Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections

1
Peterson v. Bernardi, 2009 WL 2243988 (D.N.J. July 24, 2009)
2
Eden Isle Marina, Inc. v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 480 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 28, 2009)
3
Kumar v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 2009 WL 1683479 (W.D. Tenn. June 16, 2009)
4
Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 560 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
5
El Badrawi v. Dep?t Homeland Sec., 258 F.R.D. 198 (D. Conn. 2009)
6
Convertino v. U.S. Dep?t of Justice, 674 F. Supp. 2d 97(D.D.C. 2009)
7
Clubcom, LLC v. Captive Media, Inc., 2009 WL 1885712 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2009)
8
Mancini v. Ins. Corp. of N.Y., 2009 WL 1765295 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009)
9
Infor Global Solutions (MI), Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2390174 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009)
10
David v. Signal Int. LLC, 2009 WL 5215326 (E.D. La. Dec. 28, 2009)

Peterson v. Bernardi, 2009 WL 2243988 (D.N.J. July 24, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought the return of allegedly inadvertently produced privileged documents, court found most documents were not actually privileged and thus not subject to return and noted that even if the documents had been privileged, plaintiff failed to establish that all elements of FRE 502 were met such that waiver did not occur; as to nine documents determined to be ?obviously work product,? and in light of the facts of the case (involving the wrongful conviction of an innocent man), the court found that ?the interests of fairness and justice? demanded their return

Nature of Case: Wrongful imprisonment

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced communications and other allegedly privileged documents (format unspecified)

Eden Isle Marina, Inc. v. United States, 89 Fed. Cl. 480 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 28, 2009)

Key Insight: In this long discovery opinion, court conducted waiver analysis pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502 of 8 documents and found that privilege had been waived as to each document for a myriad of reasons including: a finding that production was not inadvertent where the document(s) at issue had been produced (via FOIA or discovery response) on more than one occasion, defendants failure to adequately establish the measures taken to prevent the disclosure of the document(s) at issue, defendants failure to adequately object to the use of the document(s) at deposition, and defendants failure to request the return of the document(s) following discovery of their production or to take other measures to rectify disclosure

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and taking without just compensation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails and hard copy

Kumar v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 2009 WL 1683479 (W.D. Tenn. June 16, 2009)

Key Insight: Court endorsed ?middle ground? approach to a determination of the waiver of privilege, as adopted by FRE 502, and ordered the return of privileged and work product documents produced by defendant upon finding that the production was inadvertent, that defendant took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, that counsel took immediate steps to rectify the error and that ?the number and magnitude of the disclosures in light of the overall production weigh[ed] against waiver?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and hard copy

Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 560 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

Key Insight: In an opinion providing an extensive discussion of the court?s authority to sanction pursuant to Rule 37 and its inherent authority, the appellate court confirmed the trial court?s imposition of monetary sanctions finding that appellant-plaintiffs acted in bad faith by failing to produce relevant test results as evidenced by the content of several emails produced for the sanctions hearing (and other evidence) but overturned the trial court?s sanction of striking plaintiff?s claims pursuant to its inherent authority upon finding that plaintiffs? discovery abuses were not sufficiently egregious to warrant such sanctions; appellate court also found trial court?s reliance on inherent authority to strike plaintiffs? pleadings was misplaced in light of the applicability of Rule 37

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Test results

El Badrawi v. Dep?t Homeland Sec., 258 F.R.D. 198 (D. Conn. 2009)

Key Insight: Granting in part and denying in part defendant?s motion to compel production of printouts and electronic information pertaining to defendant from government?s National Crime Information Center Database, court ordered portions of the information likely to lead to weakening of government programs (and other alleged harms) and subject to the law enforcement privilege redacted but for the remaining information to be produced; redactions were dictated by the court upon en camera review

Nature of Case: Abuse of process claim arising from alleged improper detention

Electronic Data Involved: All documents related to plaintiff from the National Crime Information Center Database

Convertino v. U.S. Dep?t of Justice, 674 F. Supp. 2d 97(D.D.C. 2009)

Key Insight: Emails between employee and counsel using work computer were protected as privileged where employer did not ban personal use of the company email and where employee was unaware of employer?s regular access to his emails and thus had a reasonable expectation of privacy; privilege was not waived, despite employer?s access to the emails, where employee had ?no intention of allowing?his employer, to read the emails? and disclosure was thus inadvertent and where he took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure by deleting the emails as they came into his account and by filing a motion to intervene to assert the privilege upon learning of his employer?s possession of the emails and their possible disclosure in litigation

Nature of Case: Violations of Privacy Act

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Clubcom, LLC v. Captive Media, Inc., 2009 WL 1885712 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2009)

Key Insight: Where four privileged emails were produced among 4000 documents (in hard copy), where there was no indication that plaintiff produced the documents intentionally or failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure, and where plaintiff immediately took reasonable steps to rectify the error, court ruled privilege was not waived pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(b)

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Mancini v. Ins. Corp. of N.Y., 2009 WL 1765295 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs responded to defendants? requests for production by producing 73 CDs containing the entire universe of documents from an underlying litigation, court held that plaintiffs ?cannot fulfill their discovery obligation?without referencing which specific documents were responsive to which specific request? and ordered plaintiffs to provide defendants with a list of documents responsive to each request

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract, failure to indemnify

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Infor Global Solutions (MI), Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2009 WL 2390174 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009)

Key Insight: Where out of ?an apparent concern about the court imposed deadline,? plaintiff produced electronic documents without review because of technical difficulties opening certain files and emails and where plaintiff informed no one of the difficulties, sought no extension from the court for production, and did not qualify the production with any ?clawback? notice, court found that plaintiff had waived privilege and granted defendant?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Insurance

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

David v. Signal Int. LLC, 2009 WL 5215326 (E.D. La. Dec. 28, 2009)

Key Insight: Where pro se defendant failed to assert the attorney client privilege when such information was sought and ?selectively disclosed? such information despite warnings from his former counsel, court found defendant had waived the attorney-client privilege as to communications with counsel; addressing defendant?s argument that his disclosures were ?mistakes? (and thus inadvertently produced) court noted defendant?s failure to seek the return of the confidential communications, his lack of effort to ?rectify or withdraw? any of his deposition disclosures, and that the disclosures occurred following warning from counsel and therefore found that ?any argument?that he inadvertently disclosed confidential communications?lacks merit.?

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged communications

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