Build Privilege Log
Skill: Convert withheld/redacted document metadata into an FRCP 26(b)(5) privilege log
Region: United States Category: Legal / eDiscovery Does: Takes the metadata and communication details of documents withheld or redacted for privilege and assembles an FRCP 26(b)(5)-compliant privilege log — the itemized list produced to opposing counsel describing each withheld document well enough to assess the claim without revealing the privileged content. Authority: FRCP 26(b)(5)(A) · Fed. R. Evid. 502 · attorney-client privilege & work-product doctrine
FRCP 26(b)(5) requires a party withholding on privilege to describe the nature of the documents "in a manner that … will enable other parties to assess the claim." The log must say enough to justify the privilege but not so much that it waives it. Field structure here matches Relativity/DISCO privilege-log templates. Parties increasingly agree to metadata or categorical logs in the ESI protocol — confirm the agreed format first.
Log types
| Type | When |
|---|---|
| Document-by-document | traditional; one row per withheld/redacted doc with a description |
| Metadata log | fields auto-populated from metadata (author, recipients, date, subject) + privilege basis — common for large ESI sets |
| Categorical log | documents grouped by category where individual logging is disproportionate (per agreement/court) |
Columns (document-by-document)
log_id, doc_id, bates_range (if redacted/produced-in-part),
date, doc_type (email/memo/attachment/...),
author/from, recipients_to, recipients_cc, recipients_bcc,
subject_or_description,
privilege_basis, // AC | WP | CI | JDA | other
work_product_type, // fact | opinion (if WP)
withheld_or_redacted, // fully withheld | redacted
attorney_names, // counsel involved (often flagged)
disposition_notes
Privilege basis codes
| Code | Meaning |
|---|---|
| AC | Attorney-client privilege |
| WP | Work-product doctrine (note fact vs opinion work product) |
| CI | Common-interest privilege |
| JDA | Joint-defense agreement |
Build rules
- Each entry must enable assessment: a non-conclusory description plus author/recipients/date/basis. "Email reflecting legal advice re: contract dispute" passes; "Privileged" alone does not.
- Establish the elements in the description: for AC, show a communication between client and counsel made in confidence for legal advice; for WP, show the document was prepared in anticipation of litigation (and whether opinion work product, which gets stronger protection).
- Flag attorneys among authors/recipients so the privileged relationship is visible; mark whether in-house counsel acted in a legal (vs business) capacity, a frequent challenge point.
- Redacted vs fully withheld: redacted documents are produced with a Bates range and a redaction reason; fully withheld documents have no Bates but are logged. Keep these consistent with the redaction log and production.
- Maintain family relationships: if a privileged attachment is withheld but the parent produced (or vice-versa), reflect it so the gap is explained.
- Watch waiver / FRE 502: ensure the log itself doesn't disclose privileged substance; pair production with an FRE 502(d) clawback order where available.
Worked example (two entries)
log_id date from to subject/description basis w/r
P-0001 2025-02-10 J. Doe (VP) M. Lee, Esq (GC) Email seeking legal advice re: Beta breach claim AC Withheld
P-0002 2025-02-12 M. Lee, Esq J. Doe; R. Roe Memo analyzing litigation risk & strategy (Beta) WP-opinion Withheld
(Both name the attorney (M. Lee, GC); P-0001 is an AC request for advice; P-0002 is opinion work product prepared in anticipation of the Beta dispute.)
Validation checklist
- Agreed log format (document-by-document / metadata / categorical) per the ESI protocol confirmed
- Every withheld/redacted document logged; redacted entries carry a Bates range, withheld entries do not
- Each entry has date, author/from, recipients, and a non-conclusory description enabling assessment
- Privilege basis coded (AC/WP/CI/JDA); work product marked fact vs opinion
- Attorneys identified among participants; in-house legal-vs-business capacity addressed where relevant
- Descriptions justify the privilege without disclosing privileged content (no waiver)
- Family relationships and produced-parent/withheld-attachment gaps reflected
- Consistent with the redaction log and production set; FRE 502(d) clawback order in place where available
Last updated: 2026-05-31 — confirm the required log format and detail level against the case ESI protocol, the court's local rules, current FRCP 26(b)(5), and FRE 502 before producing the log to opposing counsel.