Heriot v. Byrne

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs, Drew Heriot (“Heriot”) and Drew Pictures Pty Ltd. (“Drew Pictures”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”), sued defendants Rhonda Byrne, The Secret LLC (a/k/a TS Holdings LLC), Prime Time U.S. Inc., TS Production Holdings LLC, TS Production LLC, and TS Merchandising Ltd. (collectively “Defendants”). Currently before this Court are Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents Plaintiffs Contend are Privileged (“Defendants’ Motion”) and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents Concerning Joan Kaufman, Martin Goodrich and Cheryl Durham (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”). This Court rules on these Motions under Judge Suzanne B. Conlon’s referral of this case for discovery supervision pursuant to Local Rule 72.1. For the reasons stated below, this Court denies in part and grants in part Defendants’ Motion. This Court also denies in part Plaintiffs’ Motion and withholds its ruling on the remainder of Plaintiffs’ Motion until after Defendants comply with this Order.

I. Background

This Court has limited the procedural and factual history to the information relevant to the disputes involving Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Motions. For the sake of brevity, this section omits some facts discussed in later sections of this Order. The two separate sections below deal with the facts concerning each Motion. Before reaching those sections, however, this Court recounts the basic facts underlying this lawsuit.

This case involves a controversy over The Secret, a made-for-television documentary that purports to reveal the “most powerful law in the universe.” The Secret, http:// www.thesecret.tv/ (last visited Mar. 17, 2009). As if that declaration was not grandiose enough, the website further claims that, “[b]y applying the knowledge of this law, you can change every aspect of your life.” Id. Heriot is an Australian citizen who directed The Secret. (Compl. ¶ 1; Answer ¶ 1). Drew Pictures is an organization organized under the laws of Australia (Answer ¶ 2), and allegedly employs Heriot and holds the rights to his works (Compl.t 2). Defendants are various individuals and entities involved in The Secret’s development. (Answer at ¶¶3-9.)

Plaintiffs sued Defendants on April 21, 2008, in the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois. (Comply 1.) In their complaint, Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment of copyright ownership (which, they claim, results in Defendants’ “duty to account”) and an equitable accounting. (Id. at ¶¶ 60-75.) Plaintiffs also claimed Defendant infringed their copyrights and were unjustly enriched. (Id. at ¶¶ 76-84.) Defendants answered the complaint on August 4, 2008, denying Plaintiffs’ claims and asserting affirmative defenses. (See Answer.) Additionally, in the answer, defendant TS Production LLC asserted a counterclaim, which prayed for a declaratory judgment that TS Production LLC was the sole owner of the copyright in the disputed works Defendants claimed “Drew Pictures wrongfully registered with the United States Copyright Office on September 10, 2007.” (Answer 1 at ¶ 2,14 at ¶¶ 1-10.) Discovery ensued.

A. Facts Concerning Defendants’ Motion

Defendants’ Motion concerns documents Plaintiffs produced pursuant to Defendants’ request. On July 25, 2008, Defendants *651served Plaintiffs with their First Request for Production of Documents, which included a request for “[a]ll documents relating to United States visa applications filed by or on behalf of Heriot.” (Pis.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 4.) To comply with Defendants’ production request, Plaintiffs hired Open Door Solutions LLP, a “document vendor” (the “Vendor”), which “provide[d] electronic scanning, [Optical Character Recognition], and other discovery related services for this case.” (Id. at 3-4.) The subsequent process by winch Plaintiffs eventually produced the documents had several steps.

First, the Vendor created a database of the documents provided to it by Plaintiffs (“Master Database”), which Plaintiffs then could review. (Id. at 3^1) Second, during April and May of 2008, Plaintiffs “had paralegals and other non-lawyers conduct a preliminary review [of] the documents in the Master Database,” assigning documents “general, pretrial discovery codes.” (Id. at 4.) One general code was “hnmigration,” which Plaintiffs “used to flag documents (primarily e[-]mails) that had anything to do with Mr. Heriot’s immigration to the United States.” (Id.)

Third, Plaintiffs searched for responsive documents in their Master Database. (Id.) Fourth, once identified, these responsive documents would be “coded for subsequent copying and inclusion in the Production Database.” (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiffs would mark responsive documents “as either Confidential or Highly Confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order.”1 (Id.)

To comply with Defendants request regarding Heriot’s immigration visa, Plaintiffs requested and received a paper copy of the visa from Heriot’s immigration lawyer. (Id at 5.) On or around August 22, 2008, Plaintiffs gave the Vendor Heriot’s visa application “with instructions to (1) scan and add it to the Master Database, (2) copy the scanned versions to the Production Database, ... (3) electronically stamp the application as ‘Highly Confidential’ for production^] ... [ (4) ] Bates Stamp all documents in the Production Database, and ... [ (5) ] include Mr. Heriot’s visa application and other sensitive material at the front of the production.” (Id. at 5-6.) Unfortunately, the Vendor imported Heriot’s visa application into the Master Database, assigning it the general “immigration” code. (Id. at 6.) The Vendor then made another mistake, copying all the documents with the “immigration” code from the Master Database to the Production Database, stamping them all “Highly Confidential.” (Id.) This mistake resulted in the Vendor unintentionally including additional e-mails marked as “Highly Confidential” in the production. (Id.)

On August 25, 2008, after completing this process, Plaintiffs produced around 1499 documents comprised of 6952 pages. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 1; Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot 6.) On October 17, 2008, Defendants’ counsel, David Elkins, asked Plaintiffs if they had withheld any documents on the basis of privilege, to which Plaintiffs responded in the negative. (Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 6-7.) On October 22, 2008, apparently in preparation for a deposition scheduled to take place on October 24, 2008, Plaintiffs learned of the allegedly inadvertently disclosed documents. (Id. at 7.) The next day, October 23, 2008, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a letter in which Plaintiffs stated that they had inadvertently disclosed several documents protected by the attorney-client privilege, identified those documents (the “Sequestered Documents”), and requested their destruction. (Id., Ex. B at ¶ 14; Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 6.) Defendants complied with Plaintiffs’ request, directing their “e-discovery vendor to seal off all access to,” and destroying all but one set of copies2 of, the Sequestered Documents by October 27, 2008. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 6.)

Defendants then filed their Motion currently before this Court on November 14, 2008. In their memorandum supporting this Motion, Defendants argued that this Court *652should prevent Plaintiffs from “clawing back” the Sequestered Documents and order Plaintiffs to produce them. (Id. at 1-2.) That same day, Defendants also sought leave to file its Motion under seal. Judge Conlon referred these motions to this Court on November 19, 2008, expanding the scope of the previous referral dated July 24, 2008. This Court granted Defendants leave to file documents under seal on December 2, 2008. Plaintiffs responded to Defendants’ Motion on December 5, 2008. In their response, Plaintiffs’ asserted that the Documents were privileged. The next day, December 9, 2008, Defendants filed their reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion.

B. Facts Concerning Plaintiffs’ Motion

Plaintiffs’ Motion, like Defendants’ Motion, concerns documents, albeit different ones. Sometime in or before October 2008, Plaintiffs propounded on Defendants requests for documents, to which Defendants responded on October 24, 2008, by producing a Privilege Log (“Log”). (Pls.’ Mot. 2.) The Log identified 998 documents that Defendants wit h held on the basis of privilege. (Id., Ex. A.) Eleven days later, on November 4, 2008, Defendants produced a Supplemental Privilege Log (“Supplemental Log”), which identified a total of 1467 documents, including those disclosed in the Log, withheld based on privilege. (Id., Ex. B.)

In response, on November 11, 2008, Plaintiffs identified over 132 documents (“Identified Documents”) in Defendants Log and Supplement Log (collectively “Logs”) that Plaintiffs contended involved communications with three non-privileged third parties: Joan Kaufman (“Kaufman”), Martin Goodrich (“Goodrich”), and Cheryl Durham (“Durham”). (Id., Ex. C.) Plaintiffs contended that Kauffman was Prime Time’s outside bookkeeper, Goodrich was Prime Time’s outside accountant, and Durham was Goodrich’s assistant. (Id. at 2.)

That same day, Plaintiffs requested the Identified Documents from Defendants, asking Defendants to respond no later than November 14, 2008. (Id., Ex. C.) One day prior to the deadline, Defendants responded that, “[w]hile [Plaintiffs] state that ‘at least 132 entries’ in Defendants’ ... [Logs] appear challengeable ..., [Plaintiffs’] e[-]mails actually identify 248 separate production ranges-almost twice that amount.” (Id., Ex. D.) Defendants further stated that they were re-reviewing the Identified Documents and could not comply with the request by November 14, 2008. (Id.) They did, however, state that they would eventually comply with the request and would be “prepared to explain further why [the] [Identified [D]ocuments are privileged ... or promptly produce any erroneously designated as privilege (if any).” (Id.)

Later, Defendants noticed the depositions of, among others, Goodrich and Kaufman. Plaintiffs filed a motion for a protective order and a motion to quash the deposition notices on November 21, 2008.3 Defendants filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs motion on November 24, 2008. In that memorandum, Defendants referred to the depositions as “third-party depositions,” and otherwise referred to Goodrich and Kaufman as “third parties,” “third party witnesses,” or “nonparty witnesses.” (Id., Ex. H at 1-3, 7.)

That same day, Plaintiffs received Defendants’ response to its November 14, 2008, demand for documents. (Id. at 3, Ex. I.) In that response, Defendants explained why the Identified Documents were privileged. (Id. at 3, Ex. I. at 1-6) Defendants asserted that the attorney-client privilege protected communications with Goodrich because “[he] worked closely with Prime Time and its counsel on many matters over several years.” (Id. at 3, Ex. I. at 2.) Defendants also stated that “Goodrich was asked to provide and provided facts and analysis to assist Defendants’ lawyers in rendering legal services.” (Id.) Defendants further asserted that “Goodrich essentially acted as Prime Time’s Chief Financial Officer ... [because he] was intimately involved in certain maters involving The Secret entities and was treated in many instances as if he was Defendants’ trusted *653employee.” (Id. at 3, Ex. I. at 2-3 (emphasis added).) According to Defendants, Goodrich communicated “for the purpose of providing or obtaining legal services regarding the current litigation with Plaintiffs, a commercial lease, an intellectual property transaction related to The Secret, the structure of business related to The Secret, various corporate agreements, corporate documentation, and a tax matter.” (Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. 2 (footnotes omitted) (“Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n”).)

Defendants stated that “[t]he attorney-client privilege extends to disclosures made to ... Durham for the same reasons it extends to ... Goodrich.” (Pis.’ Mot., Ex. I at 4.) In other words, the privilege applied because Durham, as Goodrich’s assistant, acted on Goodrich’s behalf; therefore, her conversations were privileged. (Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n 3.)

As to Kaufman, Defendants stated that she “was Prime Time’s agent and provided accounting services to Prime Time for approximately nine years.” (Pls.’ Mot., Ex. I at 4.) As a result, Defendants contended, her communications were privileged. (Id.; Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n 2.)

Shortly thereafter, on November 26, 2008, Plaintiffs filed their Motion to compel production of these documents. Specifically, Plaintiffs requested the following numbered documents: 2, 8, 193, 195, 196, 199, 203, 204, 215, 219, 220, 221, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 240, 241, 242, 254, 257, 269, 279, 281, 282, 283, 285, 604, 620, 621, 622, 628, 629, 630, 639, 640, 641, 642, 643, 644, 855, 1235, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1276, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1314, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1329, 1330, 1332, 1333, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1372, 1373, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1383, 1441, and 1442. (Pls.’ Mot. 1-2.)

On December 8, 2008, Defendants filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion. In that memorandum, Defendants listed with specificity which privilege applied to which documents. First, Defendants asserted work-product privilege over six doeuments: 622, 630, 639, 640, 1441, and 1442. (Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n 5 n. 12.) Second, Defendants asserted attorney-client privilege over the following numbered documents: 2, 8, 193, 195, 196, 199, 203, 204, 215, 219, 220, 221, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 240, 241, 242, 254, 257, 269, 279, 281, 282, 283, 285, 604, 620, 622, 628, 630, 639, 640, 644, 855, 1235, 1272, 1273, 1274, 1275, 1276, 1289, 1290, 1291, 1292, 1293, 1294, 1295, 1296, 1314, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1326, 1327, 1329, 1330, 1332, 1333, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1353, 1354, 1355, 1356, 1357, 1358, 1359, 1360, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1372, 1373, 1375, 1376, 1377, 1378, 1379, 1380, 1381, 1382, 1383, 1441, and 1442. (Id. at 2-3 nn. 2-10.)

Finally, Defendants contended that this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as it pertains to documents 641, 642, and 643 because “Defendants’ privilege log inadvertently listed Goodrich and Durham as recipients of these e[-]mails[, and t]hey were not.” (Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n 1 n. 1.) Defendants also asserted that this Court should deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as to documents 621 and 629 because they are identical, and because Defendants “produced” them to Plaintiffs.4 (Id.)

On December 9, 2008, Judge Conlon referred Plaintiffs’ Motion to this Court, again expanding the scope of the July 24, 2008, referral. Plaintiffs filed their reply to Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion on December 11, 2008.

The parties appeared and this Court made several rulings on December 12, 2008, but continued Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ Motions until January for a settlement conference. In the interim, the parties filed a flurry of motions that are not relevant to this matter. After an unsuccessful settlement conference on January 9, 2009, the parties appeared before this Court to argue their respective motions on February 5, 2009.

*654II. Discussion

Because this case involves two different Motions, one by each party, this Court deals with each separately.

A. Defendants’ Motion to Compel

1. Federal Rule of Evidence 502

As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether Federal Rule of Evidence 502 (“FRE 502”) applies, and. if it does, whether it supercedes the test quoted in Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc., v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371, 387-88 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Banner v. Bd. of Trade, 181 F.R.D. 374, 376 (N.D.I11.1998)), reh’g denied 529 F.3d 371 (July 11, 2008). (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 6-7; Pis.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 7-8.)

Congress amended FRE 502 on September 19, 2008, stating that “[t]he amendments made by this Act shall apply in all proceedings commenced after ... [September 19, 2008], and insofar as is just and practicable, in all proceedings pending on .... [September 19, 2008].” Act of Sept. 19, 2008, Pub.L. No. 110-322, § 1, 122 Stat. 3537, 3538 (amending the Federal Rules of Evidence to address the waiver of the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine) (codified as Fed.R.Evid. 502). The newly amended FRE 502 applies when communications or documents covered by the attorney-client or work-product privileges are disclosed during a federal proceeding. Id.

Ordinarily, disclosure of confidential information to an unprotected third party operates as a waiver. See U.S. v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 353 (7th Cir.1994) (finding that, assuming privileged information existed, defendant waived the attorney-client privilege by voluntarily disclosing the confidential information to his cellmate); Allendale Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bull Data Sys., Inc., 152 F.R.D. 132, 139 (N.D.I11.1993) (“The general rule is that material which is otherwise privileged is discoverable if it has been disclosed to a third party.”). Under FRE 502, however, disclosure of privileged information will not operate as a waiver when “(1) the disclosure is inadvertent; (2) the holder of the privilege or protection took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure; and (3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps to rectify the error, including (if applicable) following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).” Fed.R.Evid. 502(b)(l)-(3). All three elements described in FRE 502 must be satisfied to prevent a waiver. Id.

Plaintiffs argue that “[FRE] 502 is applicable to this case[,] and Defendants offer no reason why it would not be ‘just and practicable’ to apply [FRE] 502 to this case as in every other case.” (Pis.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 8.) Defendants argue that this Court should apply the three-part inquiry quoted in Judson, 529 F.3d at 387-88. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 6-7); but see Harmony Gold U.S.A., Inc. v. FASA Corp., 169 F.R.D. 113, 117-18 (N.D.Ill.1996) (stating that the court followed the “objective approach” and applying the “balancing test” in the alternative). The Judson test requires the court to decide (1) whether the disclosed material was privileged, (2) whether the disclosure was inadvertent, and (3) whether the privilege was waived. Judson, 529 F.3d at 387-88.

There is no question that FRE 502 applies to this case.5 The 2008 Amendment clearly stated that FRE 502 applies to matters pending on September 19, 2008, “insofar as is just and practicable.” Act of Sept 19, 2008, Pub.L. No. 110-322, § 1(c), 122 Stat. 3537, 3538. This matter was pending on that date, and this Court finds no reason, and Defendants have pointed to none, that precludes the application of FRE 502.

The resolution of that issue, however, does not automatically dispose of Defendants’ argument that Judson applies. Both Judson and Sanner were decided prior to the enactment of amended FRE 502, making the effect of FRE 502 an issue of first impression for this Court. To properly assess whether FRE 502(b) overrides Judson, this Court examines each step of the Judson test.

*655The first step of the Judson test requires the court to determine whether the documents at issue are privileged. Judson, 529 F.3d at 387. This step must remain in place under FRE 502(b), which applies only to privileged information that was inadvertently disclosed. Fed.R.Evid. 502(b). Prior to addressing any of the elements stated in FRE 502(b), therefore, the court must determine whether the documents are privileged. If the documents are not privileged, the inquiry ends. See Fed.R.Evid. 502(b); see also Judson, 529 F.3d at 387-88. If the documents in question are privileged, then FRE 502(b) applies, and the court must determine whether each of FRE 502(b)’s elements was satisfied. See Fed.R.Evid. 502(b). The first element of FRE 502(b), which also is the second step of the Judson test, requires the court to assess whether the party’s disclosure was inadvertent. See Fed.R.Evid. 502(b)(1); Judson, 529 F.3d at 388. Therefore, this Court will assess whether a disclosure is inadvertent.6

Defendants also urge this Court to adopt Judson’s third step, which requires the court to determine, using a “balancing approach,” whether a waiver occurred despite the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information. 529 F.3d at 388. The balancing approach requires the court to consider “(1) the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent disclosure; (2) the time taken to rectify the error; (3) the scope of the discovery; (4) the extent of the disclosure; and (5) the overriding issue of fairness.” Id. (quoting Harmony Gold, 169 F.R.D. at 116-17).

That tack, however, has been at least partially foreclosed by Congressional action. FRE 502 specifically states that inadvertent disclosure “does not operate as a waiver in a Federal ... proceeding.” Fed.R.Evid. 502(b). In other words, the second and third steps of the Judson test have been folded into the entire FRE- 502(b) inquiry. See Fed.R.Evid. 502(b)(l)-(3). FRE 502 does not, however, prohibit the use of the Judson factors. Fed.R.Evid. 502(b) advisory committee’s note (noting that the non-dispositive factors a court may consider “are the reasonableness of precautions taken, the time taken to rectify the error, the scope of discovery, the extent of disclosure and the overriding issue of fairness”). Thus, while “[FRE 502(b) ] is flexible enough to accommodate any of those listed factors,” it “does not explicitly codify [the Judson ] test[ ] because [the factors it uses are] a set of non-determinative guidelines that vary from case to case.” Id. Therefore, the court may, but need not, use some or all of the Judson factors to assess whether FRE 502(b)’s requirements have been satisfied.

This Court therefore adopts the following test. First, a court determines whether the disclosed material is privileged. If it is not, the inquiry ends. If the material is privileged, the court applies FRE 502(b). If the court concludes that disclosing party satisfied all of the elements in FRE 502(b), the privilege is not waived. If, however, the disclosing party fails to satisfy any of the FRE 502 elements, the privilege is waived. In applying FRE 502(b), the court is free to consider any or all of the five Judson factors, provided they are relevant, to evaluate whether each element of FRE 502(b) has been satisfied.7 This Court applies and explains the details of this test in the following sections.

2. Privileged Information

i. Privileged Information Generally

Before this Court can apply FRE 502(b), it must determine whether the mate-*656rial in question is privileged. The Seventh Circuit has articulated the following test for the existence of the attorney-client privilege: “(1) where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in Ms capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be waived.” Naik v. Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharms., Inc., No. 07 C 3500, 2008 WL 4866015, at *1 (N.D.Ill. June 19, 2008) (citing United States v. White, 950 F.2d 426, 430 (7th Cir.1991)). Of course, not all communications between the attorney and the client are privileged. See Judson, 529 F.3d at 388. The privilege adheres “ ‘only if [the communications] constitute legal advice, or tend directly or indirectly to reveal the substance of a client confidence.’ ” Id. (quoting U.S. v. Defazio, 899 F.2d 626, 635 (7th Cir. 1990)).

Defendants emphasize that Plaintiffs recalled the Sequestered Documents based on attorney-client privilege by merely stating those documents constituted privileged communications between Heriot and his immigration lawyer. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 7.) That “conclusory assertion,” Defendants argue, “does not demonstrate that the privilege actually exists.” (Id.)

That statement is a truism-but to ask Defendants to state with specificity why the attorney-client privilege applies could force them to disclose privileged information, something which the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require. See Fed.R.Evid. P. 26(b)(5) (requiring the party asserting privilege to “expressly make the claim[ ] and ... describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed ... in a manner that, mthout revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the other parties to assess the claim”) (emphasis added). It is this Court’s responsibility, and certainly not Plaintiffs’ or Defendants’, to determine whether privilege exists. Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 406 F.3d 867, 880 n. 7 (7th Cir.2005) (“ ‘The responsibility of determining whether the [attorney-client] privilege exists rests upon the District Judge and not upon the lawyer whose client claims the privilege.’ ” (quoting U.S. v. Tratner, 511 F.2d 248, 252 (7th Cir.1975) (citation omitted))).

After a document-by-document review, Am. Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the US., 406 F.3d 867, 879-880 (7th Cir.2005) (holding that a court must review all of the documents claimed as privileged and cannot rely on a “random sampling” of documents to determine privilege), this Court has determined that the attorney-client privilege applies to nearly all of the Sequestered Documents. These confidential communications are between Heriot and his immigration lawyer. In them, Heriot seeks legal advice concerning legal matters regarding Heriot’s presence in this country.

Not all of the documents, however, are privileged. Documents DREW002797 and DREW002798 are not privileged because they contain communications between Heriot and his employer, Miki Willis (“Willis”). Nevertheless, Plaintiffs may redact the text of document DREW002797 above the line entitled, “Original Message,” below which is an e-mail from Willis to Heriot.

The following documents also are not privileged because they involve Leni Mex (“Leni”), an unprotected third party:

DREW002290-DREW002294, DREW002312-DREW002316, DREW002397-DREW002401, DREW002901-DREW002902, DREW002913-DREW002923, DREW002925, and DREW002928-DREW002931. Plaintiffs, however, may redact documents DREW002397 and DREW002312 to exclude the first e-mail on each of those pages, which Heriot sent to his attorney. The remaining portions of documents DREW002397 and DREW002312 must be produced un-redacted.

Because the party asserting the privilege must prove that the privilege exists, the law required Plaintiffs to inform this Court why the privilege applied to the communications involving Leni or Willis. Plaintiffs fail*657ure to do so means that they did not meet their burden.8 For the documents this Court has found not to be privileged, Plaintiffs must produce them to Defendant. Prior to doing so, however, Plaintiffs must be given the opportunity to redact the portions specified above.

ii. The Crime-Fraud Exception

Defendants do not, however, give in so easily. They argue that, even if the attorney-client privilege adheres, Plaintiffs forfeited that privilege because the crime-fraud exception applies. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 8-9.) Plaintiffs resist this contention and argue that they have committed no crime or fraud. (Pis.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 10-13.)

Although communications subject to the attorney-client privilege are protected, that protection can be forfeited when, for example, “ ‘the attorney ... assist[s] his client to commit a crime or a fraud.’ ” U.S. v. Al-Shahin, 474 F.3d 941, 946 (7th Cir.2007) (quoting Mattenson v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 438 F.3d 763, 769 (7th Cir.2006)). In other words, “[t]he crime-fraud exception places communications made in furtherance of a crime or fraud outside the attorney-client privilege.” U.S. v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 492 F.3d 806, 818 (7th Cir.2007) (citing U.S. v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 563, 109 S.Ct. 2619,105 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989)).

Twenty years ago, the United States Supreme Court clarified when a court may review materials in camera to determine whether the crime-fraud exception applies. Zolin, 491 U.S. at 572, 109 S.Ct. 2619. The Supreme Court created a two-step framework that the judge should apply before reviewing materials in camera. See Medallion Prods., Inc. v. McAlister, No. 06-2597, 2008 WL 4542997, at *10-11 (N.D.Ill. Oct.9, 2008) (quoting Zolin, 491 U.S. at 572, 109 S.Ct. 2619). First, the party asserting the crime-fraud exception must show a “ ‘factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person’ ... that in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies.” Zolin, 491 U.S. at 572, 109 S.Ct. 2619 (quoting Caldwell v. Dist. Court, 644 P.2d 26, 33 (Colo.1982)). Once the moving party has made that showing, the decision to review the materials in camera “rests in the sound discretion of the district court.” Id.

In arguing that the crime-fraud exception applies, Defendants contend that Heriot’s deposition testimony shows that he fabricated projects, stating that “Heriot perpetrated a fraud on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security by soliciting fake deal memos to trick the government into issuing him an O-Visa.” (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 8.) Plaintiffs counter that Defendants presented Heriot’s statements out of context. (Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 10-13.)

On this point, this Court agrees with Plaintiffs. Although Heriot’s deposition testimony reveals that he told the businesses with whom he had discussed employment that they could “just make up a project” (Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 11, Ex. D at 304), to Heriot, “make up” meant “create,” as his following statement relating to a project entitled “Star Power” reveals: “we made up the project, [and] it turned into a pretty interesting project” (Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 11, Ex. D at 304-05). Moreover, Heriot explicitly stated in his deposition that, when he discussed projects, “[he] ... intended] to come up with some ideas that were feasible that we could make. [He] was not trying to be false [sic].” (Pis.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 11, Ex. D at 305.) Furthermore, what Defendants allege to be “fake deal memos” are no such tiling (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 8); in fact, the record reveals that some of these deal memos came to fruition, resulting in full-fledged projects (Pls.’ Resp., Ex. C at DREW000058-DREW000059; Pls.’ Supplemental Mem. in Resp. to Defs.’ Mot., Ex. 1 at ¶ 5-11).

Defendants’ argument that Heriot tried to “weave Australia in[to]” the deal memos sole*658ly to secure an 0-Visa also is unfounded. (Defs.’ Reply Mem. 5.) At Heriot’s deposition, Defendants’ counsel asked Heriot why the “deal memos suggest that there will be an Australian element to them[.]” (Pis.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 11, Ex. D at 306; Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. Defs. Mot, Ex. E at 306.) Heriot responded that he was trying “to weave Australia in.”- (Id.) In response, Defendants’ counsel asked the following question: “Even though there probably wasn’t going to be an Australian element?” (Id.) Heriot responded, “No,” and clarified that several of the deal memos had “very clear potential in Australia.” (Id.) Additionally, Willis, Heriot’s employer, stated that “Australia was a potential shooting location for the film” (Pls.’ Supplemental Mem. in Resp. to Defs.’ Mot., Ex. 1 at ¶ 6), and that he planned to expand his business Australia “because of Heriot’s connections” (Id. at ¶ 9).

None of these statements resemble any countenance of fraud. If anything, they show that Heriot, who was legally in the country on an I-Visa (Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot., Ex. C), actively sought work in the United States. Contrary to Defendants’ contention (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 8-9), it is irrelevant that some of the deal memos were not binding, especially in light of the fact that other deal memos produced full-fledged projects (Pls.’ Resp., Ex. C at DREW000058-DREW000059; Pls.’ Supplemental Mem. in Resp. to Defs.’ Mot., Ex. 1 at ¶ 5-11). Based on the materials presented, this Court finds that Defendants have not shown a “ ‘factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief by a reasonable person’ ... that in camera review of the materials may reveal evidence to establish the claim that the crime-fraud exception applies.” Zolin, 491 U.S. at 572, 109 S.Ct. 2619 (quoting Caldwell, 644 P.2d at 33). As a result, this Court need not review these documents in camera to determine whether the crime-fraud exception applies.

Nevertheless, this Court already has reviewed the Sequestered Documents in camera to determine whether they are privileged. From this review the Court concludes that none of the communications between Heriot and his lawyer show that “Heriot perpetrated a fraud on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security by soliciting fake deal memos to trick the government into issuing him an O-Visa.” (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 8.) Therefore, the crime-fraud exception does not apply.9

3. Inadvertent Disclosure Under FRE 502

Having determined that the Sequestered Documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege, this Court applies FRE 502(b). Prior to the 2008 amendment of FRE 502, “the burden of proving inadvertent disclosure [was] on the party asserting the privilege.” In re Sulfuric Acid Antitrust Litig., 235 F.R.D. 407, 417 (N.D.Ill.2006). This Court sees no reason to modify this approach and so applies it to FRE 502(b). Because FRE 502(b) has three requirements, this Court discusses each one separately.

i. Inadvertent Disclosure

The first requirement of FRE 502(b) is that the disclosure of confidential material must have been inadvertent Fed. R.Evid. 502(b)(1). To determine whether a disclosure was inadvertent, “this Court has ... look[ed] to factors such as the total number of documents reviewed, the proce*659dures used to review the documents before they were produced, and the actions of producing party after discovering that the documents had been produced.” Wunderli-chMalech Sys., Inc. v. Eisenmann Corp. (Eisenmann II), No. 05-C-4343, 2007 WL 3086006, at *3 (N.D.I11. Oct. 18, 2007) (citing Wunderlich-Malech Sys., Inc. v. Eisen-mann Corp. (Eisenmann I), No. 05-C-4343, 2006 WL 3370700, at *3 (N.D.I11. Nov. 17, 2006)). This Court can find no reason to discard these factors, which aptly address the issue of whether a party inadvertently disclosed confidential information.

Additionally, this Court considers “the extent of the disclosure” and “the scope of discovery.” Fed.R.Evid. 502(b) advisory committee’s note; see Harmony Gold, 169 F.R.D. at 117. These two factors should work on a sliding scale: the broader the scope of the discovery, the more extensive a party’s disclosure of confidential materials may be without waiving the privilege, and vice versa. See Wunderlic-Malec II, 2007 WL 3086006, at *3 (“[T]he greater the ratio is between privileged documents and total documents produced, the more persuasive claims of inadvertent production become.”). This approach reflects the undeniable truth that the greater the possibility of errors, the more likely errors will occur. See Judson, 529 F.3d at 388 (“ Where discovery is extensive, mistakes are inevitable____’ ” (quoting In re Sulfuric Acid, 235 F.R.D. at 417)).

Defendants’ primary argument is that “Plaintiffs’ counsel ... [was] asleep at the switch” and should have examined the documents after turning them over to the Vendor. (Defs.’ Reply Mem. 6.) In particular, Defendants place great weight on the amount of materials disclosed, a matter both parties contest.

Since the latter point goes to the extent of disclosure and the scope of discovery, this Court starts the analysis there. As a preliminary matter, this Court examines the total number of documents reviewed. Here, Plaintiffs reviewed and produced 1499 documents comprised of 6952 pages. (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 1; Pis.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 6.) This amount is neither apologetically large nor astonishingly small. See Wunderlic-Malec II, 2007 WL 3086006, at *3 (stating that 11,167 pages of documents was “a relatively large number”); see Harmony Gold, 169 F.R.D. at 117 (stating that review and production of 25,000 documents was an “admittedly large number”); see also Harris Corp. v. Amperex Elec. Corp., No. 86-6338, 1987 WL 4847, at *1 (N.D.I11. May 15, 1987) (finding inadvertent disclosure where plaintiff disclosed six privileged documents when it produced 7864 total pages of documents).

Plaintiffs and Defendants dispute the percentage of confidential documents inadvertently disclosed. Plaintiffs compute the percentage based on the total number of pages disclosed, stating that only “357 pages 5% of the total production were inadvertently produced and contained privileged attorney[-]client communications.” (Pis.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. 6.) Defendants, on the other hand, use the total number of documents to compute the percentage, stating that “Plaintiffs ... declared that ... 196 documents, comprising 13% of Plaintiffs’ production, were inadvertently produced attorney-client communications.” (Defs.’ Mem. in Supp. of Defs.’ Mot. 1.)

U