• Home
  • About
  • Terms
  • RSS

Clawback and quick peek agreements are no longer considered the Gold Standard for protecting against the inadvertent waiver of privilege.

March 16th, 2009 | By Steve Puiszis

On a recent flight, I read the February/April, 2009 edition of Litigation Support Today magazine. Under the banner of Best Practices, was an article: “Slashing Ediscovery Costs in a Digital Universe.” One of the author’s recommendations was to negotiate a “quick peek” agreement with opposing counsel. However, care must always be exercised with quick peek and clawback agreements.

gold

Fed. R. Evid. 502(e) confirms that a clawback or quick peek agreement only binds the parties to the agreement “unless it is incorporated into a court order.” Clawback and quick peek agreements provide no protection as to third parties. Thus, while you may avoid a claim of waiver as to information inadvertently produced to a party who signed such an agreement, other parties in that litigation who are adverse to you, and who were not signatories to your agreement, as well as parties in other cases, can claim that your quick peek agreement is not enforceable against them. They will argue that allowing your opponent to potentially view privileged documents without taking any precautions to ensure that privileged information was not reviewed by opposing counsel (other than simply entering into the quick peek agreement) waived attorney-client privilege and the work-production protection as to them. For further insight into the use of quick peek and clawback agreements, see Hopson v. City of Baltimore, 232 F.R.D. 228, 244 (D.Md. 2005).

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment »

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.