In Lislewood Corp. v. AT&T Corp.,No. 13 CV 1418 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2015), the district court found that a lessee and its sublessee shared a common legal interest to defeat claims by the lessor, and that the lessee’s filing of a contingent cross-claim against the sublessee for indemnification did not waive the common interest protection.  Here, Lislewood signed a long-term Lease with AT&T, which required AT&T to maintain the premises.  AT&T entered into a Sublease with Marriott, which required Marriott to indemnify AT&T for damages arising from Marriott’s use of the premises or breach of the Sublease.  In anticipation of and following the termination of the Lease and Sublease, AT&T and Marriott entered into a “Common Interest Privilege/Joint Defense Agreement” in response to Lislewood’s allegations regarding liability for failure to maintain the premises.  Lislewood subsequently sued AT&T, and AT&T filed a cross-claim against Marriott for breach of contract “only to the extent that Lislewood’s claim against AT&T is successful.”  In discovery, AT&T and Marriott withheld communications between their legal teams based on their common interest agreement.  Lislewood argued that they did not share a common legal interest and that, even if they did at one time, that interest was negated once the parties became adverse in the action through AT&T’s cross-claim.  The court held that the common interest doctrine applied, even after the filing of the cross-claim.  First, the court found that the parties shared a common legal interest in minimizing liability to Lislewood, and that they had coordinated their legal strategy.  Second, AT&T’s contingent cross-claim did not change this common legal interest.  Third, although it is well-established that parties to a common interest agreement may not assert privilege against each other in a subsequent dispute, AT&T and Marriott were not asserting privilege against each other as to the documents sought by Lislewood.