Privilege or Work Product Protections – Page 32

CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2008 WL 4441920 (N.D. Ga. August 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel production of essentially every document in defendant?s possession, failed to engage in meaningful meet and confer discussions, repeatedly ?filled the record with invective? and made misrepresentations to court, and where defendant had produced in native format over 1.4 million pages of documents as result of electronic search using plaintiff?s 102 search terms in addition to numerous versions of source code and paper documents, and was in substantial compliance with discovery at time of hearing, and where court had previously imposed cost shifting by ordering production of certain documents contingent upon plaintiff bearing $300,000 of defendant?s privilege review expense, court further ruled that defendant was entitled, under Rule 37(a)(5), to an additional $86,787 representing 75 percent of its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the discovery dispute

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Koch Foods of Ala., LLC v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 2008 WL 5264672 (11th Cir. Dec. 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of attorney-client privilege from inadvertent production where the privileged email was found tucked into a 37-page lease agreement contained in a 3,758 page production, where the email was included in the privilege log, and where plaintiff immediately asserted privilege upon learning of its disclosure; court acknowledged Alabama?s lack of controlling authority, but applied a totality-of-the-circumstances test reasoning that ?it would likely be adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court if confronted with the issue.?

Nature of Case: Conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that forensic analysis of defendants? business and home computers was appropriate where plaintiffs presented evidence of specific problems that raised questions regarding accuracy, completeness and authenticity of defendants? email production, court articulated detailed 20-point protocol covering, inter alia, instructions for parties? retention of third party forensic expert, scope of forensic search, privilege review and cost-shifting

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, violations of trade secrets and unfair trade practices acts, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Work and home computers containing both business and personal information; email

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 WL 71678 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced electronically stored information on an expedited basis pursuant to court order and did not perform a privilege review of the production, but where substantial steps were taken to protect privilege during the collection phase of discovery and where those efforts were thwarted by technical mistakes and human error, court granted plaintiff?s motion for a protective order finding the privilege was not waived by the expedited production and ordering defendants to return or destroy any privilege encountered ?in the ordinary course of trial preparation?; court acknowledged outstanding issue of fact that could affect waiver as to individual documents and indicated its willingness to resolve such questions in response to an appropriate motion to do so

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, ESI

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections