Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections

1
Ford Motor Co. v. U.S., 2009 WL 2176657 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2009)
2
In re McKesson Governmental Entities Average Wholesale Price Litig., 2009 WL 3706898 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2009)
3
United States v. Hatfield, 2009 WL 3806300 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2009)
4
Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., 2009 WL 425945 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2009)
5
Adams v. United States, 2008 WL 346017 (D. Idaho Feb. 6, 2008)
6
E.E.O.C. v. Beauty Enters., Inc., 2008 WL 3359252 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2008)
7
Gateway Senior Hous., Ltd. v. MMA Fin., Inc., 2008 WL 5142152 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2008)
8
Cartwright v. Viking Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 4283614 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2008)
9
Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 254 F.R.D. 238 (E.D. Pa. 2008)
10
Executive Air Taxi Corp. v. City of Bismarck, 2008 WL 564725 (8th Cir. Mar. 4, 2008)

Ford Motor Co. v. U.S., 2009 WL 2176657 (E.D. Mich. July 21, 2009)

Key Insight: Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff?s motion to compel the government to produce documents in nine categories, including compelling the government to provide declarations outlining its search methodology and efforts and finding that the government need not attempt to recover emails that had been overwritten because of undue burden and costs, among other things; court rejected government argument that it had not produced a privilege loge because ?producing such a log would defeat [its] unduly burdensome objections? and ordered an ?adequately detailed privilege log for the responsive documents that it withholds from production?

Nature of Case: Action to recover interest accrued on overpayments of corporate income tax

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re McKesson Governmental Entities Average Wholesale Price Litig., 2009 WL 3706898 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2009)

Key Insight: Where government agency objected to defendants? subpoena for the production of documents previously produced in a separate litigation on grounds of undue burden and cost based on the assertion that it needed to re-review all documents prior to production because some documents were subject to the deliberative process privilege and others were highly confidential, court held that the privilege had been waived by the agency?s failure to object in its initial response and by the production in separate litigation, ordered the documents produced under the POD ?Confidential, For Outside Attorney Eyes Only? and ordered defendants to bear the costs ?of copying and producing the documents in electronic form?

Nature of Case: Allegations that defendants artificially increased the published price of prescription drugs

Electronic Data Involved: ESI previously produced in separate litigation and maintained in database by third party

United States v. Hatfield, 2009 WL 3806300 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2009)

Key Insight: Addressing a number of attorney-client privilege and work product issues, the court considered whether documents stored on defendant?s company?s computer remained privileged and, noting the case-by-case nature of the assessment, considered five factors, including whether the company maintained a policy banning personal use, whether the company monitored employees? computer use or email, and how the company interpreted its own policy, and determined that defendant had not waived privilege as to documents stored on his own hard drive or that of a person with whom he maintained a joint defense agreement

Nature of Case: Criminal charges arising from alleged fraudulent schemes by CEO to defraud shareholders

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails stored on company computer

Continental Group, Inc. v. KW Prop. Mgmt., 2009 WL 425945 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 20, 2009)

Key Insight: Where parties failed to establish filtering protocol to segregate privileged materials from portable devices because of a disagreement as to the meaning of the court?s prior order, court ordered production of images of defendant?s portable devices to plaintiff prior to performing a privilege review but held that such production would not result in waiver and indicated its belief that no prejudice to defendant?s would result, despite acknowledgement that plaintiff would have ?a few days to view the images which may contain privileged material? prior to defendants identification of privileged material

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI on portable devices

Adams v. United States, 2008 WL 346017 (D. Idaho Feb. 6, 2008)

Key Insight: Stating that it was convinced that DuPont was proceeding as fast as it could, given privilege concerns and the sheer bulk of the documents at issue, court denied plaintiffs’ request that DuPont provide a more expedited production of electronic documents

Nature of Case: Tort claims for crop damage allegedly resulting from government’s spraying of herbicide

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

E.E.O.C. v. Beauty Enters., Inc., 2008 WL 3359252 (D. Conn. Aug. 8, 2008)

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs argued that several BEI supervisors had testified they had not been instructed to preserve documents related to case, court agreed that defense counsel?s litigation hold letter was privileged and ordered BEI to disclose date on which letter was sent and names of recipients

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Letter from BEI’s counsel to BEI supervisors advising them to implement a litigation hold

Gateway Senior Hous., Ltd. v. MMA Fin., Inc., 2008 WL 5142152 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2008)

Key Insight: Court found that defendant waived attorney-client privilege as to specific emails where defendant failed to establish privileged nature of the communications and where defendant failed to properly identify the emails on a privilege log prior to their inadvertent production; court ordered adverse instruction in favor of plaintiffs as spoliation sanction where defendant failed to produce highly relevant hard drives for inspection and where defendants? proffered explanations for the destruction of those hard drives was contradicted and ?lame? in light of defendants? knowledge of their relevance and its duty to preserve

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails, hard drives

Cartwright v. Viking Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 4283614 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2008)

Key Insight: Where parties agreed to production of database materials but failed to reach mutual understanding regarding need for privilege log, court held that failure to produce log due to misunderstanding did not waive privilege; court rejected argument that providing log would be unduly burdensome and expensive and ordered production of privilege log within two weeks

Nature of Case: Class action product liability litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 254 F.R.D. 238 (E.D. Pa. 2008)

Key Insight: Court clarified prior sanctions order and held that where top email in string was not properly and timely logged, it must be produced, however, properly and timely logged underlying messages in string were protected but only to extent that they were ?identical replicas of the version of the message that was logged?; where top message was properly logged, privilege extended to properly logged underlying messages in string but any messages not properly logged were ordered produced

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Executive Air Taxi Corp. v. City of Bismarck, 2008 WL 564725 (8th Cir. Mar. 4, 2008)

Key Insight: Eighth Circuit upheld district court’s order denying plaintiff’s request to have a third-party expert conduct forensic investigation of a City-owned computer to search for relevant emails that might not have been produced in discovery; district court’s findings that City had produced all relevant emails in hard copy and that forensic discovery could expose confidential or privileged materials were not clearly erroneous and in light of that factual premise there was no abuse of discretion

Nature of Case: Equal protection and substantive due process claims

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop computer of defendant’s employee

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