TAYLOR et al v. PITTSBURGH MERCY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC et al

Filing 230

ORDER granting 221 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, to the extent that Defendants shall produce an amended privilege log on or before 5/25/11. See Order filed herewith for further analyses and instruction. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy Bissoon on 4/12/11. (dcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

YVONNE TAYLOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PITTSBURGH MERCY HEALTH
SYSTEM, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 09-377
Magistrate Judge Bissoon

ORDER
Plaintiffs’ Motion (Doc. 221) to compel will be granted, to the extent described below.
Defendants represent that none of the documents listed in their privilege log are relevant
to conditional certification. See Defs.’ Opp’n Br. (Doc. 226) at 2-3 (privilege aside, these
documents essentially were false “hits” identified through computer search of agreed-upon
terms). The subject lines corresponding to the privilege log entries, to the extent that they have
been provided, appear to support this conclusion. See generally Defs.’ privilege log (filed as
Ex. B under Doc. 223-1).
Under the circumstances, the Court questions whether Plaintiffs’ challenges to
Defendants’ privilege log constitute the best use of the litigants’, and the Court’s, time and
resources, commodities that already have been substantially taxed in this case. Nevertheless,
a privilege log has been produced, and its contents are insufficient to permit meaningful review.
In the broadest sense, the Court is satisfied with Defense counsel’s explanations
regarding the log’s handling of “families” of withheld documents. See Defs.’ Opp’n Br. at 4-5.
Counsel’s explanations, however, do not account for the many “blank” fields scattered

throughout the privilege log. On page one of the log, for example, the entry for “Doc[.] ID”
F967-E00214702, in “Family ID” F967-E00214699, contains a string of blank fields.
See Doc. 223-1 at pg. 4 of 53. It may be that Doc. ID F967-E00214702 is the second page of
Doc. ID F967-E00214701 (the entry for which also contains blank fields), although this cannot
be determined through the privilege log itself.
The privilege log is replete with entries containing blank fields. Although the reader may
attempt to deduce why Defendants left certain fields blank, such efforts are bound by
uncertainty. In other instances, there appears no explanation why the fields are blank, such as in
the entry for Family/Doc. ID no. F967-E00208151, a single document of unspecified type and
subject matter. See Doc. 223-1 at pg. 5 of 53.
The blank fields contained in Defendants’ privilege log are too numerous to recount, and,
in order for the log to serve any purpose, it must be more complete. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel (Doc. 221) is GRANTED to the extent that Defendants shall produce an
amended privilege log, on or before May 25, 2011.
In so ruling, the Court does not preclude the parties from reaching alternative agreements
regarding the handling of the withheld documents and/or privilege log issues,1 nor does it
preclude Defendants from declining to produce any documents that are clearly non-responsive
and/or irrelevant to the issues conditionally certified in the case. Regardless of how this matter

1

For example, opposing counsel could discuss whether existing or new conventions may be
adopted to better understand the contents and/or format of Defendants’ privilege log, as well as
whether groups of non-responsive/irrelevant entries may be excluded from production
irrespective of privilege. To the extent that any true privilege disputes exist, it would serves the
interests of both the parties and the Court for counsel to narrow the scope of their disagreement.
2

unfolds, Plaintiffs may object to Defendants’ amended privilege log and/or assertions of nonresponsiveness/irrelevance after May 25, 2011, a date chosen to allow the parties to focus on
more pressing discovery matters now at hand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 12, 2011

s\Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States Magistrate Judge

cc (via ECF email notification):
All Counsel of Record

3