Holdings LLC v. The Renco Group, Inc., C.A. No. 7639-VCN (Del. Ch.
April 18, 2013). A prior Chancery decision in this case was highlighted on
at this link.
Whether the attorney/client privilege and the work product doctrine are
defenses to a motion to compel.
They can be.
This is one of four Chancery decisions during the month
of April, in separate cases, that addressed in a careful and balanced
manner both the attorney/client privilege and the work product doctrine as
defenses to a motion to compel. Each case of course presented different factual
and procedural situations. The other three cases were highlighted on these
pages at the following links: see Comverge, JPMorgan and Kalisman.
I selected below some of the most noteworthy aspects of
this decision that has widespread practical utility.
Simply because an attorney created a document does not make it privileged and
especially when a lawyer is performing a business function. See footnote
2 and accompanying text.
● An overly-broad
designation of documents as privileged may result in the loss of privilege even
for those documents within the set that should otherwise have been
protected. See footnote 7.
The court discusses the type of detail that should be in a privilege log and
that it should provide a specific description and designation of the basis of
the privilege in order to give the court a basis upon which to weigh the
application of the privilege. See footnotes 11 and 12,
as well as accompanying text.
"If e-mails are privileged, but the attachments to the e-mails do not
independently earn that protection, then the attachments may not be
withheld on the ground of privilege emanating from the e-mail which they
accompany." See Slip op. at 10.
Read more Delaware business
litigation case summaries and commentary on Delaware
Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog, a blog hosted by Francis G.X.
Pileggi, of Eckert Seamans.
more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us
through our corporate site.