Pactiv Corp. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc., No. 10 C 461, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2012) (Leinenweber, J.). 

Judge Leinenweber granted plaintiff Pactiv’s motion to reconsider the Count’s oral order requiring production of all items on Pactiv’s privilege log in this patent dispute involving oxygen scavengers.  During the hearing, the Court “lost in the din of the parties’ squabbling” that there had not been a Local Rule 37.2 meet and confer between service of Pactiv’s latest log and defendant Multisorb’s motion.  The Court, however, held that Pactiv’s log was deficient and required that Pactiv re-examine each document on its log to assure that the documents are in fact privileged.  And because Pactiv had been given five attempts at a privilege log, the Court ordered that the log include the following information:

• The names of authors and recipients;
• A description of who the parties, including both name and title;
• “[M]ore thorough” descriptions of its documents.  For example, if a document is not between counsel it should be stated that it is relaying legal advice.

The Court also held that there was no discovery privilege regarding settlement negotiations, although admissibility of settlement discussion was a separate issue.