In Estate of Paterno v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 877 MDA 2015 (Pa. Super. Ct. July 25, 2017), applying Pennsylvania law, the court held that the Task Force appointed by the University, and not the University itself, could assert the attorney-client privilege, and that non-lawyer investigators’ interview notes were not protected by Pennsylvania’s work product rule.  In this matter, the University of Pennsylvania created a Task Force to investigate allegations of criminal wrongdoing by former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.  The first issue was who could assert the attorney-client privilege over the investigation.  The trial court held that the Task Force, not the University, held the privilege, and the appellate court affirmed.  The appellate court quoted the engagement letter at length, finding that the letter clearly identified the Task Force as the client, and the University as the party responsible for paying fees.  That the Task Force was not a distinct legal entity did not prevent it from acting as the sole client.  The second issue was whether interview notes taken by attorneys and non-lawyer investigators were protected work product.  The trial court held that certain notes prepared by both attorneys and non-attorneys were discoverable.  The appellate court held that only the investigators’ notes were discoverable.  The court explained that the Pennsylvania work product protection, found in Pa. R. C. P. 4003.3, is significantly different than the federal rule.  Rule 4003.3 specifically protects memoranda and notes of an attorney, but also specifically provides that notes by non-attorneys are not protected unless they reveal “mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or the merit of a claim or defense or respecting strategy or tactics.”