Attorney-client privilege protection depends on content, and some work product claims also depend in part on content. Because a litigant’s privilege log obviously does not disclose withheld documents’ content, the adversary often seeks the court’s in camera review of those withheld documents.
Courts disagree about the standard for undertaking such in camera reviews. In Wisk Aero LLC v. Archer Aviation Inc., the court articulated the majority view (citing a Ninth Circuit case): “the decision whether to conduct the [in camera] review rests within the discretion of the district court.” Case No. 21-cv-02450-WHO (DMR), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 202429, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022) (citation omitted). Two days later, the court in Akerman LLP v. Cohen articulated the rare minority view — noting that “[f]or over thirty years,” the court has held that before being required to turn over withheld documents a litigant “is entitled to an in camera review of the documents by the trial court.” Nos. 4D22-553 & 4D22-556, 2022 Fla. App. LEXIS 7611, *19-20 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2022) (citation omitted).
Lawyers on both sides of this issue must check the tribunal’s approach. Next week’s Privilege Point will address in camera reviews’ process, and their unstated downside.
Please note that unsolicited emails and attached information sent to McGuireWoods or a firm attorney via this website do not create an attorney-client relationship. If you are not a McGuireWoods client, do not send us any confidential information. We may not respond to unsolicited emails and do not consider them or attached information confidential. That means we may disclose unsolicited emails and attachments to third parties, and your unsolicited communications will not prevent any lawyer in our firm from representing a party and using the unsolicited communications against you. By clicking “accept” you confirm that you have read and understand this notice.