(holding a plaintiff must prepare at least a general log describing from documents obtained from similarly situated plaintiff's lawyers; "In their motion for protective order, Plaintiffs first object to what they characterize as the overly broad nature of Request 14, which seeks the following information: 'Any document You obtained from, or to which You have access through, any litigation clearinghouse, or any other association, organization group or individual, including without limitation any one operated by the American Trial Lawyers Associations or the Attorney's Information Exchange Group, that concerns, involves or in any way related to Newell; the Product; the Cylinder; the Torch; any product or exemplar designed, tested, created, manufactured, assembled, sold, or distributed by Newell; or any product or exemplar that you contend is the same or similar model as the Product, Cylinder, or Torch.'"; "With respect to Plaintiffs' initial objection that Request 14 is overly broad, the hyperbolic language they employ in support of that objection does not meet the good-cause threshold. According to Plaintiffs, 'Request 14 covers every document created in the history of mankind.'. . . They double down on that argument in their reply, where they assert that 'there is not a document on Earth which is not covered by Request 14.'. . . It is hard to take such assertions seriously. Surely, newly minted Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan's songbook would not be responsive to Request 14, nor would, say, a tourist's map of Chicago or a recipe for chocolate chip cookies. It may be that Plaintiffs have legitimately objected to Request 14 as being overly broad, but it is unreasonable to suggest that a request clearly aimed at documents concerning Newell and certain specific products can be read to encompass the totality of humanity's written record."; "Recognizing that the rule targets documents that are prepared by a party or its attorneys, Plaintiffs point to a number of out-of-circuit cases to support their argument that documents prepared by third parties and that otherwise would not be protected become work product when selected and compiled by an attorney. But in cases like Omaha Public Power and James Julian, the parties seeking discovery went after subsets of documents that had already been produced, consisting of documents segregated from the production by their attorneys to prepare a witness for deposition. See Omaha Pub. Power Dist. v. Foster Wheeler Corp., 109 F.R.D. 615, 616 (D. Neb. 1986); James Julian, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 93 F.R.D. 138, 144 (D. Del. 1982). In both of those cases, the court considered the subsets of previously disclosed documents to be work product because the purpose of the request was to scrutinize the attorneys' document-selection process for preparing witnesses for depositions."; "The reason this court is unable to fully evaluate the work product objection is because Plaintiffs seek to be absolved of the obligation to produce a privilege log, arguing that even broadly characterizing the responsive documents will reveal their attorneys' strategies. . . . As an initial matter, they reiterate their hyperbolic over-breadth objection, arguing that were they required to submit a privilege log it would consist of one word that says, 'Everything.'. . . That argument actually undercuts their privilege assertion, because certainly they can't mean that every document in the history of mankind is subject to the work product privilege simply because it might pass through their attorneys' hands."; "In arguing that a privilege log necessarily would disclose protected information, Plaintiffs overlook the mandatory language in Rule 26(b)(5), and point to several out-of-circuit cases that are factually distinct from the current situation. For example, in Schwarzkopf Technologies Corporation v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Company, 142 F.R.D. 420, 422-23 (D. Del. 1992), the party responding to discovery produced a privilege log listing 'collections' of documents but not identifying the documents individually. The court declined to compel the plaintiff to provide a more detailed log, in order to protect the plaintiff's attorney's understanding of the case. Id. None of the cases Plaintiffs cite entirely absolve a party of submitting a privilege log. Here, even if the documents Plaintiffs withhold based on the work product doctrine are compilations, Plaintiffs have not shown that there is good cause to justify absolving them of the Rule 26(b)(5) requirement. Accordingly, they must produce a privilege log giving at least a general description of the withheld materials. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5).")
| Case Date |
Jurisdiction |
State |
Cite Checked |
| 2016-10-26 |
Federal |
IL |
|