*1 Currently pending before the undersigned on referral [275] from the District Court is Plaintiffs' Motion [273] to Compel Production of Documents. The matter has been fully briefed by the parties. A hearing was held on September 1, 2022. On September 2, 2022, the Court entered an Order directing Defendants[1] to submit the documents at issue for in camera review. ECF No. 286. Defendants provided the documents to the Court under cover letter dated September 14, 2022. ECF No. 295. On September 22, 2022, the Court directed the parties to file with the Court the deposition transcripts from the depositions of Linda Purnell and Natalie Haddix, both employees of Defendants. ECF No. 300. On September 23, 2022, and pursuant to Plaintiffs' Motion filed September 22, 2022 [ECF No. 301], the deposition transcripts were filed under seal with the Court. ECF No. 303. After considering all of the above-noted information, the applicable law and the documents at issue, the undersigned is prepared to issue a decision.

I. Factual/Procedural History

As the parties are aware, this matter arises out of a dispute over deductions taken from certain royalty payments under certain leases. The parties are currently in the midst of discovery, which is set to end on or about March 14, 2023. ECF No. 264. The documents at issue have been withheld by Defendants pursuant to the work product doctrine.[2] There are approximately 31 documents at issue vis-a-vis the instant Motion. Those documents include the following, identified by their document ID numbers: 004, 008, 009, 0010, 0011, 0012, 0013, 0020, 0023, 0024, 0025, 0026, 0045, 0048, 0049, 0050, 0063, 0085, 0086, 0124, 0126, 0127, 0128, 0129, 0130, 0176, 0190, 0192, 0195, 0196, and 0204.[3]

II. Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs argue that the aforementioned documents are not properly withheld pursuant to the work product doctrine. Plaintiffs contend that review and interpretation of lease language occurs within the normal course of Defendants' business and is conducted by Defendants' employees as a normal part of their positions with Defendants. Thus, these documents are business records, created and kept in the normal course of Defendants' business. Plaintiffs further contend that the documents at issue were not created in anticipation of litigation.

*2 Defendants argue that the documents at issue are properly withheld pursuant to the work product doctrine because they contain the mental impressions of representatives of Defendant, which relate to and were created in anticipation of litigation.

III. Applicable Law

Where the Court's jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship, the Court applies federal law to claims of work product protection. Nicholas v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 235 F.R.D. 325, 329 n.2 (N.D.W.Va. 2006). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) protects documents from discovery prepared “in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including the other's party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent).” Where alleged work product includes “the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation,” said documents and/or information “receives even greater protection.” Nicholas v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 235 F.R.D. at 332 (quoting In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir. 1994)).

“Proper application of the work product rule requires recognition and accommodation of two competing policies. On the one hand, fairness in the disposition of civil litigation is achieved when the parties to the litigation have knowledge of the relevant facts, and therefore the discovery rules are given a broad and liberal treatment.” National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Murray Sheet Metal Company, Inc., 967 F.2d 980, 983 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotations omitted) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)). “On the other hand, our adversary system depends on the effective assistance of lawyers, fostered by the privacy of communications between lawyer and client and the privacy in development of legal theories, opinions, and strategies for the client.” National Union, 967 F.2d at 983.

To be protected by the work product doctrine, a document “must be prepared because of the prospect of litigation when the preparer faces an actual claim or a potential claim following an actual event or series of events that reasonably result in litigation.” National Union, 967 F.2d at 984 (emphasis in original). “This ‘because of standard was ‘designed to help district courts determine the driving force behind the preparation of the work product' and distinguish between that which is created in anticipation of litigation and that which is created in the ordinary course of business.” Adair v. EQT Production Co., 285 F.R.D. 376, 382 (W.D. Va. 2012) (quoting Botkin v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 WL 2447939, at * 2 (W.D.Va. June 15, 2011)). “The mere prospect of litigation is not enough.” Adair, 385 F.R.D. at 382 (quoting Henson By and Through Mawyer v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 584, 587 (W.D.Va. 1987)). There must be a “nexus between the preparation of the document and...specific litigation.” Id. (quoting Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc., 175 F.R.D. 321, 328 (D.Kan. 1997)). Moreover, “[d]ocuments created after the inception of litigation are not work product per se.” Baxter International, Inc. v. AXA Versicherung, 320 F.R.D. 158, 164 (N.D.I11. 2017). “The party asserting the work product doctrine bears the burden to establish that it applies to the document[s] at issue.” Adair, 285 F.R.D. at 383 (citing Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co., 192 F.R.D. 536, 542 (N.D.W.Va. 2000)).

*3 In sum, and as Judge Keeley explained:

Bituminous Cas. Corp., 235 F.R.D. at 332 (internal quotations omitted).

IV. Discussion

In support of its assertion that the 31 documents at issue are protected from discovery pursuant to the work product doctrine, Defendants submitted to the Court, among other things, an affidavit and supporting documentation from Debra Broda-Morgan in her capacity as President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Executive Officer of Jay-Bee Oil & Gas, Inc.; Jay-Bee Production Company; JB Exploration I, LLC; Jay-Bee Royalty, LLC; Abacus Union, LLC; JBU, LLC; BB Land, LLC; JB Exploration, II, LLC; and DMRB Services, LLC (Defendants). ECF No. 282. This is the primary piece of evidence on which Defendants rely to support their assertion that the documents at issue are protected from disclosure under the work product doctrine. The Court does not find Ms. Morgan's affidavit entirely credible.

In her affidavit, Ms. Morgan recounts how, in 2018, the West Virginia Legislature passed House Bill 4270, which required oil and gas producers to report additional production information when making royalty payments to royalty owners. To comply with the new reporting requirements, Defendants restructured their accounting system over the course of approximately one year. ECF No. 282. On April 5, 2019, Defendants sent letters to royalty owners notifying them of a change to the royalty check statements which was made to comply with the new reporting requirements. Importantly, the new check format included a statement identifying the deductions taken from the royalty payment before the issuance of the royalty payment. Id.

Ms. Morgan states that, in May 2019, Defendants began receiving calls and letters from royalty owners regarding the updated royalty statements, and particularly the deductions listed thereon. Ms. Morgan further states that some royalty owners called to ask general questions about the royalty payments, while others disputed the deductions. Still others wrote to Defendants to dispute deductions and to threaten litigation. ECF No. 282. Ms. Morgan says that, in June 2019, and in response to these calls and letters, Defendants consulted with attorneys to evaluate the merits of each royalty dispute and to determine the best course of action. At that time, and on the advice of counsel, Defendants implemented an internal procedure to manage royalty owner claims, which process included the following steps: (1) all calls regarding royalty issues would be directed to Linda Purnell; (2) Linda Purnell would direct the royalty owner to place his or her concerns in a letter to Defendants; (3) Linda Purnell was to keep a log of all calls and letters received; (4) Linda Purnell would forward information concerning all calls and letters and royalty owner information to the Land Department (Natalie Haddix, Land Manager); (5) Randy Broda; attorneys Joe Jenkins, Mark Monteleone, George Patterson; and Land Manager, Natalie Haddix, would review and confer with regard to whether the leases in question permitted post-production deductions from royalty payments; (6) once Defendants determined their position, they would negotiate with the royalty owner; (7) formal written responses would also be sent to the royalty owner (Ms. Haddix would prepare the calculations and provide them to the accounting department so that checks could be issued; Ms. Haddix was also responsible for maintaining a record of Defendant's conclusions as to each lease interpretation); (8) Defendants were to maintain electronic folders for each royalty owner who raised an issue. See ECF No. 282. Ms. Morgan appended to her affidavit examples of letters she claims demonstrate that litigation was threatened, and which prompted Defendants to confer with counsel and implement the aforementioned process. Ms. Morgan also provided in her affidavit a list of documents which she contends were prepared in anticipation of litigation via the aforementioned process. ECF No. 282. Many of the assertions contained in Ms. Morgan's affidavit, however, are not borne out in the documents at issue.

*4 Despite the representations in Ms. Morgan's affidavit, the names “Mark Monteleone,”[4] “George Patterson,” “Joe Jenkins,” and “Bowles Rice LLP”[5] are not found in 30 of the 31 documents reviewed by the Court.[6] Additionally, the use of litigation-like terms in Ms. Morgan's affidavit to discuss the documents at issue does not comport with the substance of the documents themselves. Most of the documents at issue do not contain the terms “claim,” “risk assessment,” “settle,” or “dispute.” Rather, the documents at issue largely contain the relevant lease language, an interpretation of the same, calculations of royalty payments issued during relevant time periods, and calculations of royalty monies owed to certain persons. Even if it could be said that the documents do contain some form of “risk assessment,” this would not necessarily mean that the documents were created in anticipation of litigation rather than in the normal course of business. As the Court observed in Henson, “[t]he fact that litigation and costs of facing such is [considered] does not render the information in anticipation of litigation.” Henson, 118 F.R.D. at 586 (internal quotations omitted).

Additionally, the fact that royalty owners wrote letters regarding royalty payments does not, in and of itself, support Defendants' claim that the documents at issue were created in anticipation of litigation. Ms. Morgan's affidavit states that it was Defendants' policy to have royalty owners write a certified letter to Defendants regarding their concerns and/or questions, which would then be addressed internally.[7] Defendants cannot request a letter from royalty owners, only to then rely upon the same to argue that the letters create the anticipation of litigation. Moreover, many of the letters to which Defendants refer do not threaten litigation to recover allegedly improperly withheld royalty money.[8]

Even where attorney contact is noted in the letters cited by Ms. Morgan's affidavit, the reference to an attorney appears to have been made as a result of the royalty owner having to make a second (or more) request for information after previous attempts had been ignored. Indeed, a review of the documents at issue reveals that a period of approximately one year could elapse before Defendants responded to royalty owners' requests for a more information regarding certain deductions. In short, none of the attached letters states an affirmative intent to file a lawsuit to recover improperly taken royalty deductions. ECF No. 282. See Burton, 175 F.R.D. at 328.

The Court also notes that Ms. Morgan's affidavit appears to track quite closely the trajectory of Parsons v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, 2021 WL 1894244 (S.D.W.Va. May 11, 2021), which is also cited by Defendants in their opposition brief. This matter is distinguishable from Parsons. In Parsons, certain data tracking spreadsheets were at issue. Plaintiffs argued that the spreadsheets were prepared in the normal course of Columbia Gas Transmission's (“CGT”) business, while CGT argued that they were prepared specifically for litigation. After reviewing the documents, the Court concluded that the “data tracking spreadsheets were conspicuously developed in order to assist CGT in filing condemnation litigation.” Parsons, 2021 WL 1894244, at * 4. Evidence to support this conclusion was present in the spreadsheets themselves. One set tracked title reports CGT ordered for storage fields and summarized actions that needed to be taken before condemnation actions could be filed, while another set of spreadsheets tracked progress toward providing title reports to CGT and documented CGT's requests for clarification for certain title reports. Still another set of spreadsheets tracked the status of negotiations with certain property owners to avoid condemnation action. Id. In other words, there was a clear intent from the documents themselves that the information contained therein was meant to assist with filing certain legal action. Additionally, involvement of counsel in the review of the assets was apparent from the documents submitted to the court. The main affidavit in support of CGT's claims of work product was prepared by Senior Legal Counsel for TC Energy, a Defendant. Id. Here, a review of the documents at issue reveals no such indicators.

*5 The fact that the documents at issue do not evidence a clear intent to either pursue or avoid litigation is not surprising in light of the deposition testimony of Linda Purnell and Natalie Haddix. Natalie Haddix, Land Manager for Jay-Bee Oil & Gas, testified that review and interpretation of lease language, in particular royalty language, was part of the normal course of her position as the Land Manager at Jay-Bee Oil & Gas. ECF No. 303-1, p. 49. Natalie Haddix also testified that Joe Jenkins was hired in November 2019, approximately five (5) months after Ms. Morgan claims she consulted with him as Defendants' counsel and implemented the above-described process to handle communication from royalty owners on his advice (among others, whose names are conspicuously absent from any of the documents at issue). ECF No. 303-1, p. 108.

According to Linda Purnell, Payroll Manager, Accounts Payable, and HR Administrator for Jay-Bee – DMRB Services, she created and began maintaining a log of contacts from royalty owners as early as April 15, 2019. ECF No. 303, pgs. 154-55; ECF No. 282-12, p. 2 of 18. This is approximately ten (10) days after the letter sent by Defendants notifying royalty owners of the change in their royalty checks, and the same date as the first call/contact from a royalty owner with questions concerning the change. Id. Linda Purnell explained the process of accepting and tracking contacts from royalty owners in much the same way Ms. Morgan did in her affidavit, with one notable difference: Ms. Purnell claims that this process was implemented by Ms. Morgan in April 2019. ECF No. 303, pgs. 96-100; 154-155. This predates any alleged conference between Ms. Morgan, Defendants, and the lawyers named in Ms. Morgan's affidavit. Importantly, this testimony and the documentary evidence which corroborates said testimony support the conclusion that the process of accepting, recording, addressing, and responding to royalty owners' questions and concerns was implemented during the regular course of Defendants' business rather than in anticipation of litigation.

Certain of the documents at issue appear to have been created after this case was initiated. Insofar as Defendants rely upon the date of creation of certain documents to argue that said documents were created because of litigation, the Court is not persuaded. “Documents created after the inception of litigation are not work product per se.” Baxter International, Inc. v. AXA Versicherung, 320 F.R.D. 158, 164 (N.D. Ill. 2017). Moreover, many of those same documents relate to communications from royalty owners that predate this litigation.[9]

Thus, the evidence, when viewed wholistically, does not generally support Defendants' assertion that the work product doctrine applies to all of the documents at issue. Against this backdrop, the Court analyzed each of the 31 documents submitted by Defendants. The Court's specific findings vis-a-vis the same are provided below.

Document 0004 – work product doctrine applies. This document is a spreadsheet created by Natalie Haddix on May 7, 2020, after the inception of the instant suit and includes notes regarding lease provisions, contacts with royalty owners, and the status of payment to certain royalty owners, among other pieces of information. The document includes Ms. Haddix's notes as to the interpretation of certain lease provisions, the prospective responses of Defendants to certain royalty owners, and the status of contacts with those royalty owners. The document also contains information as to next steps vis-a-vis certain royalty owners. Importantly, this document mentions Defendant's in-house counsel, Joe Jenkins, and in particular contains action items relative to Mr. Jenkins. Given the apparent involvement of Defendants' in-house counsel with the document, and given the substantive content of the same, it appears that this document was prepared because of litigation. Thus, the Court is satisfied that the work product doctrine applies to this document.

*6 Document 0008 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is an email exchange by and between Linda Purnell, Natalie Haddix, Deb Morgan, and Gail Mueller from April 2, 2020, to April 6, 2020, which discusses Michael Bobinger's concerns vis-a-vis certain royalty deductions. According to Defendants' Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log, this email exchange is in reference to a telephone call from Mr. Bobinger on April 17, 2019. ECF No. 280-3. It also appears that Mr. Bobinger contacted Defendants on January 16, 2019 (by email) and February 7, 2020 (letter). ECF No. 282-12, row 19. Defendants argue that this document constitutes internal correspondence between Jay-Bee employees discussing Defendants' response to the royalty dispute with Mr. Bobinger. Defendants argue that this document contains opinions and mental impressions and was created in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

In the email exchange at issue, a portion of a handwritten letter is reproduced – it does not threaten litigation. It merely requests an explanation of the accounting vis-a-vis Mr. Bobinger's royalty check(s), which is what this email exchange provides. Ms. Haddix testified that review and interpretation of leases is a part of her job with Jay-Bee Oil & Gas. According to ECF No. 282-12, row 19, Mr. Bobinger allegedly said he would be getting an attorney, but the note does not provide details beyond this statement. There is no evidence or indication that Mr. Bobinger ever retained an attorney. Given the above, there is not a sufficient nexus to litigation and the Court cannot conclude that this document was prepared because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0009 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document appears to be additional message exchanges in the string described above (in Document 0008). In fact, this document appears to be substantially the same as Document 0008, with an added email/comment. The Court would find that the work product doctrine does not apply to this document for the reasons set forth above.

Document 0010 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document appears to be part of Document 0008. The work product doctrine does not apply for the same reasons set forth above.

Document 0011 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. According to Defendants' Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log, ECF No. 280-3, this document was created by Natalie Haddix on August 10, 2019, and was created in response to a letter sent by David Bowyer dated June 24, 2019. The letter is filed at ECF No. 282-2. This document appears to be a memo-to-file of sorts. It discusses the leases referenced in ECF No. 282-2, as well as other leases, which are leases held by David Bowyer. The document includes language of certain leases and Ms. Haddix's interpretation of that language. Defendants argue that this document mental impressions and opinions of Natalie Haddix regarding the royalty dispute with Mr. Bowyer. Defendants further argue that this document was creates in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

As noted above, Ms. Haddix testified that review and interpretation of lease language is part of her job as Land Manager with Jay-Bee Oil & Gas. Additionally, ECF No. 282-2, Mr. Bowyer's letter, concludes with “If I do not receive a response in a timely manner, you will be hearing from my attorney.” This statement is not enough to transform this document into one “prepared in anticipation of litigation.” Mr. Bowyer's reference to an attorney appears to be an attempt to obtain the information he seeks rather than an intention to file pursue litigation. There must be a nexus between the document and specific litigation. See Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc., 175 F.R.D. 321, 328 (D. Kan. 1997). There is not a sufficient nexus here. Given this, and in light of Ms. Haddix's testimony, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

*7 Document 0012 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is an email from Natalie Haddix to Deb Morgan, Linda Purnell, and Gail Muller dated April 8, 2020, regarding royalty owner Ronald Camp. This document appears to contain a recitation of a lease provision and the interpretation of that provision. Defendants argue that this document contains mental impressions related to the royalty dispute with Mr. Camp, and that this document was created in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

As Natalie Haddix testified, review and interpretation of lease provisions is part of her job as Land Manager at Jay-Bee Oil & Gas. Additionally, while a review of ECF No. 282-12, row 29 reveals that Mr. Camp contacted Defendants to express his disagreement with them over deductions from his royalty checks (Mr. Camp called Defendants on April 22, 2019, December 9, 2019, and wrote letters dated December 17, 2019, and March 5, 2020), there is no evidence or indication that Mr. Camp threatened litigation. Defendants thus have failed to provide a nexus between this email and specific litigation. Given this, and given Ms. Haddix's testimony, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Therefore, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0013 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is approximately 20 pages in length and appears to be an accounting of royalty deductions to be repaid to royalty owner, Charles Conaway. The document was created by Natalie Haddix on December 6, 2019. The document is laid out in table format. Defendants contend that this document relates to ECF No. 282-4, which is a letter from Spilman Thomas & Battle dated August 20, 2019, regarding Mr. Conaway's royalty payments and deductions. The letter asks for information about the deductions categorized as “other” in Mr. Conaway's royalty checks. The letter advises Defendants that W Va. Code 37C-1-1(b) authorizes an action to recover attorneys' fees if the information sought is not timely provided, as well as compound interest on untimely royalty payments. Defendants contend that this document is an internal assessment that contains opinions and mental impressions which was prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by this argument.

The document itself primarily contains numbers and calculations of deductions taken from royalty payments, and the royalty payments/reimbursements owed to Mr. Conaway. Defendants contend that the document contains mental impressions, but there are no mental impressions evident on the document. The only thing that could be so categorized is the line regarding royalty payments/reimbursements due and owing under Mr. Conaway's lease. Even if this statement could be considered a mental impression, Natalie Haddix testified that she reviewed and interpreted leases in the normal course of her position as Land Manager with Jay-Bee Oil & Gas. These documents do not discuss litigation, lawyers, or anything of the like. Defendants have provided no nexus between this document and litigation, and the reference in the August 20, 2019, letter from Spilman, Thomas, & Battle is not enough. The letter's reference to an attorney appears to relate to the desire for Defendants to provide the information sought rather than specific litigation. Given Ms. Haddix's testimony and given the thrust of the letter at ECF No. 282-4, the Court cannot conclude that this document was prepared because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

*8 Document 0020 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is an email exchange between Linda Purnell, Gail Muller, Deb Morgan, and Ella Cooper dated May 18, 2020, regarding conversations with Lorrie Lemasters. According to Defendants' Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log (ECF No. 280-3), this document was created in reference to ECF No. 282-9, which is a letter dated May 14, 2019, to Debbie Morgan from Kenneth Mason of Drilling Appalachian Corp. (“DAC”) regarding certain leases, royalty payments, and deductions taken therefrom. Defendants contend that this document contains mental impressions related to Lorrie Lemasters's lease and royalty provisions and was created in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

This document does not contain mental impressions regarding Ms. Lemasters's lease. Rather, the document contains the factual recitation of a phone conversation with Ms. Lemasters and a directive to refund the deductions taken from Ms. Lemasters's royalty check(s). Further, Lorrie Lemasters is not mentioned in the letter Defendants cite in support of its work product doctrine assertion (ECF No. 282-9) – the letter is written by Kenneth R. Mason, who appears to be a non-lawyer, and it does not threaten litigation. Given the above, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0023 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This 4-page document appears to be an accounting of royalty payments due to certain lessors. According to Defendants' Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log, it was created on March 11, 2020, and in response to a letter received on May 14, 2019, which is filed at ECF No. 282-9. Defendants contend this document contains handwritten notes relating to a royalty dispute with DAC and Kenneth and Jennifer Mason. Defendants argue that the handwritten notes describe mental impressions relating to resolution of royalty dispute with DAC and Kenneth and Jennifer Mason. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

The handwritten notes on the document appear to be recitations of the royalty calculations/payment due calculations which are typewritten on the document. The document does not appear to contain mental impressions, but rather, contain factual recitations and calculations of royalties paid and owed pursuant to certain leases. This document appears to have been prepared to respond to the letter of May 14, 2019, ECF No. 282-9, which asked for information. The May 14, 2019, letter does not threaten litigation. Given the above, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0024 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is a spreadsheet with a portion that has been redacted. The redacted portion constitutes a verbatim recitation of a lease provision and an interpretation of that provision. Defendants contend that this document was created on April 9, 2020, by Natalie Haddix and Gail Muller, and that the redacted portion is protected by the work product doctrine because it constitutes opinions and mental impressions which directly relate to Defendants' internal assessment and strategy surrounding a dispute with Susan DeLeGal, and it was created in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

As Natalie Haddix testified, review and interpretation of lease is part of her job as Land Manager with Jay-Bee Oil & Gas. Additionally, there is no evidence or argument that Ms. DeLeGal threatened litigation. There is thus no nexus between the redacted language and litigation. Rather, the driving force behind the creation of this document, and in particular the redacted language, appears to have been to assess whether and to what extent Ms. DeLeGal was owed additional royalty monies, and the inclusion of the redacted language on the document seems to have been an attempt to support the calculations found elsewhere on the document. Given the above, the Court cannot conclude that this document was prepared because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

*9 Document 0025 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is an email from Natalie Haddix to Deb Morgan, Linda Purnell, and Gail Miller dated April 7, 2020. The email discusses the pertinent lease provisions for Susan DeLeGal, and whether and to what extent she is due reimbursement. The conclusion is reached that she is due reimbursement. The email references an email received from Ms. DeLeGal the day before this email is written, but that email has not been provided to the Court. There is no indication that Ms. DeLeGal threatened litigation. It appears from the email is that Ms. DeLeGal asked for a reexamination of her royalty deductions and an explanation thereof. This email appears to be a part of that process, which Ms. Haddix testified is part of the normal course of her job. There is no nexus to litigation. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that this document was prepared because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0026 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is a spreadsheet relating to royalty payments, deductions, and reimbursements due to Susan DeLeGal. Defendants have redacted language which provides the royalty lease provision and the interpretation of the same. The spreadsheet was created by Natalie Haddix on April 8, 2020. Ms. Haddix testified that reviewing and interpreting lease provisions is part of her job as Land Manager with Jay-Bee Oil & Gas. Given this, and in light of the fact that there is no evidence or indication that Ms. DeLeGal threatened litigation, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0045 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document contains calculations for certain wells and was created by Natalie Haddix on January 17, 2020. According to Defendants' Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log, ECF No. 280-3, this document relates to royalty owners James Greene and Cynthia Green, though no names appear on the document itself. Defendants further contend that this document relates to ECF No. 282-12, row 74, which contains notes regarding James Green's contacts with Defendants. Defendants claim this document is an internal assessment and contains opinions and mental impressions regarding the leases held by the Greens and was prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

Ms. Haddix testified that she reviews and interprets lease provisions in the normal course of her position. Further, there is no evidence or indication that the Greens threatened to pursue litigation. The call log notes merely indicate that Mr. Green believes deductions should not be taken for a particular lease. Additional communications seem to be centered around getting the royalty payments corrected, rather than pursuing litigation. The driving force behind the creation of this document does not appear to be litigation. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that this document was prepared because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0048 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is a spreadsheet created by Natalie Haddix and Gail Muller on April 6, 2020, which Defendants contend relates to a communication from Mr. Guynn dated August 21, 2019, and that contains calculations for royalty payments issued, deductions taken, and refunds owed to Arthur Guynn. The document contains language that has been redacted, i.e., lease language with an interpretation as to what can be deducted with respect to Arthur Guynn. Defendants argue that the redacted portion contains opinions and mental impressions of lease provisions which directly relate to Defendants' internal strategy vis-a-vis the dispute with Mr. Guynn and was created in anticipation of litigation. Defendants reference ECF No. 282-12, row 78 to support their claim that this is protected work product. The Court is not persuaded.

*10 Natalie Haddix testified that she reviews and interprets lease language as part of her position with Jay-Bee. Additionally, there is no evidence or indication that litigation was threatened by Mr. Guynn. ECF No. 282-12 seems to indicate that a letter was received from an attorney on behalf of Mr. Guynn and/or members of his family, but the letter has nothing to do with the deductions. Rather, it relates to a request for Defendants to release unused acres. There is not a sufficient nexus between this document and anticipated litigation. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0049 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is an email exchange between Natalie Haddix, Deb Morgan, and Gail Muller dated April 6, 2020. It discusses the pertinent lease provision relative to Mr. Arthur Gyunn and directs that a letter and check be sent to him via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested. Defendants argue that this document discusses a royalty dispute initiated by Mr. Guynn and contains mental impressions related thereto and related to the interpretation of Mr. Guynn's lease, and that this document was created in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments. Natalie Haddix, the author of the email, testified during her deposition that reviewing and interpreting leases is part of her job as Land Manager for Jay-Bee Oil and Gas. Additionally, and importantly, the document itself notes that there is no letter from an attorney in his file pertaining to royalties. There is no evidence or indication that Mr. Guynn threatened litigation with respect to his royalty payments. There is thus no nexus between this document and anticipated litigation. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that this document was prepared because of litigation. The work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0050 – work product doctrine does NOT apply This document is a spreadsheet containing royalty payments and deductions for Arthur Guynn from 2014-2020. According to Defendants' Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log (ECF No. 280-3), this document was created on April 6, 2020, by Natalie Haddix. In addition to tables with numbers, the document contains a reprint of what appears to be lease language as well as a statement of what can or cannot be deducted under the lease. The lease language and the interpretation of the same has been redacted in the version produced to Plaintiff. Defendants contend that this portion is protected by the work product doctrine because it contains opinions and mental impressions of oil and gas leases serving as the subject of a royalty dispute with Mr. Guynn. Defendants further contend that these opinions relate directly to an internal assessment and strategy surrounding this dispute, and the document was prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

First, Natalie Haddix testified that reviewing and interpreting lease provisions is a part of her job with Jay-Bee Oil & Gas. Next, there is no indication in this document that he threatened litigation. Defendants refer the Court to ECF No. 282-12, row 78, which summarizes the contact between Defendants and Arthur Guynn. The contact set forth in ECF No. 282-12, row 78 does not evidence a threat of litigation. Additionally, the document itself (Document 0050) confirms that there is no “dispute” which was anticipated to turn into litigation – the emails acknowledge that there is no letter from an attorney regarding royalties in Mr. Guynn's file. There is not a sufficient nexus between the creation of this document and litigation. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

*11 Document 0063 – work product doctrine applies. This document contains handwritten notes with what appear to be reimbursement amounts for certain leases and certain years. The document is dated 2/15/2020, which is different than the date of creation represented on Defendants' Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log (ECF No. 280-3), and which lists the date of creation as 2/24/2020. The Court also notes that the Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log does not specify who created this document, and whether this was created at the request of anyone or to whom it might have been sent. Given this, it is difficult to give credence to Defendants' representation that a “representative of Jay-Bee” made the notes therein.

Notwithstanding the aforementioned concerns, the Court would nevertheless find that the work product doctrine applies to this document. The document mentions “Joe,” which, while not specified, the Court, out of an abundance of caution, has taken to mean Joe Jenkins, counsel for Defendants. The document also makes reference to other attorneys by using the generic label “attorneys” and “atty.” It is not immediately apparent what this document is, and the description in the Privilege Log does not shed much light on the subject, but it does appear to the Court that this document represents an accumulation of information at the request of or in consultation with an attorney (Mr. Jenkins). Therefore, and again out of an abundance of caution, the Court would find that the work product doctrine precludes discovery of this document.

Document 0085 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is a spreadsheet which contains calculations relative to various leases and wells which was created by Deborah Morgan and Linda Purnell on 12/10/2019. See ECF No. 280-3. It does not appear as though the document contains any names of any lessors, though Defendants' Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log asserts that this document relates to the leases with Michael LeMasters and Diana Weekly. The document has been produced to Plaintiffs, but in redacted form. The redaction appears to include information regarding which of the leases considered authorizes royalty deductions. Defendants argue that the redacted information contains opinions and mental impressions of oil and gas leases which are the subject of a dispute with Mr. LeMasters and Ms. Weekly. Defendants further contend that these opinions relate to assessment and strategy for this dispute and were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

Defendants claim this spreadsheet relates to correspondence received from Michael LeMasters and dated October 4, 2019. ECF No. 282-5. A review of the letter does not support Defendants' contention that litigation was threatened or anticipated in this instance. The end of the letter states “Please help me to understand what I do not understand now. I would like to work this out between us without having to engage my lawyer which could be costly for each of us.” This statement, while referencing an attorney, does not threaten litigation. In fact, it does the opposite. It asks for help understanding Defendants' taking almost uniform royalty deductions across various leases despite the permitted deduction varying from lease to lease. The possibility of litigation is not enough. There must be a nexus between specific litigation and the creation of the document. This nexus has not been established here. Given this, the Court cannot conclude that this document was prepared because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0086 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This is another spreadsheet for various leases and wells which was created on December 10, 2019, by Deborah Morgan and Linda Purnell. The spreadsheet appears to have been produced, albeit with a section redacted. The redacted section includes information regarding permissible royalty deductions. Defendants claim this redacted portion constitutes mental impressions and opinions regarding oil and gas leases. Defendants further claim that this document was prepared in response to a 10/4/2019 letter from Michael Lemasters (as above) regarding the deductions taken in royalty checks on various leases. As above, the letter does not threaten litigation. The mere possibility of litigation is not enough to transform a document into work product. There is not a sufficient nexus between the creation of this document and specific litigation. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that this document was prepared because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

*12 Document 0124 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document contains a table which lists wells and leases for those wells, as well as the owner. The document also contains royalty language for the leases mentioned and whether improper deductions were taken from the royalties. It was created on 2/12/2020. ECF No. 280-3. Defendants do not identify the owner or creator of the document, however. Defendants claim that the document was created in response to a 5/22/2019 letter from Rockford Energy, which is filed at ECF No. 282-10. Defendants argue that the document was created in anticipation of litigation and is an internal assessment which contains opinions and mental impressions concerning leases held by royalty owners Rockford Energy and Jackson Smith. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

Though Defendants contend that this document contains mental impressions and opinions of a Jay-Bee representative, it is not apparent from either the Privilege Log or the document itself who that may be as no one is named. Defendants also claim that this was created in anticipation of litigation, but the 5/22/2019 letter does not threaten litigation. It does not even mention a lawyer. Rather, the letter asks Defendants to “review [Rockford's] leases and assignments for verification” of the royalty information. This is not enough to demonstrate that the document in question was created in anticipation of litigation. The mere possibility of litigation is not enough. As a result, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0126 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is a spreadsheet that appears to contain calculations regarding permissible royalty payments for different leases and wells and was created on 11/5/2019 by Linda Purnell. See ECF No. 280-3. Defendants claim this document contains mental impressions of Linda Purnell related to the lease held by royalty owner Arnold Schulberg which was created in anticipation of litigation.[10] Defendants reference the initial communication with the owner dated August 20, 2019, and which is filed at ECF No. 282-4. The Court is not persuaded by Defendants' arguments.

The letter to which Defendants refer is a “request for information about deductions” from Matthew Heiskell of Spilman, Thomas & Battle. Though Mr. Heiskell cites W.Va. Code 37C-1-1(b) which requires Defendants to provide the requested information within 60 days and which permits an action to recover attorney's fees, and which authorizes compound interest on improperly withheld royalties, the thrust of the letter appears to be connected to the desire for information, rather than litigation.[11]

Additionally, the Court would note that, during her deposition, Ms. Purnell testified that she does not review and interpret lease provisions; that the land department conducts such activities. ECF No. 303, pgs. 39-40. Given this testimony, the Court cannot conclude that this document contains “opinions and mental impressions regarding lease(s).” See ECF No. 280-3.

In light of the above, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply to this document.

Document 0127 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document is a spreadsheet which includes information on royalty deductions under certain leases and on certain wells. There is no author apparent on the document, though per Defendants' Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log, the authors are Linda Purnell and Natalie Haddix. Defendants contend this is an internal assessment which contains opinions and mental impressions regarding leases and royalty payments for Arnold Schulberg, and it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Defendants cite ECF No. 282-4 as the initial communication from Mr. Schulberg, which is the letter from Mr. Heiskell. Again, the letter does not discuss litigation over the royalty deductions. Rather, the letter asks for information and reminds Defendants that they need to provide the information within 60 days or Defendants will be responsible for attorney's fees which were necessary to recover the information. Moreover, Natalie Haddix testified that review and interpretation of leases is part of her job as Land Manager with Jay-Bee Oil & Gas. Given this and given the content of the letter at ECF No. 282-4, the Court cannot conclude that this document was prepared because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

*13 Document 0128 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. Document 128 is a spreadsheet created by Linda Purnell on November 4, 2019, and which discusses royalty payments/deductions for Mr. Schulberg for certain leases and wells. The redacted portion relates to Defendants' interpretation of Mr. Schulberg's lease. Defendants claim this document is related to ECF No. 282-4, and that the redacted portions of the document contain opinions and mental impressions of oil and gas leases serving as the subject of a royalty dispute with Mr. Schulberg. Defendants argue that the opinions and mental impressions directly relate to Defendants' assessment and strategy surrounding this dispute, and that the document is prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

The document was created by Linda Purnell, who testified that she did not interpret leases as part of her job. ECF No. 303, pgs. 39-40. Rather, and according to her testimony, the land department was responsible for interpretation of leases. Id. Additionally, the letter to which Defendants claim this document relates, ECF No. 282-4, does not discuss litigation related to improper royalty deductions. Rather, the main thrust of the letter is to obtain information concerning deductions taken from certain royalty payments. Given the above, the Court cannot conclude that Document 0128 was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0129 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document contains a table with what appear to be royalty payments issued to and deductions taken from royalty payments under certain leases involving Arnold Schulberg. The document was created 12/16/2019 by Natalie Haddix, according to Defendants' Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log, ECF No 280-3. Defendants claim this table was created in response to the letter dated 8/20/2019, which is filed at ECF No. 282-4. This document appears to have been produced to Plaintiffs with the redaction of language at the top of the document which relates to Defendants' interpretation of the lease terms vis-a-vis royalty deductions. Defendants argue that the redacted portion of this document contains opinions and mental impressions of oil and gas leases, which directly relate to strategy and assessment regarding the dispute with Arnold Schulberg. Defendants argue this document was created in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

This document was created by Natalie Haddix, who testified that review and interpretation of lease provisions is a part of her job at Jay-Bee Oil and Gas. Additionally, the letter dated 8/20/2019 and filed at ECF No. 282-4 does not threaten litigation over disputed royalty payments. It requests information and notes that WV Code § 37C-1-1 (b) provides 60 days for Defendants to give the information requested. Again, though the letter references the ability to recover attorneys' fees and compounded interest on improperly withheld royalty payments, the Court believes the main thrust of the letter is to obtain information, not to serve as a precursor to litigation. Consequently, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0130 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document contains a table with royalty calculations for wells owned by Mr. Schulberg, and the amounts of reimbursements owed to him. The document appears to have been created on 12/6/2019 by Natalie Haddix in response to the letter filed at ECF No. 282-4 and dated 8/20/2019. See ECF No. 280-3. Defendants make substantially the same arguments as they made with regard to Document 0129. The Court is not persuaded by the same. Again, Ms. Haddix testified that she reviewed and interpreted lease provisions as part of her job at Jay-Bee Oil and Gas. Additionally, and as noted previously, the letter to which Defendants claim this document refers is a request for information. The Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

*14 Document 0176 – work product doctrine does NOT apply This document is a spreadsheet created on or about 7/7/2021 by Gail Muller and Deborah Morgan and which contains what appears to be a listing of refund checks issued by Defendants to royalty owners for deductions taken from royalty checks. The document contains check numbers, dates written, amounts, royalty owners' names, check cleared dates, and information of the like. Defendants claim that this document was created by an employee of Jay-Bee detailing Jay-Bee's strategy and handling of royalty disputes, and that the document was created in anticipation of litigation and maintained after litigation was initiated. The Court is not persuaded but these arguments.

The document does not discuss strategy for handling royalty disputes. The document consists primarily of numbers and calculations. Additionally, there is nothing in the document or about the document, other than the date, which demonstrates that it was prepared in anticipation of litigation. “Documents created after the inception of litigation are not work product per se.” Baxter International, Inc. v. AXA Versicherung, 320 F.R.D. 158, 164 (N.D. III. 2017). There must be more. A nexus between the document and specific litigation must be established. See Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc., 175 F.R.D. 321, 328 (D. Kan. 1997). This nexus has not been shown here. As a result, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0190 – work product does NOT apply.This document is an email exchange by and between Gail Muller, Deb Morgan, Linda Purnell, and Ella Cooper regarding a refund payment to Nancy Fout for deductions taken from her royalty checks. The emails appear to have been exchanged on 7/21/2021 and discuss how to categorize the payment to Ms. Fout for purposes of accounts receivable at Jay-Bee. The emails also discuss whether the amount paid to Ms. Fout should be included on a spreadsheet which tracks refund payments. Defendants claim this correspondence relates to a communication from Ms. Fout[12] which occurred on 2/19/2020, and which constitutes Defendants' response to a royalty dispute. Defendants further argue that this document contains mental impressions and Defendants' interpretation of certain lease provisions. The Court is not persuaded by Defendants' arguments.

This document does not contain mental impressions and interpretations of lease provisions. Rather, the document discusses how to categorize payment to Ms. Fout for accounts receivable purposes, and whether to track the payment on the spreadsheet dedicated to tracking refund checks. The only thing about this document which connects it to litigation is its date of creation. However, “[d]ocuments created after the inception of litigation are not work product per se.” Baxter International, Inc. v. AXA Versicherung, 320 F.R.D. 158, 164 (N.D. Ill. 2017). There must be more. A nexus between the document and specific litigation must be established. See Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc., 175 F.R.D. 321, 328 (D. Kan. 1997). This nexus has not been shown here. As a result, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0192 work product does NOT apply. This document is a spreadsheet which tracks the wells and leases for Ms. Fout (and others), which was created on March 3, 2020, by Angela Nunes and Linda Purnell, and which Defendants claim relates to communications noted in ECF No. 282-12, row 105. The spreadsheet contains a breakdown of the numerous leases held by Ms. Fout (and others), as well as the lease language attendant to each lease and Jay-Bee's interpretation, including Natalie Haddix's notes as to the interpretation thereof. Defendants argue that this document contains opinions and mental impressions of oil and gas leases serving as the subject of a royalty dispute with Nancy Fout and J&N Management, and that these opinions and mental impressions directly relate to internal assessment and strategy surrounding this dispute. Defendants contend this document was created in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

*15 As has been noted previously, Natalie Haddix testified that her position as Jay-Bee Oil and Gas's Land Manager included the review and interpretation of leases. Additionally, there is no evidence or indication that Ms. Fout or anyone to whom this document applies threatened litigation. The mere possibility of litigation is not enough. A nexus must be established between the creation of the document and specific litigation. That nexus has not been established here. Given this, the Court cannot conclude that that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0195 – work product does NOT apply. This document is a (large) spreadsheet which contains calculations for deductions taken and reimbursement totals from inception of Ms. Fout's lease(s) through 4/15/2020. The spreadsheet also contains notes from Natalie Haddix regarding lease language in the various and numerous leases considered by this spreadsheet. The document was created on 5/22/2020 by Deborah Morgan. Defendants argue that this document contains opinions and mental impressions of oil and gas leases which are the subject of a royalty dispute with Ms. Fout and J & N Management, and that these opinions and mental impressions directly relate to Defendants' internal assessment and strategy for said dispute. Defendants argue that this document was created in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

First, and inasmuch as the document contains opinions of Natalie Haddix regarding the interpretation of oil and gas leases, Ms. Haddix testified that reviewing and interpreting oil and gas leases is a part of her job with Jay-Bee Oil and Gas. Additionally, the Court would again note that Defendants have not established a threat of litigation. The communications noted in ECF No. 282-12, row 105 do not demonstrate that litigation was imminent or threatened from Ms. Fout or anyone on her behalf. The possibility of litigation is not enough. A nexus between the creation of the document and specific litigation must be established. No such nexus has been established here. Given this, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

Document 0196 – work product does NOT apply. This document is a spreadsheet of calculations related to the deductions taken from Ann Watson Luzader's royalty checks from the inception of her leases through the December 2020 production. This document was created on May 14, 2021, by Natalie Haddix. It appears that Defendants produced this document to Plaintiffs with redactions – two sections with lease language and Defendants' interpretation of said language. Defendants claim that the redactions are opinions and mental impressions of oil and gas leases regarding the royalty dispute with Ann Luzader and relate to Defendants' internal assessment and strategy surrounding said dispute. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

First, the Court would again note Natalie Haddix testimony that she reviews and interprets leases as part of her job as Land Manager with Jay-Bee Oil and Gas. Additionally, there is no information as to Ann Watson Luzader's initial contact with Defendants or what this document was created in response to. Consequently, there is no evidence or indication that Ms. Luzader ever threatened litigation. Defendants appear to rely on the date of the document to create a nexus to litigation, but this is not enough. “Documents created after the inception of litigation are not work product per se.” Baxter International, Inc. v. AXA Versicherung, 320 F.R.D. 158, 164 (N.D. Ill. 2017). A nexus between the document and specific litigation must be established. See Burton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Inc., 175 F.R.D. 321, 328 (D. Kan. 1997). This nexus has not been shown here. As a result, the Court cannot conclude that this document was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

*16 Document 0204 – work product doctrine does NOT apply. This document appears to be the call log kept by Linda Purnell. Defendants' Annotated Third Amended Privilege Log does not provide a date of creation for the document. Defendants provided a redacted version of this document to Plaintiffs. There are two redactions on the document. The first relates to lease language with respect to leases for Jerry Walters and the Church of Christ. The second redaction appears to relate to Rockford Energy, LLC and its various attempts to contact Defendants and obtain answers as to the deductions taken from royalty checks. Defendants argue that the redactions constitute mental impressions and opinions of Linda Purnell relating to royalty payment disputes, and which concern Defendants' assessment of disputes and resolution/defense strategy. Defendants contend that these entries were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Court is not persuaded by these arguments.

Linda Purnell testified that she does not review and interpret lease provisions. Additionally, the redaction which relates to lease interpretation appears to be a restatement taken from elsewhere in the spreadsheet. Consequently, the Court questions whether this entry can be considered Linda Purnell's opinion/mental impression. Further, the redaction related to Rockford Energy does not appear to constitute an opinion or a mental impression. Rather, it is a factual recitation of contacts with representatives with Rockford Energy concerning royalty deductions.

Notwithstanding, and assuming that the aforementioned entries constitute opinions and mental impressions, Defendants have provided nothing to demonstrate that either of these redactions relate to litigation. The mere possibility of litigation is not enough. A nexus between the document, here the redacted language, and specific litigation must be established. No such nexus has been established with regard to these redactions. Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that the redacted language was created because of litigation. Thus, the work product doctrine does not apply.

V. Conclusion

Accordingly, and for all of the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion [273] to Compel is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth more fully above. Defendants are DIRECTED to produce those documents to which the work product doctrine does not apply IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER.

It is so ORDERED.

Any party may, within FOURTEEN DAYS of this Order, file with the Clerk of the Court written objections identifying the portions of the Order to which objection is made, and the basis for such objection. A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the District Court Judge of Record. Failure to timely file objections to the Order set forth above will result in a waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of this Court based upon such an Order.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to mail a copy of this Order to any pro se party by certified mail, return receipt requested and to counsel of record herein.