![california law regarding redacted email california law regarding redacted email](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/--E_MXz1z7h8/W4Xwb5SIcBI/AAAAAAAA6DE/ML7fOUt3478RKMy8m15LqryZBfHmav4awCLcBGAs/s1600/Redacted%2Bfrom%2BCooper%2527s%2Boffice.png)
- #CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING REDACTED EMAIL HOW TO#
- #CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING REDACTED EMAIL UPDATE#
- #CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING REDACTED EMAIL PROFESSIONAL#
On the other hand, in Rhoads Industries, Inc. Instead, the court stated, “Rule 26(b)(5)(A) requires only that a party provide sufficient information for an opposing party to evaluate the applicability of privilege, ‘without revealing information itself privileged.’”
![california law regarding redacted email california law regarding redacted email](https://static.politico.com/dims4/default/0cd8e5f/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=https:%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fa3%2F9d%2Fe2b641fc4085bb3474c94b8f5dcf%2F190425-mueller-report-ap-773.jpg)
#CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING REDACTED EMAIL PROFESSIONAL#
In Muro, the court ruled that FRCP Rule 26(b)(5)(A) does not require itemizing each embedded e-mail on the privilege log, and that creating such a detailed list may actually breach the rules of professional conduct. 2007) supports just one privilege log entry per embedding e-mail. Most courts refer to these embedding e-mails as a “strand,” “chain,” “thread,” or “string.” The use of these terms is unfortunate because many people understand a strand, chain, thread, or string to be all of the replies that can be linked to an originating e-mail, not just to the content of one of the replies. In the multiple-entry approach, a separate entry for each privileged earlier embedded e-mail is listed on the privilege log, as though each e-mail is a distinct document. In the single-entry approach, only one entry is made for an embedding e-mail on the privilege log, even if there are multiple privileged earlier embedded e-mails within the embedding e-mail.
![california law regarding redacted email california law regarding redacted email](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/cae3dc_809e7557c71a45dd84d1392a84726ad5~mv2.png)
When it comes to identifying embedding e-mail on a privilege log, you have two options: single-entry or multiple-entry listing. Following are our recommendations, based both on legal precedent and the technical limitations associated with handling e-mail during e-Discovery.Ĭapturing Embedding E-mails on a Privilege Log With little guidance available, litigation professionals are left to make the best decisions they can when producing a privilege log that includes embedding e-mails.
#CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING REDACTED EMAIL HOW TO#
Only a few courts have addressed how to capture embedding e-mails on privilege logs, and the few that have spoken have been inconsistent, and have unfortunately chosen terminology that adds to the confusion. To aid our analysis let us call the e-mail that includes the text of an earlier e-mail the “embedding e-mail” and let’s refer to the earlier e-mail as the “embedded e-mail.” Can the privilege log have only one entry containing data pertaining to only the most recent sender and recipients of the embedding e-mail or does there need to be an entry for not only the embedding e-mail but also an entry for each of the earlier embedded e-mails? The answer may require that much more time and expense be spent preparing privilege logs. Rulings from Federal District Courts raise the issue of how to list a privileged e-mail on a privilege log when that e-mail is a reply or a forward of an earlier e-mail and the text of an earlier e-mail is included in the latest e-mail. Unfortunately for attorneys and litigation support professionals, case law has not kept pace with this change.
#CALIFORNIA LAW REGARDING REDACTED EMAIL UPDATE#
This article first appeared in ALSP Update – May 2009ĭuring the past fifteen years, e-mail has transformed how we work, emerging from relative obscurity to become the way most of us communicate on the job. By Sue Seeley, Manager for Legal Services,