FRCP 26(b)(5)(B) or FRE 502 – Page 8 – Electronic Discovery Law

Dubler v. Hangsterfer?s Labs., 2011 90244 (D.N.J. Jan. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendant produced privileged emails and sought to preclude waiver arising therefrom, the court rejected defendant?s assertions that it did not intend to waive privilege and, noting the lack of evidence regarding reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and that defendant had not yet requested the return of the documents at issue, found that privilege had been waived

Nature of Case: Employement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

Stambler v. Amazon.com, No. 2:09-CV-310 (DF), 2011 WL 10538668 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties agreed on search terms to identify responsive materials and defendants (the producing parties) later argued that the terms had produced overly-burdensome results, court held that defendants had the burden of ?justifying non-production or reduced production? because they had agreed to the terms and that they had failed to ?justify protection under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)? but, acknowledging the expected costs of review and production, indicated that defendants could choose to produce documents without reviewing the results in light of the ability to identify privilege using key words and the parties? claw back agreement in their protective order; recognizing the potential burden to plaintiffs if defendants chose to produce documents without review, the court indicated the parties could confer to revise search terms if they so chose

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Olem Shoe Corp. v. Wash. Shoe Co., 2010 WL 3981694 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found no waiver of privilege resulting from commercial copy service?s inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials to plaintiff?s counsel where the disclosure was clearly inadvertent, where reasonable steps were taken to protect the privilege including clear instructions to the copy service and clearly marking the documents as privileged, and where defense counsel acted promptly to rectify the error after learning of the disclosure; court rejected arguments that defense counsel waived privilege by a delay in seeking the documents? return where such delay was directly related to plaintiff?s decision to notify only defense counsel?s paralegal of the disclosure, who inexcusably failed to pass that information on to counsel, and where defense counsel requested the documents? return on the same day he actually learned of the disclosure

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Orion Corp. v. Sun Pharm. Idus., Ltd., 2010 WL 686545 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court held plaintiff?s and third party?s claims of privilege as to redacted and withheld portions of presentations waived where plaintiff and third party failed to meet their burden of establishing the claim of privilege by failing to establish that all persons to whom the presentation was disseminated or shown were ?individuals who needed to know the information contained in the presentation? as would be required to maintain the privilege

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Presentations

Edelen v. Campbell Soup Co., 2010 WL 774186 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court ordered 4 pages of privileged documents be returned to defendants where the pages were privileged on their face and inadvertently produced (4 pages of privileged material were produced among 2000 pages and the documents were subject to review by three attorneys prior to production) and where counsel immediately sought their return upon discovery of their production; court ordered narrowing of search terms and fewer custodians upon defendants? objection to plaintiffs? proposed scope (including 55 custodians and 50 search terms) where plaintiff failed to respond to the objection within the ten day period provided by the court

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, privileged materials

Soc?y of Prof?l Eng?g Employees in Aerospace, IFPTE Local 2001, AFL-CIO v. Boeing Co., 2010 WL 1141269 (D. Kan. Mar. 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied Boeing?s motion for protective order requiring the return of the privileged email at issue where the email was disclosed by Boeing to a third-party buyer of its ?commercial facility? when Boeing made a business decision to ease transition to new ownership by temporarily continuing to provide email services to the buyer?s new employees (who were former employee?s of Boeing) by allowing them to use and access their email accounts on Boeing?s servers (which contained the message at issue), and thus did not take reasonable steps to protect the privilege; objections to this opinion were overruled by the District Court Judge on Aug. 5, 2010: 2010 WL 3083536

Nature of Case: Benefits and pension issues arising from sale of commercial facility

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Alpert v. Riley, 2010 WL 1556566 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 19, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant previously stored privileged materials on the computer of a third-party business partner and where the relationship later soured, defendant inadvertently waived claim of privilege as to privileged ESI by failing to take prompt steps to protect the privileged materials following clear notice that the protections he had placed (passwords, etc.) were no longer in place and by persisting in that failure to protect the material for a number of years thereafter

Nature of Case: Alleged improper excercise of authority by trustee

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

N. Am. Rescue Prods., Inc. v. Bound Tree Med., LLC, 2010 WL 1873291 (S.D. Ohio May 10, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Addressing several privilege-related issues upon plaintiff?s objections to the magistrate?s order compelling production, court found inadvertently produced email communications resulted in waiver of attorney-client privilege where plaintiffs failed to take reasonable steps to prevent disclosure and to rectify the error upon discovery of the production, noting specifically that plaintiff was aware of the production for a matter of months before taking action only after defendant?s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, false advertising, trademark infringement and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

King Pharm. Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 2010 WL 2243872 (W.D. Va. June 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant produced a partially redacted document containing four inadvertently unredacted pages, court found that the disclosure met the test of 502(b) and that privilege was not waived ?in light of the low volume of production? and defendant?s prompt action to ?rectify the error? upon learning of the disclosure; court also stated that ?the fact that the document had been reviewed and partially redacted does not by itself prevent the disclosure from being inadvertent? and that ?[t]he nature of the mistake in disclosing a document is not limited by the rules, and logically ought to include mistaken redaction, as well as other types of mistakes that result in disclosure.?

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Four unredacted privileged pages of printed presentation

Kandel v. Brother Int?l Corp., 683 F. Supp. 2d 1076 (C.D. Cal. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court found production of privileged documents was ?inadvertent? within the meaning of the parties? stipulated protective order and that the privilege was therefore not waived where defendant took reasonable steps to prevent the inadvertent production, including creating and following a document review protocol, identifying privileged names to assist in the segregation of potentially privileged documents, and requesting that certain key words searches be used to identify potentially privileged information and where defendants took prompt steps to retrieve the privileged documents upon discovering their disclosure; district court affirmed the order, noting that the review was ?obviously complicated? by the fact that ?many or most of the documents were in Japanese and had to be obtained from Japan?

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging unfair business practices and related claims in connection with design of toner cartridges

Electronic Data Involved: Inadvertently produced ESI

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