disclosures to the government waive work product protection”). Instead, the Court must assess of what type of common interests the work product doctrine contemplates and whether a corporation and its outside auditors share any such interest. Courts in this District have ruled that it not necessary that the party to whom disclosure made share a “litigation” interest with the party that asserts the privilege. Célico P’ship d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Nextel Communication, Inc., No. M8-85, Civ.A. 03-725, 2004 WL 1542259, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 9, 2004) (deciding that defendant and its advertising agency shared a common business interest and therefore disclosure of an e-mail with legal advice did not waive work product privilege); In re Copper Mkt. Antitrust Litig., 200 F.R.D. at 221 n. 6 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the fact that Merrill Lynch and
holding work product protection waived where company shared litigation strategy against plaintiff with nonparty independent contractor holding that the burden of proof lies on the party asserting the protection of the work product doctrine holding that the party asserting work product protection has the burden of establishing that the doctrine applies holding that the protection of the work product rule continues after litigation has terminated holding that there was no waiver of the work product protection because the business and public relations firm specializing in litigationrelated crisis management shared a common interest