Extract to table

The privilege is codified at CPLR § 4503(a), which provides, in relevant part, that "an attorney or his or her employee, or any person who obtains without the knowledge of the client evidence of a confidential communication made between the attorney or his or her employee and the client in the course of professional employment, shall not disclose, or be allowed to disclose such communication

If a communication serves both business and legal purposes — a so-called "dual-purpose" or "mixed-purpose" communication — the court must determine which purpose predominated

Arguments Against Privilege (Anticipated Opposition Position) Kestrel Voss & Huang will advance the following arguments against the privilege claim, and we must be prepared to respond to each: 1

The strongest argument for privilege depends on facts we must still develop through the investigation outlined in Section V below

Factual Investigation Required In order to make a final determination regarding the viability of the privilege claim and to prepare for the anticipated motion to compel, the following factual investigation must be completed on an expedited basis, ideally before January 10, 2025 (five days before the privilege log deadline): 1

We must review the complete email chain or communication thread surrounding the Aaronson Memorandum, including any responsive or advisory communications from Linden