AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
đKey Facts
âïžLegal Issues
đCourt Holding
đĄReasoning
đŻSignificance
Estimated cost: $0.10â$0.50 per brief, depending on opinion length and retries
Full Opinion
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH
CASANDRA TINGEY,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, AND ORDER
v. Case No. 1:22-cv-00145-TC-JCB
MIDWEST OFFICE, INC. dba MIDWEST
COMMERCIAL INTERIORS dba MID- District Judge Tena Campbell
WEST OFFICE-INTERIOR SYSTEMS
dba MIDWEST OFFICE dba BARGAIN Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
OFFICE OUTFITTERS; JEREMY
BRADLEY; SEAN WRIGHT;
MARSHALL TATE; and TAMI
SHULSEN,
Defendants/Counter-Claimants.
District Judge Tena Campbell referred this case to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett
under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Before the court is Defendants/Counter-Claimants Midwest
Office, Inc. dba Midwest Commercial Interiors dba Mid-west Office-Interior Systems dba
Midwest Office dba Bargain Office Outfitters (âMWCIâ), Jeremy Bradley, Sean Wright,
Marshall Tate, and Tami Shulsenâs (collectively, âDefendantsâ) Short Form Discovery Motion
for Protective Order Regarding Investigation of Prior Complaint by Former Employee.2 The
court heard oral argument on the motion on December 6, 2023, and, at the conclusion of the
1 ECF No. 12.
2 ECF No. 32.
hearing, took the motion under advisement.3 Although Defendants asserted the attorney-client
privilege and the work-product doctrine in objecting to Plaintiff Casandra Tingeyâs (âMs.
Tingeyâ) requests for production, Defendants did not brief this issue in their motion, nor did
Defendants produce a privilege log that would allow the court to rule on the privileged nature of
the materials. Defendants asserted the privilege at the end of oral argument on the motion.
Therefore, the court ordered Defendants to submit the withheld documents to the court for in
camera review along with a privilege log and ordered additional briefing on the privilege issues.4
After reviewing each challenged document and the partiesâ supplemental briefing,5 the court
provides a ruling on each document via the attached spreadsheet.6 To provide context for the
courtâs rulings on each document, the court begins by setting forth the legal requirements for
attorney-client privilege and work-product protection then applies these standards to its analysis
of the reviewed materials. Upon concluding that some documents or portions of documents
cannot be withheld based on any privilege or protection, the court grants in part and denies in
part Defendantsâ motion.7
3 ECF No. 39.
4 Id.
5 ECF Nos. 43, 45, 54.
6 The court will also provide this spreadsheet to the parties by email.
7 ECF No. 32.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The court begins by setting forth the standards that it has used in evaluating Defendantsâ
privilege claims. The court discusses the attorney-client privilege followed by the work-product
doctrine.
I. Attorney-Client Privilege
The purpose of the attorney-client privilege âis to encourage full and frank
communication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests
in the observance of law and administration of justice.â8 Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence dictates how privilege is determined.9 Because the claim under which the investigation
materials are sought arises under federal law, federal common law governs the claims of
privilege.10 Under federal common law, the attorney-client privilege âprotects âconfidential
communications by a client to an attorney made in order to obtain legal assistanceâ from the
attorney in his capacity as a legal advisor.â11 The privilege also protects âattorney to client
communications.â12 Additionally, the privilege âexists to protect not only the giving of
professional advice to those who can act on it but also the giving of information to the lawyer to
enable him to give sound and informed advice.â13 To this end, the Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit stated,
8 Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981).
9 ERA Franchise Sys., Inc. v. N. Ins. Co. of New York, 183 F.R.D. 276, 278 (D. Kan. 1998).
10 Fed. R. Evid. 501.
11 In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued on June 9, 1982, 697 F.2d 277, 278 (10th Cir.
1983) (quoting Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976).
12 In re Grand Jury Proc., 616 F.3d 1172, 1182 (10th Cir. 2010).
13 Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 390.
[W]hen an attorney conducts a factual investigation in connection
with the provision of legal services, any notes or memoranda
documenting client interviews or other client communications in the
course of the investigation are fully protected by the attorney-client
privilege.14
â[W]hen an attorney conveys to his client facts acquired from other persons or sources, those
facts are not privileged.â15 Even so, in a corporate setting, âcommunications from lower echelon
employees [are] within the privilege as long as the communications were made to the attorney to
assist him in giving legal advice to the client corporation.â16
âThe burden of establishing the applicability of [the attorney-client] privilege rests on the
party seeking to assert it.â17 âThe party must bear the burden as to specific questions or
documents, not by making a blanket claim.â18 The privilege âmust be strictly construed and
accepted only to the very limited extent that . . . excluding relevant evidence has a public good
transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining
truth.â19
II. Work-Product Doctrine
The work-product doctrine protects from discovery those documents, things, and mental
impressions of a party or its representative, particularly its attorney, developed in anticipation of
14 Sandra T.E. v. South Berwyn Sch. Dist. 100, 600 F.3d 612, 620 (7th Cir. 2010).
15 In re Grand Jury Proc., 616 F.3d at 1182.
16 United States v. El Paso Co., 682 F.2d 530, 538 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (citing Upjohn Co., 449
U.S. at 391).
17 In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 697 F.2d at 279.
18 In re Foster, 188 F.3d 1259, 1264 (10th Cir. 1999).
19 Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50 (1980) (quotations and citation omitted).
litigation.20 The doctrine is not intended to protect work prepared in the ordinary course of
business or investigative work unless it was done so under the supervision of an attorney in
preparation âfor the real and imminent threat of litigation or trial.â21 For the doctrine to apply,
there must be a real and substantial probability that litigation will occur at the time the
documents were created. There are two components in determining whether documents are
prepared in anticipation of litigation. The first is the causation requirementâthe primary
motivating purpose for preparation of the document must be in anticipation of litigation rather
than preparation in the ordinary course of business or preparation required by some external or
internal mandate.22 The second component imposes a reasonableness limit on a partyâs
anticipation of litigationâthe threat of litigation must be real and imminent.23 Therefore, a party
20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
21 U.S. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bunge N. Am., Inc., 247 F.R.D. 656, 657 (D. Kan. 2007).
22 If materials are produced in the ordinary and regular course of a discovery opponentâs
business, and not to prepare for litigation, they are outside the scope of the work-product
doctrine. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) advisory committeeâs note to 1970 amendment. Accordingly,
even if litigation is imminent, there is no work-product immunity for documents prepared in the
ordinary course of business rather than for litigation purposes. Binks Mfg. Co. v. Natâl Presto
Indus., 709 F.2d 1109, 1119 (7th Cir. 1983); Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 8 Fed.
Prac. and Proc., Civ., § 2024 (3d ed. 2023). That is to say, the mere fact that a discovery
opponent anticipates litigation does not qualify an âin-houseâ document as work product.
Janicker v. George Washington Univ., 94 F.R.D. 648, 650 (D.D.C. 1982); see, e.g., Fine v. ESPN,
Inc., No. 5:12-CV-0836, 2015 WL 3447690, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. May 28, 2015) (â[W]hile the Jones
Affidavit states that the University anticipated litigation at the time of the 2005 investigation . . .
, it offers no evidence, nor does the University claim now, that the documents produced during
the investigation would not have been prepared in the same form absent the prospect of litigation
. . . .â).
23 Because litigation can be anticipated, in a general sense, at the time almost any incident
occursâthus closing off much pertinent discoveryâcourts have interpreted the Rule to require a
higher standard of anticipation to give a reasonable scope to the protection. There are many
formulations of this level of threat, but the cases generally concur that a party must show more
than a remote prospect, an inchoate possibility, or a likely chance of litigation. See, e.g.,
claiming work-product protection must demonstrate the document was prepared principally or
exclusively to assist in anticipated or ongoing litigation and establish the underlying nexus
between the preparation of the document and the specific litigation.24
ANALYSIS
Based upon the courtâs in camera review of the withheld documents, the court concludes:
(I) the investigation was motivated by MWCIâs request for legal advice from attorney Matt
Durham (âMr. Durhamâ) and thus investigation materials are protected from disclosure under the
attorney-client privilege; (II) the materials Mr. Durham created during the investigation are
protected from disclosure under the work-product doctrine because they were produced in
anticipation of litigation and share Mr. Durhamâs impressions and strategy with MWCI;
however, (III) purely logistical communications contained within the investigation documents
are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. Applying this
reasoning, (IV) the court provides a ruling on each document in Defendantsâ privilege log via the
attached spreadsheet and orders Defendants to redact and produce those documents or portions
of documents that cannot be withheld based on attorney-client privilege or work product
protection.
Kannaday v. Ball, 292 F.R.D. 640, 649 (D. Kan. 2013) (stating that the âreasonableness limit on
a partyâs anticipation of litigationâ requires the threat of litigation to be ârealâ and âimminentâ);
Leonen v. JohnsâManville, 135 F.R.D. 94, 97 (D.N.J. 1990) (providing that there must be âan
identifiable specific claim or impending litigation when the materials were preparedâ for the
protection to apply); Carver v. Allstate Ins. Co., 94 F.R.D. 131, 134 (S.D. Ga. 1982) (explaining
that the concern is no longer âwith the contingency of litigationâ but whether the probability of
litigation is âsubstantial and imminentâ); Coastal States Gas Corp. v. Depât of Energy, 617 F.2d
854, 865 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (stating that a party must demonstrate that âat the very least some
articulable claim, likely to lead to litigationâ had arisen).
24 Kannaday, 292 F.R.D. at 648-49.
I. The Investigation Was Motivated by MWCIâs Request for Legal Advice from Mr.
Durham and Thus Investigation Materials Are Protected from Disclosure Under the
Attorney-Client Privilege.
The documents and communications withheld by Defendants as privileged all relate to a
2019 investigation conducted by Mr. Durham regarding former MWCI employee E.S.âs internal
complaint of sexual harassment.25 The withheld investigation documents are protected by the
attorney-client privilege because Mr. Durham was retained to investigate and interview MWCI
employees to provide legal advice to MWCI about E.S.âs internal complaint. When an attorneyâs
âinvestigation of the factual circumstances surrounding the [events] [is] an integral part of the
package of legal services for which it was hired and a necessary prerequisite to the provision of
legal advice about how the [client] should respond,â such investigation is protected by the
attorney-client privilege.26 âThe relevant question is not whether [the attorney] was retained to
conduct an investigation, but rather, whether this investigation was related to the rendition of
legal services.â27 The court concludes that it was.
In an affidavit attached to Defendantsâ supplemental brief,28 Mr. Durham represents that
MWCI asked him to conduct this investigation in order to provide legal advice regarding the
merits of E.S.âs complaint, the companyâs potential liability, and the corrective action that MWCI
should take against the alleged perpetrator (H.W.).29 Mr. Durham personally interviewed E.S.,
25 ECF No. 43-1 at 2.
26 Sandra T.E., 600 F.3d at 620.
27 In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 603 (4th Cir. 1997) (quotations omitted).
28 ECF No. 43-1.
29 ECF No. 43-1 at 2 (emphasis added).
H.W., the in-house human resources representative, and two other individuals whose identities
Mr. Durham cannot recall.30 Mr. Durham represents that, during these interviews, he would have
advised the witnesses that he was retained by MWCI as legal counsel and he was conducting an
investigation for the purpose of providing legal advice to the company.31 Additionally, Mr.
Durham represents that he would have advised the witnesses that their communications during
the interview were privileged and should not be shared with other individuals.32 Following these
interviews, Mr. Durham analyzed the information obtained from the witnesses, summarized
relevant aspects for purposes of his analysis, and used this information to advise MWCI on the
merits of any potential legal claim from E.S., MWCIâs potential liability, and corrective action
MWCI might take against H.W.33 Mr. Durham also provided legal advice to MWCI during calls
and meetings with MWCI executives.34
In finding that the investigation was conducted for the purpose of providing legal advice
to MWCI, the court concludes that the attorney-client privilege applies to all communications
within the investigation documents that contain Mr. Durhamâs legal advice and strategy
concerning the E.S. investigation at MWCI. After in camera review, the court finds that the
following documents listed in Defendantsâ privilege log are protected from disclosure on this
basis: 1, 5, 6, 10, and 11. A small selection of document 16 may be redacted prior to production
30 Id.
31 Id. at 3.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id.
on this basis.35 Finally, any revisions and comments made by Mr. Durham regarding the MWCI
employee handbook,36 are protected from disclosure.
II. The Materials Mr. Durham Created During the Investigation Are Protected from
Disclosure Under the Work-Product Doctrine Because They Were Produced in
Anticipation of Litigation and Share Mr. Durhamâs Impressions and Strategy with
MWCI.
Defendants have also demonstrated that the materials Mr. Durham created during the
investigation are protected from disclosure under the work-product doctrine because they were
produced in anticipation of litigation and share Mr. Durhamâs impressions and strategy with
MWCI. The court first concludes that the primary motivating purpose for the preparation of the
relevant documents and communications was anticipation of litigation rather than preparation in
the ordinary course of business. The investigation materials would not have been preparedânor
would Mr. Durham have been retainedâbut for the prospect of litigation arising from E.S.âs
complaint. Thus, the withheld documents that include written summaries of Mr. Durhamâs
interviews of MWCI employees, communications that contain Mr. Durhamâs thoughts and
opinions with respect to the merits of any potential legal claim from E.S. as well as MWCIâs
potential liability, and communications in which Mr. Durham offers MWCI any other
impressions or strategy are all subject to work-product protection.
The court also concludes that the threat of litigation was real or imminent. A real or
imminent threat of litigation exists when a claim is âidentifiableâ or âarticulableâ and such claim
35 See attached spreadsheet for specific instructions.
36 Attachment to document 4 listed in Defendantsâ privilege log.
was âlikely to lead to litigationâ at the time the document was created.37 When E.S. submitted
her internal complaint alleging sexual harassment, she identified and articulated a potential Title
VII claim for sex discrimination. MWCI then sought legal services from Mr. Durham to prepare
MWCI for what might arise legally. In light of the nature of the documents the court has
reviewed, and the factual situation of the E.S. investigation, the documents and communications
between Mr. Durham and MWCI can fairly be said to have been prepared because of the real
prospect of litigation.38 Accordingly, after in camera review, the court finds that the following
documents listed in Defendantsâ privilege log are protected from disclosure on this basis: 2, 5, 6,
8, 10, 11, and 13.
III. Purely Logistical Communications Contained Within the Investigation Documents
Are Not Protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege or Work-Product Doctrine.
After conducting in camera review, the court determines that some of the
communications withheld by Defendants are purely logistical, such as email correspondences
scheduling meetings to discuss the status of the investigation and, thus, cannot be withheld based
on the attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. These are documents or portions of
communications that contain no legal analysis or attorney impressions. Accordingly, the court
37 Strand v. Usana Health Sci., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00925-HCN-JCB, 2021 WL 3055608, at *2
n.19 (D. Utah July 20, 2021).
38 See, e.g., Wright & Miller, 8 Fed. Prac. and Proc., Civ., § 2024 (3d ed. 2023) (âPrudent parties
anticipate litigation, and begin preparation prior to the time suit is formally commenced. Thus
the test should be whether, in light of the nature of the document and the factual situation in the
particular case, the document can fairly be said to have been prepared or obtained because of the
prospect of litigation.â).
orders Defendants to produce documents 3 and 19. The court also orders Defendants to redact
and produce the following documents on this basis: 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.39
IV. Individual Rulings on Withheld Documents
The court provides a ruling on each document in Defendantsâ privilege log via the attached
spreadsheet and orders Defendants to redact and produce those documents or portions of
documents that cannot be withheld based on any privilege or protection.40 The court will also
provide this spreadsheet to the parties by email.
39 See attached spreadsheet for specific instructions.
40 In her supplemental brief, Ms. Tingey did not make individual challenges to each document
listed in Defendantsâ privilege log. Therefore, in this spreadsheet, the court summarizes what
appear to be Ms. Tingeyâs relevant objections to each document. Generally, Ms. Tingey argues
that advice sought from Mr. Durham occurred in the normal course of business as a human
resources recommendation, not as legal advice, and there was no anticipation of litigation at the
time E.S. raised her complaint. The court has addressed these challenges in its above analysis.
Ms. Tingey also argues that she has a right to discovery that might assist her in establishing a
pervasively hostile workplace environment. The court agrees that Ms. Tingey has a right to
discovery that is sufficiently relevant to the claims and defenses in this action and proportionate
to the needs of this case and, therefore, has already ruled that Ms. Tingey may take E.S.âs
deposition to gain information about this investigation. ECF No. 40. Ms. Tingey is also entitled
to those documents listed in the spreadsheet that are not subject to any privilege or protection.
Case 1:22-cv-00145-TC-JCB Document 57 Filed 02/07/24 PageID.431 Page 12 of 13
Document Number Email Subject Description MWCI Reason Tingey Challenge Court Disposition
MWCI has failed to show the investigation and materials prepared by Mr. Durham were prepared for the primary
purpose of receiving legal advice.
CONFIDENTIAL - Misconduct Rather, Mr. Durham's notes were prepared in the ordinary course of business of investigating complaints of
1 Investigation Correspondence outlining allegations regarding Hal and his responses Attorney-Client Privilege sexual harassment in the workplace. Yes, protected by attorney-client privilege.
Attachment to above email [Document No. 2]:
2 MWOI Misconduct Investigation Summary of Allegatons Attorney-Client Privilege/Work Product This was not prepared in anticipation of litigation. Yes, protected by work product doctrine.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach.
3 Emily Correspondence regarding meeting with Emily Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. No, cannot be withheld based on any privilege or protection.
Redact and produce. Email sent 01/11/2019 at 5:43 PM cannot be withheld
based on any privilege or protection. However, revisions and comments
about the employee handbook are protected by attorney-client privilege and
if this is an attachment to the email it can be withheld on this basis.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach. Last sentence of email sent on 06/24/19 at 10:24 AM protected by work-
4 Follow-up Correspondence regarding remaining interview Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. product doctrine.
FW: CONFIDENTIAL - Misconduct Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach.
5 Investigation Correspondence regarding follow up conversation with Emily Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. Yes, protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.
FW: CONFIDENTIAL - Misconduct Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach.
6 Investigation Correspondence to arrange a follow up interview with Emily Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. Yes, protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.
Redact and produce. First and second sentences of email sent on 06/27/2019
at 11:25 AM protected by work product doctrine. Email sent on 06/27/2019
at 11:41 AM protected by work product doctrine.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach. Emails sent 06/27/2019 at 11:37 AM, 1:16 PM, 2:33 PM, and 2:35 PM cannot
7 FW: investigation Correspondence forwarding email that did not send as thought Attorney Client Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. be withheld based on any privilege or protection.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach.
8 Investigation - Text Messages Correspondence regarding call from Emily Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. Yes, protected by work product doctrine.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach. Redact and produce. First sentence protected by work product doctrine.
9 Investigation Correspondence regarding meeting with Hal Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. Second sentence cannot be withheld based on any privilege or protection.
MWCI has failed to show the investigation and materials prepared by Mr. Durham were prepared for the primary
purpose of receiving legal advice.
Rather, Mr. Durham's notes were prepared in the ordinary course of business of investigating complaints of
sexual harassment in the workplace.
10 Investigation Correspondence with updated summary of allegations from employee interviews Attorney-Client Privilege This was not prepared in anticipation of litigation. Yes, protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.
Attachment to above email: MWOI Misconduct investigation Summary of Allegations with
11 redlines Attorney-Client Privilege/Work ProductThis was not prepared in anticipation of litigation. Yes, protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.
Redact and produce. Emails sent 06/28/2019 at 10:42 AM and 2:50 PM
protected by work product doctrine.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach. Email sent on 06/28/2019 at 3:02 PM cannot be withheld based on any
12 RE: Emily "Calling now" Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. privilege or protection.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach.
13 RE: Emily Correspondence regarding a call with Sean and Marshall Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. Yes, protected by work product doctrine.
Redact and produce. First and second sentences of email sent on 06/27/2019
at 11:25 AM protected by work product doctrine. Email sent on 06/27/2019
at 11:41 AM protected by work product doctrine.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach. Emails sent on 06/27/2019 at 11:37 AM, 1:16 PM, and 2:33 PM cannot be
14 Re: Investigation Correspondence confirming time to meet Marshall and Sean Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. withheld based on any privilege or protection.
Redact and produce. First and second sentences of email sent on
06/27/2019 at 11:25 AM protected by work product doctrine. Email sent on
06/27/2019 at 11:41 AM protected by work product doctrine.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach. Emails sent on 06/27/2019 at 11:37 AM cannot be withheld based on any
15 RE: Investigation Correspondence regarding a phone call with Sean Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. privilege or protection.
Redact and produce. First and second sentences of email sent on 06/27/2019
at 11:25 AM protected by work product doctrine. Email sent on 06/27/2019
at 11:41 AM protected by work product doctrine.
Third sentence of email sent on 06/27/2019 at 2:44 PM protected by
attorney-client privilege.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach. Emails sent on 06/27/2019 at 11:37 AM, 1:16 PM, 2:33 PM, 2:35 PM, and
16 Re: Investigation Correspondence regarding reserving time to discuss next steps Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. 3:27 PM cannot be withheld based on any privilege or protection.
Redact and produce. Email sent on 07/03/2019 at 2:25 PM protected by
work product doctrine.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach. Email sent on 07/03/2019 at 3:58 PM cannot be withheld based on any
17 RE: Midwest Interviews Correspondence regarding timeline for summary of interviews Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. privilege or protection.
Redact and produce. Email sent on 06/25/2019 at 3:55 PM protected by
work product doctrine.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach. Email sent on 06/25/2019 at 5:24 PM cannot be withheld based on any
18 RE: Next Steps Correspondence asking if Sean has a minute to talk Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. privilege or protection.
Description insufficient to determine if privilege protection should attach.
19 Update Correspondence regarding Hal's contacts with Matt Attorney-Client Privilege Correspondence to set up meeting is merely procedural and not protected legal advice. No, cannot be withheld based on any privilege or protection.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Based upon the forgoing analysis, the court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
Defendantsâ Short Form Discovery Motion for Protective Order Regarding Investigation of Prior
Complaint by Former Employee.*! The court orders as follows:
1. Document Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13 are protected from disclosure.
2. Document Nos. 4, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 shall be redacted and produced
according to the courtâs instruction.
3. Document Nos. 3 and 19 shall be produced without redactions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 7th day of February 2024.
BY THE COURT:
Flea
JARED C. BENNETT
United States Magistrate Judge
â1 ECF No. 32.
12 Case Information
- Court
- D. Utah
- Decision Date
- February 7, 2024
- Status
- Precedential