Late last year[1], amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. The changes to Rules 26 and 16 focus on streamlining discovery, particularly regarding privilege and work product, by mandating that parties address these issues at the initial Rule 26(f) conference.

Specifically, the amendments require the parties to discuss, at the start of discovery, how they will meet Rule 26(b)(5)(A)’s requirements for asserting and describing privilege claims. The parties’ Rule 26(f) discovery plan must now include their “views and proposals on any issues about claims or privilege…,” including “the timing and method for complying with Rule 26(b)(5)(A) and any agreements the parties reach for asserting claims of privilege….,” including the format and specificity of a privilege log, if any, while empowering the courts to incorporate those agreements into Rule 16(b) scheduling orders for enforcement purposes.

Essentially, the amendments shift the practice of privilege determinations from a late-stage, after-document-discovery-closes task to an early-litigation priority. By adjusting the timeline, privilege disputes may no longer be an 11th-hour issue. The amendments aim to prioritize the themes of cooperation and transparency while making enforceable privilege protocols available to the court.

Parties should now consider including the actual procedures and contents of a log as part of the discussion early in the litigation. For example, would documents be logged by category, or on an individual entry basis? What information fields are required (to/from/cc/date/time/file type?) Would redacted documents require separate entries? A separate log? Can any categories be excluded (i.e., communications with counsel after the date of complaint)? How should parties handle inadvertently produced privileged documents? Would they secure a Rule 502(d) Non-Waiver Order?

Knowing that privilege determinations can no longer be kicked down the proverbial path, parties may wish to:

  • Identify privilege-heavy sources/custodians early in the process with an eye toward ensuring readiness for the Rule 26(f) conference;
  • Map categories of privileged content before collection, with special attention to materials involving in-house and outside counsel; and
  • Build privilege assessment into document review plans.

Early privilege assessments and an early case management focus on privilege protocols may allow opposing counsel more time to evaluate and challenge assertions, while causing producing parties to prioritize negotiating a structured protocol and non-waiver agreements.  


[1] These changes apply to all cases filed on or after Dec. 1, 2025, and may apply to pending cases “insofar as just and practicable.”

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Kathryn C. Cole Kathryn C. Cole

Kathryn C. Cole is a shareholder and commercial litigator who represents businesses, financial institutions, and individuals in complex disputes across federal and state courts, arbitration, mediation, and proceedings before federal agencies and regulatory bodies. Her practice spans contract claims, product liability, tort litigation…

Kathryn C. Cole is a shareholder and commercial litigator who represents businesses, financial institutions, and individuals in complex disputes across federal and state courts, arbitration, mediation, and proceedings before federal agencies and regulatory bodies. Her practice spans contract claims, product liability, tort litigation, consumer class actions, and securities class actions, serving clients ranging from major pharmaceutical companies to closely held businesses. Katy brings a combination of courtroom advocacy, appellate experience in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and deep knowledge of eDiscovery strategy that allows her to manage high-stakes litigation from preservation through trial and appeal.

Katy is a Certified E-Discovery Specialist (CEDS) and a recognized authority on electronic discovery and data retention. She guides clients through every phase of the eDiscovery process, including identification, preservation, collection, review, and production of electronically stored information. She works closely with clients to develop defensible discovery plans and retention policies, implement technology assisted review platforms, and leverage analytics to reduce costs and risk. She is a founding member of and prolific contributor to Greenberg Traurig’s eDiscovery Watch blog, where she regularly addresses emerging issues such as generative AI in litigation, text message preservation, and spoliation.

Before entering private practice, Katy clerked for the Hon. Richard C. Wesley at both the New York Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She has argued multiple appeals in the Second Circuit and the Second Department Appellate Division, and she has in-house experience through a secondment with a major technology company. Her understanding of both the courtroom and the corporate legal department gives her a practical perspective that informs her litigation strategy and client counseling.

Katy is actively involved in shaping civil practice in New York. She serves on the Office of Court Administration’s CPLR Advisory Committee and the New York State Advisory Committee on Civil Practice. She is a past president of the Eastern District of New York Chapter of the Federal Bar Association and a Fellow of The New York Bar Foundation. She has been listed in The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation and she received the Long Island Business News “Top 50 Women in Business” award in 2024.