Last week’s Privilege Point described a court’s privilege log requirements, including such oddly specific items as the date a document was prepared (not just when it was sent), and who prepared the document (why would that matter?). Wallace v. Rocking Horse Child’s Health Ctr., Case No. 3:24-cv-00304, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139418 (S.D. Ohio June 23, 2026).
Six days later, another court described the parties’ agreed-upon protocol for handling electronically stored information in a class action against a power company named like something from “The Simpsons,” Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00220, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146346 (W.D. Wash. June 29, 2026). Not surprisingly, the order confirmed that the parties were not required to log “privileged or work-product information generated after the filing of the complaint.” Id. at *11. Presumably this provision applied to documents, as generalized “information” is not logged.
Most litigants would understandably assume that neither side would have to log post-filing documents, although occasionally court orders confirm that common sense approach. Such a requirement could spawn a doom loop of endless logging requirements – including all the draft revised logs themselves.