Committee note: The term “electronically stored information has the same broad meaning in this Rule that it has in Rule 2-422, encompassing, without exception, whatever is stored electronically. Subsection (b)(2) addresses the difficulties that may be associated with locating, retrieving, and providing discovery of some electronically stored information. Ordinarily, the reasonable costs of retrieving and reviewing electronically stored information are borne by the responding party. At times, however, the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business. For example, restoring deleted data, disaster recovery tapes, residual data, or legacy systems may involve extraordinary effort or resources to restore the data to an accessible format. This subsection empowers the court, after considering the factors listed in subsection (b)(1), to shift or share costs if the demand is unduly burdensome because of the nature of the effort involved to comply and the requesting party has demonstrated substantial need or justification. See, The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Principles: Best Practices Recommendations and Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production, (2d ed. 2007), Principle 13 and related Comment.

Cross reference: Rule 19-304.4(b) of the Maryland Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.

Committee note: Subsection (e)(3) allows a producing party to assert a claim of privilege or protection after production because it is increasingly costly and time-consuming to review all electronically stored information in advance. Unlike the corresponding federal rule, a party must raise a claim of privilege or protection within a “reasonable time. See Elkton Care Center Associates v. Quality Care Management, Inc., 145 Md. App. 532 (2002).

Committee note: Courts in other jurisdictions are in conflict over whether an inadvertent disclosure of privileged or protected information constitutes a waiver. A few courts find that a disclosure must be intentional to be a waiver. Most courts find a waiver only if the disclosing party acted carelessly in disclosing the communication or information and failed to request its return in a timely manner. A few other courts hold that any mistaken disclosure of protected information constitutes waiver without regard to the protections taken to avoid such a disclosure. See generally Hopson v. City of Baltimore, 232 F.R.D. 228 (D. Md. 2005) for a discussion of this case law.

This subsection opts for the middle ground: inadvertent disclosure of privileged or protected information in connection with a state or federal proceeding constitutes a waiver only if the party did not take reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure and did not make reasonable and prompt efforts to rectify the error. This position is in accord with Maryland common law, see, e.g., Elkton Care Center Associates v. Quality Care Management, Inc., 145 Md. App. 532 (2002), and the majority view on whether inadvertent disclosure is a waiver. See, e.g., Zapata v. IBP, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 574, 576-77 (D. Kan. 1997) (work product); Hydraflow, Inc. v. Enidine, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 626, 637 (W.D.N.Y. 1993 ) (attorney-client privilege); Edwards v. Whitaker, 868 F.Supp. 226, 229 (M.D. Tenn. 1994 ) (attorney-client privilege).

Committee note: Parties may agree to certain protocols to minimize the risk of waiver of a claim of privilege or protection. One example is a “clawback agreement, meaning an agreement that production will occur without a waiver of privilege or protection as long as the producing party promptly identifies the privileged or protected documents that have been produced. See The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Principles: Best Practices Recommendations and Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production, (2d ed. 2007), Comment 10.a. Another example is a “quick peek agreement, meaning that the responding party provides certain requested materials for initial examination without waiving any privilege or protection. The requesting party then designates the documents it wishes to have actually produced, and the producing party may assert any privilege or protection. Id., Comment 10.d.

Subsection (e)(5) codifies the well-established proposition that parties can enter into an agreement to limit the effect of waiver by disclosure between or among them. See, e.g., Dowd v. Calabrese, 101 F.R.D. 427, 439 (D.D.C. 1984 ) (no waiver where the parties stipulated in advance that certain testimony at a deposition “would not be deemed to constitute a waiver of the attorney-client or work product privileges); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2003 ) (noting that parties may enter into “so-called ‘claw-back’ agreements that allow the parties to forego privilege review altogether in favor of an agreement to return inadvertently produced privileged documents). Of course, such an agreement can bind only the parties to the agreement. The subsection makes clear that if parties want protection from a finding of waiver by disclosure in separate litigation, the agreement must be made part of a court order. Confidentiality orders are important in limiting the costs of privilege review and retention, especially in cases involving electronic discovery. The utility of a confidentiality order is substantially diminished if it provides no protection outside the particular litigation in which the order is entered. Parties are unlikely to be able to reduce the costs of preproduction review for privilege or protection if the consequence of disclosure is that the information can be used by nonparties to the litigation.

Subsection (e)(5) provides that an agreement of the parties governing confidentiality of disclosures is enforceable against nonparties only if it is incorporated in a court order, but there can be no assurance that this enforceability will be recognized by courts other than those of this State. There is some dispute as to whether a confidentiality order entered in one case can bind nonparties from asserting waiver by disclosure in separate litigation. See generally Hopson v. City of Baltimore, 232 F.R.D. 228 (D.Md. 2005), for a discussion of this case law.