Protecting Privilege — New Rule 502 mitigates the risk of inadvertent e-discovery disclosures

By Michael Kozubek

Published in the 2/1/2009 Issue of Inside Counsel.

Privilege review has been a major culprit in the skyrocketing cost of e-discovery. With hundreds of thousands of documents subject to discovery in numerous cases, attorney-client communications and work-product information frequently end up in the hands of the opposing party. Because the production of privileged documents during discovery waives the privilege, discovery teams scour through documents trying to ensure nothing slips through that could damage their case. Still, with the volume of electronically stored information, inadvertent disclosure is almost inevitable, with potentially devastating results.

“Cases have been lost in part because of inadvertent disclosures,” says Bobby Balachandran, CEO of Exterro, a legal hold and workflow software provider.

But that risk diminished when Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE 502), originally drafted by the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, recently became law. The new rule is designed to mitigate the expense of privilege review while protecting companies from potentially large liabilities arising from inadvertent disclosures of privileged communication.

The rule provides that privilege is not waived when privileged communications are inadvertently disclosed, provided the holder of the privilege took “reasonable steps” to prevent disclosure and to rectify the error.

Litigators celebrated the enactment of FRE 502 while warning that it is not a panacea and does not remove the need for sound e-discovery management practices.

“The new rule is welcome news for litigants,” says David Lender, a partner at Weil, Gotshal and Manges. “An inadvertent production will not result in the waiver of the privilege as long as reasonable steps are taken to preserve the privilege before production.”

Continue reading

Advertisements

E-Discovery Trends in 2009 — New developments in e-discovery will affect enterprise general counsel and compliance officers, law firms serving corporate clients, and IT departments

By Christine Taylor, January 9, 2008, 12:10 PM

A few years ago, the Taneja Group coined the term “Information Classification and Management” (ICM) to describe the technology of locating and classifying data throughout the enterprise. ICM covered sub-technology sectors such as e-discovery, compliance, data security control, and data management. However, we saw the term “e-discovery” trump the more comprehensive name as rabid attention turned from ICM to the specifics of civil litigation software tools. We are now seeing the e-discovery term itself take on a fuller usage, more akin to ICM. People do use the term when talking about civil litigation, but are also expanding it to encompass compliance, corporate governance, data classification, and even knowledge management.

In this broad sense we have looked at the trends of the e-discovery market as they impact its largest stakeholders: the enterprise general counsel and compliance officers, law firms serving corporate clients, and IT.

The crux of the matter is that e-discovery and its related areas will be extremely hot for litigation and compliance, especially those related to the financial meltdown. The market increasingly understands the necessity of e-discovery software tools and systems, and will move toward proactive e-discovery adoption. A more reactive approach will remain alive and well as many companies will still avoid implementation until driven to it by a lawsuit or federal investigation. But companies will increasingly understand that the e-discovery solution phenomenon is much more than a litigation aid. It also has major effects on federal compliance and internal governance, and potentially on data management throughout the enterprise.

For more see byteandswitch.com.

Judge Looks Past Inadvertent Disclosure Protection Rule

Shannon P. Duffy
The Legal Intelligencer
December 8, 2008

In one of the first decisions to interpret a new rule of evidence that governs “inadvertent disclosure” of privileged documents, a federal judge has held that if the “reasonableness” of the accidental disclosure remains in dispute, courts should continue to apply the traditional five-factor test to determine whether the privilege has been waived.

In his 21-page opinion in Rhoads Industries Inc. v. Building Materials Corp. of America, U.S. District Judge Michael M. Baylson was forced to resolve a dispute that arose when plaintiffs lawyers accidentally turned over more than 800 privileged e-mails when they provided the defense lawyers with copies of 78,000 e-mails.

The decision is one of the first to apply the newly enacted Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which protects against waiver of privilege if the disclosure is inadvertent and if the holder of the privilege took “reasonable steps” to prevent disclosure and to rectify the error.

But for lawyers, the ruling also serves as a reminder of another rule, Rule 26(b)(5)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that lawyers create a privilege log for all documents withheld.

Although Baylson ultimately concluded that the privilege wasn’t waived for all 800 documents, he nonetheless found that the plaintiff’s failure to comply fully and timely with the mandatory requirements of Rule 26 meant that the privilege was waived for 120 documents.

“The obligation to log privileged documents is mandatory under the specific terms of Rule 26(b)(5). Despite Rhoads’s attempts to justify, explain and minimize its failure to log all of its inadvertently privileged documents by June 30, 2008, the court finds that the delay in doing so until Nov. 12, 2008 is too long and inexcusable,” Baylson wrote.

Defense lawyers urged Baylson to rule that the plaintiff had waived the privilege for all of the inadvertently disclosed documents because its process of screening the documents was “grossly insufficient.”

For more see law.com.

U.S. Federal Rule of Evidence 502

Ronald J. HedgesDecember 2nd, 2008

The Federal Rules of Evidence have now been amended to include a new Rule 502 [PDF], which should represent a sea change in the law of waiver in the United States. Rule 502 is intended to introduce uniformity in the law of waiver of attorney-client privilege and work production protection throughout the United States courts and, through operation of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, among State courts.

Continue reading

Rule 502 May Not Deliver Promised Cost Relief

Federal Rule of Evidence 502, enacted on Sept. 19, 2008, has been heralded as a significant development which “will effectively limit the skyrocketing costs of discovery.”[FOOTNOTE 1] The Rule and its promotion as a cost-saving panacea have no doubt raised expectations among clients and courts alike.

Continue reading

President Signs Bill for New Federal Evidence Rule 502

On 9/19/08, the president signed S 2450 (PL 110-322) to amend the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.

FASB Delays Lawsuit Disclosures — The board responds to companies’ distaste for its proposed rule on contingent liabilities

Sarah Johnson – CFO.com

The Financial Accounting Standards Board has changed the deadline for when companies would have been required to provide new disclosures about their contingent liabilities under a controversial proposal.

Companies with a calendar fiscal year-end had been expected to comply with the rule in mid-December. At a board meeting today, FASB pushed off that date by another year after hearing that many companies could not implement a new policy for disclosing potential lawsuit liabilities in time. Plus, the board is still sifting through the wealth of feedback from lawyers, auditors, and financial statement preparers who worry the newly shared information would reveal confidential data and turn into an undeserved boon to the plaintiffs’ bar.

In the meantime, FASB will collect even more feedback by asking companies to do sample runs of its proposal along with an alternative method that has yet to be introduced. The rule overhauls FAS 5, Accounting for Contingencies — requiring companies to disclose “specific quantitative and qualitative information” about potential lawsuit liabilities — and changes the contingent losses that companies disclose under FAS 141(R), regarding mergers and acquisitions.

Continue reading