FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) or FRE 502 – Page 12 – Electronic Discovery Law

Rodriquez-Monguio v. Ohio State Univ., 2009 WL 1575277 (S.D. Ohio June 3, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant inadvertently produced one privileged email among thousands of pages and did not actually discover such production until months later, despite plaintiff?s reference to the email in a single spaced 5 page letter, and where upon discovery of the inadvertent production defendant immediately sought the email?s return, court rejected plaintiff?s argument that defendant had waived privilege by failing to seek the email?s return within ten days, subject to the parties? clawback agreement, and ordered the email returned

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Kumar v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 2009 WL 1683479 (W.D. Tenn. June 16, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court endorsed ?middle ground? approach to a determination of the waiver of privilege, as adopted by FRE 502, and ordered the return of privileged and work product documents produced by defendant upon finding that the production was inadvertent, that defendant took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, that counsel took immediate steps to rectify the error and that ?the number and magnitude of the disclosures in light of the overall production weigh[ed] against waiver?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email and hard copy

Clubcom, LLC v. Captive Media, Inc., 2009 WL 1885712 (W.D. Pa. June 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where four privileged emails were produced among 4000 documents (in hard copy), where there was no indication that plaintiff produced the documents intentionally or failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure, and where plaintiff immediately took reasonable steps to rectify the error, court ruled privilege was not waived pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(b)

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Multiquip, Inc. v. Water Mgmt. Systs., LLC, 2009 WL 4261214 (D. Idaho Nov. 23, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, as a result of the autofill function in email, defendant mistakenly sent a privileged communication to a third party which was thereafter forwarded to opposing counsel in the litigation, court undertook waiver analysis pursuant to ER 502 and found that privilege was not waived where defendant disclosed the communication inadvertently, where defendant?s reliance on ?a system that had worked in particular way in the past? was reasonable to prevent disclosure, and where defendant?s counsel took immediate steps to rectify the error upon learning of the disclosure

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Callan v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 564(C.D. Cal. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants sought to compel plaintiff?s compliance with a clawback provision intended to control the return of inadvertently produced documents but failed to establish the nature of the privilege claimed or the precautions taken to prevent disclosure, court ruled that defendants had failed to establish that the production of any document was ?inadvertent? and denied defendants? motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Cinergy, Corp., 2009 WL 6327414 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 10, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Inadvertent production of privileged material by third party pursuant to subpoena waived defendants? privilege protection where third party?s disclosure was found to be tantamount to defendant?s disclosure because of the nature of their relationship and where defense counsel failed to take any steps to prevent the production of privileged materials despite being asked specifically if privilege issues were implicated in the production (to which he answered ?no?) and despite the low volume of materials produced; court noted that although there was no legal obligation for defendants to conduct a post-production review, ?had [they] done so, they might well have noticed the email at issue before Plaintiffs did, and the result in this case might have been different.?

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

S.E.C. v. Bank of Amer. Corp., 2009 WL 3297493 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court approved stipulated protective order allowing defendant to waive privilege and work product protections as to certain categories of documents without also waving ?such privilege and protection regarding other information that may be of interest in related private lawsuits?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard copy

St. Cyr v. Flying J, Inc., 2008 WL 2097611 (M.D. Fla. May 16, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court concluded that FRCP 26(5)(B) applied not only to ESI but to paper documents as well, and set out lengthy quote from advisory committee’s note; court denied plaintiff’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of plaintiff’s communications with expert, finding that plaintiff had waived work product protection by voluntarily producing the documents at expert’s deposition

Nature of Case: Negligence and strict liability

Electronic Data Involved: Letter and email produced in hard copy form

Miyano Mach. USA, Inc. v. Miyanohitec Mach., Inc., 2008 WL 2364610 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court applied balancing test and found that plaintiff?s inadvertent production of single privileged email on CD among 22,000 pages of documents did not effect waiver given expedited nature of discovery, scope of documents produced, limited extent of disclosure and lack of any demonstrable prejudice to defendants

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, cybersquatting, unfair competition, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, 2008 WL 4758064 (D. Kan. Oct. 30, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Granting leave to refile, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails for failure to show their relevance to class certification but rejected defendants? argument that $375,000 cost of production was unduly burdensome in light of amount in controversy where defendant argued claims of named plaintiffs were worth $100,000 or less but plaintiff argued claims of the class exceeded $5 million; court also stated that where defendant was in better position to identify search terms it should do so to reduce volume, that the cost of production versus the amount in controversy did not render email data ?not reasonably accessible,? and that parties should address Rule 502 in any future discussions regarding cost, among other things

Nature of Case: Class action for failure to pay royalties arising from oil and gas leases

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Tag:FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) or FRE 502