Interesting Privilege Log Rulings

Popovchak v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 2026 WL 2078593 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 17, 2026), contains a number of interesting privilege log rulings, among many other decisions. A few examples follow.

“Plaintiffs identify entries on United’s privilege log where no attorney is listed…. The motion to compel on this ground is DENIED. Courts have recognized the necessity of corporate employees discussing advice received by one agent of the corporation….The distribution within a corporation of legal advice received from its counsel does not, by itself, vitiate the privilege…. Thus, the mere fact that there is no attorney listed on a privilege log entry for a document is not, by itself, dispositive with respect to the attorney-client privilege—provided that the description of a document itself is sufficient to support the party’s privilege assertion. Here, because Plaintiffs do not otherwise challenge the adequacy of United’s privilege assertion (i.e., the description) with respect these documents, their motion as to these documents is denied.” Id. at *1 (cleaned up; emphasis added).

“Plaintiffs identify entries on the privilege log where no author is listed…. The motion to compel on this ground is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants shall supplement the privilege log with author information, to the extent it exists, by July 31, 2026. If no author information exists for particular communications or documents, Defendants shall so certify to Plaintiffs by the same date.” Id.

“Plaintiffs identify entries on the privilege log where no recipient is listed…. The motion to compel on this ground is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. To the extent any entries on this list involve emails, Defendants shall supplement the privilege log with a complete list of recipients for such documents by July 31, 2026. The motion to compel on this ground is DENIED for all documents that are not emails or other forms of communications.” Id.

“Plaintiffs identify entries on the privilege log where entire email chains have been withheld…. The motion to compel on this ground is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs do not challenge the privilege assertions on the most recent email on each withheld email chain. Defendants represent that, for earlier emails contained within such a chain, they have either (1) produced (in redacted form) any such emails not covered by attorney-client privilege, or (2) withheld any such emails documents that are properly covered by the privilege, for the reasons asserted with respect to the parent document. Plaintiffs have not offered a cogent basis to challenge the adequacy of any privilege assertions with respect to any particular documents in this second category, i.e., they do not contest the adequacy of the privilege assertions of the most recent email in these chains. The request is therefore denied.”  Id. (emphasis added).

For more information on email chains, see “Attachments to Attorney-Client Communications May Be Withheld as Privileged, Without an Independent Basis for Privilege,” But…. (Aug. 8, 2024).

“Plaintiffs identify entries on the privilege log where Defendants have included the names of unidentified individuals…. The motion to compel on this ground is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. By July 31, 2026, Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with the title and department for any unidentified individuals. To the extent Plaintiffs seek additional information regarding these individuals, the motion is not, on the current record, necessary to assess Defendants’ privilege assertion, and is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.” Id. at *2 (emphasis added).