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

A categorial privilege log was not appropriate for a small number of documents according to Glaxo Grp. Ltd. v. Transpire Bio Inc., 2026 WL 30333478 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2026). The court wrote:

Although a “categorical” privilege log can sometimes be appropriate, there is no indication that it would be in this case because only forty-six documents or communications are at issue. Cf. TIC Park, 2017 WL 9988744, at *4 (“There is little doubt that a categorical privilege log is inappropriate in this case because this action involves less than 500 documents at issue.”).

Id. at n. 6.

The court wrote that: “The standard for testing the adequacy of the privilege log is whether, as to each document, it sets forth specific facts that, if credited, would suffice to establish each element of the privilege or immunity that is claimed.” Id. at *7 (emphasis in original).

The court required that the log contain the following information: “(1) the name and job title or capacity of the author of the document; (2) the name and job title or capacity of each recipient of the document; (3) the date the document was prepared and if different, the date(s) on which it was sent to or shared with persons other than the author(s); (4) the title and description of the document; (5) the subject matter addressed in the document; (6) the purpose(s) for which it was prepared or communicated; and (7) the specific basis for the claim that it is privileged.” Id. at *8.

The decision emphasized that the focus is on the specific description “and not on the conclusory invocations of the privilege or work-product rule, since the burden of the party withholding documents cannot be discharged by mere conclusory or ipse dixit assertions.” Id. (cleaned up).

If a log is deficient: “Absent extraordinary circumstances or dilatory conduct, courts normally give parties an opportunity to correct a deficient privilege log before determining that a privilege has been waived.” Id.

Applying these principles, the court held that the privilege log, even with supporting declarations, was insufficient and it ordered preparation of an amended log. “Looking at the declarations, they do not cure the defects in the privilege log. Although Transpire’s submitted declarations provide context regarding the overall nature of the communications and somewhat describe the position or role of each person copied, they do not add to the subject matter of each communication. The Court is thus left with two conclusory descriptions that Transpire uses for the bulk of the forty-six documents or communications in dispute.” Id.

Further, the court denied a request for in camera review: “Although Transpire and GSK both seek in camera review as alternative relief, the Court will not review the communications in camera at this time. Instead, the Court will require an amended privilege log. This way, GSK (and the Court if in camera review is ultimately necessary) will be in a better position to determine whether Transpire has carried its burden for each at-issue communication or document.” Id. at n. 7.

For more on privilege logs, please visit:

• Privilege Logs: New Techniques to Achieve Proportionality – The “Certification Log” – E-Discovery LLC
• Categorical Privilege Logs: Don’t Shoot a Mouse with an Elephant Gun – E-Discovery LLC
• Categorical Privilege Logs Are Not Disfavored – E-Discovery LLC
• A Request to Serve a Categorical Privilege Log for 8,000 Documents Was Denied – E-Discovery LLC
• When is a Categorical Privilege Log Insufficient? – E-Discovery LLC
• Categorical Privilege Log Presented Interpretive Issues – E-Discovery LLC
• How to Create a “Metadata” or “Metadata Plus” Log Using a Litigation Review Platform – E-Discovery LLC
• Agreement in ESI Protocol to Provide a “Metadata-Only” Privilege Log Was Enforced – E-Discovery LLC
• What Substantive Law Governs Sufficiency of a Privilege Log in a Federal Court Sitting in Diversity? – E-Discovery LLC
• Interesting Privilege Log Rulings – E-Discovery LLC
• Imprudent for Senior Attorney to Not at Least “Spot Check” Privilege Log? – E-Discovery LLC
• Plaintiffs’ Failure to Timely Raise Lack of Defendant’s Privilege Log Defeats Waiver Claim – E-Discovery LLC
• Inadequate Privilege Log Fails to Meet Burden of Proof; Waiver Doctrine Does Not Apply – E-Discovery LLC
• A Privilege Log Can Be Admissible Evidence – E-Discovery LLC
• Listing a Document on a Privilege Log Concedes That it is Relevant for Discovery – E-Discovery LLC
• Privilege Log Helps Defeat Summary Judgment on One Count – E-Discovery LLC
• Is Marking Documents as “Work Product” an Admission that the Duty to Preserve is Triggered? – E-Discovery LLC
• Sanctions for Loss of ESI Imposed Under Court’s Inherent Power After Privilege Log is Used to Determine the Date that the Duty to Preserve Was Triggered – E-Discovery LLC
• Privilege Log Decision in Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios/Justin Baldoni, et al. – E-Discovery LLC
• Challenges to Redacted Metadata Privilege Log – E-Discovery LLC
• Court Issues Stern Warning About Privilege Logs – E-Discovery LLC
• Privilege Log Deemed Partially Inadequate – E-Discovery LLC
• No Privilege Log is Necessary in Limited Circumstances When Discovery Requests Are Overbroad – E-Discovery LLC
• Where Requests for Discovery were Overly Broad, No Privilege Log was Required – E-Discovery LLC
• No Privilege Log Is Needed While Scope of Discovery Objections Are Pending – E-Discovery LLC
• Court Holds Privilege Was Waived by Failure to Timely Provide a Privilege Log – E-Discovery LLC
• Privilege Logs, Null Sets, Search Strings, and Number of Custodians in One Decision – E-Discovery LLC
• Privilege Log Entry That Document is “A-C Privileged and/or Work Product” Held Insufficient – E-Discovery LLC
• Fiskars II: Vague Challenge to Privilege Log Entries Deemed Defective – E-Discovery LLC
• Do You Have to Ask an Opponent for a Privilege Log? – E-Discovery LLC
• When is Failure to Provide a Timely Privilege Log Excusable? – E-Discovery LLC
• Documents Withheld Under Deliberative Privilege – No Privilege Log Needed? – E-Discovery LLC
• How Much Detail is Enough in a Privilege Log? – E-Discovery LLC
• December 2025 Privilege Protection Amendments to Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 and 26 – E-Discovery LLC
• Blanket Privilege Assertion Rejected Where Attorney Wore Two Hats – E-Discovery LLC
• Untimely Privilege Objections Waived; However, Dissolved Entity Had No Privilege – E-Discovery LLC

For more on in camera review, please visit:

• The Standard for In Camera Review – E-Discovery LLC
• The Standard for In Camera Review of Assertedly Privileged Documents – E-Discovery LLC
• Order Granting In Camera Review of Work Product Claim – E-Discovery LLC

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies per EDRM’s GAI and LLM Policy.