Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Utah granted in part Defendants’ short-form discovery motion concerning Plaintiffs’ redactions and privilege claims. Following an in camera review, the court ordered production of descriptive material that was not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine, while upholding specified privilege claims. The court also ordered production in searchable native format and individual ESI disclosures consistent with the parties’ agreements.
Holdings
- Descriptions of activities that were not confidential communications made to obtain legal assistance, or attorney-to-client communications conveying information for legal advice, were not protected by the attorney-client privilege and had to be produced.
- The descriptive materials identified by the court were not protected by the work-product doctrine because they were not shown to have been prepared primarily in anticipation of real and imminent litigation rather than in the ordinary course of business.
- The court upheld privilege for specified communication portions of COOK00246, COOK00255, COOK00258, COOK00261, COOK00266, and COOK00273, while ordering production of the descriptive portions identified in those documents and in COOK00260, COOK00262 through COOK00265, and COOK00267 through COOK00272.
Questions Presented
- Whether portions of the disputed documents consisting of descriptions of activities were protected by the attorney-client privilege.
- Whether the disputed descriptive materials were protected by the work-product doctrine.
- What portions of the identified documents had to be produced following the court's in camera review.
- Whether the parties should be required to produce documents in searchable native format and provide individual ESI disclosures consistent with their agreements.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (12)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389-90 (1981)(followed)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 697 F.2d 277, 279 (10th Cir. 1983)(followed)
- In re Foster, 188 F.3d 1259, 1264 (10th Cir. 1999)(followed)
- Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50 (1980)(followed)
- In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued on June 9, 1982, 697 F.2d 277, 278 (10th Cir. 1983)(followed)
- Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976)(followed)
- In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 616 F.3d 1172, 1182 (10th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- Sandra T.E. v. South Berwyn School District 100, 600 F.3d 612, 620 (7th Cir. 2010)(followed)
- U.S. Fire Insurance Co. v. Bunge North America, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 656, 657 (D. Kan. 2007)(followed)
- Kannaday v. Ball, 292 F.R.D. 640, 649 (D. Kan. 2013)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…