Task: Text Completion
Input (English): of litigation. Both Curry and Moscow deny giving or authorizing disclosure of the diary to Mr. Alexander, and Denis Daly, general counsel to Dayco, avers that only senior employees and officers of Dayco, and Dayco’s counsel and accountants have been permitted access to the diary. Exhibit attached to doc. # 79; doc. # 88. Plaintiffs have not offered any challenge to these statements, by way of affidavits or otherwise. Under these facts, and based on the Court’s in camera review of the document in question, it seems clear that the Curry diary should be considered to fall under both the attorney-corporate client privilege, and work-product immunity (for the latter, at least since December of 1981). See Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. LeMay, 89 F.R.D. 410, 413-14 (S.D.Ohio1981) (<HOLDING>), appeal dismissed mem., 708 F.2d 721 (6th 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that privilege applies in similar factual circumstances (B) holding that no discovery is permissible in similar circumstances (C) holding so under circumstances similar to the present ones (D) recognizing privilege (E) holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred
Output (English): (A)