Privilege or Work Product Protections – Page 37

C.T. v. Liberal Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 1536806 (D. Kan. May 24, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Denying motion to compel plaintiff to produce documents listed on privilege log, court nonetheless found log inadequate and ordered plaintiff to submit an amended privilege log and, further, to identify whether or not each email listed is a ?string? or ?strand? email and, if so, to list each email within a strand as a separate entry in the privilege log

Nature of Case: Allegations of sexual abuse and harassment

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Heartland Surgical Specialty Hosp., LLC v. Midwest Div., Inc., 2007 WL 2122438 (D. Kan. July 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted defendants’ motion for clarification and ruled that defendants would be permitted to conduct limited ex parte interviews with plaintiff’s former employee relating solely to particular database at issue, including the underlying functioning of the Advantx database and how Heartland, in particular, used that database and any custom-designed reports which Heartland may have developed; defendants were also free to ask former employee to operate the version of Heartland’s Advantx program and the Advantx database that Heartland produced in this case and were free to ask him to run searches using the program and to prepare any customized reports defendants may request from the database

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tortious interference litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Interviews with former employee re database used by plaintiff

Wachtel v. Guardian Life Ins., 2007 WL 1752036 (D.N.J. June 18, 2007) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing that crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege may apply with respect to the documents identified in Health Net’s privilege log, citing numerous instances of discovery misconduct including Health Net’s failure to disclose to the court during three years of discovery that emails older than 90 days were never searched when proper discovery requests sought historic information from a period more than 90 days earlier

Nature of Case: Class action relating to administration of health care plans

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lockheed Martin Corp. v. L-3 Communications Corp., 2007 WL 2209250 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce certain documents related to forensic examinations of former employee’s computers, including electronic documents or portions thereof retrieved from the computers, and all related “fact” work product since substantial need had been demonstrated; court further ordered plaintiff’s IT employee to answer questions regarding forensic examinations at deposition, finding inadequate plaintiff’s proposal that witness respond to unanswered questions through an errata sheet since LMC’s counsel instructed witness not to testify on broad areas of inquiry and counsel was unable to fully develop lines of questioning

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Results of forensic computer analysis

Garcia v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co. of Am., 2007 WL 3407376 (D. Colo. Nov. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Finding that all emails on DVD appeared to constitute “crucial evidence” in the case, court ordered their production notwithstanding plaintiff’s claimed burden and expense to review them and even though some of them may prove to be irrelevant to the dispute; court rejected plaintiff’s counsel’s claim of technical incompetence, finding that once he was on notice of potential problems he was obligated to seek competent professional assistance to ascertain the truth about the contents of DVD

Nature of Case: Plaintiff alleged bad faith breach of insurance agreement

Electronic Data Involved: DVD containing email sent or received by plaintiff through University of Denver email account

Muro v. Target Corp., 2007 WL 3254463 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 2, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court upheld magistrate judge?s ruling that Target’s ?litigation hold? notices were subject to attorney-client privilege and work product protection since notices were communications of legal advice from corporate counsel to corporate employees regarding document preservation; however, court sustained objection to magistrate’s ruling that privilege log was inadequate for failing to separately itemize each individual email quoted in an email string, concluding that Rule 26(b)(5)(A) does not require separate itemization of each individual email quoted in an email string

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Litigation hold notices; privileged email

Adams Land & Cattle Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2007 WL 4522627 (D. Neb. Dec. 18, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s counsel became aware of mistaken production of privileged email during June deposition but waited until September to contact defense counsel to explain the inadvertent disclosure and request that defendant destroy and agree not to use the email, court applied five-part test and found ?no overriding interest of justice that requires the Court to relieve plaintiff’s counsel of its production errors?

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Muro v. Target Corp., 243 F.R.D. 301 (N.D. Ill. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel production of documents listed on defendants? privilege log, faulting among other things Target?s failure to identify and describe separately on its privilege log each allegedly privileged message within a string of email communications

Nature of Case: Putative class action alleging violations of Truth in Lending Act

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Corvello v. New England Gas Co., Inc., 243 F.R.D. 28 (D.R.I. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court concluded that any privilege that may have attached to documents inadvertently produced on CD was waived, since non-party?s counsel failed to exercise due care when he produced CD without first reviewing it, failed to immediately accept party?s offer to temporarily halt its document review after he was alerted that some of the documents on CD appeared to be internal communications with counsel, and furnished an inadequate privilege log after two-week delay

Nature of Case: Litigation between gas company and landowners

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged documents inadvertently produced on CD

In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production

Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer

Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections