Privilege or Work Product Protections – Page 30

Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Sawyer, LLP v. Dart Oil & Gas Co., 2009 WL 464989 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant sought protection against disclosure of documents related to the billing dispute with its former attorneys because such production could waive privileges in another, pending case, court ordered production pursuant to prescribed provisions, including a provision that no waiver would result by the compelled disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502

Nature of Case: Billing dispute between counsel and former client

Electronic Data Involved: Information related to billing dispute

In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litig., 2009 WL 959491 (D. Kan. Apr. 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for an order relieving them of their obligation to ?review and log documents created after the commencement of litigation relating to communications with attorneys about this lawsuit,? despite defendants arguments of extreme burden, where defendants offered no case law in support of their position , where not all documents created post litigation and involving an attorney would be protected from production as privileged, and where defendants made no effort to address the lesser burden of reviewing only potentially relevant email; sympathetic to defendants? arguments that logging each message would be burdensome, court permitted defendants to categorically describe privileged communications in log

Electronic Data Involved: Email communications created after commencement of litigation

Plew v. Ltd. Brands, Inc., 2009WL 1119414 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Denying plaintiff?s motion to compel, court rejected plaintiff?s argument that emails sent to and from a non-party could not be protected as work product where email exchanges occurred at the behest of counsel, because of the relevant litigation, and where there was no indication that the communications were likely to be revealed to plaintiff or any other adversary of the defendant

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

HSH Nordbank AG N.Y. Branch v. Swerdlow, 2009 WL 2223476 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ordered inadvertently produced documents returned where documents were protected by attorney-client privilege and the common interest doctrine, where plaintiff was sufficiently careful in its privilege review, inadvertently produced only nine documents out of 250,000, and promptly sought their return, and where the parties protective order provided that inadvertent production would not result in waiver

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Privilege communications

Ergo Licensing, LLC v. Carefusion 303, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 40 (D. Me. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege as to 31 pages of inadvertently produced documents (out of 540) where plaintiff took reasonable precautions to prevent the disclosure, including conducting a multi-part privilege review, and where plaintiff acted promptly to rectify the inadvertent production as soon as it became aware of it; in so holding, court rejected defendant?s assertions that plaintiff?s failure to ?independently recognize? the error in production had bearing on the issue and that fairness weighed in favor of waiver where the documents directly supported its defense

Nature of Case: Patent ligitation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email, ESI

Rodriquez-Monguio v. Ohio State Univ., 2009 WL 1575277 (S.D. Ohio June 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant inadvertently produced one privileged email among thousands of pages and did not actually discover such production until months later, despite plaintiff?s reference to the email in a single spaced 5 page letter, and where upon discovery of the inadvertent production defendant immediately sought the email?s return, court rejected plaintiff?s argument that defendant had waived privilege by failing to seek the email?s return within ten days, subject to the parties? clawback agreement, and ordered the email returned

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

S. Yuba River Citizens League v. Nat?l Fisheries Serv., 2009 WL 1287919 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Adopting the majority rule requiring the disclosure of ?all things communicated to [a testifying expert] and considered by the expert in forming his opinion? even if otherwise protected as work product, court established that the test for discoverability was ?whether the documents reviewed or generated by the expert could reasonably be viewed as germane to the subject matter on which the expert has offered an opinion? and ordered production of emails between counsel and testifying expert discussing the declaration or its content and also ordered the production of all previous drafts of expert?s declaration

Nature of Case: Alleged violations of Endangered Species Act

Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of testifying expert’s declarations and emails regarding same between expert and counsel

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections