Key Insight: Where defendants argued against treating in house counsel as ?normal custodians? for purposes of collection and production because the burden of reviewing potentially responsive information for privilege was high and the likely benefit of any material produced minimal, but where the parties had already agreed on a ?filter? which would automatically ?log? any ESI hit by certain privileged terms, court ordered ESI production to go forward but delayed review and production of hard copy until the extent of the burden could be determined and indicated hope that ?we will be able to devise a method of reviewing the hard copies for privilege without the necessity of a log? noting that ?I have all too often found the traditional privilege log useless.?
Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation
Electronic Data Involved: ESI