Key Insight: The communications with Plaintiff’s consultant were not privileged because the consultant was not a “functional employee.” There is no evidence that the consultant had “information about the company that would assist the company’s attorneys in rendering legal advice.” Additionally, there was no evidence that consultant’s communications with counsel were primarily of a legal nature rather than a business one.
Defendant’s request for sanctions was premature. Rule 37 sanctions are only allowed against a party for disobeys a court issued discovery order. Additionally, no evidence was presented in support of Defendant’s spoliation theory other than a failure to produce documents to its subpoena. Without evidence regarding what was destroyed, when it occurred, the extent of Plaintiff’s involvement, and resulting prejudice, sanctions are inappropriate.
Nature of Case: Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract
Electronic Data Involved: Email