Some Courts Require Privilege Logs to Include Goofy Data

November 11, 2020

Although the Federal Rules do not explicitly require privilege logs, every court seems to do so. Most courts require such logs to include predictable data, but some courts require logs to provide data that seem largely irrelevant.

In Hardman v. Unified Government, Case No. 19-2251-KHV-TJJ, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143857, at *9 (D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2020), the court explained that “[c]ourts in this district have determined privilege logs must include [among the standard data] (7) the number of pages of the document.” One cannot but wonder why that matters. Requiring document lengths seems harmless, but other courts’ requirements could be almost impossible to satisfy. Among other things, some courts require privilege logs to identify all persons who had access to the withheld documents.

Lawyers obviously must check with the pertinent court’s log requirements, in addition to that court’s possibly unique approach to privilege and work product issues.