New Amendment to FRCP Could Help Streamline Privilege Management in Patent Cases

by Dennis Crouch

On August 15, 2023, the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules published proposed amendments to Rules 16 and 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. One of the goals of these amendments is to encourage parties to address issues relating to claims of privilege and work product protection early in litigation. This could be particularly impactful for patent cases, which frequently involve extensive disputes over these very issues.  The proposal would also retitle Rule 16(b) to include both scheduling and case management (the current version just focuses on scheduling).

Rule 26(b)(5)(A) focuses on the the procedure for “claiming privilege” as an reason for refusing to comply with an otherwise valid discovery request or disclosure requirement.  A party generally has to:

(i) expressly make a claim of privilege; and

(ii) create a privilege log that describes the nature of the thing withheld.

The privilege log will be disclosed to the other side and it is something of an art to describe the items without putting the other side on the trail of the protected information. Note – I use privilege here as an overarching term. The rule applies to items/information protected by both privilege and work product rules.

The proposed amendment to Rule 26 requires parties to discuss and include in their discovery plan the method they will use to comply with Rule 26(b)(5)(A).  This will likely include some information about the contents of the privilege log; manner and timing of the exchange; etc.  Similarly, the change to Rule 16 make discussion of this plan an optional aspect of the Judge’s 16(b) scheduling order.

Patent cases often involve the assertion of attorney-client privilege and work product protection over large volumes of technical, financial, and legal documents. At times, litigation between competitors centers on highly confidential corporate information that parties often seek to protect as privileged.  Producing privilege logs describing all of these documents can be extremely burdensome and costly.  The amendment encourages parties to agree upfront on efficient ways to approach this task, such as through categorical designations or date ranges rather than document-by-document listings.

The proposed amendment to Rule 16 allows the court to include provisions about privilege issues in its scheduling and case management orders. With an early understanding of the volume and type of potentially privileged materials involved, the judge can build in procedures for timely resolution of any disputes. For example, the order could provide for rolling productions of privilege logs on a regular schedule.

Getting ahead of privilege disputes will be especially useful in patent cases, where objections often arise late in discovery — and key documents are often hidden behind that privilege wall. Last-minute disagreements can derail case schedules. An orderly process set forth in the case management order will allow privilege issues to be dealt with efficiently as they arise, without disrupting the rest of the litigation.  To be clear though, the new rule is quite incremental and is subject to substantial abuse by parties who seek to hide documents using weak privilege arguments.

While application will depend on the specifics of each case, these amendments represent a step in the right direction. Patent litigators should be prepared to have detailed discussions about privilege during the Rule 26(f) conference and seek early guidance from the court.

The Rule 16/26 proposals begin on page 120 of the following PDF document released by the Judicial Center: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2023_preliminary_draft_final_0.pdf.