Narrative Opinion Summary
In a dispute before the Court of Chancery of Delaware, Plaintiff Thermo Fisher Scientific PSG Corporation filed a motion for reargument regarding a prior court order related to a non-compete provision and privilege log deficiencies in its discovery process against Defendant Arranta Bio MA, LLC. The core legal issue revolved around the adequacy of the Plaintiff’s privilege log, which was claimed to be deficient due to vague descriptions and the lack of attorney identifications for many entries. The court had previously found the log inadequate, denying a blanket waiver of privilege but ordering the production of 563 unredacted documents. The Plaintiff's motion for reargument was largely denied, as it failed to meet the burden of proving privilege, although the court permitted withholding specific drafts of complaints and regulatory filings. The court emphasized the importance of clear attorney involvement in privilege claims, referencing Third Circuit precedents and underscoring the need for comprehensive privilege logs, especially in expedited litigation. The Plaintiff’s revisions and arguments failed to rectify the deficiencies, leading to a denial of the motion, except for certain specified drafts, while raising concerns about potential gamesmanship.
Legal Issues Addressed
Allowances for Draft Complaints and Regulatory Filingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court allowed the Plaintiff to withhold drafts of complaints and regulatory filings, acknowledging some documents do not require attorney identification.
Reasoning: The Court clarifies that the Order does not mandate the production of drafts of complaints and regulatory filings, thus granting Plaintiff's Motion regarding these documents.
Attorney-Client Privilege Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that documents lacking attorney identification cannot be withheld under privilege, and a privilege log must clearly indicate attorney involvement.
Reasoning: An attorney's involvement must be clearly identified in communications claimed to contain attorney-client privilege, as emphasized by precedents in the Third Circuit, particularly the Teleglobe case.
Burden of Proof in Asserting Privilegesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court reiterated that the burden lies with the party asserting privilege to adequately justify it, especially in expedited litigation.
Reasoning: The plaintiff's motion for reargument was largely denied, with the court reiterating that the burden lies with the party asserting privilege.
Sufficiency of Privilege Logssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A privilege log must provide sufficient detail to justify withholding documents, failing which the court may order production of documents.
Reasoning: The court criticized the plaintiff's log for its vague entries and excessive withholding of documents, ultimately directing its order to a smaller subset of non-lawyer communications that failed to meet the logging requirements.
Waiver of Privilege Due to Deficient Logsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: If a privilege log is inadequate, the court may consider waiving privilege claims for the entire log.
Reasoning: The Defendant's Motion to Compel presented valid reasons for potentially waiving the entire log.