Quick Peek agreements should also be explicitly stated that disclosure of privileged material does not waive an applicable privilege. At the same time, the agreement should also indicate that the conclusion of the agreement does not in any way prevent the parties from challenging the privileges made by the producing parties. In February 2018, the Tribunal issued a lengthy judgment granting the defendant`s clawback application and partially accepted the applicants` application and refused in part to impose the production of certain documents in the standard series of documents that the defendant characterized as privileged in its minutes of privileges. The court also partially granted the applicants` request to impose answers to questions asked during the filings. At the same time, the Tribunal ordered the defendant to reconsider its lien titles, after which the defendant characterized certain documents as privileged and established them. Since documents produced under the Quick Peek agreements are not verified prior to production, the parties should agree to treat the documents as strictly confidential and prohibit disclosure of information to third parties, except in very limited circumstances. As discussed in a previous article, due to the volume of electronically stored information (ESI) parties must check in modern disputes, disputes often in “clawback” agreements that move to the return of inside information in document productions. The authority for recovery agreements is often the federal rule of the Evidence 502 authority, which provides for the restitution of clients of lawyers inadvertently produced from inside information. Rule 502 also authorizes “Quick Peek” agreements, another type of e-discovery agreement, which requires the return of inside information in a production of documents. It is clear that the Quick Peek agreements are not suitable for all cases and, if used, the Council should conduct a thorough review of the language contained in the agreement.
As has already been said, the use of Quick Peek agreements prior to production is subject to limited documentary control, if at all. However, parties responding to requests for documents should conduct at least a minimum verification of permissions to identify apparently privileged documents, such as. B search for basic keywords by lawyers and law firms. The implementation of a minimum fee audit precluses the argument that the producing party has not taken steps to prevent the disclosure of inside information. This is important because, as was said in this case, the absence of appropriate measures to preserve the confidentiality of privileged information could give rise to allegations of exemption from privileges. Accordingly, the responding parties should conduct some control of privileges and the quick peek agreement should reflect the fact that a review has taken place. The agreement could also require the party to prepare a record of the retained documents and declare that if the party responding to the request conducts at least a minimum audit of privileges and provides a privilege protocol, these measures are considered appropriate precautions to prevent the accidental disclosure of privileged material. In order to ensure that the collections of documents drawn up under the Rapid Agreements contain relevant information, the parties should take into account the language in which a producing party considers in good faith that the information produced contains information that could respond to the applicant`s requests for investigation.
In Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-05236, (S.D.N.Y. May 10, 2018), New York Magistrate Judge Katherine H. Parker, deemed a debate on what constitutes the privileged ESI, rejected the applicant`s request for a “quick look” at 3,300 documents on the minutes of the defendant`s privileges and proposed a privileged master to conduct a review of the privileges of those documents. In April 2018, the applicants expressed doubts about the volume (3,300 documents) which the defendant described as privileged.