Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections

1
Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)
2
Chavannes v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 232 F.R.D. 698 (S.D. Fla. 2006)
3
Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Ameridebt, Inc., 2006 WL 618563 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2006)
4
Balboa Threadworks, Inc. v. Stucky, 2006 WL 763668 (D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2006)
5
In re Benun, 339 B.R. 115 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2006)
6
Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2006 WL 1120632 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2006)
7
Ayers v. SGS Control Servs., 2006 WL 859362 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2006)
8
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)
9
Etzion v. Etzion, 796 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)
10
United States v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 295 (E.D. Mo. 2005)

Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to timely disclose that it was withholding certain information from production and defense counsel made representations several times to plaintiff and to court that she had provided full and complete discovery, court: (1) granted motion to compel production of database in hard copy and in electronic form with specific redactions noted and included in revised privilege log; (2) extended discovery cut-off date; and (3) awarded sanctions solely against defense counsel (and not client) for costs of motion

Nature of Case: Fraud and medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Database

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Etzion v. Etzion, 796 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

Key Insight: Where husband consented to discovery of financial matters but resisted plaintiff’s broad request for access to all documents on all computers, court set out detailed protocol for the copying and review of computer data with oversight by court-appointed referee

Nature of Case: Divorce proceeding

Electronic Data Involved: Data on hard drives

United States v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 295 (E.D. Mo. 2005)

Key Insight: Inadvertent disclosure of government’s privileged litigation report by copying report onto CD-ROMs produced to over 50 defense attorneys did not effect waiver of attorney-client privilege where (1) government took reasonable precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure by segregating privileged documents in extensive privilege review of more than 61,000 pages, (2) only one privileged document was inadvertently produced, (3) government acted promptly by alerting all counsel of inadvertent production within one month after learning of the disclosure, and (4) the interest of justice favored relieving the government of its error

Nature of Case: Environmental litigation

Electronic Data Involved: CD-ROM

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