legal test and the communication was therefore not privileged; court also found no protection in the work product doctrine where the write up was generated in the usual course of business and was not of a ?legal nature? and ?primarily concerned with legal assistance?

Electronic Data Involved: Employee’s email description of accident

Boyer v. Gildea, 2009 WL 230646 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Finding emails between trustee?s former and current counsel and an email between current counsel and a fact witness subject to protection from disclosure under the work production doctrine and noting defendant?s failure to assert substantial need or inability to obtain equivalent materials by other means, court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of the emails at issue

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding alleging statutory violations by entering into agreement to control price of auction assets

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Fuller v. Interview, Inc., 2009 WL 3241542 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege where production was inadvertent, where reasonable steps were taken to protect privileged materials, where the volume of inadvertently produced material was very small (portions of a few pages out of 34,000 pages produced), and where defendants acted quickly to assert the privilege after discovering the inadvertent production

Nature of Case: Termination in violation of Family Medical Leave Act

Electronic Data Involved: Portions of privileged emails

Sajda v. Brewton, 2009 WL 4061356 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted in part motion to compel documents withheld as privileged where plaintiff sought the “sideswipe report” created by defendants following the relevant accident and where the court found the report had been prepared in the ordinary course of business and was not therefore protected as privileged; as to the computer template used to generate the report, the court found ?the computer template?appears to be a regularly generated report? and thus was not subject to attorney-client or work product protection; court declined to compel production of the ?DOT Accident Register? where such production was prohibited by statute

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Multiquip, Inc. v. Water Mgmt. Systs., LLC, 2009 WL 4261214 (D. Idaho Nov. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, as a result of the autofill function in email, defendant mistakenly sent a privileged communication to a third party which was thereafter forwarded to opposing counsel in the litigation, court undertook waiver analysis pursuant to ER 502 and found that privilege was not waived where defendant disclosed the communication inadvertently, where defendant?s reliance on ?a system that had worked in particular way in the past? was reasonable to prevent disclosure, and where defendant?s counsel took immediate steps to rectify the error upon learning of the disclosure

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Casual Living Worldwide v. Lane Furniture Idus. Inc., 2009 WL 37162 (W.D. Ky. Jan. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce email sent to a foreign supplier despite objection that email was privileged where foreign supplier did not have the required commonality of interest to preserve the privilege i.e., ?a shared legal interest? but rather, only a possible ?common business interest?namely, that the Defendant be allowed to continue to produce the alleged infringing furniture??

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections