*1 Currently before the Special Master is Plaintiffs’ challenge pertaining to documents that Defendants have withheld from production on the ground that they are communications protected by the attorney-client privilege. Plaintiffs’ counsel had previously raised issues concerning to Defendants’ privilege log and withheld documents. (See e.g., Special Master Order No. 10, ECF No. 223). During an August 28, 2017 telephonic conference with the Court, this matter was referred to the Special Master for resolution. In light of the expedited discovery schedule ordered by the Court (see ECF No. 229), the Special Master established a schedule for submissions by the parties in connection with the in camera review of each of the fifty-eight (58) documents designated as privileged by Defendants’ counsel (the “challenged documents”).[1] More specifically, Plaintiffs were to state whether they did not challenge any of the 58 documents and, for the remaining documents to set forth the reason(s) they contend the documents were improperly designated as privileged. Defendants were required to provide an updated privilege log to the Special Master and to Plaintiffs’ counsel and to provide the Special Master with the challenged documents themselves for in camera review. The Special Master also permitted counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants to submit argument of 5 pages or less.

On August 30, 2017, Plaintiff made their submission in which they, inter alia, challenged all of the privileged documents. On September 1, 2017, Defendants made their submission with their updated privilege log and provided the Special Master with the challenged documents to be reviewed in camera. On September 8, 2017, the Special Master conducted a brief ex parte telephonic communication with one of Defendants’ attorneys, Mark S. Morgan, Esq., to obtain clarification with respect to a few of the challenged documents.[2]

Based on the parties’ submissions,[3] the document descriptions in Defendants’ privilege log, the Special Master’s review of the documents in camera, and for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ objection to the 58 challenged documents is OVERRULED.

*2 The Third Circuit has observed that the attorney-client privilege is “the oldest confidential communications privilege known to the common law.” Haines v. Liggett Group Inc., 975 F.2d 81, 89-90 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562 (1989) ). “The privilege encourages the client to reveal to the lawyer confidences necessary for the lawyer to provide advice and representation.” Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Inc. v. Home Indem. Co., 32 F.3d 851, 862 (3d Cir. 1994) (citing Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981) ). For the attorney-client privilege to attach to a communication, “it must be ‘(1) a communication (2) made between privileged persons (3) in confidence (4) for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal assistance for the client.” In re Teleglobe Communications Corp., 493 F.3d 345, 359 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 68 (2000) ). “ ‘Privileged persons’ include the client, the attorney(s), and any of their agents that help facilitate attorney-client communications or the legal representation.” Teleglobe, 493 F.3d at 359 (citing Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 70).

“As common-law courts developed the privilege in an age in which clients were almost exclusively natural persons, more modern courts sought to adapt it to the ubiquitous corporate client.” Teleglobe, 493 F.3d at 360. Simply because the client is a corporation does not vitiate the attorney-client privilege. See Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 389-90. Rather, the privilege has been held to apply to communications by a corporate employee concerning matters within the scope of his/her duties and that were purposefully made to enable an attorney to provide legal advice to the corporation. See id., at 394.

All of the 58 challenged documents are email communications, including email chains, from 2011 and 2012. Defendants claim that each of the 58 challenged documents are privileged attorney-client communications. With regard to 57 of the 58 challenged documents, Shannon Hennessy Pulaski, Esq. is the author or a recipient of the email. As evidenced by Ms. Pulaski’s sworn statements, and as previously recognized by Magistrate Judge Goodman, Ms. Pulaski has served as outside trademark and legal counsel for Defendants since at least September 2010, and has counseled the Defendants in connection with this litigation. (See Pulaski Cert., (ECF NO. 163-1), at ¶3; Transcript of Decision, at 21:3-7). Moreover, Ms. Pulaski has sworn that her dealings with Defendant entities “have only been as an attorney, not as a business person.” Pulaski Cert., (ECF NO. 163-1), at ¶3; Supp. Pulaski Cert., (ECF NO. 179-1), at ¶3 (same).[4] With respect to the withheld email communications between Ms. Pulaski and one or more of Defendants-clients’ employees, based on the Special Master’s in camera review of the emails, the Special Master is satisfied that they all are communications covered by the attorney-client privilege. In that regard, an email forwarded to Ms. Pulaski may also be privileged even if it does not expressly request legal advice. In such a situation, it “is enough that the overall tenor of the document indicates that it is a request for legal advice or services.” In Re Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc., 203 F.3d 800, 806 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Given Ms. Pulaski’s role as a lawyer, the nature of the services she was performing, and the context in which the emails were forwarded to Ms. Pulaski, the Special Master is satisfied that they are privileged.

*3 The Special Master also finds that the attorney-client privilege applies to the email communications received by Ms. Pulaski that include a string of earlier email messages (i.e., email chains), including those email chains that forwarded prior non-privileged emails to Ms. Pulaski. “[T]he fact that non-privileged information was communicated to an attorney may be privileged, even if the underlying information remains unprotected.” Muro v. Target Corp., 250 F.R.D. 350, 363 (N.D. Ill. 2007) (citing Upjohn Co., 449 U.S. at 395-96). Thus, “even though one email is not privileged, a subsequent and privileged email which forwards that prior non-privileged email, will allow the privilege to attach to the entire email chain, including the non-privileged prior email messages.” Rhoads Indus. Inc. v. Building Materials Corp. of Am., 254 F.R.D. 238, 240 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (citing Muro, 250 F.R.D. at 363 and Upjohn Co., supra).[5]

The remaining challenged document (Doc # 53 on Defendants’ privilege log), is a communication between two non-attorneys but was nonetheless withheld by Defendants because it is an “[e]mail chain, seeking, implementing and providing legal advice....” Although, neither Shannon Hennessy Pulaski, Esq., nor any of Defendants other attorneys are a party to the email chain, the Special Master is satisfied that the communications within the email chain reflect the legal advice of Ms. Pulaski and, therefore, the Special Master finds that this document comes within the attorney-client privilege. See United States v. ChevronTexaco Corp., 241 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (the attorney-client privilege protects “a communication between non-legal employees in which the employees discuss or transmit legal advice given by counsel” or “internal communications that reflect matters about which the client intends to seek legal advice”); Deel v. Bank of America NA, 227 F.R.D. 456, 460 (W.D. Va. 2005) (a “corporation does not waive its privilege when non-lawyer employees send or receive communications because corporate communications which are shared with those having need to know of the communications are confidential for purposes of the attorney-client privilege”). See also McCook Metals L.L.C. v. Alcoa, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 242, 254 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (“Management should be able to discuss amongst themselves the legal advice given to them as agents of the corporation with an expectation of privilege”).

Based on the parties’ submissions and the Special Master’s review, in camera, of all of the emails at issue, the Special Master also finds that there is no evidence of waiver or that the attorney-client privilege was otherwise lost with respect to any of the challenged documents. See Teleglobe, 493 F.3d at 361; see also La. Mun. Police Emples. Ret. Sys. v. Sealed Air Corp., 253 F.R.D. 300, 311 (D.N.J. 2008) (“Although voluntary disclosure of attorney-client communications to a third-party ordinarily waives the privilege, the privilege will not be waived if the disclosure was to an agent ‘whose services are necessary for effective representation of the client’s interests.’ ”) (quoting Cellco Partnership v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, No. 05-3158, 2006 WL 1320067, at *2 (D.N.J. May 12, 2006) ).

*4 For the reasons set forth above, and as memorialized in Special Master Order No. 12, dated September 8, 2017, Plaintiffs’ objection to the fifty-eight (58) documents designated by Defendants as privileged is hereby OVERRULED.