Protecting Privileged Documents: Use of Keyword Technology, and “Quick Peek” and “Clawback” Agreements


In Blythe v Bell, defendants made two large productions of emails and attachments to plaintiffs. To create the productions, defendants did not review any documents for responsiveness or privilege.

Instead, the defendants relied on keyword search technology to create a set of responsive, non-privileged documents. When defendants discovered that their productions contained privileged communications, they sent plaintiffs an amended production and a privilege log, along with a demand for a return of the prior productions. Plaintiffs refused to return the earlier productions. On defendants’ motion to compel the return of privileged documents, the court sided with plaintiffs.

In deciding on the motion, the court applied the familiar five-factor test for inadvertent production from federal law. The court only needed to consider the first factor, “the reasonableness of the precautions taken,” to deny defendants’ motion. The “sheer volume” of the production substantially increased the likelihood of inadvertent production and “suggest[ed] the need for more than minimal efforts” to safeguard the defendants’ privileged communications. The court determined that the defendants’ complete reliance on technology was unreasonable under the circumstances. The court was quick to note that it was not adopting a bright-line rule requiring a privilege review in every case. It noted that circumstances could exist where expedited discovery would foreclose privilege review and suggested that “quick peek” or “clawback” agreements would be appropriate in such cases.

The circumstances of each case will determine whether “reasonable” efforts were taken to prevent production of privileged information. Counsel should consider (1) entering into an agreement with opposing counsel regarding the necessity and scope of privilege review and (2) negotiating an appropriate “quick peek” or “clawback” agreement. Under a “quick peek” agreement, the requesting party first examines the producing party's documents and designates what to produce. Then the producing party conducts a privilege review and asserts its privilege claims. Under a “clawback” agreement, the producing party conducts its privilege review prior to production and maintains the right to request the return of any inadvertently produced privileged communications. In federal court the agreement should be made part of a confidentiality order under F.R.E. 502(d) for maximum protection of the privilege in subsequent federal or state court proceedings.

Review the court’s decision in Blythe v Bell for more information regarding the protection of privileged documents and the use of “quick peek” and “clawback” agreements.


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Miller Canfield | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.