In Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Hill, No. 13-236 (E.D. La. June 28, 2013), the court held that a memorandum from an in-house attorney was not privileged, because counsel did not make a clear showing that the memorandum was written for a legal purpose. Under Louisiana law, communications with in-house counsel are privileged only upon a clear showing that in-house counsel gave advice in a professional legal capacity. Here, the company submitted affidavits from the in-house counsel and recipient of the memorandum. However, the court found that they failed to demonstrate that the “primary or predominant” purpose of the communication was to provide legal advice, particularly where the memorandum did not contain any reference to a legal justification for the lawyer’s advice, or legal concerns prompting the company employee to seek such advice. The court concluded that the memorandum was, therefore, prepared for a business purpose and was not privileged.