2,941 Page Privilege Log? Better Make It Good.

10 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Privilege and Confidentiality, Privilege Log, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on 2,941 Page Privilege Log? Better Make It Good.

Tags

Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Doug Austin, eDiscoveryDaily Blog, Motion to Compel, Privilege Logs

If You’re Going to Submit a 2,941 Page Privilege Log, You’d Better Be Able to Demonstrate Privilege: eDiscovery Case Law, by Doug Austin, eDiscoverydaily Blog

http://tinyurl.com/nwmrx27

The last post by Mr. Gilliland is an excellent illustration of the rule for privilege logs. This example? Well, you be the judge. -CCE

In United States v. Louisiana, 11-470-JWD-RLB. (M.D. La. July 31, 2015), Louisiana Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr., after reviewing 40 documents provided by the defendant for in-camera review, granted the plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel a Proper Privilege Log, after denying the original motion because the plaintiff only provided 13 examples of ‘insufficient descriptions’ within the privilege log’s entries. . . .

Continue reading →

Privilege Logs.

10 Monday Aug 2015

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Privilege and Confidentiality, Privilege Log, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Privilege Logs.

Tags

Attorney-Client Privilege, Bow Tie Law Blog, Confidentiality, Discovery, Joshua Gilliland, Privilege Logs

A Case Study on Privilege Logs, by Joshua Gilliland, Esq., Bow Tie Law Blog

https://bowtielaw.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/a-case-study-on-privilege-logs/

In this post, Mr. Gilliland suggests an Excel format and headings for a privilege log with a reminder to cover the privilege log rule requirements. Here is another basic example in Google Docs:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DKgo192j0sQfbj5H51gFQZNFbcrQJOxuBaUU3ZzZGBU/preview

-CCE

Privilege logs require more than merely saying a prospectively privileged document is an ‘attorney-client communication.’ This requires litigants to conduct privilege review with far more analysis than simply tagging discovery ‘Attorney Client Privilege’ or ‘Work Product Conduct.’ The case of United States v. State & La. Dep’t of Health & Hospitals highlights the importance of effective discovery review in creating privilege logs. . . .

Continue reading →

New York’s New Privilege Log Rule.

13 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Litigation, Privilege Log

≈ Comments Off on New York’s New Privilege Log Rule.

Tags

Complex Litigation, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, New York, New York Commercial Litigation Insider Blog, Privilege Log, Suevon Lee

Rule Limiting Privilege Log Practice to Take Effect, by Suevon Lee, New York Commercial Litigation Insider Blog

http://tinyurl.com/p8wwuhq

In an age of exploding electronic discovery that has multiplied the cost and scope of document review, litigants in New York’s Commercial Division will soon have the benefit of revised privilege log practice.

Starting September 2, new Rule 11-b, signed Tuesday by Chief Administrative Judge Gail Prudenti, will instruct parties to meet at the outset of the case and afterward to discuss the scope and parameters of privilege review. It also will strongly encourage using categorized designations for documents as opposed to itemized listings to help streamline the process.

Parties who resist the categorized approach may be subject to attorney fees upon a showing of good cause by the other side or a protective order from the judge.

Modeled after guidelines set forth in such jurisdictions as the Southern District of New York and Delaware Court of Chancery, the rule offers ‘a meaningful way for courts and parties to assess the assertion of privilege,’ said David H. Tennant, a partner at Nixon Peabody, who co-drafted the language with Jonathan Lupkin, of Rakower Lupkin. They are members of an advisory group charged with proposing changes to Commercial Division practice to offer a more efficient and cost-effective forum for litigants and their business clients. . . .