In RIPL Corp. v. Google Inc., No. 12-02050 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 17, 2013), the court granted the defendant’s motion to enforce the clawback terms of an agreed protective over.  The defendant inadvertently produced privileged documents on July 2, 2013.  It discovered the mistake on August 12, 2013 and notified the plaintiff the next day.  The plaintiff refused to return the documents, arguing that the production had “waived” the right to assert attorney client privilege and the clawback request was not “prompt” as required under the protective order.  The plaintiff further contended that Federal Rule of Evidence 502, not the agreed protective order, controlled the question of waiver because the protective order did not define terms such as “inadvertent” and “prompt.”  The court rejected those arguments, holding that the agreed protective order controlled and stated that an agreed protective order need not “provide adequate detail regarding what constitutes inadvertence, what precautionary measures are required, and what the producing party’s postproduction responsibilities are to escape waiver.”  Rather, counsel’s declaration that the production was “inadvertent” satisfied the terms of the protective order, and the clawback request was “prompt.”  The court then ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees in bringing the motion, holding that “it was improper for [plaintiff] to hold the documents hostage for roughly two months in violation of the Protective Order.”