Key Insight: Court adopted Special Master?s Report and Recommendation requiring plaintiffs to respond to questions regarding the scope of their efforts with regard to the restoration of backup tapes upon finding that such information was not protected by the attorney-client privilege
Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation
Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, ESI
Key Insight: Finding that emails transmitted for purpose of responding to discovery were not privileged, court affirmed magistrate?s order denying motion to quash subpoena seeking production of such emails; addressing defendant?s argument that separate email entries on privilege log should have been considered as a string, court relied on Muro v. Target Corp. noting that while ?Muro says that a court cannot force a party to individually list emails that appear in a privilege log as a string; it does not say that a court must string together emails that are listed separately.?
Nature of Case: trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Where defendants argued against treating in house counsel as ?normal custodians? for purposes of collection and production because the burden of reviewing potentially responsive information for privilege was high and the likely benefit of any material produced minimal, but where the parties had already agreed on a ?filter? which would automatically ?log? any ESI hit by certain privileged terms, court ordered ESI production to go forward but delayed review and production of hard copy until the extent of the burden could be determined and indicated hope that ?we will be able to devise a method of reviewing the hard copies for privilege without the necessity of a log? noting that ?I have all too often found the traditional privilege log useless.?
Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Inadvertent production of privileged material by third party pursuant to subpoena waived defendants? privilege protection where third party?s disclosure was found to be tantamount to defendant?s disclosure because of the nature of their relationship and where defense counsel failed to take any steps to prevent the production of privileged materials despite being asked specifically if privilege issues were implicated in the production (to which he answered ?no?) and despite the low volume of materials produced; court noted that although there was no legal obligation for defendants to conduct a post-production review, ?had [they] done so, they might well have noticed the email at issue before Plaintiffs did, and the result in this case might have been different.?
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email
Key Insight: Concluding that, if the Alabama Supreme Court were to confront the issue of inadvertent waiver, it would likely adopt more comprehensive and sensitive totality-of-the-circumstances analysis, district court upheld magistrate judge?s ruling that plaintiff?s inadvertent production of privileged email among 3,758 pages of documents did not effect waiver
Nature of Case: Dispute over ownership of certain poultry processing equipment
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email
Key Insight: Where factual record was sparse and consisted solely of employer’s internet and email use policy, and no information was provided regarding knowledge, implementation, or enforcement of policy, court observed it had facts to determine only one of the four factors set out in In Re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd ., 322 B.R. 247 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005) and found that defendant had failed to meet its burden of demonstrating waiver of marital privilege; court quashed subpoena to plaintiff?s husband?s employer
Nature of Case: Employee alleged civil rights violations and violations of ADA and FMLA
Electronic Data Involved: ?[A]ll electronically stored information on all computers, laptops, PDA’s, portable media or other devices? utilized by plaintiff’s husband at his place of work relating to plaintiff’s claims
Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of emails sent between plaintiff, her attorney, and her husband, where husband was an attorney, although not the attorney of record, and where he acted as plaintiff?s ?personal attorney? and provided legal advice regarding ongoing litigation
Nature of Case: Class action breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? privilege log specified doc type, doc date, bates numbers, author, recipients and a document title but did not sufficiently describe the content of the document, court ordered production of proper log that must ?identify each document with specificity as is need to demonstrate the communication was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal services and that the communication was intended to be and was kept confidential.?
Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and hard copy communications
Key Insight: Where structure of Boeing?s privilege log was result of the same emails (containing legal advice) being stored in more than one email file and/or legal advice being repeated in email strings, and Boeing listed all of the email messages by Bates number where legal communication was located, but redacted only the portion of the string that contained legal communications, court concluded that log adequately supported Boeing?s claim of privilege for multiple copies of the same communication, noting: ?The organization of a privilege log for electronic documents existing in multiple locations presents a challenge. Perhaps a better method would be to list the original legal communication by date, author and recipient and thereafter indicate that the other Bates-stamped documents are copies or a repeat of the original legal communication. However, electronic discovery is an evolving practice and Boeing will not be faulted for its efforts to organize the privilege log.?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Email
Key Insight: Where defendants converted ESI from their original format, which had been searchable and sortable, into PDF files which did not have these capabilities, court cited Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to FRCP 34(a)(1)(A) and found that defendants violated Rule 34 by producing documents which were not searchable or sortable, notwithstanding that plaintiffs did not request the documents in native electronic format; court ruled on various other discovery disputes and awarded plaintiffs monetary sanctions in light of defendants’ “purposeful foot dragging on discovery” and resulting prejudice to plaintiffs
Nature of Case: Class action lawsuit regarding California’s treatment of juvenile wards and parolees
Electronic Data Involved: Databases and other ESI
Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.