Bye, Bye Privilege! What Happens When You Take No Reasonable Steps To Prevent Disclosure.

18 Wednesday Jun 2014

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Document Review, E-Discovery, Federal Rules of Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Bye, Bye Privilege! What Happens When You Take No Reasonable Steps To Prevent Disclosure.

Tags

Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, E-Discovery, Inadvertent Production, K&L Gates, Privilege and Confidentiality, Request for Production, Rule 502(B)

Think Fast—But Not Too Fast: Privilege Waived for Failure to Take Reasonable Steps to Prevent Disclosure, published by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/khbymml

First Tech. Capital, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase N.A., No. 5:12-CV-289-KSF-REW, 2013 WL 7800409 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 10, 2013)

In this case, the court found that privilege was waived where First Technology Capital, Inc. (‘FTC’*), through counsel, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials. The court’s determination that counsel’s efforts were unreasonable was based, in part, on the speed of the alleged page-by-page review (each document received, on average, only 9.84 seconds of review) and FTC’s failure to produce a privilege log, among other things. . . .

Thorough Analysis of Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work Doctrine.

25 Monday Nov 2013

Posted by Celia C. Elwell, RP in Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Discovery, Requests for Production

≈ Comments Off on Thorough Analysis of Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work Doctrine.

Tags

Attorney Work Product, Attorney-Client Privilege, Daniel E. Cummins, Discovery, Judge Mehalchick, TORT TALK

Federal Middle District Magistrate Judge Mehalchick Addresses Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work Product Doctrine in Discovery Dispute, by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK

http://tinyurl.com/kw7cdbl

The case before Judge Mehalchick, entitled Dempsey v. Bucknell University, No. 4:11-CV-1679 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 7, 2013 Mehalchick, M.J.), arose out of a breach of contract claim filed by a student against the university relative to student conduct hearings held. At issue were certain documents withheld from discovery by the plaintiff in response to the defendant’s Rule 34 discovery requests on the grounds of the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.