Because attorney-client privilege protection depends primarily
on communications' content, privilege logs rarely play a
dispositive role in courts' analyses. But sometimes the
adversary will point to the "author" and
"recipients" data in challenging a privilege claim
— noting the absence of a lawyer's name.
Courts universally acknowledge that employee-to-employee
communications may deserve privilege protection. In Stryker
Corp. v. Ridgeway, Case Nos. 1:13-CV-1066 & 1:14-CV-889,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93741, at *9 (W.D. Mich. July 20, 2015), the
court flatly rejected defendant's argument that "in and of
itself" the lack of a lawyer's involvement in
plaintiff's communications made privilege unavailable. The
court explained that "[i]n the corporate context, the
privilege applies to communications of any corporate employee on
matters within the scope of the employee's corporate duties
when the employee is aware that the information is being provided
to enable the
