MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONCERNING DOC. NO. 80

RICHARD A. LLORET, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiffs (collectively, "Aetna") have filed a motion for a protective order concerning witness statements they have turned over in discovery. Doc. No. 80. Defendants (collectively, "Mednax") have responded. Doc. No. 82. Aetna has redacted portions of the witness statements, claiming that the redacted information represents attorney work-product. Doc. No. 80 at 4-10; Doc. No. 80-1 (copies of redacted documents). Aetna has submitted the unredacted witness statements to me for review in camera. Mednax contends that the documents are not subject to protection under the attorney work-product privilege, and that even if they were, Mednax has demonstrated a substantial need for the documents. Doc. No. 82 at 6-17.

On May 30, 2012 Aetna retained attorney Howard Pierce, who in turn retained the Indago Group to conduct an investigation of Mednax's billing practices. Mednax makes much of the fact that Pierce and Indago Group investigated Mednax before May 30, 2012. I do not find that fact significant, at least not to the issue in front of me. The issue is whether Mr. Pierce's retention and investigation were in "anticipation of possible litigation." Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 94 (3d Cir. 1992) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 505 (1947)); see United States v. Rockwell Intern., 897 F.2d 1255, 1266 (3d Cir. 1990) (a file maintained to aide in future negotiations and potential litigation was protected work-product). The fact that Mr. Pierce began investigating Mednax before being retained by Aetna does not prevent Aetna from retaining him to investigate, nor does it dissolve the protections of the attorney work-product doctrine, if otherwise applicable.

Having reviewed the parties' submissions, I find that witness statements conducted after May 30, 2012 are subject to attorney work-product protection, because Mr. Pierce was retained that day in "anticipation of possible litigation." Haines, 975 F.2d at 94. That does not mean that Aetna knew of fraud on that date or knew enough to file a complaint. It means that Mr. Pierce was hired in anticipation of possible litigation, not as part of Aetna's ordinary day-to-day business.

Consequently, the memorandum of witness interview of Valerie Moniaci, dated February 23, 2011 must be turned over unredacted, because it was created before the attorney-client relationship between Aetna and Mr. Pierce came into being. The balance of the witness statements collected at Doc. No. 80-1 are subject to the attorney work-product doctrine because they were created after the attorney-client relationship was formed.

I have reviewed the balance of the unredacted witness statements, and I conclude that the redactions to those documents are limited to "core" attorney work-product: the mental impressions of counsel. This is appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b(3)(B).

ORDER

Accordingly, it is on this 30th day of October, 2019, ORDERED that Aetna's motion for protective order (Doc. No. 80) is GRANTED, except that Aetna will turn over an unredacted copy of the witness statement of February 23, 2011 (Valerie Moniaci).