In Koumoulis v. Independent Financial Marketing Group, Inc., No. 10-CV-0887 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2013), plaintiffs sued their former employer for employment discrimination. Prior to the termination of one of the employees, the employer’s human resources department conducted an internal investigation into concerns raised by the employee, with input from in-house and outside counsel. During discovery, the employer produced investigative materials created by the human resources department, produced notes and correspondence with the in-house counsel, and made in-house counsel available for a deposition. It withheld as privileged communications with, and documents prepared by, outside counsel, and it refused to make outside counsel available for a deposition. The court held that with some exceptions, the employer had not sustained its burden of showing the attorney-client privilege or work product protection applied, and it ordered the employer to make outside counsel available for a deposition. The court found that the employer’s privilege log did not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the materials were prepared predominantly in connection with legal advice rather than business advice, and that it provided insufficient information to determine that the documents would not have been created absent the threat of litigation. As to certain materials reviewed in camera, the court found that they were either a factual record of the investigation or related to business advice and thus were not protected.