Tag:Privilege or Work Product Protections

1
Banks v. United States, 2005 WL 974723 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 22, 2005)
2
Barton v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2005)
3
Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Purdue Frederick Co., 2005 WL 3511085 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2005) (Unpublished)
4
Jinks-Umstead v. England, 232 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2005)
5
Synthes Spine Co., L.P. v. Walden, 232 F.R.D. 460 (E.D. Pa. 2005)
6
Hines v. Widnall, 183 F.R.D. 596 (N.D. Fla. 1998)
7
United States v. Stewart, 287 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
8
Hollingsworth v. Time Warner Cable, 812 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)
9
United States v. Stewart, 294 F. Supp. 2d 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
10
Johnson v. Bryco Arms, 222 F.R.D. 48 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

Banks v. United States, 2005 WL 974723 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 22, 2005)

Key Insight: Email between paralegal for U.S. Attorney’s Office and medical expert constituted work product, and inadvertent disclosure of email did not waive work product immunity under Ninth Circuit’s five-factor test, which balances: (1) the reasonableness of precautions to prevent inadvertent disclosure; (2) the time taken to rectify the error; (3) the scope of the discovery; (4) the extent of the disclosure; and (5) the overriding issue of fairness

Nature of Case: Medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Barton v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 410 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2005)

Key Insight: Ninth circuit granted writ of mandamus reversing district court’s order compelling plaintiffs to produce their answers to law firm’s internet questionnaire; although questionnaire disclaimed any formation of an attorney-client relationship, it did not disclaim confidentiality, and, under California law, prospective clients’ communications with a view to obtaining legal services were covered by the attorney-client privilege

Nature of Case: Users of antidepressant sued manufacturer of drug

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm’s questionnaires regarding drug which were completed and submitted to the law firm on the internet

Steadfast Ins. Co. v. Purdue Frederick Co., 2005 WL 3511085 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 30, 2005) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Deciding there should be a presumption in favor of finding inadvertence, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of privileged documents “recalled” by defendant under stipulated inadvertent production provision; court further advised that (1) production of documents without any privilege review whatsoever is not an inadvertent, but rather a purposeful, act unless the parties had an agreement otherwise; and (2) the purpose of the parties’ inadvertent production provision was not to allow the producing party to consciously change its mind post-production about whether or not to claim the privilege

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

Jinks-Umstead v. England, 232 F.R.D. 142 (D.D.C. 2005)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to reject defendant’s attorney-client privilege and work product claims, finding that crime/fraud exception did not apply, that defendant had not waived privilege, and that plaintiff had not demonstrated a substantial need for the material; court also noted that defendant had previously been sanctioned for the discovery conduct complained of and that it would be inappropriate to sanction defendant again for the very same conduct

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Drafts of discovery responses and email claimed to be privileged

Synthes Spine Co., L.P. v. Walden, 232 F.R.D. 460 (E.D. Pa. 2005)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce all materials that plaintiff’s counsel furnished to plaintiff’s testifying expert, regardless of privilege or claimed work product protection, including emails, summaries, spreadsheets and draft expert reports

Nature of Case: Employer sought to enforce restrictive covenants against former employees

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, spreadsheets, draft expert reports

Hines v. Widnall, 183 F.R.D. 596 (N.D. Fla. 1998)

Key Insight: Granting plaintiff’s’ motion to compel production of computerized images of employment records which were created to facilitate review of the documents by geographically-dispersed defense counsel, court held that images did not constitute attorney work product since images did not contain mental impressions or legal theories and would not give plaintiffs insight into defense strategy or opinions; plaintiffs to pay only nominal copying costs and not portion of $250,000 imaging cost incurred by defendant

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized images of employment records

United States v. Stewart, 287 F. Supp. 2d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

Key Insight: Court ruled that, although Martha Stewart waived the attorney client privilege when she forwarded to her daughter a privileged email containing her account of the facts surrounding her sale of the stock, she did not waive work product protection

Nature of Case: Criminal proceedings re Stewart’s sale of ImClone stock

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Hollingsworth v. Time Warner Cable, 812 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendant voluntarily divulged a privileged email communication at unemployment hearing and in response to discovery request, defendant waived any privilege with respect to the communication and to testimony and documents regarding the same subject matter; trial court erred in granting the defendant’s motion for return of the communication and for protective order, and in denying plaintiff’s motion to compel

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Email

United States v. Stewart, 294 F. Supp. 2d 490 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

Key Insight: Court denied Stewart’s motion to disqualify the attorney who inadvertently read Stewart’s email from cross-examining her or participating in the preparation of her cross-examination

Nature of Case: Criminal proceedings re Stewart’s sale of ImClone stock

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Johnson v. Bryco Arms, 222 F.R.D. 48 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)

Key Insight: Federal database containing firearms tracing and licensing data which was maintained by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms was relevant to plaintiffs’ claims, and was not protected by any law enforcement privilege when produced subject to an order of confidentiality; motion to quash subpoena denied

Nature of Case: Negligence action against manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of weapon used in robbery

Electronic Data Involved: Database maintained by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

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