Privilege or Work Product Protections – Page 15

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ind. Elec. Workers Pension Trust Fund IBEW, 95 A.3d 1264 (Del. 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Delaware Supreme Court affirmed rulings of Court of Chancery in all respects, finding no error in setting the range of dates for production, requiring Wal-Mart to produce officer-level documents, requiring Wal-Mart to collect and search data from disaster recovery backup tapes for two additional custodians where Wal-Mart had voluntarily collected disaster tape recovery data for nine other custodians, and invoking the exception articulated in Garner v. Wolfinbarger, 430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970), to find that IBEW was entitled to documents protected by attorney-client privilege and work product protection in Section 220 litigation

Nature of Case: Pursuant to title 8, section 220 of the Delaware Code, shareholder brought action against corporation for production of documents related to alleged bribery scandal

Electronic Data Involved: Disaster recovery tapes for certain records custodians and documents related to company’s compliance with Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Bombardier Recreational Prods. Inc. v. Arctic Car, Inc., No. 12-cv-2706 (MJD/LIB), 2014 WL 10714011 (D. Minn. Dec. 5, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Addressing a myriad of motions, court declined to compel Defendant?s production of irrelevant ESI hit upon by agreed-upon search terms reasoning that the rules permit and even encourage relevancy screening ?in an effort to avoid large, largely nonresponsive documents dumps mean to obscure and cloak relevant documents? and that Plaintiff failed to establish that Defendant had withheld relevant materials or agreed to the production of all search hits; court declined to compel Defendant?s production of a 30(b)(6)(witness to provide ?discovery on discovery? reasoning that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the information sought was ?relevant to – or may lead to the discovery of information relevant to – any claim or defense at issue in the present case? and that the request ?treads dangerously close to encroaching on attorney work product privilege?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI search hits, “discovery on discovery”

AKH Co., Inc. v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 13-2003-JAR-KGG, 2014 WL 2760860 (D. Kan. June 18, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff requested that documents be produced in native format but defendant produced documents in both hard copy format and in a few very large PDF files, court found that defendant had adequately explained why the documents were not produced in their native format (proprietary nature of certain software used by defendant, defendant’s right to withhold privileged information, need to limit production of irrelevant information regarding unrelated policyholders, the added costs of re-producing information already submitted to plaintiff in converted PDF format), and ruled that, absent a need for metadata as to a particular document, it would not require defendant to re-produce the information

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and settlement of trademark dispute

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Yasmin & Yaz (Drospirenone) Mkg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 3:09-md-02100-DRH-PMF, MDL No. 2100, 2014 WL 4961490 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court applied Rule 502 to conclude that disclosure of privileged slide presentations was inadvertent and did not waive attorney-client privilege; court ordered plaintiffs to return presentations and all copies to defendants and destroy all work product reflecting content from presentations, and directed clerk of court to strike from the court?s record certain exhibits containing references to the presentations

Nature of Case: 32 class actions relating to at least one of the drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives Yaz and Yasmin

Electronic Data Involved: Presentation prepared by defendants’ in-house counsel to convey legal advice to corporate employees and other presentations in which another employee conveyed the legal advice from the in-house counsel presentation to other corporate employees

Fleming v. Escort, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-066-BLW, 2014 WL 4853033 (D. Idaho Sep. 29, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where allegations covered events occurring over past 15 years and defendant produced almost no email in response to 65 document requests and 12 interrogatories, and despite general claim of privilege defendant did not provide a privilege log, court granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered defendant to answer three questions to allow plaintiff and court to evaluate defendant’s claim that it had produced everything: 1) What search terms did you use? 2) What computers or repositories did you search within? and 3) What was the time frame for your search? If questions were not answered fully and completely in 10 days, plaintiff would be allowed to file a new motion for sanctions

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

Momentive Specialty Chems., Inc. v. Alexander, No. 2:13-cv-275, 2013 WL 2151477 (S.D. Ohio May 16, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought to discover whether flash drives containing its sensitive information had been accessed by defendant since he started working for his new employer and also sought production of all relevant information contained on defendant?s laptop, the court indicated that Plaintiff?s expert would be allowed to image and search defendant?s laptop to determine if the flash drives had been accessed and to produce to Plaintiff any ?actual files? from those drives determined to be on defendant?s computer without first allowing defendant to conduct a review for relevance or privilege; as to other relevant documents found on the laptop which were not taken from the at-issue flash drives, the court ordered that any keyword hits be provided to defendant to review before production; to assuage concerns that relevant information would be withheld, court ordered defendant to prepare a log of any documents withheld on relevance grounds to allow the parties to have ?reasoned discussions? regarding those withholdings

Nature of Case: Breach of non-compete agreement, misappropriation of proprietary information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

James v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 11-cv-01613-SI (MEJ), 2013 WL 5978322 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs could surely foresee the need to manipulate royalty data but did not specify production in electronic form, and defendant had already twice produced the documents and argued that production of electronically formatted royalty statements would require creation of new documents not currently in existence, court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the data in electronic format, stating that plaintiffs’ proffered justification that Excel format would be more convenient “falls far short of the mark”; court further denied plaintiffs’ request for receipts data, finding that the burden of reprogramming royalty database and creating new software to extract information far outweighed usefulness of ordering production given that plaintiffs stated they could discern the data by extrapolation

Nature of Case: Consolidated putative class action for breach of contract and other claims filed by recording artists and producers who alleged that defendant underpaid royalties on digital downloads of plaintiffs’ recordings

Electronic Data Involved: Royalty statements in Excel format, receipts from download transactions with vendors

BNP Paribas Mortg. Corp. v. Bank of Amer., N.A., Nos. 09 Civ. 9783(RWS), 09 Civ. 9784(RWS), 2013 WL 2322678 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought the return of inadvertently produced privileged documents pursuant to the parties? Fed. R. Evid. 502(d) order (which required the production to be inadvertent to fall within the protective order), the court considered the Lois Sportswear factors and determined that Defendant used reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure (including training contract attorneys to identify privilege and employing a quality control team) and made prompt efforts to rectify their error and ultimately concluded privilege was not waived (court noted that waiver was also not established pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(b))

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged ESI

Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections