• Home
  • About
  • Terms
  • RSS

Email cc’d to non-lawyer forfeited attorney-client privilege, but work product doctrine saved the day

March 11th, 2009 | By Evan Brown

Schanfield v. Sojitz Corp. of America, 2009 WL 577659 (S.D.N.Y. March 6, 2009).

Sojitz Corporation fired its employee Schanfield. Six months later, Schanfield sued for wrongful termination. As many litigants do prior to filing suit, Schanfield sought the advice – via email – of two attorneys in his family. These communications discussed the facts of the case, underlying strategy, and thoughts on retaining counsel. Schanfield copied his non-lawyer sister on these messages.

Schanfield withheld these emails from production. Sojits moved to compel. Schanfield argued that the messages were protected by the attorney-client privilege because they were “confidential and explicitly for the purpose of procuring legal advice about his claims in [the] litigation and the retention of counsel.”

hands

The court found that by copying his non-lawyer sister on these communications, Schanfield forfeited the attorney-client privilege. However, the court also found that the emails were protected by the work product doctrine. The messages were “clearly prepared in anticipation of litigation,” and by sending them to his close relatives, Schanfield did not significantly increase the likelihood that Sojitz would obtain the information. Absent a showing of substantial need for the messages, the court denied Sojitz’s motion to compel.

The obvious lesson to be learned from the case is that one must use discretion in deciding who to copy on email messages. Lawyers are expected to understand the contours of the attorney-client privilege and avoid unnecessary cc-ing. But prudent counsel will instruct and remind his or her clients of how easy the protection of the attorney-client privilege can be destroyed, as this case demonstrates. This is an issue which should be included in any corporate email risk management training or program.

Leave a Comment »

Policy of no modification saves website operator from spoliation sanctions

February 6th, 2009 | By Evan Brown

GW Equity LLC v. XCentric Ventures LLC, 2009 WL 62168 (N.D. Tex. January 9, 2009)

Information on a company’s website is relevant in numerous types of cases. But website content is sometimes dynamic, and the mechanics of preservation can be tricky. A recent case from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas provide some guidance.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment »
Newer Entries »

Follow @ediscoveryblog


Recent Posts

  • Requiring defendant to restore backup tapes would have violated proportionality standard
  • Model order for ediscovery is not just for patent troll cases
  • Puiszis authors feature article on DRI Today about model orders governing electronic discovery
  • Court orders phased discovery under Rule 26′s proportionality principles pending resolution of dismissal motion
  • Making the case for uniform culpability standards for ediscovery sanctions

Categories

  • Accessibility
  • Cost
  • electronic data
  • Forensics
  • Litigation Hold
  • Metadata
  • Preservation
  • Privacy
  • Privilege
  • Production
  • Review
  • Sanctions
  • Uncategorized

Blogroll

  • Death by Email
  • Dennis Kennedy
  • Ediscovery 2.0
  • Fios Inc.
  • For the Defense (DRI)
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • HR Illinois Blog
  • Illinois Institute for CLE
  • Internet Cases
  • kCura Corporation
  • Kroll Ontrack
  • Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
  • The Ethical Quandary
  • The Sedona Conference

Archives

  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • December 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008

Tags

Accessibility attorney-client privilege backup tapes confidentiality Cost costs cost shifting deposition electronic data email employee keyword keyword searching Litigation Hold locations Metadata model order native format not reasonably accessible ocr ordinary course of business Preservation Privacy Privilege Production proportionality Review rhoads routes rule 26c Rule 34 Sanctions searching spoliation state rules stay storage stored communications act strategy text messages trade secrets waiver website content work product doctrine zubulake

Copyright © 2009 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.