Close
Enter your
text here

Production

eDiscovery Trends: Third Party Vendors Named in McDermott eDiscovery Malpractice Case
 

You might remember eDiscovery Daily's blog post a few weeks ago about the filing of an eDiscovery malpractice lawsuit against McDermott Will & Emery by J-M Manufacturing Co., a former client of McDermott's.

This case has struck a chord in the eDiscovery community since its filing on June 1, drawing attention to the practices and standards that are at the heart of eDiscovery and outsourced review. Now, the First Amended Complaint has revealed the third party vendors involved in the eDiscovery malpractice suit.

Navigant Consulting, Stratify and Hudson Legal Named in First Amended Complaint

On July 28, J-M Manufacturing filed the amended complaint to its case against McDermott. The amended malpractice complaint describes the role of the third party vendors hired by McDermott, as follows:

  • According to J-M Manufacturing, McDermott hired both Navigant Consulting, Inc. and Stratify, Inc. to run documents through a filter intended to identify and separate materials that were covered by attorney-client privilege and any documents not responsive to subpoenas.
  • Prior to the second production of privileged documents to the federal government, Hudson Legal was also hired by McDermott, and was tasked with reviewing documents identified as potentially privileged and classifying them as either: a) responsive and privileged, b) responsive and not privileged, or c) nonresponsive.

Despite the efforts of these three companies, approximately 3,900 privileged documents were included in the 250,000 discovery documents that were turned over to the government and, in turn, given to relators for examination. The relators subsequently refused to return the privileged documents on the grounds that McDermott twice conducted privilege reviews before producing the documents.

J-M Manufacturing Claims McDermott Held Files Hostage

The new amendment also includes the assertion that McDermott held relevant case files “hostage” against payment of an outstanding invoice of $530,477 after it was replaced as J-M Manufacturing's attorney. A McDermott partner reportedly emailed the president of J-M Manufacturing and said, "I'm told that our firm policy is not to release all files until full payment is made. If you'd like all the files now, please send a check for the entire $530,477 and we'll get them out to you promptly."

In the amended complaint, J-M Manufacturing contends that McDermott’s contact (including the above referenced email) violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct, preventing J-M from recognizing the “true nature and extent of the negligent disclosure” until it was too late.

In its own filing, McDermott responded to the amended complaint by criticizing J-M Manufacturing for "scandalous and irresponsible allegations that could not have been the result of a reasonable pre-filing inquiry." McDermott indicated that they’re “willing and able to set the record straight”, but has “resisted the temptation to tell the full story without first giving J-M the opportunity to withdraw its complaint”.  McDermott also warned that “J-M’s interests could be seriously compromised” if McDermott is forced to fully disclose the facts.

So, what do you think? Has this case degenerated into "scandalous and irresponsible allegations", or are McDermott and its vendors at fault? Will we see more cases like this? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Court Upholds Sanctions for Intentional Spoliation of Unallocated Space Data

The Supreme Court of Delaware recently upheld the sanctions against the defendant for wiping the unallocated space on his company’s computer system, despite a court order prohibiting such destruction.

In Genger v. TR Investors, LLC, No. 592,2010, 2011 WL 2802832 (Del. July 18, 2011), Arie Genger, CEO of Trans-Resources, Inc., argued that sanctions against him were unreasonable and made a motion for the court to overturn its previous decision regarding spoliation of discovery materials. Instead, after due process, the court upheld its earlier decision, as follows:

  • In TR Investors, LLC v. Genger, 2009 WL 4696062 (Del. Ch. Dec. 9, 2009), the defendant was found to have intentionally spoliated electronic discovery documents by instructing an IT consultant to wipe unallocated space on his company’s computers. This action was taken in contempt of court and in contravention of a Status Quo order directing all parties to prevent alteration or destruction of any company documents.
  • Genger was penalized with an order to produce 10 documents for discovery that had previously been considered privileged, the raising of the burden of persuasion with regard to his defense, a preclusion from his testimony being permitted as factual evidence, and several sanctions.
  • The sanctions included attorney’s fees and expenses related to the sanctions motions, which totaled roughly $3.2 million. At the time, this amount was agreed upon by all parties.
  • Following this 2009 order, the defendant appealed the sanctions, arguing that because the court’s Status Quo order did not explicitly refer to unallocated hard drive space, the obligation to preserve documents and discoverable materials found there became “an impossible burden… effectively requiring the company to refrain from using its computers entirely.”
  • On July 18, the court decided in favor of upholding the sanctions against Genger. The reasoning behind this decision revolved around the fact that Genger did not unknowingly delete discoverable documents in the normal course of using his company’s computers, but instead, deliberately set out to destroy information that was included in the court’s Status Quo order.
  • The court was clear in emphasizing that this decision is meant to apply only in such a situation, “where a party is found intentionally to have taken affirmative steps to destroy or conceal information to prevent its discovery at a time that party is under an affirmative obligation to preserve that information.”
  • The court also recommended that, in the future, parties be clear in discussing unallocated space on computer hard drives and in deciding to either include or exclude such space from preservation orders like this one.

So, what do you think? Have you been involved in any cases resulting in sanctions associated with deletion of unallocated space data? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: Is eDiscovery Malpractice More Widespread Than You Think?
 

Last month, we discussed the eDiscovery malpractice case filed against McDermott Will & Emery for allegedly failing to supervise contract attorneys that were hired to perform the client’s work and to protect privileged client records.  This case is still continuing to generate much buzz in the eDiscovery community and I’m sure it will be closely followed as it progresses.

At least one attorney from another firm has weighed in on the possibility of eDiscovery malpractice in other cases.  Dennis Kiker, a partner with LeClair Ryan noted in their blog The e-Discovery Myth that eDiscovery malpractice is probably more widespread than most people think.  Among his observations:

  • “E-Discovery is a discipline.  Far too many attorneys in firms large and small think that e-discovery is something they can do on the side, when they are not drafting motions to dismiss an antitrust class action or preparing to depose a scientist in a patent infringement matter.  Unfortunately, this is simply not true.”
  • “[E]-discovery goes far beyond the rules.  It is one thing to understand that there are different possible forms of production permitted for electronically stored information under Rule 34, and quite another to know how to effectively and defensibly identify, preserve, collect, process, review and produce ESI.”
  • “Not even IT professionals pretend to understand all of the different information systems that exist in a single company.  Do we really expect every trial attorney to have greater expertise and understanding than the professionals that work in the field every day?”
  • “A large document review is, by definition, a large project requiring significant project management skills… In short, this is a complex, high-risk task that requires specialized skills and experience.  It is not something one does once a year and gets good at.”
  • “Malpractice claims are just one of the possible consequences of practicing in a complex area without the requisite expertise.  Loss of client goodwill, damaged reputations for lawyer and firm alike, monetary sanctions – all of these are the dancing partners of those that believe that e-discovery is something that every litigator knows how to do.”

It’s an excellent post with a number of good points.  There are some attorneys who have really worked hard at developing their eDiscovery expertise and knowing when to rely on others with the expertise they don’t have.  But, as I have observed, there are many attorneys that have tried to play “part-time eDiscovery expert” with less than terrific results (at best).  In many cases, their saving grace is that the opposing attorney is equally inept when it comes to eDiscovery best practices.

So, what do you think? Is eDiscovery malpractice more widespread than we think? Please share any comments you might have or if you'd like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Discovery Violations Result in Sanctions Against Plaintiff and Counsel

Yesterday, we reported on a case with no sanctions; today, we report on a case with a different outcome.

Both the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel have been ordered to pay sanctions for discovery abuses in a lawsuit in Washington court that was dismissed with prejudice on June 8, 2011.

In Play Visions, Inc. v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. C09-1769 MJP (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2011), the plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss its case with prejudice. The defendants did not argue against dismissal but did seek sanctions from the plaintiff based on what they considered to be “a pattern of sanctionable discovery misconduct.” The court ruled that discovery abuses had occurred, and fined the plaintiff and plaintiff’s counsel $137,168.41 “jointly and severally”. The misconduct of the plaintiff, Play Visions, Inc., included:

  • Misrepresentation of Available Documents: Play Visions claimed that all relevant documents were kept in hard copy only; however, deposition of Play Visions’ CFO revealed that electronic records existed that should have been presented months earlier under discovery.
  • Falsified Expert’s Report: The plaintiff’s expert report was prepared by plaintiff’s counsel Mark Lorbiecki and only signed and “approved” by the expert. In addition, the court discovered that the plaintiff had violated the court’s protective order by revealing confidential information to the same expert witness.

As a result of these misrepresentations and discovery abuses and others, the court ruled for the defendant’s motion and demanded the plaintiff and its counsel pay sanctions:

  • The court found that Play Visions, Inc. had falsely certified that all relevant records had been saved in paper format and delayed the search and production of documents. Play Visions’ counsel was found to have been negligent in familiarizing himself with Play Visions’ document practices and to have failed in assisting his client in mandatory discovery.
  • Accordingly, the court considered every case where the defendant was forced to do extra work as a result of the plaintiff’s delays and inaccuracies, and fined Play Visions, Inc. and its counsel $137,168.41 jointly and severally, due within 15 days of the order.
  • Not finding “that the discovery violations in this case merit finding the entire case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285”, the court ruled against shifting any attorney’s fees in this case.  Otherwise, the sanctions award could have been even higher!

So, what do you think? Do the discovery violations committed by Play Visions and by its attorney demand monetary sanctions on this scale? Did Play Visions actually believe that they had no relevant electronic files?  Please share any comments you might have, or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: No Sanctions Ordered for Failure to Preserve Backups

A sanctions motion has been dismissed by the U.S. District Court of Texas in a recent case involving electronic backups and email records, on the grounds that there was no duty to preserve backup tapes and no bad faith in overwriting records.

The plaintiffs in Ajay Gaalla, et al v. Citizens Medical Center, et al, No. V-10-14, 2011 WL 2115670 (S.D. Tex. May 27, 2011) had made a motion for sanctions against the defendant for alleged damage to backup tapes, including emails and other electronic documentation. On May 27, the court denied the motion for sanctions against the defendant, although new instructions on maintaining copies of disaster recovery files have been imposed in this case.

  • Plaintiffs presented the argument that the “recycling” or overwriting of disaster recovery backup tapes by the defendant, performed on a 7- or 14-day cycle after the lawsuit was filed, represented spoliation. Accordingly, the plaintiffs requested the maximum sanctions against the defendant for “failure to preserve the backup tapes.”
  • Preservation of backup tapes was not previously been discussed in this case until this motion for sanctions on grounds of data spoliation, but plaintiffs alleged that the failure to preserve backups, coupled with the failure to take snapshots of particular email accounts and “evidence that certain CMC employees had deleted emails from their account at some point in the past”, warranted harsh sanctions.
  • The defendants argued that they had no duty to preserve backups of records, since disaster recovery systems are “rarely” backed up after litigation has begun. They also presented “snapshots” taken of email accounts to demonstrate that there was no intent to destroy information and that attempts had been made to record all relevant evidence.
  • The court referred to the ruling in Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. (S.D.N.Y. 2003), which states: “[A] litigation hold does not apply to inaccessible backup tapes (e.g., those typically maintained solely for the purpose of disaster recovery), which may continue to be recycled on the schedule set forth in the company’s policy.” Under this standard, the court found that the defendant was within its rights to overwrite the existing backups as often as such maintenance was normally scheduled.
  • The court also ruled that, with no prior discussion of the backup tapes and “in the context of this case,” there was no cause for sanctions against the defendant, lacking evidence that the defendant acted in bad faith in recycling the tapes used to make the recovery backups.
  • However, the court did order additional discovery efforts to be undertaken in the form of “disaster recovery first of the month” email files to be preserved in their current state and that plaintiffs’ expert be allowed to search them (at defendant’s expense) as well as a “journaling” process to retain email accounts of key parties in the case.

So, what do you think? Do parties have an obligation to maintain copies of all backup tapes for litigation? Please share any comments you might have, or let us know if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Legal Project Management is the Same as Project Management
 

I found this article (Holy semantics Batman! There is no such thing as ‘legal project management’) which provides a good look at legal project management on the Legal IT Professionals site from Jeffrey Brandt, a previous thought leader interviewee of eDiscovery Daily.  I like this article for two reasons:

  • References to the Old Batman TV Series: Like the author, I watched every episode of the show back in the day, so I had to appreciate the analogy of putting the prefix “Bat” on everything (e.g., “Batcave”, “Batmobile”, “Shark Repellent Bat Spray”, etc.) to adding “legal” to “project management”.  It also gave me the opportunity to re-link to one of very first posts, which has a link at the bottom to a snippet from the old Batman series that always makes me laugh.
  • Clarification as to the Differentiation of ‘Legal Project Management’: According to the author, there is no differentiation.

The author notes that “The underpinnings and basic tenets of project management are 1) accomplishing a defined goal or set of goals; 2) working within a specific time line; and 3) working within a set of defined resources (most often personnel and cost). That can be applied to literally anything.”

True.  While I don’t necessarily believe that an experienced project manager can just “waltz” into managing legal-related projects with no knowledge of the legal industry and what the issues are, the best practices of project management are the same, regardless of the type of project being managed.

For example, I manage rollout coordination for our review platform, OnDemand®.  In a past life, I used to develop, but now I’m too far removed from the process to write web code, implement server configurations or fully understand all of the differences between the different versions of SQL Server.  My primary focus in the rollout management role is to coordinate communication between the developers, testers and support staff to make sure we stay on schedule for each software release to get as many of the proposed features as ready for rollout as possible.  Every time I try to get too much into the details of development, I get in trouble.  Just ask the development staff!  😉

So, what do you think?  Is there a difference between ‘legal project management’ and ‘project management’?   How much legal industry experience do you need to have to manage legal-related projects?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Full disclosure: I work for Trial Solutions, which provides SaaS-based eDiscovery review applications FirstPass® (for first pass review) and OnDemand® (for linear review and production).

eDiscovery Case Law: Never Mind! Judge Scheindlin Withdraws FOIA Requests Opinion

Back in February, eDiscovery Daily reported that Southern District of New York Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s latest opinion regarding eDiscovery best practices.  In National Day Laborer Organizing Network v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, 10 Civ. 3488, she ruled that the federal government must provide documents “in a usable format” when it responds to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

In this case, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Center for Constitutional Rights and the Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law sued to require production of a wide range of documents under the Freedom of Information Act in August 2010.  In response, the government agency defendants produced documents grouped together in large files that were not searchable, for which individual documents could not be easily identified, with emails separated from their attachments.

In ruling at that time, Judge Scheindlin noted that “Once again, this Court is required to rule on an eDiscovery issue that could have been avoided had the parties had the good sense to ‘meet and confer,’ ‘cooperate’ and generally make every effort to ‘communicate’ as to the form in which ESI would be produced.”, and ruled that federal agencies must turn over documents that include “metadata,” which allows them to be searched and indexed.  Indicating that “common sense dictates” that the handling of FOIA requests should be informed by “the spirit if not the letter” of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Judge Scheindlin indicated the government offered “a lame excuse” for delivering non-searchable documents.  A copy of the original opinion and order can be found here.

Now, that opinion has been withdrawn.

In a very short order withdrawing the opinion, Judge Scheindlin stated:

“This court has been informed that the parties have recently resolved their dispute regarding the form and format in which records will be produced by defendants in this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.  In the interests of justice, this Court now believes that it would be prudent to withdraw the opinion it issued on February 7, 2011 (Docket #41).  I do so because, as subsequent submissions have shown, that decision was not based on a full and developed record.  By withdrawing the decision, it is the intent of this Court that the decision shall have no precedential value in this lawsuit or in any other lawsuit.

The Court also withdraws its Supplemental Order dated February 14, 2011 (Docket # 50).”

So, as Emily Litella would say, “Never Mind!”

So, what do you think?  What impact does the withdrawal of the opinion have on future eDiscovery cases?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Case Law: Downloading Confidential Information Leads to Motion to Compel Production

The North Dakota District Court has recently decided in favor of a motion to compel production of electronic evidence, requiring imaging of computer hard drives, in a case involving the possible electronic theft of trade secrets.

In Weatherford U.S., L.P. v. Chase Innis and Noble Casings Inc., No. 4:09-cv-061, 2011 WL 2174045 (D.N.D. June 2, 2011), the court ruled to allow the plaintiff to select and hire a forensic expert at its own expense to conduct imaging of the defendants’ hard drives. The purpose of this investigation was to discern whether or not confidential data that was downloaded from the plaintiff’s computers was, in fact, used in the building of the defendants’ own oil services firm.

Although the judge noted that courts are generally “cautious” in authorizing such hard drive imaging, this motion was substantiated by the defendant, Innis’s, “acknowledgment that he downloaded [plaintiff’s] files to a thumb drive without permission.” The court believed that circumstances of the case warranted further investigation into the defendant’s computer history:

  • The plaintiff, Weatherford US LP, had previously alleged that Chance Innis, a former employee, had downloaded confidential and proprietary information and used it to his advantage in starting his own competing company, Noble Casing Inc.
  • Innis had admitted to returning to Weatherford US offices late in the evening of the day he was terminated and downloading files onto a thumb drive without permission. Two weeks later, he launched his own competing oil services company, the co-defendant in this case, Noble Casing Inc. However, Innis maintains that he did not later access the files stored on his thumb drive and never used them in the process of starting his own company.
  • Contrary to these assertions, forensic examination of the thumb drive showed that the files were later accessed; whether or not they were instrumental in the startup of Noble Casing Inc. remains in question.
  • The plaintiff requested access to the defendant’s computers in the pursuit of previously subpoenaed documents, proposing that they select, hire, and pay for the services of a forensic investigator to image the defendants’ hard drives.
  • The defendants objected, proposing instead that an expert be chosen in agreement by all parties.
  • The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff’s motion in this instance, agreeing that all materials imaged will be shown to the defendant to screen for privilege before being shared with the plaintiff.
  • The court maintained that it is not unusual for imaging of hard drives to be allowed by the court in cases such as this, “particularly in cases where trade secrets and electronic evidence are both involved.”

So, what do you think?  Do you agree that Weatherford should have been allowed to examine images of the defendants’ hard drives, or should Innis’ privacy and that of his company have been protected?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Avoiding eDiscovery Nightmares: 10 Ways CEOs Can Sleep Easier
 

I found this article in the CIO Central blog on Forbes.com from Robert D. Brownstone – it’s a good summary of issues for organizations to consider so that they can avoid major eDiscovery nightmares.  The author counts down his top ten list David Letterman style (clever!) to provide a nice easy to follow summary of the issues.  Here’s a summary recap, with my ‘two cents’ on each item:

10. Less is more: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in 2005 in the Arthur Andersen case that a “retention” policy is actually a destruction policy.  It’s important to routinely dispose of old data that is no longer needed to have less data subject to discovery and just as important to know where that data resides.  My two cents: A data map is a great way to keep track of where the data resides.

9. Sing Kumbaya: They may speak different languages, but you need to find a way to bridge the communication gap between Legal and IT to develop an effective litigation-preparedness program.  My two cents: Require cross-training so that each department can understand the terms and concepts important to the other.  And, don’t forget the records management folks!

8. Preserve or Perish: Assign the litigation hold protocol to one key person, either a lawyer or a C-level executive to decide when a litigation hold must be issued.  Ensure an adequate process and memorialize steps taken – and not taken.  My two cents: Memorialize is underlined because an organization that has a defined process and the documentation to back it up is much more likely to be given leeway in the courts than a company that doesn’t document its decisions.

7. Build the Three-Legged Stool: A successful eDiscovery approach involves knowledgeable people, great technology, and up-to-date written protocols.  My two cents: Up-to-date written protocols are the first thing to slide when people get busy – don’t let it happen.

6. Preserve, Protect, Defend: Your techs need the knowledge to avoid altering metadata, maintain chain-of-custody information and limit access to a working copy for processing and review.  My two cents: A good review platform will assist greatly in all three areas.

5. Natives Need Not Make You Restless: Consider exchanging files to be produced in their original/”native” formats to avoid huge out-of-pocket costs of converting thousands of files to image format.  My two cents: Be sure to address how redactions will be handled as some parties prefer to image those while others prefer to agree to alter the natives to obscure that information.

4. Get M.A.D.?  Then Get Even: Apply the Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) principle to agree with the other side to take off the table costly volumes of data, such as digital voicemails and back-up data created down the road.  My two cents: That’s assuming, of course, you have the same levels of data.  If one party has a lot more data than the other party, there may be no incentive for that party to agree to concessions.

3. Cooperate to Cull Aggressively and to Preserve Clawback Rights: Setting expectations regarding culling efforts and reaching a clawback agreement with opposing counsel enables each side to cull more aggressively to reduce eDiscovery costs.  My two cents: Some parties will agree on search terms up front while others will feel that gives away case strategy, so the level of cooperation may vary from case to case.

2. QA/QC: Employ Quality Assurance (QA) tests throughout review to ensure a high accuracy rate, then perform Quality Control (QC) testing before the data goes out the door, building time in the schedule for that QC testing.  Also, consider involving a search-methodology expert.  My two cents: I cannot stress that last point enough – the ability to illustrate how you got from the large collection set to the smaller production set will be imperative to responding to any objections you may encounter to the produced set.

1. Never Drop Your Laptop Bag and Run: Dig in, learn as much as you can and start building repeatable, efficient approaches.  My two cents: It’s the duty of your attorneys and providers to demonstrate competency in eDiscovery best practices.  How will you know whether they have or not unless you develop that competency yourself?

So, what do you think?  Are there other ways for CEOs to avoid eDiscovery nightmares?   Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: eDiscovery Malpractice Case Highlights Expectation of Higher Standards
 

Normally, eDiscovery Daily reports on cases related to eDiscovery issues after the decision has been rendered.  In this case, the mere filing of the lawsuit is significant.

Friday, we noted that competency ethics was no longer just about the law and that competency in eDiscovery best practices is expected from the attorneys and any outside providers they retain.  An interesting article from Robert Hilson at the Association of Certified eDiscovery Professionals® (ACEDS™) discusses what may be the first eDiscovery malpractice case ever filed against a law firm (McDermott Will & Emery) for allegedly failing to supervise contract attorneys that were hired to perform the client’s work and to protect privileged client records.  A copy of the article is located here.

J-M Manufacturing Co., Inc., a major manufacturer of PVC piping, had hired McDermott to defend against civil False Claims Act charges concerning the quality and sale of its products to federal and state governments. After the case was filed in January 2006, it remained under seal for nearly three years.  According to the complaint, during that time, a large-scale document review ensued (160 custodians) and McDermott hired Stratify, an outside vendor, to cull through the ESI.

J-M retained Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton to replace McDermott in March 2010.  Why?  According to the complaint, McDermott worked directly with the Assistant US Attorney to develop a keyword list for identifying responsive ESI, but, despite this effort, the first production set was returned by the government after they found many privileged documents. The complaint indicates that McDermott and its contract lawyers then produced a second data set again with a large number of privileged documents even though it was filtered through a second keyword list.

J-M contends in the complaint that McDermott's attorneys “performed limited spot-checking of the contract attorneys' work, [and] did not thoroughly review the categorizations or conduct any further privilege review.”  After Sheppard replaced McDermott on the case, they asked for the privileged documents to be returned, but the “relator” refused, saying that McDermott had already done two privilege reviews before giving those documents to the government and, therefore, J-M had waived the attorney-client privilege. In the complaint, J-M contends that 3,900 privileged documents were erroneously produced by McDermott as part of 250,000 J-M electronic records that were reviewed.  It is unclear from the complaint whether McDermott provided the contract reviewers themselves or used an outside provider.  It will be interesting to see how this case proceeds.

So, what do you think?  Have you experienced inadvertent disclosures of privilege documents in a case?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.