In Rowe v. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., No. 15-1536 (1st Cir. Feb. 12, 2016), the First Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling that defendant’s privilege assertions were not sustained where defendant failed to provide detailed support for its privilege assertions until its reply brief.  In this matter, the parties had entered into a protective order that allowed a party to designate as “confidential” documents that were protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and for the opposing party to challenge such designations at any time.  Defendant had designated as confidential various documents to which plaintiff, as an employee of defendant, had already been privy.  Following defendant’s successful summary judgment motion, plaintiff objected to defendant’s designations of documents, including excerpts, referenced by either party in any pleading filed in the litigation, which comprised more than 2000 pages.  The district court directed defendant to file a motion (1) listing the documents over which it wished to preserve confidentiality designations; (2) attaching each document, under seal; and (3) explaining the basis of each designation, with reference to additional evidentiary materials or legal authority, if necessary.  Defendant filed “what essentially amounted to a bare bones privilege log, with a memorandum discussing various legal principles pertinent to general categories of confidentiality claims,” devoid of information such as which authors or recipients were lawyers, who was a proper client representative, and why the each communication was properly within the scope of privilege.  Although defendant provided more detailed information in its reply memorandum, the district court held that defendant had waited too long to provide that information and could not rely on details provided for the first time in the reply.  The appellate court affirmed, holding that the district court had not abused its discretion.  The appellate court noted that the district court had spelled out in advance what defendant needed to establish in order to prevail on its motion, and defendant could not complain where it did not present sufficient evidence to carry its burden.