8 Lessons Learned – Part IV – Disclosure of Recipients of Litigation Hold Notices

8 Lessons Learned – Part IV – Disclosure of Recipients of Litigation Hold Notices by Michael Berman, E-Discovery LLC.
Image: Kaylee Walstad, EDRM.

[EDRM Editor’s Note: The opinions and positions are those of Michael Berman.]


This is the fourth and final follow up to 4 Things You Never Wanted to Hear + 8 Lessons & a Dispute Over Revealing Recipients of Litigation Hold Notices, All in One Case (May 4, 2024), discussing In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, 2024 WL 1808607 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2024).

The Social Media Addiction court resolved a dispute over disclosure of the names and job titles of litigation hold notice recipients and the date the notice was received. The court explained:

The … Plaintiffs argue that they need this information in some disclosed form in order to be able to compile a complete and accurate list of Defendants’ document custodians…. Defendants argue that information regarding their litigation holds is work product protected from discovery and improper “discovery on discovery.”

In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, 2024 WL 1808607, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2024).

The Social Media Addiction court held that the basic identifying information was not privileged.  It rejected defendants’ argument that this discovery was only permitted when document preservation issues are in dispute. The court wrote:

If, as Defendants concede, litigation hold recipients’ basic identifying information is not privileged in the context of a preservation dispute, then there is no legal basis for holding such information privileged in the context of other disputes.  Either a document is work product protected from discovery, or it is not….

This basic information is exactly the same information which would appear on a privilege log for withheld work product, if the Court were to require the Parties to provide privilege logs of documents which post-date the Complaint in this matter….

Further the list of persons who received litigation holds is not, itself, work product because disclosing that list does not disclose any of the analyses, bases, or criteria used by counsel to create that list. Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) requires counsel to provide a list of individuals likely to have discoverable information that the party may use to support its claims and defenses, and that list is not considered work product even though it directly implicates the party’s claims and defenses.

In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, 2024 WL 1808607 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2024).

Importantly, the Social Media Addiction request at issue did not include disclosure of the contents of a litigation hold notice sent from an attorney to the attorney’s client.  There, a prima facie preservation or spoliation dispute should be a necessary predicate to require production and disclosure of some attorney-client communications implementing a litigation hold.

Further the list of persons who received litigation holds is not, itself, work product because disclosing that list does not disclose any of the analyses, bases, or criteria used by counsel to create that list.

In Re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation, 2024 WL 1808607 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2024).

For a discussion of when some attorney-client implementation communications become discoverable, see The Honorable Paul W. Grimm, Michael D. Berman, et al., “Discovery About Discovery: Does the Attorney-Client Privilege Protect All Attorney-Client Communications Relating to the Preservation of Potentially Relevant Information?,” 37 U. Balt. L. Rev. 413, 455 (2008)(“Certain facts–such as what steps a litigant took, or failed to take, to preserve material–should be deemed routinely discoverable. Other facts, such as the contents of a litigation hold letter, and attorney-client implementation discussions, should require a greater showing to support disclosure.”); Am. Soc’y for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey Circus, 2008 WL 11388433, at *2 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2008)(citing law review article); Spoliation—Litigation Holds—Discoverability of Hold Notices, 32 No. 5 Fed. Litigator NL 11(May 2017)(citing law review article); Are Litigation Hold Notices Discoverable? (Mar. 5, 2022); When is a Litigation Hold Notice Discoverable? — When a Litigation Hold is Defective (Aug. 9, 2021); When is a Litigation Hold Notice Discoverable? (Dec. 1, 2020); and, Discovery on Discovery (Apr. 29, 2022).

Author

  • Miichael Berman's headshot

    Mike is the owner of E-Discovery, LLC, and of counsel at Rifkin Weiner Livingston LLC, in Baltimore. He concentrates on commercial litigation and offers mediation services. He was the primary editor of Electronically Stored Information in Maryland Courts (Md. State Bar Ass’n. 2020), and he co-edited M. Berman, C. Barton, and P. Grimm, eds., Managing E-Discovery and ESI: From Pre-Litigation Through Trial (ABA 2011), and J. Baron, R. Losey, and M. Berman, eds., Perspectives on Predictive Coding (ABA 2016). Mike has litigated a number of cases in the trial and appellate courts in Maryland. He is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law where he co-teaches a three-credit discovery workshop that focuses on e-discovery. He has lectured at the Maryland Judicial College and he chaired the Bar committee that drafted the proposed ESI Principles for the District of Maryland. He is a past: co-chair of the Federal District Court Committee of the Maryland State and Federal Bar Associations; chair of the Litigation Section Council, Maryland State Bar Association; and, co-chair of the American Bar Association Litigation Section Book Publishing Board. He graduated from the University of Maryland School of Law and is also an Army veteran. He is admitted to the Maryland bar. The opinions expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of Rifkin Weiner Livingston LLC.

    View all posts