New Strategies to Protect Privileged Documents From Inadvertent Disclosure
Margaret A. Dale and Joshua M. Kay of Proskauer Rose write: Understanding the protections available under Fed. R. Evid. 502 and implementing practical safeguards during the e-discovery process puts litigators in the best possible position to avoid the production of privileged documents.
October 02, 2015 at 01:04 PM
13 minute read
It is among the worst news a litigator can hear—privileged documents were produced to the other side by mistake. And, in the world today, where even relatively small cases routinely involve massive amounts of electronically stored data, it happens a lot. As Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck commented recently, “[i]n virtually every production, no matter what search method is used or how carefully a manual privilege review is conducted, some privileged material will be inadvertently produced.”1
Fortunately, there are a number of strategies available to help protect against inadvertent disclosure in the first place. But before we get to that, it is worth discussing Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which was enacted in 2008 to address the escalating costs of protecting against waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work product protection.2
Subsections (a) and (b) of the Rule already have made a significant impact in bringing about more cost-effective privilege review. The fear of broad subject matter waiver due to inadvertent disclosure of privileged or protected information—which was often the reason that lawyers put eyes on every page to be produced—has been eliminated. Rule 502(a) limits subject matter waiver to instances of intentional disclosure of privileged or protected material that creates unfairness to the adversary. According to subsection (a), in the context of a voluntary disclosure that is made in a federal proceeding (or to a federal office or agency) that waives the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, that waiver will extend to an undisclosed communication or information in a federal or state proceeding3 only if “(1) the waiver was intentional, (2) the disclosed and undisclosed communication or information concern the same subject matter, and (3) they ought in fairness to be considered together.”4 In short, the rule limits subject matter waiver only to those “unusual situations in which fairness requires a further disclosure of related, protected information in order to prevent a selective and misleading presentation of evidence to the disadvantage of the adversary.”5
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![Absent Explicit Agreement, Court Rejects Unilateral Responsiveness Redaction of Text Messages Absent Explicit Agreement, Court Rejects Unilateral Responsiveness Redaction of Text Messages](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/newyorklawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2021/10/Screenshot-2021-10-03-110406-767x633.jpg)
Absent Explicit Agreement, Court Rejects Unilateral Responsiveness Redaction of Text Messages
10 minute read![Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e) Ninth Circuit Rules on Inherent Authority and FRCP 37(e)](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/newyorklawjournal/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2023/07/H.-Christopher-Boehning-and-Daniel-J.-ToalH.-Christopher-Boehning-and-Daniel-J.-Toal.jpg)
![Establishing New Test for Cost-Shifting, Court Allocates Costs for Data Security in Discovery Establishing New Test for Cost-Shifting, Court Allocates Costs for Data Security in Discovery](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2023/07/H.-Christopher-Boehning-and-Daniel-J.-ToalH.-Christopher-Boehning-and-Daniel-J.-Toal.jpg)
Establishing New Test for Cost-Shifting, Court Allocates Costs for Data Security in Discovery
9 minute read![Finding the Facts: Discovery in the New York Commercial Division Finding the Facts: Discovery in the New York Commercial Division](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2024/05/Small-Saltarelli-Leszinske-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
- 1Parties’ Reservation of Rights Defeats Attempt to Enforce Settlement in Principle
- 2ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 3States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 4Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 5Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250