Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections

1
Ballentine v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dept., NO. 2:14-cv-01584-APG-GWF, 2016 WL 3636917 (D. Nev. July 5, 2016)
2
Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. U.S. Bank N.A. (D. S.C., 2016)
3
Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Inc. (ND Cal, 2016)
4
Portland Pipe Line Corp. et al. v. City of South Portland et al. (D. Maine, 2016)
5
David Mizer Enters. v. Nextar Broad., Inc. (Central District of Illinois, 2016)
6
Dynamo Holdings L.P. v. Commissioner, No. 2685-11, 8393-12 (Tax Ct. July 13, 2016).
7
In re Eisenstein (Supreme Court of Mo., 2016)
8
Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC (Northern District of Indiana, 2016)
9
Fid. Nat?l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., L.L.C., No. 4:10?CV?1890 (CEJ), 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015)
10
Thermoset Corp. v. Building Materials Corp. of Am., No. 14-60268-CIV, 2015 WL 156310 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2015)

Ballentine v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dept., NO. 2:14-cv-01584-APG-GWF, 2016 WL 3636917 (D. Nev. July 5, 2016)

Key Insight: Among other things, court denied motion for protective order upon finding that Plaintiffs were ?entitled to obtain basic information sufficient to determine whether searches were reasonably conducted and the results properly verified? even without ?evidence that specific documents were destroyed or withheld? and reasoned that ?the fact that [Defendant?s] attorney(s) conducted or supervised the searches does not protect such non-privileged information from disclosure?

Electronic Data Involved: Information re: efforts to preserve, search

Johnson v. Serenity Transportation, Inc. (ND Cal, 2016)

Key Insight: Discovery is not disproportionate just because you say so. Insufficient privilege log.

Nature of Case: Class action involving alleged improper classification of independent contractor status.

Electronic Data Involved: Production of emails in response to Plaintiffs’ requests.

Keywords: Produce all documents responsive to Plaintiff’s search terms. Duplicative and not proportional.

View Case Opinion

Portland Pipe Line Corp. et al. v. City of South Portland et al. (D. Maine, 2016)

Key Insight: Two step process of TAR and manual review of privilege negated need for in camera review

Nature of Case: declaratory relief re environmental ordinance

Electronic Data Involved: emails

Keywords: in camera review

View Case Opinion

David Mizer Enters. v. Nextar Broad., Inc. (Central District of Illinois, 2016)

Key Insight: While privilege logs are not explicitly required when claiming privilege, they are the best way to properly assert attorney-client privilege

Nature of Case: Contract dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents generally

Keywords: privilege log, website, servers, car,

View Case Opinion

Dynamo Holdings L.P. v. Commissioner, No. 2685-11, 8393-12 (Tax Ct. July 13, 2016).

Key Insight: Predictive coding may be used to conserve time and expense where e-discovery expertise applied

Nature of Case: Embezzlement/Fraudulent Transfers Action

Electronic Data Involved: Backup storage tapes of exchange server containing tax-related information

Keywords: “computer-assisted review [tools]” “privileged or confidential information” “universe of documents”

View Case Opinion

In re Eisenstein (Supreme Court of Mo., 2016)

Key Insight: Concealment and use of electronic evidence improperly obtained by a client.

Nature of Case: Divorce.

Electronic Data Involved: Email, hacked and stolen from the wife’s private email account.

Keywords: Unwarranted intrusions into privileged relationships. Stolen evidence.

Identified State Rule(s): 4-4.4(a); 4-8.4(c); 4-3.4(a)

Arcelormittal Indiana Harbor, LLC v. Amex Nooter, LLC (Northern District of Indiana, 2016)

Key Insight: confidential settlement information in documents requested

Nature of Case: Negligence and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: communications between Amex Nooter and IOSHA

Keywords: Confidential Settlement information, motion to compel, impeachment

View Case Opinion

Fid. Nat?l Title Ins. Co. v. Captiva Lake Invs., L.L.C., No. 4:10?CV?1890 (CEJ), 2015 WL 94560 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2015)

Key Insight: Where inspection by court-appointed specialist revealed that plaintiff deleted emails, failed to institute a litigation hold, and delayed completing a comprehensive search of its electronic files, events which defendant and the court would not have known about but for the inspection, the court said plaintiff was subject to sanctions for failing to secure relevant emails and for prejudicial delay in production of discoverable material and that the court would instruct jurors that they may, but are not required to, assume the contents of deleted emails would have been adverse to the plaintiff, but the court would also allow for plaintiff to put on rebuttal evidence showing ?an innocent explanation of its conduct.? Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff to pay one-half of the reasonable costs of the inspection and to pay defendant?s reasonable attorneys? fees associated with bringing the sanctions motion.

Nature of Case: Insurance Coverage Dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database contents

Thermoset Corp. v. Building Materials Corp. of Am., No. 14-60268-CIV, 2015 WL 156310 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 8, 2015)

Key Insight: Applying the elements of Fed. R. Evid. 502(b), court concluded that whether production was ?inadvertent? should be determined by asking whether the party intended to produce the document or whether it was a mistake rather than looking at court-identified factors to determine whether the ??inadvertent? element? was satisfied and found: 1) that the at-issue emails were produced by mistake, and thus inadvertently, 2) that reasonable steps to prevent the disclosure were taken where counsel identified the documents as privileged after personally inspecting them but where they were nonetheless produced inadvertently among the other 1,000 pages produced in response to the relevant request, and 3) that prompt steps were taken to prevent the error where counsel informed opposing counsel of the inadvertent production on the same day he discovered it; thus, the inadvertent production did not result in waiver

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defective roofing adhesive

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.