Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections

1
United States v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 295 (E.D. Mo. 2005)
2
Banks v. United States, 2005 WL 974723 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 22, 2005)
3
Barton v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2005)
4
Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Purdue Frederick Co., 2005 WL 3511085 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2005) (Unpublished)
5
Jinks-Umstead v. England, 232 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2005)
6
Felham Enter. (Cayman) Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2004 WL 2360159 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2004)
7
State v. Cartwright, 336 Or. 408, 85 P.3d 305 (2004)
8
In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 214 F.R.D. 178 (D.N.J. 2003)
9
Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 669 So.2d 1142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)
10
In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated June 30, 2003, 770 N.Y.S.2d 568 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)

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

Banks v. United States, 2005 WL 974723 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 22, 2005)

Key Insight: Email between paralegal for U.S. Attorney’s Office and medical expert constituted work product, and inadvertent disclosure of email did not waive work product immunity under Ninth Circuit’s five-factor test, which balances: (1) the reasonableness of precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure; (2) the time taken to rectify the error; (3) the scope of the discovery; (4) the extent of the disclosure; and (5) the overriding issue of fairness

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Barton v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2005)

Key Insight: Ninth circuit granted writ of mandamus reversing district court’s order compelling plaintiffs to produce their answers to law firm’s internet questionnaire; although questionnaire disclaimed any formation of an attorney-client relationship, it did not disclaim confidentiality, and, under California law, prospective clients’ communications with a view to obtaining legal services were covered by the attorney-client privilege

Nature of Case: Users of antidepressant sued manufacturer of drug

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm’s questionnaires regarding drug which were completed and submitted to the law firm on the internet

Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Purdue Frederick Co., 2005 WL 3511085 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2005) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Deciding there should be a presumption in favor of finding inadvertence, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of privileged documents “recalled” by defendant under stipulated inadvertent production provision; court further advised that (1) production of documents without any privilege review whatsoever is not an inadvertent, but rather a purposeful, act unless the parties had an agreement otherwise; and (2) the purpose of the parties’ inadvertent production provision was not to allow the producing party to consciously change its mind post-production about whether or not to claim the privilege

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Jinks-Umstead v. England, 232 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reject defendant’s attorney-client privilege and work product claims, finding that crime/fraud exception did not apply, that defendant had not waived privilege, and that plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial need for the material; court also noted that defendant had previously been sanctioned for the discovery conduct complained of and that it would be inappropriate to sanction defendant again for the very same conduct

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of discovery responses and email claimed to be privileged

Felham Enter. (Cayman) Ltd. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 2004 WL 2360159 (E.D. La. Oct. 19, 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendant did not timely object to document requests and belated privilege log was inadequate, court determined that attorney-client privilege and work product protection had been waived and ordered production

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Insurer’s computerized “Z-note” file contents related to particular claim

State v. Cartwright, 336 Or. 408, 85 P.3d 305 (2004)

Key Insight: Concluding that defendant had a right to obtain audiotaped prior statements of witnesses for use in cross-examining the individuals whose statements were on the tapes, court noted in footnote: “The audiotapes at issue here are the functional equivalent of written statements. It would be a towering triumph of form over substance to hold that [defendant’s former employer’s] choice of an electronic, rather than a documentary, mode of preserving the witness’ statements puts the statements beyond the reach of a subpoena duces tecum.”

Nature of Case: Criminal sexual harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Audiotapes of witness’ statements made by defendant’s former employer

Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 669 So.2d 1142 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Key Insight: Order allowing plaintiff unrestricted access to defendant’s computer system quashed, because the order allowed plaintiff unrestricted access to defendant’s computer system, including all of his programs and directories, without protection for any privileged or confidential information and without safeguards or restrictions to minimize any potential harm to the computer system

Nature of Case: Breach of contract suit between former partners

Electronic Data Involved: Inspection of computer system to search for financial information

In re Grand Jury Subpoena Dated June 30, 2003, 770 N.Y.S.2d 568 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)

Key Insight: DA’s application to compel witnesses to answer questions granted: attorney/client privilege did not preclude attorneys representing individuals connected to events surrounding homicide from answering questions about laptop that was instrumentality of crime

Nature of Case: Grand jury proceedings investigating homicide

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

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