Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

HUNT v. NORTHWEST SUBURBAN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

September 2, 2005.

KATHY HUNT and STEVEN HUNT, Plaintiffs,
v.
NORTHWEST SUBURBAN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, a Delaware corporation, FOREST HEALTH SERVICES CORP., a Delaware corporation, BARIATRIC TREATMENT CENTERS OF ILLINOIS, d/b/a BARIATRIC SPECIALISTS OF ILLINOIS, S.C., an Illinois corporation, BRIAN BOE, M.D., and KENT HESS, M.D. Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: P. MICHAEL MAHONEY, Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Defendant Hess's August 17, 2005 Motion for a Protective Order. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motion is granted.

I. History

  According to Defendant, on August 12, 2005 at approximately 12:00 noon, a draft letter was mistakenly sent by facsimile to Plaintiffs' counsel. At approximately 12:16 p.m., Plaintiffs' counsel allegedly left defense counsel a phone message stating in part: "You sent me a letter. It must have been an error — to [the principal] and to Dr. Kent Hess." At approximately 2:00 p.m., defense counsel faxed Plaintiffs' counsel again, stating that an inadvertent error had resulted in a mix up of fax letters. Plaintiffs' counsel was requested to return the original mistakenly sent letter and to destroy copies of the same. On August 15, 2005, Plaintiffs' counsel informed defense counsel that she would not be able to comply with Defendant's request because she had already sent the material to her experts. On August 17, 2005, Defendant Hess filed this Motion for a Protective Order

  The facsimile at issue is a single page of a draft letter. The letter is addressed to Defendant Hess and defense counsel's principal, Ms. Temple. The letter is marked in capital, bold, underlined letters at the top of the page: "CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION." The letter discusses expert disclosures.

  Defendant Hess maintains that the letter was and is protected by attorney-client privilege, and urges the court to order Plaintiffs' counsel to return the original disclosed document and to destroy any copies made. Defendant also seeks a protective order limiting the use of the document by Plaintiffs' counsel.

  Plaintiffs do not dispute the facts as laid out by Defendant, but do state that defense counsel has failed to show how the document could "in any way harass, injure, annoy or in other ways harm the Defendant." (Pl.s' Resp., at para. 6). Plaintiffs also state all the information contained in the letter has been otherwise disclosed in discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiffs request that Defendant's Motion be denied and that they be allowed to utilize the letter in any manner deemed fit.

  II. Analysis

  The court follows a three-part analysis to review claims that inadvertently produced documents should be protected by attorney client privilege. See, e.g., Harmony Gold U.S.A., Inc. v. FASA Corp., 169 F.R.D. 113, 115 (N.D. Ill. 1996). First, the court must determine as a threshold matter if the documents are indeed privileged. Id. In the Seventh Circuit, a document is privileged: "(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be waived." United States v. Evan, 113 F.3d 1457, 1461 (7th Cir. 1997).

  Second, the court must determine if disclosure was inadvertent. Harmony Gold, 169 F.R.D. at 115. Inadvertence is determined by examining "the circumstances surrounding the disclosure." Id. at 116.

  Third, if disclosure was inadvertent, the court must decide whether the privilege was waived despite inadvertence. Id. at 115. The standard governing waiver in the Seventh Circuit is set forth in Dellwood Farms, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc., 128 F.3d 1122, 1127 (7th Cir. 1997). See Int'l Oil v. UNO-VEN Co., 170 F.3d 779, 784 (7th Cir. 1999). District courts applying the Dellwood standard apply a balancing test, weighing: "(1) the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent the disclosure, (2) the time taken to rectify the error, (3) the scope of the discovery, (4) the extent of the disclosure, and (5) the overriding issue of fairness." Mattenson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 2003 WL 22839808, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 26, 2003) (listing several cases applying the balancing test).

  In addition to the line of cases discussed above, American Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 92-3368 squarely establishes that:

  A lawyer who receives materials that on their face appear to be subject to the attorney-client privilege or otherwise confidential, under circumstances where it is clear they were not intended for the receiving lawyer, should refrain from examining the materials, notify the sending lawyer and abide the instructions of the lawyer who sent them. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.