In Morley v. Square, Inc.,No. 14cv172 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 18, 2015), plaintiffs sought funding from more than ten third party litigation funders. Plaintiffs withheld communications with the litigation funders on grounds of privilege or work product; and defendants moved to compel their production, arguing that, at the very least, any attorney-client privilege or work product protection was waived by plaintiffs’ disclosure to third parties. The court denied the motion to compel, holding that the communications were protected as work product. The work product protection is not waived unless the information is disclosed to a litigation adversary or to someone who “substantially increases” opportunities for potential adversaries to obtain the information. Plaintiffs argued that litigation funders and banks have an inherent interest in maintaining the confidentiality of potential clients’ information. They also provided evidence that they had either written or oral confidentiality agreements with each of the third parties. The court held that, based on the evidence presented, plaintiffs had a reasonable basis to expect confidentiality, and the protection was not waived.