Privilege or Work Product Protections – Page 38

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 2209250 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce certain documents related to forensic examinations of former employee’s computers, including electronic documents or portions thereof retrieved from the computers, and all related “fact” work product since substantial need had been demonstrated; court further ordered plaintiff’s IT employee to answer questions regarding forensic examinations at deposition, finding inadequate plaintiff’s proposal that witness respond to unanswered questions through an errata sheet since LMC’s counsel instructed witness not to testify on broad areas of inquiry and counsel was unable to fully develop lines of questioning

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Results of forensic computer analysis

Chavannes v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 232 F.R.D. 698 (S.D. Fla. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff had originally asserted work product protection regarding videotape recording of insured’s funeral, but failed to adequately explain the circumstances which led to his statements that the video existed or the circumstances surrounding his claimed discovery that no such video existed, court ordered plaintiff to produce video or explain in detail any reasons for non-production

Nature of Case: Beneficiary sued insurer to recover death benefit

Electronic Data Involved: Videotape recording of funeral

Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Ameridebt, Inc., 2006 WL 618563 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate denied third party’s motion to stay discovery order requiring him to give permission to Google, Inc. to produce emails from his gmail account, where third party failed to establish any likelihood of success on appeal or that the balance of hardships tipped in his favor; court was “skeptical” of third party’s unsubstantiated arguments that the volume of email was large and that attorney review would be unduly costly, and noted that “email could likely be screened efficiently through the use of electronic search terms that the parties agreed upon”

Nature of Case: Allegations of consumer fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Email in third party’s Google email account

Balboa Threadworks, Inc. v. Stucky, 2006 WL 763668 (D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: During initial case management conferences, court ordered mirror imaging of all of defendants’ computers and peripheral equipment, e.g., ZIP drives, to be done at plaintiffs’ expense, and ordered parties to meet and confer on appropriate search protocol that would address the issue of protection of attorney client privilege and non-business related personal information which may be located on the computer hard drives

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, fraud and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: All defendants’ computers and peripheral equipment

In re Benun, 339 B.R. 115 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where trustee, in a practical attempt to maximize assets and minimize expenses, attempted to reach blanket accord with patent holder’s counsel that document inspection would not serve as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege, disclosure of privileged document was inadvertent and did not constitute waiver; court denied patent holder’s motion to depose attorney who had represented both debtor and his corporation in infringement action and compel production of certain documents from attorney’s files

Nature of Case: Lengthy adversary proceeding brought by party suing debtor for patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy documents and “massive hard drive” assembled by bankruptcy trustee for safekeeping

Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1120632 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court found that the computerized claim file was clearly relevant, irrespective of whether plaintiffs intended to use the documents or not in the litigation, and ordered plaintiffs to produce the complete claim file, including hard copies and electronic documents, to the extent such documents were not privileged or prepared for the sole purpose of “probable” or “imminent” litigation

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic claim file

Ayers v. SGS Control Servs., 2006 WL 859362 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Ruling on defendants’ request for reconsideration and after viewing spreadsheets in camera, magistrate ordered defendants to file sworn affirmation and memorandum of law identifying with specificity the allegedly privileged information they contended was in spreadsheets; court further ordered that the contested records be redacted and produced to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets containing payroll and timekeeping data

Kingsway Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Pricewaterhouse-Coopers LLP, 2006 WL 1520227 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2006) and 2006 WL 1295409 (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate ruled that, although litigation hold notices were relevant (“Like a party’s destruction of relevant documents, if plaintiff’s document retention notices are patently deficient or inadequate in some other respect, they might support a negative inference concerning the merits of plaintiff’s claims.?), they were privileged and not subject to production; plaintiff’s failure to list them in privilege log did not effect waiver because notices were not in existence at the time plaintiff?s response to the requests for production was due

Nature of Case: Acquiring corporation sued acquired corporation’s officers, directors, and independent auditor for securities fraud and other torts

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices issued by plaintiff

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 819 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered party to conduct additional searches of data restored from backup tapes, and to restore and search a sample of additional backup tapes, shifting all initial costs to the requesting party; court further directed producing party to prepare an affidavit detailing the number of responsive documents found and the costs and expenses associated with the processes, including but not limited to attorneys fees for privilege review, which would assist the court in determining whether a full search would be necessary and whether further cost-shifting was warranted

Nature of Case: Fraud and breach of contract claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email and non-email electronic documents restored from backup tapes

Yancey v. GMC, 2006 WL 2045894 (N.D. Ohio June 26, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered GM to produce “Kentucky Firefighter” and “Dancing Granny” emails if said emails can currently be found on GM’s email system, but GM would not be required to retrieve the emails from outside sources if they were not in GM’s possession; court further ordered that GM produce at its own expense the hard drives of various GM employees requested by plaintiff

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard drives

Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections