In Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., No. 13-CV-075 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2013), the magistrate judge held that an initial anonymous whistleblower submission to a company on-line ethics site was not protected by the attorney-client privilege, but subsequent submissions and communications with company in-house counsel were within the privilege.  Plaintiff had moved to compel production of whistleblower submissions and related communications made through defendant’s on-line ethics website that preceded the intentional spoliation of relevant information by a key employee of defendant.  The court determined that there was sufficient evidence that the whistleblower was likely an employee of defendant and that the initial submission was not privileged:  it was made prior to the initiation of any investigation and there was no evidence that the whistleblower communicated for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.  In response to two subsequent submissions, the defendant’s Chief Compliance Officer, who was also the company’s General Counsel, communicated with the whistleblower to obtain more specific information as part of an investigation into the alleged wrongdoing.  Pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Upjohn, counsel’s communications with an employee for the purpose of obtaining facts to enable to counsel to provide legal advice to the company fall within the privilege.