Bean v. The Wyoming Seminary of the Susquehanna Annual Conference

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JULIE BEAN, : No. 3:23cv1702

Plaintiff :

: (Judge Munley)

Vv. :

THE WYOMING SEMINARY OF THE:

SUSQUEHANNA ANNUAL :

CONFERENCE, :

Defendant :

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Julie Bean asserts claims in this matter against Defendant

Wyoming Seminary of the Susquehanna Annual Conference (“Wyoming

Seminary”) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C

§ 621, ef seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII"), 42 U.S.C § 2000e—2,

and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), 43 PA. STAT. § 951, ef seq

Plaintiff alleges she was terminated as the school’s dean of admissions and

financial aid after she complained of discriminatory conduct by Wyoming

Seminary’s recently installed interim president. After plaintiffs internal □□□□□□□□□

Wyoming Seminary engaged outside counsel to investigate the allegations and

that investigation ultimately led to plaintiff's firing.

Before the court is Wyoming Seminary’s claim of attorney-client privilege

and the attorney work product doctrine regarding documents generated by

outside counsel's investigation. Plaintiff argues that defendant waived any

privilege or protection by the nature of its answer to plaintiff's complaint and its

affirmative defenses. The court previously conducted a discovery conference,

issued a prior order, and performed an in camera review of documents related to

outside counsel’s investigation. This matter is thus ripe for disposition.

Background

Plaintiff alleges unlawful discrimination and retaliation based on age and

sex. (Doc. 1, Complaint). Per her complaint in this matter, plaintiff was hired as

the director of admissions at Wyoming Seminary’s Lower School in 2013. (Id. Tf

10-11). Plaintiff received promotions over the next several years and served

ultimately as Wyoming Seminary’s dean of admissions and financial aid. (id. J

11). Plaintiff alleges that Wyoming Seminary added marketing and

communications, pandemic crisis response, and summer programs

responsibilities to her job purview. (Id.)

According to plaintiff's allegations, Wyoming Seminary’s board of trustees

terminated its president in June 2021 and appointed plaintiff and four other

female administrators acting as a senior leadership team to perform the school’s

executive functions and resume school operations. (Id. J 12).

Wyoming Seminary then hired a male interim president in August 2021 and

the interim president became plaintiffs immediate supervisor. (Id. J 13). Per the

complaint, the interim president subjected plaintiff to baseless criticism during a

meeting on October 7, 2021, and accused her of improper recruitment tactics

and financial aid allocations with respect to Wyoming Seminary’s wrestling

program. (Id. 9] 15). Four days later, plaintiff complained to the interim president

about his malignment of her during the meeting. (Id. J 16). Allegedly the interim

president responded by stating, “you are all intimidated by me. . .all of you are,”

in reference to the five women on Wyoming Seminary’s senior leadership team.

(Id.) The interim president also allegedly stated, “in what world is it a good idea

to put five women in charge of a school?” which plaintiff contends establishes

hostile treatment towards her based on sex. (Id.) Plaintiff avers that the interim

president expressed animosity about Wyoming Seminary’s female senior

leadership team through comments made during a meeting on October 15, 2021

(id. {| 18). The interim president allegedly stated to plaintiff, “before | came here

my buddy looked up the school and said, ‘the jeadership team is five women, do

you Know what you're getting yourself into?’ ” (Id.)

Plaintiff also alleges that the interim president reorganized school

departments in October 2021 after the above meetings and confrontations. (ld. □□

17). Furthermore, she alleges that the interim president took this action to

undermine plaintiff's role at Wyoming Seminary and diminish her responsibilities.

Per plaintiff, the interim president removed marketing and communications

responsibilities from her purview and reassigned supervision of this department

to the vice president of development. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that, although this vice

president is also female, this school administrator previously oversaw marketing

and communications at a postsecondary institution that failed and closed, and

further, is significantly younger and less qualified. (Id.)

Per plaintiff, the interim president then changed plaintiffs job title to directo

of admissions in November 2021. (Id. ] 19). She alleges that the title change

amounted to a demotion. (id.) On November 29, 2021, plaintiff complained abou

her title demotion in a meeting with the interim president. (Id. 20). Per plaintiff,

the interim president dismissed her complaint, pejoratively called her ambitious,

and made a generaily negative comment about women with ambition. (Id.)

Later, in February 2022, plaintiff alleges that the interim president excluded

her from a finance committee meeting. (Id. 21). Per plaintiff, she participated ir

previous meetings of this nature during her tenure at Wyoming Seminary. At tha

finance committee meeting, the interim president allegedly increased the revenue

budget for admissions and decreased funding for the financial aid department,

which plaintiff contends sabotaged her departments’ operations. (Id.)

Plaintiff alleges that she subsequently registered a written complaint of age

and sex discrimination with Wyoming Seminary’s officers and trustees on

February 6, 2022 due to the conduct of the interim president. (Id. ] 22). Per

plaintiff, she detailed the above events and remarks by the interim president in

her internal complaint. (Id.) Additionally, plaintiff alleges that the chair of the

board of trustees at Wyoming Seminary excluded other senior school leaders

and the vice chair of the board from handling plaintiff's internal discrimination

complaint. (!d.}

It can be inferred from plaintiff's allegations that Wyoming Seminary

engaged outside counsel to investigate plaintiff's discrimination complaints and

the conduct of the interim president. (See id. f[]] 22-23, 26). Outside counsel

then interviewed plaintiff on February 8, 2022 regarding her allegations. (Id. J]

23). According to plaintiff, additional discrimination and retaliation occurred

during the time of the investigation. (Id. J 24).

On March 4, 2022, outside counsei rendered a finding that defendant’s

interim president had not violated Wyoming Seminary’s anti-discrimination

policies. (Id. 25). Per plaintiff, outside counsel also played a part in her

termination on March 8, 2022 along with Wyoming Seminary’s chair of the board

of trustees.' (Id. ] 26). The chair of the board of trustees and outside counsel

are male. (See id. Jf] 22-23).

1 Wyoming Seminary’s present counsel also indicated that outside counsel's investigation

played a role in plaintiffs termination during a telephone discovery conference.

Plaintiff also alleges that Wyoming Seminary falsely characterized her

termination as a voluntary resignation. (Id. {] 26). Plaintiff avers that she was

replaced in her senior leadership role by a significantly younger, less qualified,

and less experienced man. (Id.)

Wyoming Seminary responded to the above allegations in its answer. (Doc

9). Relevant to the instant discovery dispute, defendant admits that plaintiff

registered a written complaint of discrimination concerning the interim president.

(Id. 22). Defendant agrees that outside counsel interviewed plaintiff on

February 8, 2022. (ld. {| 23). Defendant also admits that outside counsel

“conducted an investigation and determined that [defendant’s interim president]

had not violated [djefendant’s anti-discrimination policies.” (Id. J 25). Defendant

further agrees that plaintiffs employment was terminated. (Id. J 26). Defendant

denies the claims which assert discrimination and retaliation in Counts J-VI of

plaintiffs complaint. (Id. J] 28-49).

Defendant's answer also raises several affirmative defenses, including that

1) all of defendant’s conduct was effectuated for legitimate business reasons; 2)

plaintiff was not discriminated against; and 3) plaintiff was not retaliated against.

(id., Affirmative Defenses, J 7-9).

Based on the arguments of the parties during the discovery conference as

discussed in the prior order, the court concluded that defendant waived attorney-

client privilege and work product protection as it pertains to documents prepared

by outside counsel during his investigation into plaintiff's internal complaint of

discrimination. After the parties could not agree on the details of the discovery

order regarding the investigatory documents, the court conducted an in camera

review of same. This matter is now ripe for disposition.

Jurisdiction

Based on the alleged violations of federal law, this court has jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction

of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

States.”). Additionally, the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3),

which confers jurisdiction of any action commenced to redress the deprivation of

any right, privilege, or immunity secured by federal law providing for the equal

rights of citizens. The court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-lav

claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). (“In any civil action of which the district

courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental

jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within

such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy

under Article Ill of the United States Constitution.”).

Analysis

As discussed above, Wyoming Seminary invokes both attorney-client

privilege and the attorney work product doctrine regarding certain documents

generated by outside counsel during investigation into plaintiff's complaints of

discrimination by the school’s interim president. The documents in dispute

include: 1) the report of outside counsel regarding investigation into plaintiffs

internal complaint and his findings; 2) a summary of the investigation report; 3)

correspondence from plaintiff to outside counsel regarding her internal complaint

4) outside counsel's summaries of interviews with Wyoming Seminary

employees; and 5) outside counsel's handwritten notes from those interviews.

Wyoming Seminary identifies these documents as DEF000316-000326 and

DEFO00370-DEFO00459. The court will next address waiver of attorney-client

privilege as it relates to these documents before considering waiver of the

attorney work product doctrine.

1. Attorney-—Client Privilege

Generally, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged

matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the

needs of the case.” FED. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The attorney-client privilege limits

the normally broad disclosure requirements of Rule 26. Piazza v. Cnty. of

Luzerne, No. 3:13-CV-1755, 2015 WL 6690090, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 30,

2015)(citations omitted). As articulated:

The traditional elements of the attorney client privilege that

identify communications that may be protected from

disclosure in discovery are: (1) the asserted holder of the

privilege is or sought to become a client; (2) the person to

whom the communication was made (a) is a member of the

bar of a court, or his or her subordinate, and (b) in

connection with this communication is acting as a lawyer,

(3) the communication relates to a fact of which the

attorney was informed (a) by his client (b) without the

presence of strangers (c) for the purpose of securing

primarily either (i) an opinion of law or (ii) legal services or

(iii) assistance in some legal proceeding, and (d) not for the

purpose of committing a crime or tort; and (4) the privilege

has been (a) claimed and (b) not waived by the client.

Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851, 862 (3d

Cir. 1994)(“Rhone-Poulenc’”)(citations omitted)..

The purpose of the attorney-client privilege is to ensure that clients may

obtain legal advice from their attorneys in confidence. Id. at 864.

Although attorney-client privilege is worthy of maximum legal protection, “its

limitation on discovery also requires that the privilege must be strictly confined

within its narrowest possible limits consistent with the logic of its principle.”

Piazza, 2015 WL 6690090, at *2 (citing Rhone-Poulenc, 32 F.3d at 862; Inre

Grand Jury Investigation, 599 F.2d 1224, 1235 (3d Cir. 1979)(internal quotation

marks removed and further citations omitted)). Furthermore, the attorney-client

privilege is not absolute and cannot simultaneously be used both as a shield and

9 :

a sword. Merisant Co. v. McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, 242 F.R.D. 303, 311 (E.D. Pa.

2007 (citing Berckeley Inv. Group, Ltd. v. Colkitt, 455 F.3d 195, 222 (3d Cir.

2006)); EagleView Techs.., Inc. v. Xactware Sols., Inc., 522 F. Supp. 3d 40, 50

(D.N.J. 2021)(citations omitted); Worthington v. Endee, 177 F.R.D. 113, 116

(N.D.N.Y. 1998)(citations omitted).

“[A] party can waive the attorney client privilege by asserting claims or

defenses that put his or her attorney's advice in issue in the litigation.” Rhone-

Poulenc, 32 F.3d at 863 (collecting and reviewing cases). Accordingly, there is a

two-step inquiry into determining whether the privilege has been placed in issue:

1) the assertion of a claim or defense; and 2) an attempt to prove that claim or

defense by disclosing or describing an attorney-client communication. Id.

Here, Wyoming Seminary does not explicitly plead “advice of counsel” as

an affirmative defense in its answer. Defendant's answer, however, signals that

outside counsel's investigation will form the basis of its affirmative defenses in

this matter. (Doc. 9, Answer J 25, Affirmative Defenses, JJ 7-9). Outside

counsel's investigation into plaintiffs internal complaints of discrimination by

Wyoming Seminary’s interim president led to plaintiffs termination shortly after

the conclusion of that investigation. When Wyoming Seminary states in its

affirmative defenses that defendant acted with a legitimate business purpose and

plaintiff was neither discriminated nor retaliated against, the details of outside

10

counsel's investigation and the contents of his report are incorporated into those

defenses.

As for whether Wyoming Seminary’s defenses will rely on outside counsel’:

investigation materials to prove its defenses, there are important considerations

in this case because plaintiff proceeds under Title VII, the ADEA, and the PHRA.

In moving forward, plaintiff must rely on indirect evidence of discrimination and

the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework applies. See Comcast Corp.

v. Nat'l Ass'n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media, 589 U.S. ----, 140 S. Ct. 1009, 1019

(2020) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973)).

Under this familiar three-step framework, the plaintiff must first make a

| prima facie showing. Jones v. Sch. Dist. of Philadelphia, 198 F.3d 403, 410 (3d

Cir. 1999)(discussing McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802). “If the plaintiff

succeeds in establishing a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to

articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s

rejection.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). “Finally, should the

defendant carry this burden, the plaintiff then must have an opportunity to prove

by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the

defendant were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination.” Id.

(citing Texas Dep't of Cmty. Affs. v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 (1981)).

11

Because of plaintiff's termination after outside counsel's investigation, the

subject matter and contents of that investigation will be used by the defendant

under the McDonnell Douglas framework to: 1) challenge elements of plaintiff's

prima facie case, 2) establish Wyoming Seminary’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory

reasons for terminating plaintiff; and 3) eliminate or severely undercut plaintiff's

opportunity to show that those reasons are fabricated or pretextual.2 The

documents from outside counsel's investigation are thus “in issue’ in this

litigation. See Rhone-Poulenc, 32 F.3d at 863; Pittston Co. v. Allianz Ins. Co.,

143 F.R.D. 66, 71 (D.N.J. 1992).

As discussed in the prior order, the use of outside counsel in a workplace

investigation does not automatically shield discovery into that investigation.

Waiver of attorney-client privilege can occur when an employer relies on the

adequacy of a workplace investigation by an attorney as a defense to

discrimination and retaliation claims, since the privilege can be used as a sword

and a shield. See Brownell v. Roadway Package Sys., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 19, 25

(N.D.N.Y. 1999). Where an employer defends itself by relying on its response to

an employee’s allegations, the adequacy of that investigation becomes critical to

the issue of liability. Id. In Brownell, the court concluded that the only way a Title

2 Wyoming Seminary has not otherwise expressly disclaimed that it will avoid reliance on the

investigation in its defenses.

12

VII plaintiff can determine the reasonableness of an attorney-guided investigation

is the full disclosure of its contents. Id.; see also Harding v. Dana Transp., Inc.,

914 F.Supp. 1084 (D.N.J. 1996)(finding waiver and discussing how the attorney-

client privilege yields to principles of fairness and equity in permitting a plaintiff to

discover the content of an attorney-led investigation where a defendant attempts

to use the results of an investigation in their defense).

In this matter, the materials from outside counsel’s investigation will be

used by the defendant as a sword in response to plaintiffs discrimination and

retaliation claims and the defendant is attempting to shield these documents from

discovery. Thus, the defendant has waived attorney-client privilege regarding the

disputed documents.

2. Work Product Protection

As discussed next, the disputed documents are also subject to defendant’s

invocation of the attorney work product doctrine regarding outside counsel's

investigation materials.? Work product protection is governed by a uniform

federal standard embodied in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3). “[I]tems

3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5) requires that a party expressly make the claim of

privilege or protection. FED. R. Civ. P. 26(6)(5)(A)(i). Defendant's responses to document

requests 7, 12-14, and 18-19 only raise attorney-client privilege as a reason for the redactions.

After earlier uncertainty about whether Wyoming Seminary expressly invoked the attorney

work product doctrine, the court concludes that it has. As part of resolving this discovery

dispute, Wyoming Seminary produced its privilege log for the in camera review. In the

privilege log, the defendant clearly cites both attorney-client privilege and the attorney work

product doctrine as the reasons for redaction.

13

prepared in anticipation of litigation are generally protected from discovery by an

opposing party[,]’ under Rule 26(b)(3). In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 237

F.R.D. 373, 381 (E.D. Pa. 2006). In the context of an internal investigation by

outside counsel, documents such as the ones at issue here are made in

anticipation of litigation for the purposes of the work product doctrine. Id. (citing

Upiohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 390 (1981).

Rule 26(b)(3) establishes two tiers of protection for work product: 1) fact

work product, see FED. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A), and 2) opinion work product, see

Feb. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B). “Fact work product is discoverable only upon a

showing ‘substantial need’ and by demonstrating that one cannot otherwise

obtain the ‘substantial equivalent’ of such materials without ‘undue hardship.’ ” In

re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 237 F.R.D. at 381 (quoting Feb. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(3)(A)(ii)). Opinion work product encompasses “mental impressions,

conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other

representative concerning the litigation([,]" and courts are directed to protect

against these disclosures if the court orders discovery of documents prepared in

anticipation of litigation or trial. FED. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B). Opinion work product

“receives greater protection than ordinary work product and is discoverable only

upon a showing of rare and exceptional circumstances.” In re Cendant Corp.

Sec. Litig., 343 F.3d 658, 663 (3d Cir. 2003).

14

Like attorney-client privilege, attorney work product protection may also be

waived by placing that work product in issue, regardless of whether that work

product involves fact or opinion. As stated, “the standard for waiving the work-

product doctrine should be no more stringent than the standard for waiving the

attorney-client privilege.” Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Republic of Philippines,

951 F.2d 1414, 1429 (3d Cir. 1991). Like attorney-client privilege, defendants

cannot use attorney work product as a shield while also using it as a sword. See

Harding, 914 F.Supp. at 1097-99; Thomas v. Marshall Pub. Sch., No. 21-CV-

2581 (PJS/DJF), --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2023 WL 5743611, at *7 (D. Minn. Sept. 6,

2023); Reitz v. City of Mt. Juliet, 680 F. Supp. 2d 888, 892 (M.D. Tenn. 2010);

Walker v. Cnty. of Contra Costa, 227 F.R.D. 529, 533-34 (N.D. Cal. 2005).

The same at issue waiver considerations regarding attorney-client privilege

apply to waiver of the attorney work-product doctrine. No adverse action was

taken against the interim president based on his alleged discrimination of plaintiff

after an internal complaint and investigation by counsel. Rather, at some point

during outside counsel's investigation, the focus shifted from the interim

president’s alleged discrimination against plaintiff to plaintiff's own conduct and

led to her termination shortly after the investigation concluded. Thus, outside

counsel's investigation will be used to further Wyoming Seminary’s defense that

it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason in terminating plaintiff and that she

15

was not otherwise discriminated or retaliated against. Thus, the court concludes

that there has been waiver of the attorney work product doctrine regarding

outside counsel's investigatory documents. __

This waiver must be refined now, however, after the in camera review. The

Third Circuit Court of Appeals has counseled that implied waivers are to be

construed narrowly in discovery disputes. In re Teleglobe Commc'ns Corp., 493

F.3d 345, 378 (3d Cir. 2007), as amended (Oct. 12, 2007)(citations omitted).

Furthermore, principles of fairness and consistency guide courts in determining

the extent of such waivers. Harding, 914 F. Supp. at 1099; Thomas, 2023 WL

5743611 at * 10; see also McGrath v. Nassau Cnty. Health Care Corp., 204

F.R.D. 240, 244 (E.D.N.Y. 2001) (“fairness and prejudice concerns define the

scope of any work product waiver’).

The portions of outside counsel’s investigation involving whether Wyoming

Seminary’s internal anti-discrimination policies were violated by the interim

president are directly related to their defenses in this matter that Wyoming

Seminary did not discriminate or retaliate against plaintiff. Additionally, the

portions of outside counsel's investigation into plaintiffs conduct are directly

related to their defenses that Wyoming Seminary acted with legitimate business

purposes in terminating plaintiff. There are, however, other portions of the □

investigation report and summaries of witness interviews reflecting counsel's

16

legal analysis, opinions, and evaluations of witness credibility clearly anticipating

plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit. These portions are more akin to intra-litigation

analysis advising Wyoming Seminary of the strengths and weaknesses of both

sides’ positions. The court finds that the scope of implied waiver of work product

protection does not extend to these specific portions of outside counsel's

investigative materials. See Walker, 227 F.R.D. at 535 (holding that, despite a

finding of waiver of the work product doctrine, attorney opinions in the findings

and conclusions section of a prelitigation investigation report may reflect advice

to the employer about matters within the litigation not subject to waiver). As

discussed below, portions of the disputed documents where counsel has

expressly provided his opinions relative to this litigation as then anticipated will

remain subject to work product protection.

3. Application of Waiver to the Disputed Documents

After conducting the prior discovery conference and performing an in

camera review, and for the reasons set forth above, Wyoming Seminary has

waived attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection. Except as

specifically indicated below, Wyoming Seminary will be ordered to serve

unredacted copies of the documents identified as DEF000316-000326 and

DEF000370-DEF000459 within ten (10) days. Certain portions of the documents

remain subject to attorney work product protection as follows:

17

DEF000316-DEF000324 — Report of Lars H. Anderson, Esq. to Wyoming

Seminary, March 2, 2022 - Attorney work-product protection is not waived

regarding Section 3, Findings and Recommendations (DEF000321-

DEFO000324). Wyoming Seminary may maintain redactions as to this

section of the investigation report only. Otherwise, the report shall be

served on plaintiff in unredacted form.

e DEF000325-DEF000326 — Summary of Report of Lars H. Anderson, Esq.

to the Wyoming Seminary board of trustees - Attorney work-product

protection is not waived regarding Section 3, Findings and

Recommendations (DEF000325-DEF000326). Wyoming Seminary may

maintain redactions as to this section of the summary only. Otherwise, the

investigation report summary shall be served on plaintiff in unredacted

form.

e DEF000372-DEF000375 — Memorandum, Rachel Bartron Interview

Summary 02/15/2022 — Attorney work-product protection is not waived

regarding the final paragraph of the narrative on DEF000375. Otherwise,

this interview summary shall be served on plaintiff in unredacted form.

e DEF000382-DEF000385 — Memorandum, Julie Calabro Interview

Summary 02/10/2022 — Attorney work-product protection is not waived

regarding the first paragraph on DEF000384. Attorney work-product

18

protection is also not waived regarding the final paragraph of the narrative

on DEF000385. Otherwise, this interview summary shall be served on

plaintiff in unredacted form.

e DEF000392-DEF000394 — Memorandum, Kathy Hanlon Interview

Summary 02/12/2022 - Attorney work-product protection is not waived

regarding the final paragraph of the narrative on DEFO00394. Otherwise,

this interview summary shall be served on plaintiff in unredacted form.

e DEF000413-DEF000415 — Memorandum, Nicole Brogan Interview

Summary 02/17/2022 — Attorney work-product protection is not waived

regarding the final paragraph of the narrative on DEFO00415. Otherwise,

this interview summary shall be served on plaintiff in unredacted form.

e DEF000419-DEF000422 — Memorandum, Nina Moser Interview Summary

02/15/2022 — Attorney work-product protection is not waived regarding the

final paragraph of the narrative on DEF000422. Otherwise, this interview

summary shall be served on plaintiff in unredacted form.

« DEF000428-DEF000429 — Memorandum, Nathan Kuhl Interview Summary

02/28/2022 — Attorney work-product protection is not waived regarding the

final paragraph of the narrative on DEF000422. Otherwise, this interview

summary shail be served on plaintiff in unredacted form.

19

DEF000432-DEF000433 — Memorandum, Jason Sherry Interview

Summary 02/28/2022 — Attorney work-product protection is not waived

regarding the final paragraph of the narrative on DEF000433. Otherwise,

this interview summary shall be served on plaintiff in unredacted form.

e DEF000436-DEF000438 — Memorandum, Karen Klassner Interview

Summary 03/01/2022 — Attorney work-product protection is not waived

regarding the final paragraph of the narrative on DEFO00438. Otherwise,

this interview summary shall be served on plaintiff in unredacted form.

e DEF000443-DEF000445 — Memorandum, Julie Bean Interview Summary

02/22/2022 — Attorney work-product protection is not waived regarding the

| final paragraph of the narrative on DEFO00445. Otherwise, this interview

summary shall be served on plaintiff in unredacted form.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Wyoming Seminary shall serve

copies of DEFO000316-000326 and DEF000370-DEF000459 on plaintiff within ten

(10) days, subject to the redactions detailed in this memorandum. An

‘appropriate order follows.

20

Date: A, AAS [ _ [AV □

JUDGE JULIA K. MUNLAY

nited States en

21