Privilege or Work Product Protections – Page 14

Siani v. State Univ. of New York at Farmingdale, No. 2:09-CV-0407 (JFB) (WDW), 2014 WL 1260718 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation sanctions based on defendant campus counsel?s deletion of emails, because defendants produced emails from other custodians who did not delete them, and plaintiff failed to show that other deleted emails were relevant to the action and favorable to him; counsel?s deletion of email was not done in bad faith, but was instead part of his normal practice, he placed a litigation hold on the actual decisionmakers but did not include himself because he had a limited, non-decisive role, and, as an attorney, considered his own communications to be privileged and work product and any email not covered by these doctrines would be preserved by the parties subject to the litigation hold, making his own preservation redundant; court further denied plaintiff?s motion to compel production of emails withheld on the basis of privilege after conducting an in camera review and finding defendants? objections to be well-taken

Nature of Case: Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Nieman v. Hale, No. 3:12-cv-2433-L-BN, 2014 WL 1577814 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Finding that plaintiff failed to meet the high burden of proof required to justify spoliation sanctions under Rule 37 and/or the court’s inherent powers, as plaintiff’s briefing was “entirely devoid of evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would establish the bad faith required,” court denied plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and further noted that Rule 37(e) protected defendants from sanctions to the extent that the entries allegedly missing from defendants’ privilege log resulted from a server crash

Nature of Case: Retaliation claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

In re Uehling, No. 1:14-mc-00009-LJO-BAM, 2014 WL 1577459 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to compel nonparty to answer deposition questions and produce documents, finding that nonparty’s burden of producing copy of external hard drive containing 9.47 gigabytes of information was substantial as the material would need to be reviewed for privilege and for potential redaction and withholding based on confidentiality, privacy and proprietary information purposes, the benefit of the documents to defendant was “minimal,” and defendant had an alternative source for the information sought (i.e., the plaintiff)

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive that non-party witness provided to DOJ in the course of the DOJ’s investigation of plaintiff

In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc., 515 B.R. 874 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Concluding that inadvertent production did not waive privilege, court rejected bankruptcy trustee’s argument that party waived privilege because it had not taken any — or perhaps enough — action to have the privileged documents removed from the district court’s electronic docket, noting that measures taken to rectify an inadvertent disclosure is only one of five factors courts consider in determining whether privilege has been waived and other four factors weighed against a finding of waiver

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy case

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Fasteners for Retail, Inc. v. DeJohn, No. 100333, 2014 WL 1669132 (Ohio Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in ordering forensic imaging of defendants’ computer hard drives, as record did not demonstrate that documents plaintiff sought were being unlawfully withheld by defendants and not available from plaintiff’s own information or other sources, and in failing to set out an appropriate protocol to govern the forensic imaging process and protect defendants’ confidential information and preserve any private or privileged information

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, false advertising, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of employment agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

L-3 Commc?ns Corp. v. Jaxon Eng?g & Maintenance, Inc., No. 10?cv?02868?MSK?KMT, 2014 WL 3732943 (D. Colo. July 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where special master was appointed to review tens of thousands of documents listed on defendants? privilege log and issue a report and order after determining, as to each document, whether the document was subject to a claim of work product, attorney-client privilege, spousal privilege or ?so intensely personal and so utterly irrelevant that they should be withheld from production,? district court painstakingly reviewed special master’s report de novo with respect to specified documents subject to objection by the parties and made final rulings

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI stored on computer hard drives

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

Apparent, Inc. v. Ai-Daiwa, Ltd., No. C 13-04156 VC (LB), 2014 WL 3738348 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant raised seven problems with plaintiff’s ESI production and sought an order compelling plaintiff to hire a qualified e-discovery vendor, court denied the request because plaintiff was addressing the problems and the circumstances of the case did not support “the potentially expensive outcome of a private vendor” given the short relevant time period and limited universe of documents; court further remarked: ?That being said, generally documents should be produced electronically (not in hard copy), and native file production (or at least processed ESI that contains relevant metadata) is better than paper production.?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, product defect

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Transpacific Passenger Air Transp. Antitrust Litig., No. C-07-05634 CRB (DMR), 2014 WL 709555 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2014

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to quash defendant airline’s subpoena to third party Airline Tariff Publication Company (“ATPCO”) which sought production of documents and ESI previously obtained by plaintiffs from ATPCO, search terms and parameters used by plaintiffs, and communications between ATPCO and plaintiffs’ expert, where defendant had chose not to collaborate with plaintiffs and other defendants to identify relevant information, formulate search strings and download the results pursuant to a cost-sharing agreement, and parties’ stipulation regarding experts protected the requested materials from discovery

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Historical airfare pricing data

Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections