In US Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., Nos. 12 Civ. 6811, 13 Civ. 1580 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2013), the court held that the identities of individuals interviewed during an internal investigation conducted by counsel were protected by the work product doctrine. In this case, plaintiffs learned during discovery that defendant had conducted an internal investigation during which current and former employees of defendant were interviewed. During depositions, counsel instructed defendant’s witnesses not to disclose the identities of those interviewed, and plaintiff moved to compel. The court held that the identities were protected from discovery. Although the work product doctrine typically applies to documents or tangible things, it also protects a witness from answering questions that reveal an attorney’s legal opinions, thought processes or strategy (the “intangible work product doctrine”). It is often asserted that the work product doctrine does not prevent the disclosure of facts, but the Second Circuit has noted that this is an overstatement: “we see no reason why work product cannot encompass facts as well. It is helpful to remember that the work product privilege applies to preparation not only by lawyers but also other types of party representatives including, for example, investigators seeking factual information. . . . we see no reason why a work product objection would not properly lie if the Government called the attorney or the investigator . . . and asked ‘What facts have you discovered in your investigation?’” In re Grand Jury Subpoena dated October 22, 2001, 282 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2002). The court noted that the courts are split on whether the work product immunity protects the identities of persons interviewed by an attorney or his agent in anticipation of litigation. Here, the court held that this information is protected work product because the disclosure could reveal counsel’s opinions, thought processes, or strategies.