In Kleen Products LLC v. International Paper, No. 10 C 5711 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2014), the district court admonished a party for asserting the attorney-client privilege too broadly over its general counsel’s communications.  In response to privilege log deficiencies alleged by plaintiffs, the court reviewed in camera nine categories of defendant’s documents.  The court found that many of the emails contained “nothing more than mundane chatter about routine business matters,” including many that were merely copied to the company’s General Counsel, who also served as a Senior Vice President and Secretary of the company.  The court found that the General Counsel was copied “almost as a matter of course on most business matters concerning upper management,” but many of the withheld documents contained no legal advice.  The court explained that, when in-house counsel has both a legal and an operational role, the test for determining if a document is privileged is whether the predominant purpose of the communication is to render or solicit legal advice.  According to the court, the privilege will not apply where the legal advice provided is “incidental” to business advice; where a document is prepared for simultaneous review by legal and non-legal personnel and legal and business advice is requested, it is not primarily legal in nature and is therefore not privileged.  With this guidance, the court ordered defendant to prepare a new privilege log that omitted communications where, although the General Counsel was copied, “no legal advice was actually rendered.”