Privilege or Work Product Protections – Page 14

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

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

Vicente v. City of Prescott, No. CV-11-08204-PCT-DGC, 2014 WL 3939277 (D. Ariz. Aug. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where city notified key personnel to preserve relevant evidence but never instructed its IT department to suspend automatic procedure for eliminating deleted emails after 30 days or to assist key individuals in collecting and preserving relevant emails, city?s preservation efforts were “clearly deficient? but no sanctions were warranted as plaintiffs identified only one email that ultimately was lost as a result of defendants? inadequate preservation actions; court further granted plaintiffs? motion to compel production of unredacted versions of two litigation hold letters sent by the city to employees, and ruled on various other dispositive and discovery motions

Nature of Case: First Amendment, retaliation, defamation and related state law claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Google Inc., No. C13-01317 EJD (HRL), 2014 WL 4088201 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Among other rulings on the parties? respective discovery motions, the court: (1) denied plaintiff?s request for an order compelling defendants to produce document retention policies and litigation hold notices issued in the case, because litigation hold notice was protected as attorney-client communication and/or work product and burden of producing requested material, however minimal, outweighed its likely benefit; court noted that plaintiff waited over one year to follow up on particular request, relevance of material to case merits was dubious, and timing of motion following court?s finding that plaintiff had committed spoliation by failing to timely file its litigation hold suggested that plaintiff?s motivation was retaliatory; and (2) denying plaintiff?s request for source code and documents related to newest version of accused product, which version was still in development, since discovery into such material would be premature because an incomplete, non-?live? product cannot be evaluated for infringement in patent litigation

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, litigation hold notice, source code

Robinson v. County of San Joaquin, No. 2:12-cv-2783 MCE GGH PS, 2014 WL 3845775 (E.D. Cal. July 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: A clearly exasperated court described the parties’ discovery efforts to date, highlighted the inconsistencies/incompleteness in response, “as well as the complete cacophony of the San Joaquin County e-mail systems and retrieval,” and issued one final, specific order to be followed by defendant lest serious sanctions issue; among other things, court ordered defendant to perform computer-by-computer search for all current employees in order that any emails relating to plaintiff’s discrimination claims or job performance from 2007 to present may be produced, acknowledging that substantial work would be required for compliance but that judge was “not responsible for the County’s email systems which apparently have been designed for individual control and with no concern for litigation responsibilities”

First Senior Fin. Group LLC v. ?Watchdog,? No. 12-cv-1247, 2014 WL 1327584 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court applied four-part test to determine that defendant acted intentionally and in bad faith to suppress or withhold relevant evidence, but because the prejudice to plaintiffs resulting from the spoliation appeared minimal and plaintiffs did not present any arguments as to how the spoliation prejudiced the ultimate merits of their case, court would only require defendant to pay the cost of the independent computer forensics expert and attorneys’ fees associated with plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions; court denied all other relief and sanctions sought by plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortious interference with business relationships, civil conspiracy, violations of the Lanham Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, computer hard drive

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

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

Crissen v. Gupta, No. 2:12-cv-00355-JMS-WGH, 2014 WL 1431653 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court criticized plaintiff for not complying with inadvertent production provision of protective order and ordered plaintiff to delete all copies of the recalled documents and any information gleaned therefrom from its network drive, and further ruled that plaintiff may not use the documents or any work product derived therefrom unless and until it is determined that those documents should have been produced; court further awarded bank its fees and costs in connection with the motion, to be paid by plaintiff’s counsel, because the language of the claw back provision was clear and plaintiff’s counsel not only ignored that language but then took the extra step of reviewing the very documents the bank sought to recall

Nature of Case: Racketeering, fraud, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: Tax returns, bank documents containing defendants’ personal financial information, and internal bank documents

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

Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections