The Court struck Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment because it violated Business Court Rule 15.2, which requires that "[]ll motions, unless made orally during a hearing or trial, . . . be in paper writing or electronic form and . . . be accompanied by a brief . . . set out in a separate
Discovery
Allen v. Land Resource Group, February 18, 2009 (Tennille)(unpublished)
The Court entered a stay of discovery pending its resolution of a Motion to Dismiss.
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. v. Sellars, December 31, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
Business Court Rule 15.12, which is titled "Determination Of Discovery Motions Through Oral Argument Without Briefs" states that "with the consent of both parties and as allowed by the Court, the parties may present motions and the Court may resolve disputes regarding discovery matters through the use of an expedited oral argument procedure. Such motions…
Wallace & Graham, P.A. v. Jackson, December 16, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
In this case, the Court rejected the unopposed motion of the plaintiff to place the entire contents of a case which had been settled under seal.
The Court’s rationale ran like this:
- It is inconsistent with the North Carolina Public Records Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 132-1 to 132-10 (2007), to put everything in a
…
Garrett v. Parton, December 15, 2008 (Jolly)(unpublished)
The Court allowed a stay of discovery while it considered the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, stating that "a brief stay of discovery initiatives has the laudable potential of minmizing fees, expenses and the various costs of litigation for the parties in this matter. Such a stay is in the best interests of justice."
Ehrenhaus v. Baker, 2008 NCBC 19 (N.C. Super. Ct. November 3, 2008)(Diaz)
The Court denied a Motion for Expedited Discovery in a shareholder class action seeking injunctive relief against the merger of two national banks, finding that the facts necessary to decide the motion were already publicly known.
The Court considered several different tests for when expedited discovery should be allowed, including:
Crown Crafts, Inc. v. Aldrich
…
Armacell LLC v. Bostic, October 29, 2008 (unpublished)(Tennille)
Judge Tennille drew an adverse inference as a result of the Defendant’s claiming of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination and entered a Preliminary Injunction, holding:
In a civil case, adverse inferences may be drawn against a party who asserts the Fifth Amendment and remains silent. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308
…
North Carolina May Require Licensing For Computer Forensic Consultants, But Do We Need It?
In cases in the Business Court, the lawyers are often assisted by computer forensics experts in dealing with electronic discovery issues. That’s becoming almost essential in complicated business cases.
Anyone can do this type of work right now. I get regular phone calls and emails from people pitching this type of work. But there is regulation in the…
New Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Deals With Attorney-Client Privilege, Waiver, And Inadvertent Production
There’s going to be a new Federal Rule of Evidence, approved by voice vote in the House this week and unanimously by the Senate earlier this year. It’s on President Bush’s desk for signature (that’s him signing the baseball in the picture at the left), and should be on the books in the next few weeks.
The new addition to the Rules is Rule 502, titled "Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product: Limitations on Waiver." New Rule 502 covers the scope of a waiver of privilege and the issue of inadvertent production of privileged documents, among other waiver related issues.
The full text of the Rule is at the bottom, but here’s a synopsis:
- If a waiver of privilege is found, the waiver extends to undisclosed communications or information only if (1) the waiver is intentional, (2) the other communications involve the same subject matter, and (3) the communications "ought in fairness to be considered together." Rule 502(a).
- If the disclosure is inadvertent, it does not operate as a waiver in either federal or state court if (1) the disclosure was inadvertent, (2) the holder of the privilege took "reasonable steps to prevent disclosure," and (3) the holder "promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error." Rule 502(b)
- If the disclosure was made in a state court proceeding, it doesn’t operate as a waiver in a federal proceeding if either the disclosure wouldn’t have been a waiver under the federal rule, or it wouldn’t be a waiver under state law. Rule 502(c).
- If the Court enters an Order (like a consent Protective Order) that a disclosure will not be a waiver, that Order will bar any determination by another federal court or a state court that a waiver has occurred. In other words, such a judicially approved non-waiver provision will have effect beyond the pending litigation, which isn’t the case now. Since parties can provide by such an agreement that, for example, there will be no waiver irrespective of the care taken by the disclosing party, no-waiver provisions will no doubt become stock provisions in Protective Orders. An agreement between the parties on waiver issues won’t be effective unless it becomes part of a Court Order. Rule 502(d) and (e).
The new Rule resolves conflict between courts throughout the country on whether an inadvertent production results in waiver. North Carolina’s District Courts had reached different conclusions on that issue. Scott v. Glickman, 199 F.R.D. 174 (E.D.N.C. 2001) and Parkway Gallery v. Kittinger/Pennsylvania H. Group, 116 F.R.D. 46 (M.D.N.C.1987) followed the flexible approach espoused by the new Rule, but the Western District had held that even an inadvertent production waived privilege, in Thomas v. Pansy Ellen Products, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 237 (W.D.N.C. 1987).
The Rule takes effect immediately upon the President’s signature. It applies to all cases filed after its enactment, and applies to pending cases "insofar as is just and practicable."
I read about Congress’ passage of the Rule on the Electronic Discovery Law blog. The full text of the Rule is below, the explanatory note is here.Continue Reading New Federal Rule of Evidence 502 Deals With Attorney-Client Privilege, Waiver, And Inadvertent Production
Rules Are Rules, Make Sure To Comply With Those Of The Business Court
In North Carolina Superior Court, there is no civil procedure tradition more respected than the courtesy of a thirty day extension of time to answer a Complaint or to respond to discovery. Like it or not, motions seeking the extra month are granted almost without exception, and are so routine that the requesting party usually doesn’t even bother…