FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) or FRE 502 – Page 4 – Electronic Discovery Law

In re Yasmin & Yaz (Drospirenone) Mkg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF, MDL No. 2100, 2014 WL 4961490 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court applied Rule 502 to conclude that disclosure of privileged slide presentations was inadvertent and did not waive attorney-client privilege; court ordered plaintiffs to return presentations and all copies to defendants and destroy all work product reflecting content from presentations, and directed clerk of court to strike from the court?s record certain exhibits containing references to the presentations

Nature of Case: 32 class actions relating to at least one of the drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives Yaz and Yasmin

Electronic Data Involved: Presentation prepared by defendants’ in-house counsel to convey legal advice to corporate employees and other presentations in which another employee conveyed the legal advice from the in-house counsel presentation to other corporate employees

Pick v. City of Remsen, No. C 13-4041-MWB, 2014 WL 458732 (N.D. Iowa Sep. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: District court affirmed magistrate judge’s order granting defendants’ motion for order requiring destruction of inadvertently-produced privileged email, rejecting plaintiff’s various objections and finding no clear error in magistrate judge’s application of five-step “middle of the road” analysis set forth in Hydroflow, Inc. v. Enidine Inc., 145 F.R.D. 626, 637 (W.D.N.Y. 1993) which considerations include: (1) reasonableness of precautions, (2) number of inadvertent disclosures, (3) extent of the disclosures, (4) timeliness of rectifying measures, and (5) overriding interest in justice

Nature of Case: Libel, slander, wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, No. 2:11-cv-03781 (SRC)(CLW), 2014 WL 1509238 (D.N.J. Jan, 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Weighing five factors to resolve the issue of waiver by inadvertent disclosure, court found that the use of analytical software without attorney review did not constitute reasonable steps to prevent inadvertent disclosure, and also faulted defendants? efforts to rectify the error, noting that defendants did not conduct a remedial investigation until after plaintiff alerted defendants that the production appeared to contain privileged documents; court concluded that, in light of the fact that the inadvertent disclosure was the result of a failure to review, justice would be served by a finding of waiver

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Documents protected by attorney-client privilege

Lee v. Chicago Youth Ctrs., 69 F. Supp. 3d 885 (N.D. Ill. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Reasoning that ?[h]aving contented themselves to file a response to the motion to compel that was conclusory and factually and legally unsupported, the defendants must live with the consequences of that decision,? the court found privilege was waived as to two allegedly inadvertently produced emails; court?s analysis also criticized Defendants? attempts to rectify the inadvertent production where, upon being notified of possible inadvertent production, they relied upon their vendor?the same vendor responsible for the inadvertent production in the first place?to search for privileged information which the vendor subsequently missed and also criticized defense counsels? failure to undertake a review of the information themselves: ?There is a good deal of merit to the plaintiff?s contention that defendants? four lawyers, who are members of a firm whose ?website boasts a roster of ?nearly 800 attorneys,? having ?delegated document review to an unidentified outside vendor (particularly after having been specifically advised of a potential problem with the production)? simply cannot be heard to argue that they took ?the kind of prompt reasonable steps to rectify any error in production which should allow them now to assert inadvertence and avoid a finding of waiver.??

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Stinson v. City of New York, no. 10 Civ. 4228(RWS), 2014 WL 5090031 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants inadvertently produced two privileged documents along with large volume of ESI, and 14 days later notified plaintiffs of such inadvertent production, and six days after that filed motion for order to show cause to compel plaintiffs to immediately return the privileged documents, court rejected plaintiffs? contention that they should be allowed to retain and review a copy of the privileged documents for the purpose of opposing the privilege claim and ordered plaintiffs to return all copies of the privileged documents to defendants; plaintiffs would be permitted to rely on any material learned prior to defendants? letter in challenging defendants? assertion of privilege

Nature of Case: Section 1983 class action against city, police department commissioner, and police officers, alleging defendants had a policy of issuing unconstitutional summonses in violation of First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Green v. Am. Modern Home Ins. Co., No. 1:14-cv-04074, 2014 WL 6668422 (W.D. Ark. Nov. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted parties’ Joint Motion for Entry of Agreed Order Establishing Protocol for Production of Electronically Stored Information, which addressed search terms, production format, and various other e-discovery matters

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cormack v. United States, No. 13-232C, 2014 WL 3555255 (Fed. Cl. July 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court found no waiver resulting from the production of a privileged email (work product) in light of the scope of discovery (more than one million pages produced), defendant?s use of ?advanced software to screen for privilege,? and the ?numerous steps? intended to protect privilege as outlined for the court and because counsel sought the email?s return ?within hours? of receiving a filing with the email attached; defendant was also found to be in control of documents in the possession of a ?wholly owned but indirect French subsidiary? in light of the companies? collaboration on the at-issue software as illustrated by the companies? representations to the potential client regarding their collaboration, agreements between the companies, and the close working relationship between the two

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, documents in possession of non-party

Lawrence v. Dependable Med. Transp. Servs., LLC, No. 2:13-cv-0417-HRH, 2014 WL 2510623 (D. Ariz. June 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs supported their motion for partial summary judgment with plainly privileged e-mails between defendants and their attorneys, which defendants had inadvertently produced, court granted defendants’ motion to strike and ruled that, because plaintiffs had failed to comply with FRCP 26(b)(5)(B), they would not be allowed to use the e-mails for any purpose

Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged e-mails

Galena St. Fund, LP v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 12-cv-00587-BNB-KMT, 2014 WL 943115 (D. Colo. Mar. 10, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Applying FRE 502, court rejected plaintiff?s argument that defendant waived attorney-client privilege by producing 150 privileged documents among production totaling some 208,000 documents consisting of over 2.2 million pages, as defendant established an elaborate protocol for review and production of documents and took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure of privileged documents, demonstrated that the production was inadvertent, and took reasonable steps to rectify the error with reasonable promptness

Mycone Dental Supply Co., Inc. v. Creative Nail Design, Inc., No. C-12-00747-RS (DMR), 2013 WL 478053 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court denied third party’s request for return of allegedly privileged letters between third party and its patent lawyer because third party did not promptly take reasonable steps to rectify the error when it sent a clawback letter 49 days after it discovered the disclosure of at least one of the disputed documents during a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition; court rejected third party?s excuses and stated that third party ?should have recalled the document that was used in the deposition immediately after the deposition and then conducted a more thorough and timely investigation into the rest of the production after the initial clawback request?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Nine attorney letters totaling approximately 58 pages

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