Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections

1
Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 560 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
2
El Badrawi v. Dep?t Homeland Sec., 258 F.R.D. 198 (D. Conn. 2009)
3
Convertino v. U.S. Dep?t of Justice, 674 F. Supp. 2d 97(D.D.C. 2009)
4
Clubcom, LLC v. Captive Media, Inc., 2009 WL 1885712 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2009)
5
Baxter Healthcare Holding, Inc. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 4547190 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)
6
Orbit One Commc?ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2008 WL 4778133 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2008)
7
In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008)
8
Bianco v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 2008 WL 4661241 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2008)
9
Aecon Buildings Inc. v. Zurich N. Am., 253 F.R.D. 655 (W.D. Wash. 2008)
10
Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 2007 WL 5155945 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2008)

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

Baxter Healthcare Holding, Inc. v. Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc., 2008 WL 4547190 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)

Key Insight: Finding each email in string a ?separate communication for which a privilege may or may not be applicable? court rejected defendants? argument of extreme burden and ordered production of ?proper privilege log? identifying required information for each message; court ordered defendants to identify author, recipient, or copyee of redacted documents already in plaintiffs possession finding it ?unreasonable? to require of plaintiffs because defendants were obligated to justify privilege claim

Nature of Case: Patent Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Orbit One Commc?ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2008 WL 4778133 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 31, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant/successor corporation acquired computer and server utilized by plaintiff/predecessor corporation in pre-acquisition operation of predecessor company but plaintiff asserted privilege as to certain pre-acquisition documents in response to subpoena from defendant, court ruled documents were protected by privilege, despite presence on acquired hardware, where plaintiff removed allegedly privileged and personal documents prior to defendant?s access and control of hardware and thus had a reasonable expectation of privacy; court ordered production of non-privileged materials and categorical privilege log and declined to sanction plaintiff for removal of documents from acquired hardware where plaintiff acted to preserve the documents and agreed to produce non-privileged material

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Subpoena Duces Tecum to AOL, LLC, 550 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Va. 2008)

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge’s order quashing State Farm’s subpoena to AOL because: (1) plain language of Electronic Communications Privacy Act prohibited AOL from producing requested email because a civil discovery subpoena was not a disclosure exception under Act; (2) State Farm’s subpoena imposed undue burden because subpoena was overbroad; and (3) court where action was pending was better posed to decide privilege issues

Nature of Case: Former insurance adjusters alleged that State Farm committed fraud in connection with handling of Hurricane Katrina damage claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on AOL’s servers

Bianco v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 2008 WL 4661241 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2008)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of defendant?s general counsel?s laptop for imaging despite testimony that the laptop had been used to create some of the documents at issue where there was no evidence of discovery misconduct, where defendant searched extensively for and produced documents responsive to plaintiff?s requests, and where the ?intrusive search? would likely lead to the disclosure of privileged and confidential information ; court noted that Rule 34 does not create ?a routine right of direct access to a party?s electronic information system, although such access may be justified in some circumstances?

Nature of Case: Discrimination and retaliation in violation of Americans with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, emails

Aecon Buildings Inc. v. Zurich N. Am., 253 F.R.D. 655 (W.D. Wash. 2008)

Key Insight: Court imposed significant monetary sanction upon finding that defendant violated both the letter and spirit of discovery rules where defendant deliberately concealed existence of electronically stored information by making repeated misrepresentations regarding completeness of production and the existence of additional information and for defendant?s failure to produce the necessary privilege log

Nature of Case: Bad faith failure to defend or indemnify

Electronic Data Involved: Notes made in electronically stored case file

Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc., 2007 WL 5155945 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 27, 2008)

Key Insight: Ruling on a number of discovery issues, court found that defendant?s production of electronic documents was proper, notwithstanding fact that production included numerous non-working files as well as unresponsive and offensive content; court noted that inappropriate and inoperable files represented small percentage of total documents produced, that defendant appeared to have been diligent in attempting to minimize such problems, and that ?it is likely that all electronic document production carries some possibility of technical difficulties?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic files

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.