Case of the week legal technology

Navigating the Complexities of FRE 502(d) and the Duty to Preserve in eDiscovery

Share this article

In a recent exploration of the complexities surrounding the FRE 502(d) order and the intricacies of privilege in eDiscovery, we delve into the critical case of Lubrizol Corp. v. IBM Corp. This case shines a light on the nuanced debate over the intentional disclosure of privileged materials and the pivotal moments that determine when the duty to preserve arises, potentially waiving privilege related to the planning and implementation of preservation and issuing legal holds.

The Crux of Lubrizol Corp. v. IBM Corp.

At the heart of this case is a breach of contract action, with Lubrizol accusing IBM of fraud and various torts in the development of an enterprise resource planning software project. The case took a turn when Lubrizol amended its complaint to include allegations of spoliation by IBM, specifically regarding the deletion of electronically stored information from both current and former IBM employees who were integral to the project.

This situation brings to the forefront the question of when the duty to preserve arises—a question that significantly impacts the potential waiver of privilege. IBM’s stance was that its preservation duties were triggered by the filing of the complaint, a position challenged by Lubrizol based on a series of events indicating that litigation was anticipated well before the complaint was filed.

Analyzing FRE 502(d) and Its Implications

IBM sought a court order under FRE 502(d), aiming to disclose certain documents without waiving attorney-client privilege or work product protection. This move sparked a debate on whether a 502(d) order can apply to intentional disclosures of privileged information. The Court’s analysis, referencing various judicial precedents and the Sedona Conference’s stance, underscored the ambiguity surrounding this issue.

Ultimately, the Court determined that it lacked the authority to grant such an order for intentional disclosures, emphasizing the need for careful consideration in the application of FRE 502(d) orders. This decision not only impacts IBM’s strategy but also sets a precedent for how privilege and disclosure are approached in future cases.

Key Takeaways

  1. Scope of FRE 502(d): This case underscores that the scope of FRE 502(d) is primarily geared towards inadvertent disclosures, challenging the notion that it could be used as a blanket protection for intentional disclosures of privileged information.
  2. Strategic Considerations for Duty to Preserve: Lubrizol’s approach to challenging IBM’s timeline for the duty to preserve offers a blueprint for leveraging discovery to uncover when an opposing party recognized the potential for litigation. This strategic angle could be pivotal in cases where spoliation is at issue.
  3. Privilege Waiver Risks: The Court’s ruling on privilege waiver serves as a cautionary tale for entities navigating the complexities of document preservation in anticipation of litigation. It highlights the importance of a clear and well-documented understanding of when the duty to preserve is triggered.
  4. Implications for Future Litigation: The Lubrizol case is a critical reference point for legal practitioners, emphasizing the need for meticulous planning and documentation in the preservation of ESI. It illustrates the potential legal pitfalls that can arise when the anticipation of litigation and preservation obligations are not carefully managed.

Conclusion: Navigating the Intersection of Privilege and Preservation

The Lubrizol Corp. v. IBM Corp. case is a testament to the evolving challenges at the intersection of legal privilege, document preservation, and eDiscovery. It underscores the necessity for legal professionals to stay abreast of judicial interpretations and to strategize effectively in the face of complex legal requirements. As we move forward, this case will undoubtedly serve as a crucial benchmark for addressing similar dilemmas in the realm of eDiscovery and legal preservation efforts.

Listen to the full case discussion on Episode 136 of #CaseoftheWeek: Lubrizol Corp. v. IBM Corp.

Kelly Twigger on EmailKelly Twigger on Linkedin
Kelly Twigger
Kelly Twigger is a practicing attorney, software developer, consultant, writer, and speaker on issues in electronic discovery, the development and implementation of legal technology, and how to effectively use data in planning for and during litigation.

She is a co-author of Electronic Discovery and Records and Information Management, and host of Case of the Week at eDiscovery Assistant. As Principal at ESI Attorneys, Kelly manages the boutique eDiscovery and information law firm that acts as operational business partners with its clients to advise law firms, corporations, and municipalities on all areas of electronic information including eDiscovery, privacy, cybersecurity, and information governance.

Kelly is also the CEO of eDiscovery Assistant — a SaaS-based practical resource for litigators handling eDiscovery — that curates discovery decisions, rules, and additional content. She is developing an online academy to provide on-demand education for lawyers and legal support professionals to stay abreast of changes in the law and technology that affect litigation and clients’ obligations to respond.

You can reach Kelly at [email protected], join her Facebook community group at Let’s Talk eDiscovery, or connect with her on Twitter @kellytwigger.

Share this article