of a party," and concluded Penrose did not qualify under either category. Id. at TV 12, 14, 20. 115 In Penrose, we analyzed the facts under an identity of interest theory, and did not permit relation back where the plaintiff had attempted to add a new party in an amended complaint after the statute of limitations had run. See id. at TT20-21. We concluded there was not an identity of interest between the teenage driver of a car involved in a car accident and his father, the owner of the car, in part because their defenses and potential lability were different. See id. at 1119-20. Therefore, we determined that the plaintiff could not use rule 15(c) to add the driver as a defendant after the statute of limitations had run. See id.; but ef Nunez v. Albo, 2002 UT App 247, 130, 53 P.3d 2 (<HOLDING>). ¶ 16 We conclude that Persrose is not
holding moot the plaintiffs challenge to a universitys requirement that foreign students carry health insurance where named plaintiffs were no longer students at the university holding that an identity of interest existed between the university and one of its doctors because the university took steps to provide counsel for the doctor and required that all communications concerning the plaintiffs claim be sent to the universitys risk management attorney or to the doctors counsel holding state university is not a person under  1983 holding that counsel was not deficient in failing to call a witness where the defendant never provided the witnesss name to counsel and no evidence existed that counsel had any notice of the witnesss identity holding that communications between the university of colorados counsel and former employees of the university concerning activities during their period of employment may be protected by the attorneyclient privilege under the rationale presented in upjohn but holding that the university waived the privilege by disclosing the documents