of proving that the interview notes are subject to the attorney-client privilege because they have not proven that Jim Sullivan and Michael Knott were interviewing Caproni, Coyle, and Sullivan in their capacity as Sciumeca’s Team members instead of IA Team members. In addition, any IA Team investigation would necessarily be conducted in the ordinary course of business as there are 1500 incident analysis investigations a year; therefore, National Grid has not met its burden of proving that the interview notes are subject to the protection of the work product doctrine. See Shotwell, 26 Mass.App.Ct. at 1016 (indicating that when the work product is prepared in “the ordinary line of business and duty,” it is not protected by the work product doctrine); see also Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1202 (<HOLDING>). 7 This case is similar to Soeder v. General
holding that documents that are created in the ordinary course of business or would have been created irrespective of litigation are not protected by the work product doctrine holding that the work product doctrine applied to a document prepared in anticipation of litigation and was therefore protected from disclosure under foia exemption 5 holding that certain dual purpose documents created in response to the epa information request and consent order were protected from discovery by the work product doctrine as they were created because of potential litigation with the epa holding that documents that were not created by but that were received maintained and relied upon by a business are business records under  8036 holding that the interest must be that created by a claim to the demand in suit or some part thereof  which is the subject of litigation