In In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2014), the D.C. Circuit granted a writ of mandamus, holding that internal investigation interviews and related materials are privileged where a primary purpose of the communications is to obtain or provide legal advice. On remand, in United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co., No. 05-cv-1276 (D.D.C. Dec. 17, 2014), the district court held that, although the interview statements made by employees to an investigator were protected by the attorney-client privilege, the reports themselves, to the extent that they did not reveal the substance of those communications, were protected only by the work product doctrine. According to the district court, the attorney-client privilege applies only where a communication involves both a client and an attorney. Communications from an attorney’s investigator to the attorney, therefore, are not within the privilege. The court then found that portions of the reports were fact work product, subject to discovery upon the showing of substantial need and hardship. Here, plaintiff Relator demonstrated substantial need because the reports reflected “raw factual” information and factual summaries of more than 200 interviews that were conducted more than ten years ago in Iraq with individuals, most of whom had left KBR’s employment, and some of whom are foreign citizens. Given the passage of time, and KBR’s failure to present a Rule 30(b)(6) witness with knowledge about the underlying facts, plaintiff demonstrated that he would suffer undue hardship if he did not obtain the fact work product contained in the reports, as he would not be able to obtain the same information through other means.