Case Blurb: Ryan; Handling Privilege Claims

Maxim’s assertion that it has already produced all non-privileged documents responsive to this particular request leaves unanswered and unclear precisely which documents have not been produced based on privilege. Thus, Maxim shall provide an updated and complete privilege log (in substitution for the May 15, 2007 privilege log) identifying each document for which it claims privilege (and that has not been produced under this subject request), as well as the document’s date, author, recipients, and a brief description of the precise privilege relied upon as a basis for withholding the document. The privilege log shall be submitted to plaintiffs and to the Court. Maxim shall further provide the Court with each of the withheld documents identified in the privilege log for the Court’s in camera inspection. In order to be explicitly clear, these documents shall include any minutes or notes of meetings (whether in person or telephonically) of discussions or negotiations regarding the Jasper/Gifford terminations. The individual defendants are under the same burden to produce the requested documents concerning the termination. If documents are withheld on the grounds of privilege, the individual defendants must provide plaintiffs and the Court with a privilege log, as above described, identifying each and every document being withheld, together with copies for the Court’s in camera review.

Ryan v. Gifford, 2007 WL 4259557 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2007)

Case Blurb: Ryan; Metadata may be especially relevant in case on backdating

[M]etadata may be especially relevant in a case such as this where the integrity of dates entered facially on documents authorizing the award of stock options is at the heart of the dispute. This relevance is further illustrated by the fact that Maxim’s special committee, as well as Deloitte & Touche, undoubtedly reviewed metadata as part of their investigation into the backdating problems at Maxim. This latter fact also undermines the asserted burdensomeness of producing documents in native file format. Maxim need not produce metadata separately, but the Court does order the production of documents identified in plaintiffs’ July 3rd motion to compel in a format that will permit review of metadata, as plaintiffs have clearly shown a particularized need for the native format of electronic documents with original metadata.

Ryan v. Gifford, 2007 WL 4259557 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2007)(emphasis added)