• Technologies
    • Review Platforms
    • ILS Social Media Data Analysis Suite
  • Consulting & Services
    • Consulting
    • Forensics & Collections
    • Review Platform Hosting & Management
    • Managed Review
    • Our Experts
  • AI Resources
  • ILS Articles
  • Company
    • About Us
    • Careers
    • Support
    • Contact Us
  • ILS
  • Sales
  • Support
  • Technologies
    • Review Platforms
    • ILS Social Media Data Analysis Suite
  • Consulting & Services
    • Consulting
    • Forensics & Collections
    • Review Platform Hosting & Management
    • Managed Review
    • Our Experts
  • AI Resources
  • ILS Articles
  • Company
    • About Us
    • Careers
    • Support
    • Contact Us

November 21, 2016

Plaintiff Ordered to Produce Metadata for Privilege Log

by Alan Brooks

Attorney Reviewing Privilege Log In Companion Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. U.S. Bank N.A., Case No. 15-01300 (D. S.C., Nov. 3, 2016), Plaintiff entered into a fronted insurance program with two reinsurance companies, Redwood and Dallas, whereby Redwood and Dallas assumed the risk but Plaintiff received a fee in exchange for their use of its name and paper. Redwood and Dallas’ obligations to Plaintiff were secured by trusts established for Plaintiff’s benefit. Defendant became trustee as to the trusts. Over the course of a year, the trusts substantially decreased in value, and Plaintiff sued Defendant, claiming breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as violations of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practice Act.

During discovery, Plaintiff submitted a privilege log of redacted and withheld documents, and Defendant filed a Motion to Compel, alleging that Plaintiff was “abusing the attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine” by withholding nearly 10,000 documents and redacting nearly 3,000 documents. Plaintiff replied that everything it submitted was as agreed, for the parties had concurred in submission of categorical privilege logs; Defendant then changed its requested relief to include, among other things, a request to compel a metadata log of each withheld document, including dates of communications, date created, document custodian, to/from/cc information, and subject lines for emails. Plaintiff agreed to produce a metadata log, but Defendant qualified that it wanted the court to review certain communications to determine that they’d been properly withheld.

The court found that it has discretion to limit a party’s burden in preparing a privilege log, and that categorical logging is often permitted when document-by-document logging would be unduly burdensome or when more detail would not be of any “material benefit” to the other party in assessing a claim of privilege. Defendant pointed to Plaintiff’s Category 36 as an example of the log’s deficiencies, and the court noted that the category contained 646 documents that spanned three years, naming 72 different people. The court found that the privilege log was inadequate, as it did not permit either Defendant or the court to determine whether any privilege applied. The court ordered production of a metadata log as well as affidavits in support and a list showing what “litigations” were anticipated when the work product was created.

ILS – Plaintiff ESI Discovery Experts

Categories: Document Production, eDiscovery Case Law, Metadata

Tags: metadata

ILS
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 270
Irvine, CA 92614
(888) 313-4457
sales@ilsteam.com
  • About ILS
  • Consulting
  • Forensics & Collections
  • Review Platform Hosting & Management
  • Managed Review
  • Sales
  • Support
  • LinkedIn
  • X

© 2025 ILS.

  • Privacy Statement
  • Cookie Statement
  • Terms of Use/Legal
ILS
Manage Cookie Consent
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}