Privilege or Work Product Protections – Page 34

Alcon Mfg., Ltd. V. Apotex, Inc., 2008 WL 5070465 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 26, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered return of electronically produced document containing privileged notations where document was inadvertently produced due to an ?electronic break error? and where upon realizing the inadvertent production, plaintiff objected to the use of the document and sought its return; in so holding, court considered applicability of ER 502 and a protective order between the parties that contemplated the non-waiver of privilege upon inadvertent production

Nature of Case: Patent lawsuit

Electronic Data Involved: Electronically produced document

Reckley v. City of Springfield, 2008 WL 5234356 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 12, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court declined to find waiver of inadvertently produced emails pursuant to ER 502(b) where some of the emails were marked attorney-client privileged, where counsel took prompt steps to claim the privilege and seek their return, and where the disclosure ?took place in the context particularly intended to be addressed by Fed. R. Evid. 502, the production of electronically stored information.?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Williams v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 192991 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where privilege log entries failed to identify who sent or received documents, disclosed little or no information about actual contents of documents, used boilerplate objections which court had previously ruled were insufficient, and court had previously ordered Taser to provide more information in privilege logs, court concluded that Taser?s unjustified delay in providing a meaningful privilege log was inexcusable, in bad faith and deserving of sanctions; Taser?s assertions of attorney client privilege and work product doctrine were deemed waived and court ordered Taser to produce all documents identified in privilege logs

Nature of Case: Wrongful death

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and other documents

Faloney v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2008 WL 2631360 (E.D. Pa. June 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Email message drafted by a Wachovia corporate litigation attorney summarizing conference call and formulating legal advice concerning bank-wide policy on Wachovia’s relationships with certain customers was protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, notwithstanding inadvertent production

Nature of Case: Class action alleging that Wachovia conspired with telemarketing companies and payment processor to violate United States law

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Truckstop.net, LLC, v. Sprint Corp., 547 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant appealed District Court order for plaintiff to return inadvertently produced email and for privileged portions of the email to be redacted, Ninth Circuit dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the collateral order doctrine where the alleged harm from disclosure had already occurred and where defendant did not allege additional harm

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Ferron v. Echostar Satellite, LLC, 2008 WL 341310 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Concluding that ESI sought from plaintiff’s computers directly related to issues in dispute and that the computers likely contained certain relevant evidence that was not contained on CD-ROMs or email attachments previously produced by plaintiff, court granted defendants? motion for an extension of the date by which to designate experts to a date after their inspection of plaintiff’s computers; court extended various discovery deadlines and ordered parties to confer to formulate a procedure reasonably calculated to afford the moving defendants the discovery to which they were entitled, while at the same time protecting plaintiff?s privileged information

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged claims under Ohio consumer protection laws based upon emails received from defendants

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

Anaheim Gardens v. United States, 2008 WL 2043243 (Fed. Cl. Feb. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court granted motion brought by plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 37(a)(2)(B), Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims, and issued order compelling defendant to produce witness or witnesses who could fully testify about document retention practices and policies of HUD and actual steps taken to produce documents

Nature of Case: Owners of low-income housing who had received mortgage insurance from Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) brought action alleging regulatory taking

Electronic Data Involved: Document retention policies

Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Pursuant to its inherent equitable authority, where plaintiff accessed one defendant?s personal email accounts without authorization and attempted to use emails therein during litigation and where such activity would be a violation of The Stored Communications Act, court precluded plaintiffs? use of those emails for all but impeachment purposes; where plaintiffs initially produced wrongfully obtained emails with their print dates obscured but defendants later gained access to original form, court declined to impose spoliation sanctions

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

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

Dec 01 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)

Dec 01 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

Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections