On October 23, 2015, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota upheld Target's attempt to withhold as privileged certain materials related to a "Data Breach Task Force" that Target established to investigate its 2013 data breach, as well as certain documents created by Verizon, which was also retained by Target to investigate the breach. In upholding Target's claim of privilege, the court relied on the fact that the Data Breach Task Force was retained "so that the task force could educate Target's attorneys about aspects of the breach and counsel could provide Target with informed legal advice." With respect to Verizon, the Court was persuaded by the fact that Target had set up a two-track investigation to distinguish between investigatory work done in the ordinary course and investigatory work done at the direction of and for the purpose of assisting counsel. Specifically, on one track, Verizon conducted a non-privileged investigation on behalf of credit card companies so that Target and Verizon could learn how the breach happened and Target and the credit cards brands could respond appropriately. On the other track, a separate team from Verizon was engaged to educate Target's lawyers about the breach so they could provide Target with legal advice and protect Target's interests in litigation that commenced almost immediately after the breach became public. The court determined that the latter type of work was entitled to be protected from disclosure. The ruling highlights the importance of ensuring that investigators hired in the wake of a data breach are retained and directed by counsel and that investigatory teams are appropriately structured with the protection of privilege in mind.