Page 1 of 15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF IN RE 

SKANSKA USA CIVIL 

SOUTHEAST INC. AND 

SKANSKA USA, INC. AS 

OWNERS OF THE BARGE KS 

5531 PRAYING FOR 

EXONERATION FROM OR 

LIMITATION OF LIABILITY 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H)

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.

3:20-CV-05980-LC/HTC

DISCOVERY ORDER No. 4

Re: WORK PRODUCT

This matter is before the Court on a dispute between the parties regarding the 

scope of work product protection. Petitioner Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc. 

(“Skanska”) has produced a privilege log identifying 150 documents, consisting of 

email communication and attachments, as being covered by the work product 

protection. For the majority of the documents, Skanska described the basis of 

protection as “post-storm discussions at the direction of counsel.” According to 

Skanska, these documents are work product because Skanska anticipated litigation 

by at least September 18, 2020, two (2) days after Hurricane Sally made landfall, and 

these documents and communications were generated at the direction of in-counsel. 

See July 8, 2021 E. Billhimer Letter (attached). 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 1 of 33
Page 2 of 15

2

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

Claimants disagree with Skanska’s position and argue the descriptions 

provided by Skanksa simply do not support a work product determination. Skanska, 

thus, submitted the documents to the Court for in camera inspection. After reviewing 

each of the 150 documents at issue, the Court told Skanska that it appears Skanska 

used a wide blanket in what it sought to cover from disclosure as work product. The 

Court noted, for example, that Skanska sought to protect communications containing 

purely logistical information such as transportation arrangements. Such documents 

should never have been identified as either work product or attorney client privilege. 

As the Court explained, not everything done at the direction of counsel is 

clothed with the work product protection. Moreover, Skanska produced no evidence, 

other than argument of counsel, that each communication at issue was made, or 

conducted at, the request of counsel for purposes of addressing anticipated litigation. 

See Universal Standard Inc. v. Target Corp., 331 F.R.D. 80, 92–93 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) 

(rejecting work product claim because plaintiff gave a “generic recitation of the law 

governing work product doctrine” without showing how the test applied to the 

documents at issue). However, to Skanska’s benefit, rather than issuing an order 

requiring disclosure, the Court gave Skanska an opportunity to reconsider its 

designations and provide additional support for communications that Skanska

maintained, upon a further review, were protected. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 2 of 33
Page 3 of 15

3

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

Subsequently, Skanska narrowed its designation to fifty-seven (57) of the 150 

documents and provided slightly little more authority for its position. See attached

Privilege Log (edited to remove irrelevant columns). Additionally, Skanska 

identified eight (8) text messages, which were also in dispute, and which Skanska 

provided to the Court on July 20, 2021. This Order addresses those sixty-five (65)

documents. Skanska categorizes the documents it seeks to withhold as falling 

primarily in the following buckets: (1) documents related to “public relations,” and 

(2) documents with insurers.

I. WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE

The work product doctrine is codified in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, which provides that a party is not entitled to obtain discovery of 

“documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for 

trial by or for another party or its representative” unless the party makes a showing 

of substantial need “and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial 

equivalent by other means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). The purpose of the work 

product rule is “to preserve a zone of privacy in which a lawyer can prepare and 

develop legal theories and strategy ‘with an eye toward litigation,’ free from 

unnecessary intrusion by his adversaries.” United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 

1196 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510–11 (1947)). 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 3 of 33
Page 4 of 15

4

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

Under Rule 26(b)(3), the party asserting work product protection “bears the 

burden of establishing its applicability to the case at hand.” In re Grand Jury 

Subpoenas Dated Mar. 19, 2002 & Aug. 2, 2002, 318 F.3d 379, 384 (2d Cir. 2003) 

(citing cases). The party asserting work-product protection must demonstrate the 

material at issue “‘(1) [is] a document or a tangible thing, (2) that was prepared in 

anticipation of litigation, and (3) was prepared by or for a party, or by his 

representative.’” Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C., 252 F.R.D. at 173 (quoting Allied Irish 

Banks v. Bank of Am., N.A., 240 F.R.D. 96, 105 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)).

Importantly, the materials to be protected “must result from the conduct of 

investigative or analytical tasks to aid counsel in preparing for litigation.” Wultz v. 

Bank of China Ltd, 304 F.R.D. 384, 393–94 (S.D. NY 2015) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Thus, it is not enough to merely show that the material 

was prepared at the behest of a lawyer or was provided to a lawyer. Rather, the 

materials must result from the conduct of “investigative or analytical tasks to aid 

counsel in preparing for litigation.” Costabile v. Westchester, N.Y., 254 F.R.D. 160, 

164 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (citation omitted). “[D]elegating business functions to counsel 

to oversee does not provide work-product protection to the materials created for those 

business functions.” In re Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 

296 F. Supp. 3d 1230, 1244 (D. Or. 2017). 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 4 of 33
Page 5 of 15

5

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

Similarly, simply designating in-house counsel to act as central point of 

contact to triage information after an incident does not give a party free reign to 

designate whatever it chooses as work product. Instead, it unnecessarily blurs the 

line between communications that were primarily made in anticipation of litigation 

and what would have been done in the ordinary business regardless of litigation. See 

Mission Nat. Ins. Co. v. Lilly, 112 F.R.D. 160, 163 (D. Minn. 1986) (“It is not the 

precepts of law that give rise to the difficulty in this case; instead, the difficulty exists 

because of plaintiffs’ decision, immediately upon receiving notice of the fire, to 

employ attorneys to fulfill its ordinary business function of claims investigation.”). 

Courts take assertions of work product protection and privilege seriously because 

they cannot unring the bell once disclosure is required; likewise, parties should take 

seriously the fact that privileges and work product protection are not to be 

indiscriminately applied to shield information one side simply does not like. 

A. Communications Regarding Publicity

Skanska has designated as work product several email communications it 

describes on the June 20, 2021 revised privilege log as “discussion of public relations 

to assist legal counsel in anticipation of litigation.” Despite this designation, to be 

clear, the communications at issue are not to or from a public relations firm and do 

not include inside or outside counsel. In fact, only one communication even mentions 

a “PR firm.” Instead, the communications Skanska seeks to protect are internal 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 5 of 33
Page 6 of 15

6

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

communications between and among employees of Skanska regarding their thoughts 

on certain news articles or statements made by others and how Skanska might address 

some of those articles or statements. Such communications are not work product.

“[T]he purpose of the [work product] rule is to provide a zone of privacy for 

strategizing about the conduct of litigation itself, not for strategizing about the effects 

of the litigation on the client’s customers, the media, or on the public generally.” See 

Calvin Klein Trademark Tr. v. Wachner, 198 F.R.D. 53, 55 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Thus, 

documents created for public relations purposes are not protected. Gucci Am., Inc.,

271 F.R.D. at 78 (noting work product doctrine was inapplicable to a “publicity 

strategy [that] was treated as a business concern”); N.Y. Times Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of 

Defense, 499 F. Supp. 2d 501, 517 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (determining “talking points” 

document prepared to aid in briefing officials to answer questions from the press was 

not work product under an exemption pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 

because it “seem[ed] to have been drafted for public relations purposes”); de Espana 

v. Am. Bureau of Shipping, 2005 WL 3455782, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2005) 

(concluding that notes from a meeting that “concern[ed] press and public relations 

strategies” were not work product because they would have been prepared “in the 

normal course of business without the threat of litigation”).

The communications at issue bear on what senior management might do from 

a public relations or community standpoint. There is no legal strategy or legal advice 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 6 of 33
Page 7 of 15

7

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

discussed in any of the emails. Moreover, while one of the emails relates to how 

Skanska should respond to a news media request for comment, it was not a request 

to respond to any ongoing or current litigation, and there is no indication or evidence 

that the drafted response came from in-house or outside counsel or even had input 

from counsel. The emails are simply internal communications about what Skanska

believes may be necessary to bolster its reputation with state and local public officials 

in light of the events surrounding Hurricane Sally, some of which were made the day 

Hurricane Sally made landfall. 

Such communications fall outside of the work product protection. See Calvin 

Klein Trademark Tr. v. Wachner, 198 F.R.D. 53, 55 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“[I]t is obvious 

that as a general matter public relations advice, even if it bears on anticipated 

litigation, falls outside the ambit of protection of the so-called ‘work product’

doctrine embodied in Rule 26(b)(3), Fed. R. Civ. P.”); Gucci Am., Inc. v. Guess?, 

Inc., 271 F.R.D. 58, 78–79 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“The documents reviewed in camera

demonstrate that Gucci’s publicity strategy was treated as a business concern and was 

handled almost exclusively by its in-house corporate communications department. 

Although the draft press statement may have been reviewed by Gucci’s outside 

counsel, there is no indication that counsel drafted the statement or rendered legal 

advice in connection with such review.”); Zenith Ins. Co. v. Texas Inst. for Surgery, 

L.L.P., 328 F.R.D. 153, 173–74 (N.D. Tex. 2018) (“But TIFS has not shown that 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 7 of 33
Page 8 of 15

8

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

Items 60, 62, and 63, while motivated by the existence of then-existing litigation, 

were created primarily to aid in then-existing litigation—as opposed to simply 

sharing between TIFS’s personnel and/or director publicly available media coverage 

of the lawsuit filed against TIFS.”). 

In support of its position, Skanska relies on Magistrate Judge Jones’ decision 

in In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. Liab. Lit., No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 

6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017). Skanska’s reliance on In re Abilify is 

misplaced. The issue before Judge Jones was whether the disclosure of privileged 

materials to a public relations firm constituted a waiver of the attorney-client 

privilege. Id. That is not the issue before this Court. Regardless, the analysis would 

be no different under In re Abilify. As Judge Jones noted, “The key is not whether 

the entity is a consultant but rather whether the function performed by the consultant 

related to assisting legal counsel in providing legal advice and strategy concerning 

the legal position of [the company] in the media coverage concerning the litigation.” 

Id. The fact that the matters discussed in the emails, while bearing on public relations, 

may have also been helpful with the threatened litigation is of no consequence. 

Calvin Klein Trademark Tr., 198 F.RD. at 55. (“It may be that the modern client 

comes to court as prepared to massage the media as to persuade the judge; but nothing 

in the client’s communications for the former purpose constitutes the obtaining of 

legal advice or justifies a privileged status.”). 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 8 of 33
Page 9 of 15

9

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

Thus, the Court finds that Skanska has not met its burden of establishing work 

product protection as to the documents identified on the privilege log as relating to 

public relations. For the same reasons, the Court does not find the text messages 

identified by Skanska as bearing document id 33410, 33735, 33877, 34346, 34481, 

35290, and 36240 to be protected work product.

B. Communications with Insurers1

Skanska also seeks to protect certain emails containing communications with 

its insurers. As an initial matter, the Court agrees with Skanska that communications 

with its insurers can be work product because a party’s representative includes a

“party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent.” Jones v. Tauber 

& Balser, P.C., 503 B.R. 510, 515–17 (N.D. Ga. 2013). However, not all 

communications with a party’s insurers are work product. Instead, just as with the 

public relations emails, it is the nature and content of the communications that is 

determinative. 

Documents that were prepared in the ordinary course of business or would 

have been prepared even in the absence of a prospect of litigation are not protected.

1 As an initial matter, these communications, while not protected for the reasons discussed below, 

also do not appear to be relevant to the first phase of these bifurcated proceedings dealing with 

Skanska’s alleged negligence. The Court has not been asked to weigh in on relevance and further 

understands the parties agreed in their ESI protocol that certain ESI documents would be produced 

via search terms without regard to relevance. Presumably, these fall in that bucket. The parties 

are reminded, once again, however, of their upcoming September trial date and that their failure 

to narrowly tailor their discovery will not be a basis for a continuance. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 9 of 33
Page 10 of 15

10

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

See, e.g., Benton v. Brookfield Properties Corp., 2003 WL 21749602, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 

July 29, 2003) (citing Ramsey, 2002 WL 1402055, at *9–10 & n.9). As set forth by 

the court in Zenith Ins. Co.:

[A] document need not be generated in the course of an ongoing lawsuit 

to qualify for work product protection, but the primary motivating 

purpose behind the document’s creation must be to aid in possible future 

litigation; materials assembled in the ordinary course of business, or 

pursuant to public requirements unrelated to litigation, or for other 

nonlitigation purposes are not under the qualified immunity provided by 

this subdivision; and among the factors relevant to determining the 

primary motivation for creating a document are whether it was a routine 

practice to prepare that type of document or whether the document was 

instead prepared in response to a particular circumstance, where, if the 

document would have been created without regard to whether litigation 

was expected to ensue, it was made in the ordinary course of business 

and not in anticipation of litigation.

Zenith Ins. Co., 328 F.R.D. at 171–72; see also Janicker v. George Washington 

University, 94 F.R.D. 648, 650 (D.D.C.1982)).

Also, “to the extent that these documents merely consist of benign 

communications among the parties that contain neither statements to or from the 

underlying defendants nor opinions and legal strategies about the underlying 

litigation, they are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product 

doctrine, and their disclosure is proper. See, e.g., Smith v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 40 F. 

Supp. 3d 704, 726 (N.D. W. Va. 2014), aff’d, 2014 WL 4199207 (N.D. W. Va. Aug. 

22, 2014), and aff’d, 621 F. App’x 743 (4th Cir. 2015); Republican Party of N. 

Carolina v. Martin, 136 F.R.D. 421, 430 (E.D.N.C. 1991) (“[D]ocuments which 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 10 of 33
Page 11 of 15

11

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

contain only compilations of facts, and are devoid of any legal analysis (and, 

apparently, any legal significance) . . . are . . . unprotected by the work product 

doctrine.”).

The communications at issue between Skanska and its insurer, Zurich, do not 

contain any legal analysis. They do not contain legal strategy. They do not include 

counsel. They do not even contain a compilation of facts. Instead, they are “benign” 

communications regarding how reimbursements will be handled, whether a 

subcontractor should be hired to perform the salvage work, whether the insurer will 

pay for that work, and reviewing the contracts for the subcontractors. Skanska has 

not shown, despite being given the opportunity to do so, that the primary purpose of 

these communications were to address the Claimants’ anticipated or threatened 

litigation, versus what would ordinarily be communicated between Skanska and its 

insurer in the normal course of business. 

Likewise, communications between Skanska and DLS, an agent of its insurer 

Global Risk, including DLS’s request for information, while described by Skanska 

in the privilege log as containing an “assessment of damages,” is nothing more than 

information sought as part of a routine insurance investigation.

2

 In Benton v. 

Brookfield Properties Corp., 2003 WL 21749602 (S.D. N.Y. July 29, 2003), 

2 The Court’s decision herein, however, should not be interpreted as implying that the insurer’s 

claims file, generally, would be discoverable.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 11 of 33
Page 12 of 15

12

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

defendants sought to protect as work product emails exchanged between employees 

of the company and a risk engineer for Zurich, its insurer, after an elevator accident, 

which resulted in two deaths. Id. at *2. The court found the work product protection

did not apply because “the work was undertaken immediately following the 

assertedly insurable event in order to assist the insurer in determining whether to 

cover the expected claim.” See id. (“When an accident occurred on a site assigned to 

[the engineer], his role was to start the investigative process, secure evidence, and 

determine, if possible, the cause of the accident.”). 

Skanska also seeks to protect internal emails regarding a renewal of insurance 

coverage. Skanska identifies these communications as “Discussion at direction of 

In-House Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding legal advice on insurance renewal. 

Contains specific topics for legal assessment and advice to create a draft narrative for 

insurance narrative.” Once again, counsel is not included on the emails and there is 

no indication the emails were sent at the direction of counsel. Instead, the emails 

contain purely business and financial information. There is no legal assessment 

contained in the emails. Also, the referenced “narrative” relates solely to operational 

and business matters. The Court does not find these emails to contain any work 

product. There is no indication the same emails and information would not have been 

sent in the ordinary course without regard to litigation.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 12 of 33
Page 13 of 15

13

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

As stated above, it is Skanska’s burden to establish the work product 

protection, and the Court does not find that Skanska has met that burden as to those 

documents identified on the privilege log as communications with its insurers. See 

Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. F.D.I.C., 302 F.R.D. 497, 502 (N.D. Iowa), aff’d, 49 F. 

Supp. 3d 545 (N.D. Iowa 2014) (“[T]he documents were provided for case updates 

pursuant to the reinsurance agreements, or in response to specific requests, and 

included the matter’s history, its present posture, current activity, assessments of 

coverage and liability issues, amounts paid and reserve, and plans for future handling. 

Doc. No. 75 at 10. Those are all typical business purposes for the reinsurance 

industry. Progressive has not met its burden of showing that these documents were 

‘prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation.’”).

Skanska also seeks to protect internal communications regarding the retention 

of a claims preparation professional, Aon.3

 The Court finds that while those emails 

do not necessarily fall in the category of work product for this litigation, they do 

qualify as work product with regard to any litigation or potential litigation Skanska 

may have with its insurers. Thus, the Court will not require those documents to be 

produced. The Court notes, however, that an email which, otherwise, is not protected, 

such as the DLS emails requesting information, is not made so simply because Aon 

3 The Court notes that not all instances of these emails in the production have been identified as 

protected. However, a waiver must be intentional and not inadvertent.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 13 of 33
Page 14 of 15

14 

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

is mentioned or copied. Thus, based on the Court’s review, the only documents 

referencing Aon that are protected are documents bearing id numbers 158–160.

C. Other Documents

There are approximately eighteen (18) documents Skanska identifies on the 

privilege log that do not fall in either the public relations or insurer buckets. Instead, 

these remaining communications deal with other litigation or are communications 

that involve in-house counsel and advice from counsel, which, arguably, qualify as 

legal rather than business advice. The Court finds Skanska has established that those 

documents are covered by privilege or work product protection. 

II. CONCLUSION

Once the documents related to public relations and communications with 

insurers are removed, the Court finds that the only communications that Skanska may 

properly withhold from litigation, as identified on the privilege log, on the grounds 

of work product protection or attorney client privilege, are those bearing document 

id numbers 1055, 1297, 1350, 2072, 2168–74, 2699, 2824, 2870, 3174, 3179, 5202, 

and 5203. 

Finally, the parties have represented that the 150 documents and eight (8) text 

messages the Court laboriously reviewed are not the only purportedly privileged 

documents at issue. As the Court stated in open court at the July 21, 2021 discovery 

status conference, it is the Court’s hope that this Order will guide the parties to 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 14 of 33
Page 15 of 15

15

Case No. 3:20-cv-05980-LC/HTC 

conduct a more careful and discerning privilege review and to narrow the scope of 

any remaining disputes. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. By Monday, July 26, 2021, Skanska shall produce to Claimants all 

documents originally identified as privileged of the 150 provided to the Court to 

review, except documents bearing document id numbers 158–160, 1055, 1297, 1350, 

2072, 2169-–74, 2699, 2824, 2870, 3174, 3179, 5202, and 5203.

2. By Tuesday, July 27, 2021, Skanska shall submit to the Court for in 

camera review any remaining documents that Skanska contends are privileged and 

to which Claimants disagree. With the submission of documents, Claimants and 

Skanska should provide to the Court any additional authority any party wants the 

Court to consider as a basis for the privilege or their objections.

DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of July 2021.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 15 of 33
Elizabeth C. Billhimer 

Direct (850) 269-8853 

Ebillhimer@clarkpartington.com 

July 8, 2021 

VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon 

United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida 

United States Courthouse 

One North Palafox Street 

Pensacola, Florida 32502 

 Re: Submission of Documents for In Camera Review 

In the Matter of In Re Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc. and Skanska, Inc. 

as Owners of Barge KS 5531 Praying for Exoneration from or Limitation 

of Liability, Civil Action No. 3:20-CV-05980-LC/HTC 

Dear Magistrate Judge Cannon: 

We have delivered to your Chambers for in camera review documents from the initial privilege log 

prepared by Skanska that are currently challenged by Claimants. As requested, we provided the 

documents in hard copy as well as an electronic version. With regard to the electronic version, the 

documents are included on a flash drive that contains a .pdf with bookmarks that allows you to 

navigate between documents, as well as the native files. If you would prefer to be able to log on to 

a review platform, we can facilitate such access. 

Rule 26(b)(3)(A) provides that “[o]rdinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible 

things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party of its 

representative (including the other party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent). 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A). This case is unique because the threat or anticipation of litigation was 

very real in the week after Hurricane Sally. The Assistant General Counsel of Skanska USA, Inc. 

(“Skanska”), Steve Lunsford, was quickly engaged to provide legal advice and legal services. In 

that regard, Mr. Lunsford, in his legal capacity, directed many activities of Skanska employees that 

occurred thereafter. 

As early as September 18, 2020, word was publicly spreading that the law firm of Levin, 

Papantonio, which currently represents Claimants in this action, had filed or was preparing to file 

class action lawsuits against Skanska as a result of Hurricane Sally. See Skanska 00035682 

attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” On that same date, an article appeared on the local WEAR-TV 

website entitled “Lawsuits underway against Skanska Southeast after their barges damaged Three 

Mile Bridge” (the “Article”). See Exhibit “B” attached hereto. The Article quoted a partner from

Levin, Papantonio and stated that the firm planned to file class action and individual lawsuits 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 16 of 33
against Skanska. Id. In addition, on September 20, 2020, another law firm, Zarzaur, publicly 

announced it was exploring class action litigation. On September 22, 2020, Escambia County noted 

in internal communications that the Levin, Papantonio law firm had “already filed a class action suit 

arising out of the damage to the Pensacola Bay Bridge.” See Exhibit “C” (SKANSKA-PRREC_00000505) attached hereto.1

Here, the probability of litigation was very real, not speculative, and actually resulted in massive 

litigation. Accordingly, the communications and work of Skanska employees done at the direction 

of the Assistant General Counsel are entitled to work product protection. See Savoie v. Am. Sec. Ins. 

Co., No. 3:05CV244/MCR/EMT, 2006 WL 1737189, at *1 (N.D. Fla. June 23, 2006) (“In order for 

material to have been prepared in anticipation of litigation, there must be a showing that litigation is 

more than a remote possibility.”) citing Gulf Islands Leasing, Inc. v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., 215 

F.R.D. 466, 476 (S.D.N.Y.2003). “Instead, a ‘substantial probability’ of litigation must exist and 

the concern that litigation may occur must be real, not speculative.” Id.

Moreover, some of the documents at issue for in camera review involve communications between 

Skanska, as insured, and its insurers or concerning communications with or requests from its 

insurers. In particular, the Vice President of Insurance, Mary Ann Krautheim, worked with and at 

the direction of Mr. Lunsford in connection with communications with Skanska’s insurers. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(A)(3) (“[D]ocuments and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of 

litigation or for trial by or for another party of its representative (including the other party’s attorney, 

consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent); § 2024 The Work–Product Rule—Matters 

Protected by the Work–Product Rule, 8 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2024 (3d ed.) (“Thus, the rule 

made it clear that a report from the insured to the insurer is within the immunity as are statements 

obtained by investigators for the insurer.”). 

Finally, the spreadsheet that was sent to you last evening by Claimant’s counsel contained 

additional information that was not previously furnished by Claimants to Skanska’s counsel before 

last evening. The information contained herein is in response to this additional new information 

provided by Claimants. Separately, we will provide a response on Claimant’s revised log to each 

entry. 

 Sincerely, 

 Elizabeth C. Billhimer 

/ECB 

Enclosures 

cc: Claimants’ Counsel

 

1

 Escambia County produced these communications in response to a public records request. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 17 of 33
EXHIBIT "A"

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 18 of 33
Lawsuits underway against Skanska 

Southeast after their barges damaged Three 

Mile Bridge 

by Renee Beninate 

Friday, September 18th 2020 

AA

Volume 90% 

Lawsuit underway against Skanska Southeast after their barges damaged Three Mile Bridge. Source - WEAR 

EXHIBIT "B"

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 19 of 33
SANTA ROSA COUNTY, Fla. (WEAR) — Lawsuits are underway against 

Skanska Southeast, the builder of the Three Mile Bridge.

Several of their giant barges broke free during Hurricane Sally. 

Volume 90% 

Lawsuit underway against Skanska Southeast after their barges damaged Three Mile Bridge. Source - WEAR 

Two of them knocked out the new span of the Three Mile Bridge over 

Pensacola Bay. 

Now attorneys want Skanska Southeast to pay for it. 

The Three Mile Bridge has large sections missing, a crane laying over the 

road, and eight barges went loose from the site. 

Some crashing into people’s backyards during the storm. 

"Everyone was preparing, except for Skanska,” said associate attorney 

from Levin Papantonio, Brenton Goodman. “You know the company that 

was supposed to safeguard our transportation and make all of our areas 

more accessible and make it easier for all of us to transport back and 

forth have made it more difficult by what they did. And, more what they 

didn’t do by not securing these barges.” 

We asked Skanska Southeast why. They tell us they secured the barges 

and crane, preparing for 30 mile per hour winds. By the time they learned 

the conditions would be a lot worse, it was too late. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 20 of 33
"If we had known a category 2 hurricane was physically coming, it literally 

takes 4 to 5 days to physically prepare for that, " said Brian Stiereitz, 

Executive Vice President of Skanska Southeast. "We would have to have 

begun that late last week and we simply- none of us had that 

information.” 

Levin Papantonio plans on filing class action and individual lawsuits 

against the company, representing businesses and people hurt 

emotionally and financially- because of what happened. 

“If someone’s dock was destroyed, if their house was destroyed because 

the barge came through," said Goodman. "Because they travel everyday 

using that bridge or they rely on that bridge to bring customers, or 

employees to their areas.” 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 21 of 33
EXHIBIT "C"

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 22 of 33
Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 23 of 33
DOCID PRIVILEGE DESCRIPTION GLOBAL 

CUSTODIAN FAMILY DATE Deficiency Skanska Response

158 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding Insurance Fulton, Tom 9/22/2020 9:14 Not work product on face of entry.

Post storm communication at direction of InHouse Counsel regarding legal advice and legal 

strategy for claims preparation, engagement of 

consultant in anticipation of litigation. See 

July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see 

also Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956) 

(included within the attorney-client privilege 

are communications the insured makes to the 

insurer for its use to fulfill its obligation to 

defend on the insured's behalf).

159 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding Insurance Fulton, Tom 9/22/2020 9:14

Not work product on face of entry. Description 

appears to be inaccurate. Describes a 

"discussion" but no metadata for to, from, cc.

Attachment to 158; pepared at direction of InHouse Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding legal 

advice and legal strategy for claims 

preparation, engagement of consultant in 

anticipation of litigation. See July 8, 2021 

Letter to Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. 

160 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding Insurance Fulton, Tom 9/22/2020 9:14

Not work product on face of entry. Description 

appears to be inaccurate. Describes a 

"discussion" but no metadata for to, from, cc.

Attachment to 158; pepared at direction of InHouse Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding legal 

advice and legal strategy for claims 

preparation, engagement of consultant, in 

anticipation of litigation. See July 8, 2021 

Letter to Magistrate Hope T. Cannon

232 Work Product

Post storm discussion at the direction of InHouse Counsel regarding site visit Fulton, Tom 9/21/2020 7:57 Not work product on face of entry. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Post storm discussion at direction of 

In-House Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding legal 

strategy for site visit. Discussion of public 

relations to assist legal counsel in 

anticipation of litigation. See In re Abilify 

(Aripiprazole) Prod. Liab. Litig. , No. 3:16-

MD-2734, 2017 WL 6757558, at *8 (N.D. 

Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So long as the role of 

the consultant is to assist legal counsel in 

responding to the media the protections of 

the attorney-client privilege should apply the 

same as where a corporate employee is 

tasked with responding to media inquiries. . . 

. In the world today . . . it is not only 

common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist 

in-house counsel and outside counsel in 

responding to media inquiries regarding 

ongoing or threatened legal actions.”).

334 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding legal strategy, outreach Fulton, Tom 9/16/2020 20:22 Not work product on face of entry

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Post storm discussion at direction of 

In-House Counsel, S. Lunsford, regading legal 

strategy, outreach. Discussion of public 

relations to assist legal counsel in 

anticipation of litigation. See In re Abilify 

(Aripiprazole) Prod. Liab. Litig. , No. 3:16-

MD-2734, 2017 WL 6757558, at *8 (N.D. 

Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So long as the role of 

the consultant is to assist legal counsel in 

responding to the media the protections of 

the attorney-client privilege should apply the 

same as where a corporate employee is 

tasked with responding to media inquiries. . . 

. In the world today . . . it is not only 

common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist 

in-house counsel and outside counsel in 

responding to media inquiries regarding 

ongoing or threatened legal actions.”).

700 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding resources

Ford, Mason

Fulton, Tom 9/18/2020 11:29 Not work product on face of entry

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see 

also Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956) 

(included within the attorney-client privilege 

are communications the insured makes to the 

insurer for its use to fulfill its obligation to 

defend on the insured's behalf).

1055 Work Product

Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel, S. 

Lunsford regarding legal advice on outstanding 

claims Fulton, Tom 9/11/2020 11:44 Not work product on face of entry

Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel, S. 

Lunsford regarding legal advice on outstanding 

claims. This document relates to settlement 

of claims in connection with another legal 

matter and was prepared at direction of and 

involvement with inside and outside counsel. 

See also Fed. R. Evid. 408; § 90.408, Fla. 

Stat.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 24 of 33
1282 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding insurance and restoration Fulton, Tom 9/26/2020 14:04 Not work product on face of entry. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see 

also Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956) 

(included within the attorney-client privilege 

are communications the insured makes to the 

insurer for its use to fulfill its obligation to 

defend on the insured's behalf).

1297 Work Product

Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel, S. 

Lunsford regarding legal advice on outstanding 

claims Fulton, Tom 9/11/2020 11:18 Not work product on face of entry. 

Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel, S. 

Lunsford regarding legal advice on outstanding 

claims. See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate 

Hope T. Cannon. This document relates to 

settlement of claims in connection with 

another legal matter and was prepared at 

direction of and involvement with inside and 

outside counsel. See also Fed. R. Evid. 408; 

§ 90.408, Fla. Stat.

1322 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel S. Lunsford regarding Fulton, Tom 9/16/2020 20:04 Incomplete description

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy, 

statement, outreach. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Discussion of 

public relations to assist legal counsel in 

anticipation of litigation. See In re Abilify 

(Aripiprazole) Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 3:16-

MD-2734, 2017 WL 6757558, at *8 (N.D. 

Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So long as the role of 

the consultant is to assist legal counsel in 

responding to the media the protections of 

the attorney-client privilege should apply the 

same as where a corporate employee is 

tasked with responding to media inquiries. . . 

. In the world today . . . it is not only 

common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist 

in-house counsel and outside counsel in 

responding to media inquiries regarding 

ongoing or threatened legal actions.”).

1350 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding property 

damage plan

Fulton, Tom

Handler, Russ 9/20/2020 9:00 Not work product on face of entry. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Document makes specific reference 

that plan was developed with legal 

advice/input from In-House Counsel. 

Prepared in anticipation of litigation. 

1694 Work Product

Post storm discussions at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding Hurricane Sally insurance 

assessment DeMarco, Thomas 9/19/2020 15:09

Not work product on face of entry. Third 

parties present on communication. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Third party "DLS Marine" was 

engaged by insurer. "Global Risk" is insurer. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann 

v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included 

within the attorney-client privilege are 

communications the insured makes to the 

insurer for its use to fulfill its obligation to 

defend on the insured's behalf). Contains 

information regarding assessment of 

damages for legal advice and in anticipation 

of litigation.

1785

Work Product; 

Attorney-Client

Post storm discussions at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding insurance assessment DeMarco, Thomas 9/25/2020 6:08

Not work product on face of entry. Metadata 

issue - "To" recipients appears to be cut off. 

Third party present on communication. 

Added "Mary Ann" to her last name. Metadata 

was correct based on data extracted and 

available. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Third party 

"Aon" is agent of insurer of insured Skanska. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann 

v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included 

within the attorney-client privilege are 

communications the insured makes to the 

insurer for its use to fulfill its obligation to 

defend on the insured's behalf). Contains 

information regarding assessment of 

damages and in anticipation of litigation.

1798

Work Product; 

Attorney-Client

Post storm discussions at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding insurance assessment DeMarco, Thomas 9/26/2020 13:37

Not work product on face of entry. Third party 

present on communication. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Third party "Aon" is agent of insurer 

of insured Skanska. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 

133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the attorneyclient privilege are communications the insured 

makes to the insurer for its use to fulfill its 

obligation to defend on the insured's behalf). 

Contains information regarding assessment 

of damages and in anticipation of litigation.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 25 of 33
1814

Work Product; 

Attorney-Client

Post storm discussions at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding insurance assessment DeMarco, Thomas 9/28/2020 11:00

Not work product on face of entry. Third party 

present on communication. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Third party "Aon" is agent of insurer 

of insured Skanska. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 

133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the attorneyclient privilege are communications the insured 

makes to the insurer for its use to fulfill its 

obligation to defend on the insured's behalf). 

Contains information regarding assessment 

of damages in anticipation of litigation.

2072 AC+WP

Post storm discussion regarding information 

from Outside Counsel regarding outstanding 

invoices DeMarco, Thomas 9/25/2020 7:34

Not privileged on face of entry. Additional 

information needed. Not work product on fce 

of entry. 

In-House Counsel, S. Lunsford, on thread in 

this communication. Communication also 

references information from outside counsel. 

Communication concerns other legal matter. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Communication contains specific 

reference to seeking legal opinion from InHouse Counsel.

2122 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding legal advice on 

article, strategy Fulton, Tom 9/21/2020 8:06 Not work product on face of entry

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Post storm discussion at direction of 

In-House Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding legal 

advice on article, strategy

2123 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding legal advice on 

statement, recovery, retrieval Fulton, Tom 9/21/2020 7:43 Not work product on face of entry

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Post storm discussion at direction of 

In-House Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding legal 

advice on statement, recovery, retrieval. 

Discussion of public relations to assist legal 

counsel in anticipation of litigation. See In 

re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. Liab. Litig., 

No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 6757558, at *8 

(N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So long as the 

role of the consultant is to assist legal counsel 

in responding to the media the protections of 

the attorney-client privilege should apply the 

same as where a corporate employee is 

tasked with responding to media inquiries. . . 

. In the world today . . . it is not only 

common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist 

in-house counsel and outside counsel in 

responding to media inquiries regarding 

ongoing or threatened legal actions.”). 

2168 Work Product

Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel 

regarding legal advice on insurance, claims Fulton, Tom 9/16/2020 9:25 Not work product on face of entry. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see 

also Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956) 

(included within the attorney-client privilege 

are communications the insured makes to the 

insurer for its use to fulfill its obligation to 

defend on the insured's behalf). This document 

relates to settlement of claims in connection 

with another legal matter and was prepared 

at direction of and involvement with inside 

and outside counsel. See also Fed. R. Evid. 

408; § 90.408, Fla. Stat.

2169 Work Product

Attached documents re discussion at direction 

of In-House Counsel re: insurance, claims Fulton, Tom 9/16/2020 9:25 Not work product on face of entry. 

Attachment to 2168. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 

2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the 

attorney-client privilege are communications 

the insured makes to the insurer for its use to 

fulfill its obligation to defend on the insured's 

behalf)

2170 Work Product

Attached documents re discussion at direction 

of In-House Counsel re: insurance, claims Fulton, Tom 9/16/2020 9:25 Not work product on face of entry. 

Attachment to 2168. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 

2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the 

attorney-client privilege are communications 

the insured makes to the insurer for its use to 

fulfill its obligation to defend on the insured's 

behalf)

2171 Work Product

Attached documents re discussion at direction 

of In-House Counsel re: insurance, claims Fulton, Tom 9/16/2020 9:25 Not work product on face of entry. 

Attachment to 2168. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 

2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the 

attorney-client privilege are communications 

the insured makes to the insurer for its use to 

fulfill its obligation to defend on the insured's 

behalf)

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 26 of 33
2172 Work Product

Attached documents re discussion at direction 

of In-House Counsel re: insurance, claims Fulton, Tom 9/16/2020 9:25 Not work product on face of entry. 

Attachment to 2168. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 

2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the 

attorney-client privilege are communications 

the insured makes to the insurer for its use to 

fulfill its obligation to defend on the insured's 

behalf)

2173 Work Product

Attached documents re discussion at direction 

of In-House Counsel re: insurance, claims Fulton, Tom 9/16/2020 9:25 Not work product on face of entry. 

Attachment to 2168. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 

2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the 

attorney-client privilege are communications 

the insured makes to the insurer for its use to 

fulfill its obligation to defend on the insured's 

behalf)

2174 Work Product

Attached documents re discussion at direction 

of In-House Counsel re: insurance, claims Fulton, Tom 9/16/2020 9:25 Not work product on face of entry. 

Attachment to 2168. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 

2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the 

attorney-client privilege are communications 

the insured makes to the insurer for its use to 

fulfill its obligation to defend on the insured's 

behalf)

2245 Work Product

Post storm discussions at the direction of InHouse Counsel regarding article, strategy Fulton, Tom 9/21/2020 7:07 Not work product on face of entry

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Post storm discussions at the 

direction of In-House Counsel regarding legal 

advice on article, strategy. Discussion of 

public relations to assist legal counsel in 

anticipation of litigation. See In re Abilify 

(Aripiprazole) Prod. Liab. Litig ., No. 3:16-

MD-2734, 2017 WL 6757558, at *8 (N.D. 

Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So long as the role of 

the consultant is to assist legal counsel in 

responding to the media the protections of 

the attorney-client privilege should apply the 

same as where a corporate employee is 

tasked with responding to media inquiries. . . 

. In the world today . . . it is not only 

common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist 

in-house counsel and outside counsel in 

responding to media inquiries regarding 

ongoing or threatened legal actions.”). 

2587 Work Product

Discussion at the direction of In-House 

Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding strategy Fulton, Tom 9/16/2020 20:21 Not work product on face of entry. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Discussion of public relations to 

assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) 

Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 

WL 6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) 

(“So long as the role of the consultant is to 

assist legal counsel in responding to the 

media the protections of the attorney-client 

privilege should apply the same as where a 

corporate employee is tasked with 

responding to media inquiries.”).

2642 Work Product

Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel, S. 

Lunsford, regarding media Fulton, Tom 9/18/2020 6:39 Not work product on face of entry. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel, S. Lunsford, regarding legal strategy 

on media. Discussion of public relations to 

assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) 

Prod. Liab. Litig. , No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 

WL 6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) 

(“So long as the role of the consultant is to 

assist legal counsel in responding to the 

media the protections of the attorney-client 

privilege should apply the same as where a 

corporate employee is tasked with 

responding to media inquiries. . . . In the 

world today . . . it is not only common but 

necessary to involve public relations and 

marketing consultants to assist in-house 

counsel and outside counsel in responding to 

media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”).

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 27 of 33
2696 Work Product

Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel, S. 

Lunsford regarding strategy Fulton, Tom 9/20/2020 12:20 Not work product on face of entry

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Discussion of public relations to 

assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) 

Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 

WL 6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) 

(“So long as the role of the consultant is to 

assist legal counsel in responding to the 

media the protections of the attorney-client 

privilege should apply the same as where a 

corporate employee is tasked with 

responding to media inquiries. . . . In the 

world today . . . it is not only common but 

necessary to involve public relations and 

marketing consultants to assist in-house 

counsel and outside counsel in responding to 

media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”). 

2699 Work Product

Post storm discussions at direction of In-House 

Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding insurance 

assessment Fulton, Tom 9/27/2020 11:38 Not work product on face of entry

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Post storm discussions at direction of 

In-House Counsel, S. Lunsford for legal advice 

on insurance assessment. Contains 

information regarding assessment of 

damages in anticipation of litigation.

2727 Work Product

Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel, S. 

Lunsford, regarding strategy, barge and 

damage

Francis, Dan

Fulton, Tom

Handler, Russ 9/19/2020 12:54 Not work product on face of entry

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Discussion of public relations to 

assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) 

Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 

WL 6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) 

(“So long as the role of the consultant is to 

assist legal counsel in responding to the 

media the protections of the attorney-client 

privilege should apply the same as where a 

corporate employee is tasked with 

responding to media inquiries. . . . In the 

world today . . . it is not only common but 

necessary to involve public relations and 

marketing consultants to assist in-house 

counsel and outside counsel in responding to 

media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”).

2824 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel re: Insurance

Fulton, Tom

Handler, Russ 9/27/2020 15:08 Not work product on face of entry

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Post storm discussion at direction 

of In-House Counsel regarding legal advice 

on insurance engagement in anticipation of 

litigation.

2870 Attorney-Client

Post storm discussion with In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal advice on barge, 

damage, strategy

Francis, Dan

Fulton, Tom

Handler, Russ 9/19/2020 15:14

Not work product on face of entry. Metadata 

issue - "CC" recipients appear to be cut off

Added "Mary Ann" to her last name. Metadata 

was correct based on data extracted and 

available. Post storm discussion with InHouse Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding legal 

advice on barge, damage, strategy. See July 

8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. Cannon.

3174 AC+WP

Post storm discussion with In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding strategy for new 

activities Fulton, Tom 9/16/2020 17:25

Not work product on face of entry. Additional 

information needed. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Post storm discussion with InHouse Counsel, S. Lunsford providing legal 

advice on strategy for new activities

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 28 of 33
3179 AC+WP

Discussion with and at the direction of InHouse Cousel, S. Lunsford and Outside 

Counsel regarding strategy other lawsuit Fulton, Tom 9/15/2020 12:49 Not work product on face of entry

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Outside counsel on thread, 

VLPlaw. Outside counsel providing legla 

advice on activities regarding separate 

litigation.

3201 Work Product

Post storm discusssion at the direction of InHouse Counsel, S. Lunsford, regarding 

strategy, visit Fulton, Tom 9/21/2020 7:59 Not work product on face of entry

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Discussion of public relations to 

assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) 

Prod. Liab. Litig ., No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 

WL 6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) 

(“So long as the role of the consultant is to 

assist legal counsel in responding to the 

media the protections of the attorney-client 

privilege should apply the same as where a 

corporate employee is tasked with 

responding to media inquiries. . . . In the 

world today . . . it is not only common but 

necessary to involve public relations and 

marketing consultants to assist in-house 

counsel and outside counsel in responding to 

media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”).

3235 Work Product

Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel, S. 

Lunsford re: legal advice on insurance renewal

Ford, Mason

Fulton, Tom 9/11/2020 13:35 Not work product on face of entry.

Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel, S. 

Lunsford regarding legal advice on insurance 

renewal. Contains specific topics for legal 

assessment and advice to create a draft 

narrative for insurance narrative.

3236 Work Product

Attachment to discussion at direction of InHouse Counsel, S. Lunsford re: InsuranceFord, Mason

Fulton, Tom 9/11/2020 13:35 Not work product on face of entry.

Attachment to 3235. Prepared at direction of 

In-House Counsel, S. Lunsford to provide legal 

advice.

3237 Work Product

Attachment to discussion at direction of InHouse Counsel, S. Lunsford re: InsuranceFord, Mason

Fulton, Tom 9/11/2020 13:35 Not work product on face of entry.

Attachment to 3235. Prepared at direction of 

In-House Counsel, S. Lunsford to provide legal 

advice.

3238 Work Product

Attachment to discussion at direction of InHouse Counsel, S. Lunsford re: InsuranceFord, Mason

Fulton, Tom 9/11/2020 13:35 Not work product on face of entry.

Attachment to 3235. Contains legal advice 

regarding insurance; for use to provide legal 

advice. 

3328 Work Product

Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel S. 

Lunsford re: insurance renewal.

Ford, Mason

Fulton, Tom 9/11/2020 17:19 Not work product on face of entry.

 Discussion at direction of In-House Counsel S. 

Lunsford regarding legal advice on insurance 

renewal. Contains specific topics for legal 

assessment and advice to create a draft 

narrative for insurance narrative.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 29 of 33
3359 Work Product

Discussion at the direction of In-House counsel 

regarding insurance renewal Fulton, Tom 9/11/2020 16:57

Not work product on face of entry. Metadata 

issue - "To" recipients appear oto be cut off. 

Added "Mary Ann" to her last name. Metadata 

was correct based on data extracted and 

available. Discussion at the direction of InHouse counsel regarding legal advice on 

insurance renewal. Contains specific topics 

for legal assessment and advice to create a 

draft narrative for insurance narrative.

5013 Work Product

Post storm discussions at direction of In-House 

Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding insurance ProjectServer, Skanska 9/25/2020 8:16

Not work product on face of entry. Metadata 

Issue - "To" recipients appear to be cut off

Added "ine" to Catherine's name. Metadata 

was correct based on data extracted and 

available. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Post storm 

discussions at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal advice on 

insurance. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); 

See also Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 

1956) (included within the attorney-client 

privilege are communications the insured 

makes to the insurer for its use to fulfill its 

obligation to defend on the insured's behalf). 

Contains information regarding assessment 

of damages, defenses, and in anticipation of 

litigation.

5024 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel, S. Lunsford re: insurance ProjectServer, Skanska 9/25/2020 6:57

Not work product on face of entry. Third 

parties present on communication. 

Added "ine" to Catherine's name. Metadata 

was correct based on data extracted and 

available. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Post storm 

discussions at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal advice on 

insurance. Third party "Aon" is agent of 

insurer of insured Skanska. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(3)(A); See also Vann v. State, 85 So. 

2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the 

attorney-client privilege are communications 

the insured makes to the insurer for its use 

to fulfill its obligation to defend on the 

insured's behalf). Contains information 

regarding assessment of damages in 

anticipation of litigation.

5148 Work Product

Post storm discussion at the direction of InHouse counsel regarding legal advice on 

insurance, damages. ProjectServer, Skanska 9/26/2020 13:37

Not work product on face of entry. Third party 

present on communication. 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Post storm discussion with In-House 

Counsel, S. Lunsford regarding legal advice on 

insurance, damages. Third party "Aon" is 

agent of insurer of insured Skanska. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. 

State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included 

within the attorney-client privilege are 

communications the insured makes to the 

insurer for its use to fulfill its obligation to 

defend on the insured's behalf). Contains 

information regarding assessment of 

damages in anticipation of litigation.

5202 AC+WP

Post storm discussion at the direction of and 

with In-House Counsel S. Lunsford regarding 

draft agreement Rodgers, Robert 9/24/2020 9:54

Not work product on face of entry. No page 

count.

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Post storm discussion at the direction 

of and with In-House Counsel S. Lunsford 

regarding legal advice on draft agreement. S. 

Lunsford on chain providing legal advice on 

draft contract.

5203 AC+WP

Draft document preapred at the direction of and 

with In-House Counsel S. Lunsford regarding 

draft agreement Rodgers, Robert 9/24/2020 9:54 Not work product on face of entry. 

Attachment to 5202. Prepared at directions of 

and input of In-House Counsel, S. Lunsford 

regarding draft contract.See July 8, 2021 Letter 

to Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Draft 

contract containing edits of counsel.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 30 of 33
5327 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel re: Insurance Rodgers, Robert 9/26/2020 11:02

Not work product on face of entry. Third party 

present on communication. Metadata issue - 

No "To" recipients listed 

Added "ine" to Catherine's name. Metadata 

was correct based on data extracted and 

available. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Third party 

"Aon" is agent of insurer of insured 

Skanska. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); 

see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 

1956) (included within the attorney-client 

privilege are communications the insured 

makes to the insurer for its use to fulfill its 

obligation to defend on the insured's behalf). 

Contains information regarding assessment 

of damages for legal advice in anticipation of 

litigation.

5328 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel re: Insurance Rodgers, Robert 9/26/2020 13:17 Not work product on face of entry 

See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Contains information regarding 

assessment of damages for legal advice in 

anticipation of litigation.

5481 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding insurance Rodgers, Robert 9/26/2020 13:44

Not work product on face of entry. Third party 

included on communication. 

 See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Third party "Aon" is insurer of 

insured Skanska. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 

133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the attorneyclient privilege are communications the insured 

makes to the insurer for its use to fulfill its 

obligation to defend on the insured's behalf). 

Contains information regarding assessment 

of damages for legal advice in anticipation of 

litigation.

5608 Work Product

Post storm discussion at the direction of InHouse counsel regarding insurance Rodgers, Robert 9/28/2020 11:00

Not work product on face of entry. Third party 

present on communication. Metadata issue - 

"To" recipients appear ot be cut off. 

Added "Mary Ann" to her last name. Metadata 

was correct based on data extracted and 

available. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Third party 

"Aon" is insurer of insured Skanska. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 

85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the 

attorney-client privilege are communications 

the insured makes to the insurer for its use to 

fulfill its obligation to defend on the insured's 

behalf). Contains information regarding 

assessment of damages for legal advice in 

anticipation of litigation.

5609 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel re: insurance Rodgers, Robert 9/24/2020 18:07

Not work product on face of entry. Third party 

present on communication. No page count.

 See July 8, 2021 Letter to Magistrate Hope T. 

Cannon. Third party "Aon" is insurer of 

insured Skanska. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 

133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the attorneyclient privilege are communications the insured 

makes to the insurer for its use to fulfill its 

obligation to defend on the insured's behalf).

5692 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel re: insurance Rodgers, Robert 9/28/2020 8:05

Not work product on face of entry. Third party 

breaks privilege. No page count.

Page count added. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Post storm 

discussion at direction of In-House Counsel S. 

Lunsford regarding legal advice on insurance, 

damages. Third party "Aon" is agent of 

insurer of insured Skanska. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 85 So. 

2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the 

attorney-client privilege are communications 

the insured makes to the insurer for its use to 

fulfill its obligation to defend on the insured's 

behalf). Contains information regarding 

assessment of damages for legal advice in 

anticipation of litigation.

5735 Work Product

Post storm discussion at direction of In-House 

Counsel regarding legal advice on insurance, 

damages Rodgers, Robert 9/26/2020 9:25

Not work product on face of entry. Third 

parties present on communication. 

Page count added. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Post storm 

discussion with In-House Counsel S. Lunsford 

regarding legal advice on insurance, damages. 

Third party "Aon" is agent of insurer of insured 

Skanska. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see 

also Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956) 

(included within the attorney-client privilege 

are communications the insured makes to the 

insurer for its use to fulfill its obligation to 

defend on the insured's behalf). Contains 

information regarding assessment of 

damages for legal advice in anticipation of 

litigation.

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 31 of 33
6083 Work Product

Post storm discussion at the direction of InHouse counsel regarding insurance assessment Rodgers, Robert 9/25/2020 6:08Not work product on face of entry. Third party 

present on communication. No page count. 

Page count added. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Third party 

"Aon" is insurer of insured Skanska. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 

85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the 

attorney-client privilege are communications 

the insured makes to the insurer for its use to 

fulfill its obligation to defend on the insured's 

behalf). Contains information regarding 

assessment of damages for legal advice in 

anticipation of litigation.

6308 Work Product

Post storm discussion at the direction of InHouse counsel regarding insurance assessment Rodgers, Robert 9/26/2020 13:37

Not work product on face of entry. Third 

parties present on communication. Metadata 

issue - "To" recipients appear to be cut off.

Added "Mary Ann" to her last name. Metadata 

was correct based on data extracted and 

available. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Third party 

"Aon" is insurer of insured Skanska. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Vann v. State, 

85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956) (included within the 

attorney-client privilege are communications 

the insured makes to the insurer for its use to 

fulfill its obligation to defend on the insured's 

behalf). Contains information regarding 

assessment of damages for legal advice in 

anticipation of litigation.

6474 Work Product

Post storm discussion at the direction of InHouse counsel regarding insurance assessment Rodgers, Robert 9/25/2020 8:16Not work product on fce of entry. Metadata 

issue - "To" recipients appear to be cut off. 

Added "ine" to Catherine's name. Metadata 

was correct based on data extracted and 

available. See July 8, 2021 Letter to 

Magistrate Hope T. Cannon. Contains 

information regarding assessment of 

damages for legal advice in anticipation of 

litigation.

32262 Work Product

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on insurance, 

public relations Fulton, Tom 9/17/2020 0:04

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on insurance, 

public relations. Discussion of public relations 

to assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. 

Liab. Litig. , No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 

6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So 

long as the role of the consultant is to assist legal 

counsel in responding to the media the 

protections of the attorney-client privilege 

should apply the same as where a corporate 

employee is tasked with responding to media 

inquiries. . . . In the world today . . . it is not 

only common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist inhouse counsel and outside counsel in responding 

to media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”).

33410 Work Product

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on public 

relations Fulton, Tom 9/17/2020 12:55

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on insurance, 

public relations. Discussion of public relations 

to assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. 

Liab. Litig. , No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 

6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So 

long as the role of the consultant is to assist legal 

counsel in responding to the media the 

protections of the attorney-client privilege 

should apply the same as where a corporate 

employee is tasked with responding to media 

inquiries. . . . In the world today . . . it is not 

only common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist inhouse counsel and outside counsel in responding 

to media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”).

33735 Work Product

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy regarding 

review of news report Fulton, Tom 9/17/2020 13:41

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on insurance, 

public relations. Discussion of public relations 

to assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. 

Liab. Litig. , No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 

6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So 

long as the role of the consultant is to assist legal 

counsel in responding to the media the 

protections of the attorney-client privilege 

should apply the same as where a corporate 

employee is tasked with responding to media 

inquiries. . . . In the world today . . . it is not 

only common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist inhouse counsel and outside counsel in responding 

to media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”).

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 32 of 33
33877 Work Product

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy regarding 

review of news report Fulton, Tom 9/17/2020 13:41

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on insurance, 

public relations. Discussion of public relations 

to assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. 

Liab. Litig. , No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 

6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So 

long as the role of the consultant is to assist legal 

counsel in responding to the media the 

protections of the attorney-client privilege 

should apply the same as where a corporate 

employee is tasked with responding to media 

inquiries. . . . In the world today . . . it is not 

only common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist inhouse counsel and outside counsel in responding 

to media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”).

34346 Work Product

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on public 

relations Fulton, Tom 9/17/2020 12:55

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on insurance, 

public relations. Discussion of public relations 

to assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. 

Liab. Litig. , No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 

6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So 

long as the role of the consultant is to assist legal 

counsel in responding to the media the 

protections of the attorney-client privilege 

should apply the same as where a corporate 

employee is tasked with responding to media 

inquiries. . . . In the world today . . . it is not 

only common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist inhouse counsel and outside counsel in responding 

to media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”).

34481 Work Product

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on insurance, 

public relations Fulton, Tom 9/17/2020 0:04

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on insurance, 

public relations. Discussion of public relations 

to assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. 

Liab. Litig. , No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 

6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So 

long as the role of the consultant is to assist legal 

counsel in responding to the media the 

protections of the attorney-client privilege 

should apply the same as where a corporate 

employee is tasked with responding to media 

inquiries. . . . In the world today . . . it is not 

only common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist inhouse counsel and outside counsel in responding 

to media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”).

35290 Work Product

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on 

communications Fulton, Tom 9/29/2020 15:32

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on 

communications. Discussion of public relations 

to assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) 

Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 

6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So 

long as the role of the consultant is to assist legal 

counsel in responding to the media the 

protections of the attorney-client privilege 

should apply the same as where a corporate 

employee is tasked with responding to media 

inquiries. . . . In the world today . . . it is not 

only common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist inhouse counsel and outside counsel in responding 

to media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”).

36240 Work Product

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on 

communications Fulton, Tom 9/29/2020 15:32

Communication at direction of In-House Counsel, 

S. Lunsford regarding legal strategy on 

communications. Discussion of public relations 

to assist legal counsel in anticipation of 

litigation. See In re Abilify (Aripiprazole) Prod. 

Liab. Litig ., No. 3:16-MD-2734, 2017 WL 

6757558, at *8 (N.D. Fla. Dec. 29, 2017) (“So 

long as the role of the consultant is to assist legal 

counsel in responding to the media the 

protections of the attorney-client privilege 

should apply the same as where a corporate 

employee is tasked with responding to media 

inquiries. . . . In the world today . . . it is not 

only common but necessary to involve public 

relations and marketing consultants to assist inhouse counsel and outside counsel in responding 

to media inquiries regarding ongoing or 

threatened legal actions.”).

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1212 Filed 07/22/21 Page 33 of 33