Solis v. Milk Specialties Co., 854 F. Supp. 2d 629

Secretary petitioned to enforce an administrative subpoena duces technum against MSC for two documents (Dust Report and Five Year Strat Plan).
OSHA inspection of MSC’s Fond du Lac facility followed a dust-explosion incident; subpoena contested by MSC.
Documents were prepared by MSC official Bill Looser; timing tied to in-house counsel communications with MSC’s attorney Kang.
MSC asserted attorney-client privilege and work product protection; Secretary argued no privilege or work product applies.
Court conducted in camera review and held the documents are not protected; ordered production.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does attorney-client privilege apply to the documents?	Solis	MSC	Privilege not established; documents not legal communications
Do the documents fall within the work product doctrine?	Solis	MSC	Not protected; prepared for business advice, not anticipated litigation
Should the documents be disclosed despite the absence of privilege?	Solis	MSC	Documents ordered disclosed; petition granted

United States v. Evans, 113 F.3d 1457 (7th Cir.1997) (attorney-client privilege scope; burden on proponent)
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (Supreme Court 1981) (communications for legal advice; protection of communications, not underlying facts)
Caremark, Inc. v. Affiliated Computer Servs., 195 F.R.D. 610 (N.D. Ill. 2000) (work product protection extended to attorney-prepared materials)
In re Grand Jury Matter, 147 F.R.D. 82 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (documented environmental consultant work not privileged; not prepared for legal advice)
American National Bank & Trust Co. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 406 F.3d 867 (7th Cir. 2005) (status of attorney-client privilege in corporate context)
Sandra T.E. v. S. Berwyn Sch. Dist., 600 F.3d 612 (7th Cir. 2010) (privilege limited to legal subjects; business evaluations not protected)