This is an illustrative case as to why attorneys want to take precautions when producing discovery. The case is Inhalation Plastics, Inc. v. Medex Cardio-Pulmonary, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-116, 2012 WL 3731483 /0S.D. Ohio Aug. 28, 2012).
In this case, the court held that privilege had been waived as to 347 pages of inadvertently produced emails where, among other things, Defendant failed to establish the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent the disclosure and “failed to take adequate measures to rectify or mitigate the damage of the disclosure.”
Here, Defendant did not stamp any documents as confidential. Upon reviewing the documents at issue, the court held that those documents were covered under the attorney-client privilege. However, the court found that the privilege had been waived. The court highlighted the following facts:
- Defendant’s lack of specificity as to who conducted the review and how the review was conducted. The general assertion that multiple lawyers reviewed it was not enough.
- Defendant failed to produce a privilege log during discovery;
- 4.6% of the documents were inadvertently produced, which the Court found to be “relatively high.”
In sum, the Court opined:
After balancing the required factors, the Court concludes that Medex waived the attorney client privilege otherwise applicable to the 347 documents in the May 30 production. To summarize, the Court finds that Medex did not take reasonable precautions to protect its privileged information, the number of documents disclosed is significant, no privilege log was provided at the time of disclosure, the contents of some of the documents may be relevant to the heart of the dispute, and Medex made insufficient attempts to mitigate its damage even after it learned of the disclosure.
via Inadvertent Production Results in Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege as to 347 Pages of Emails : Electronic Discovery Law.
I came across this post regarding ethics and the use of cloud computing by attorneys. The post is as follows:
MBA Ethics Opinion 12-03 was drafted by the MBA’s Committee on Professional Ethics and approved by the association’s House of Delegates on May 17, 2012. The MBA is not the official lawyer-discipline board in the state, so its ethics opinions are advisory only.
Even so, the MBA’s opinion adds to the growing and unanimous list of lawyer-ethics panels that have concluded that lawyers may ethically use cloud applications and services, provided they take reasonable precautions to protect the confidentiality and security of the data. (See our earlier post: Two New Legal Ethics Opinions Suggest Clear Skies Ahead for Cloud Computing.)
This brings to 11 the number of states that have ruled on the ethics of cloud computing. In addition to Mass., the other opinions are:
Notably, all of these states agree that the use of cloud computing is ethical.
via Mass. Joins Other States in Ruling that Cloud Computing is Ethical for Lawyers.