In Ducker v. Amin, No. 12-cv-01596 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 31, 2013), the court held that, although the parties shared a common legal interest, their communications in the absence of counsel were not protected by the common interest doctrine. In this case, Ducker and Worthy were involved in an internal investigation and a subsequent defamation action. Both had retained counsel and their counsel entered into a “Shared Work Product Agreement.” Defendant sought communications among Ducker, Worthy and their respective counsel. The court found that Ducker and Worthy shared a common legal interest as of the date they retained counsel, and held that communications after that date that involved the participation of counsel were protected by the common interest agreement. Conversely, communications between Ducker and Worthy that did not involve counsel were not protected.