The Clawback That Wasn't
You represent the plaintiff in a contract dispute. During review, a junior associate accidentally produces 1,200 documents that include 40 privileged attorney-client emails between the client's GC and outside counsel discussing settlement strategy. The production was made under a stipulated ESI protocol that includes a clawback provision (Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) order was entered). Opposing counsel has had the documents for three weeks and has not objected. You discover the error during a routine QC check. The 40 emails discuss the client's settlement bottom line. The case is set for mediation in two weeks.
1. What is your immediate obligation, and what does the 502(d) order do for you?
Read the worked answer
Immediate obligation: notify opposing counsel in writing that the 40 documents were produced inadvertently, invoke the clawback provision, and demand return/destruction and confirmation. Do this today - delay weakens your position and may waive the protection.
The Rule 502(d) order is powerful: it provides that the inadvertent production does not waive privilege, and it is binding on the court. That means you do not need to prove the production was 'inadvertent' under the stricter 502(b) standard - the order controls. But the order typically requires you to notify promptly and to identify the documents. Three weeks of silence by opposing counsel does not automatically waive your obligation to act; the clock runs from your discovery of the error. Document the QC failure and the notification.
2. Opposing counsel refuses to return the documents, arguing you waived privilege by producing them and not objecting for three weeks. How do you respond?
Read the worked answer
The 502(d) order defeats the waiver argument - that is its purpose. Cite the order's text: inadvertent production under the order does not waive privilege, and the court may enforce return. Opposing counsel's 'three weeks' argument is irrelevant because the order does not condition protection on the recipient's objection timeline; it conditions it on the producing party's prompt notice, which you are giving now.
If they still refuse, move for a court order compelling return and precluding use. Also flag the ethical dimension: under Model Rule 4.4(b), a lawyer who receives a document they know was inadvertently produced must notify the sender - opposing counsel has an independent duty here. Their refusal to return after notice is itself a problem for them. Keep the tone professional; you want the documents back, not a sanctions fight before mediation.
3. The client asks whether the leak of its settlement bottom line gives it leverage at mediation. What do you advise?
Read the worked answer
Advise the client that the privilege is being reclaimed, so the settlement strategy should not be treated as public or usable. Do not let the client 'use' the leaked information offensively - that could undermine the clawback and look like bad faith. Instead, proceed to mediation on the merits and treat the 40 emails as if they were never produced.
Separately, assess the QC failure internally: why did 40 privileged emails slip through? Was there a privilege screen, a keyword filter, or a second-level review? Document the root cause and fix the process. If the leak causes demonstrable prejudice, you may need to disclose to the court. But the priority is: get the documents back, preserve the privilege, and don't let a process error become a strategic or ethical misstep.