Seyfarth Synopsis: In its seminal decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the Supreme Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of...more
Every court seems to require litigants to log documents they withhold based on privilege or work product claims. Perhaps not surprisingly, hardly any log goes unchallenged by the adversary. Most of these disputes eventually...more
In federal courts, it is nearly impossible to successfully file an interlocutory appeal of a trial court’s order requiring production of privileged documents — despite the obvious “cat out of the bag” nature of such rulings....more
Last week’s Privilege Point described an opinion requiring a corporate party’s witness to disclose communications with his Latham & Watkins lawyers, because he confirmed with that firm his own “commercial understanding” about...more
Aggressive plaintiffs sometimes try to generate a “side show” by challenging corporate defendants’ discovery responses (usually their document productions). Although federal courts have thankfully moved in the direction of...more
Last week’s Privilege Point described one court’s incredible requirement that litigants identify everyone who learned of a withheld document’s content — even if they were not shown as a recipient....more
[Editor’s Note: This article has been republished with permission. It was originally published December 20, 2023 on the eDiscovery Assistant Blog] In Episode 127, on the ACEDS and eDiscovery Assistant #CaseoftheWeek, Kelly...more
Just as death and taxes are certainties in life, so too is litigation for many automotive companies. And while each case varies widely in terms of facts, law, parties, and forum, there are common points to consider in most...more
The attorney-client privilege originated in Roman law, and flourished under what John Adams labeled "that most excellent monument of human art, the common of law of England." But in America, some states articulate their key...more
In Florida, the legislature deemed open dialogue between an accountant and a client so important that, in 1978, it adopted a privilege nonexistent in the common or law: the accountant-client privilege....more
Providers negotiating with doctors and other medical professionals who are bound by enforceable restrictive covenants is tricky business. By virtue of his/her/their position, these physicians may owe fiduciary duties to the...more
The difficulty of handling privilege disputes can be especially pronounced in cases involving a prolonged discovery period and large corporate defendants with different document custodians. When a party chooses to withhold...more
Legislation must show a clear, explicit and unequivocal intention to abrogate privilege before a party is required to disclose privileged information, the Ontario Court of Appeal reiterated in its recent decision of Ontario...more
The last several Privilege Points have emphasized the different waiver implications of disclosing privileged communications and protected work product. For the most part, the distinctions rest on the very different societal...more
When corporate management requests or obtains legal advice from corporate counsel, management expects those communications to be protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, and usually they are. But there are...more
Courts take differing positions on the "client's" identity in the government setting. Among other things, such differing positions might affect the waiver implications of one government agency disclosing its privileged...more
Under some arrangements, major shareholders appoint directors to companies those shareholders partially own. Does such a company waive its privilege by disclosing its privileged documents to a designating shareholder's...more
The last two Privilege Points (Part I and Part II) addressed the Supreme Court's abandoned attempt to address the abstract "primary purpose" versus "one significant purpose" privilege standard in the absence of specific facts...more
Last week's Privilege Point described the Supreme Court's failure to decide between a "primary purpose" and a "one significant purpose" privilege standard. Everyone wonders why the Supreme Court dropped the case. The best...more
Recently the Court of Appeals has addressed a director’s inspection rights, and shareholder inspection rights and the associated opportunity to recover attorney fees and other expenses incurred in securing the inspection of...more
In 1985, the Third Circuit protected as opinion work product a lawyer's "selection and compilation of [intrinsically unprotected] documents . . . in preparation for pretrial discovery." Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312, 316 (3d...more
In federal court and in state courts following the same approach, Fed R. Evid. 502(b) sometimes allows claw backs if a privileged document's production was "inadvertent." That term could have several meanings — ranging from a...more
Last week's Privilege Point described courts' various standards for their in camera review of withheld documents. The vast majority recognizes the trial court's discretion, but some courts always conduct an in camera review...more
Attorney-client privilege protection depends on content, and some work product claims also depend in part on content. Because a litigant's privilege log obviously does not disclose withheld documents' content, the adversary...more
In earlier times, litigants essentially trusted each other to withhold (without identifying) responsive documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Now every court seems to require a...more