In Waters v. Drake, No. 14-cv-1704 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 8, 2015), the district court indicated that communications between counsel and public relations consultants retained by the defendant would not be protected by the attorney-client privilege.  This case arose out of the termination of the Director of the Ohio State University Marching Band, Waters.  Waters sought discovery of communications between the University’s counsel and two public relations consultants; the University withheld many of the communications on grounds of attorney-client privilege.  The General Counsel for the University, Culley, submitted an affidavit stating that, after the University reasonably anticipated litigation, it retained consultants, including the two public relations firms, to assist counsel to provide legal advice to the University.   Although the court ultimately held that the communications were not discoverable because they were not relevant to the remaining claims and defenses in the case, the court expressed skepticism that public relations consultants could assist counsel to provide legal advice and thereby fall within the privilege.  “[Providing legal advice] is not the consultants’ area of expertise, and advising a client on matters like the timing of its announcement of a decision or the content of its press releases or speeches is not legal advice.”  The court cited with approval case law concluding that “a media campaign is not a litigation strategy.”