“[Defendant] was not acting as AUM’s agent in any respect. Instead, [Defendant] was AUM’s customer. The proper description of the facts here is not that [Defendant] was acting as an agent of AUM, and AUM was passing on legal advice to [Defendant] in the context of a principal-agent relationship; rather, [Defendant] was AUM’s customer, and AUM employees sought legal advice from their legal counsel on questions related to the services AUM was providing to [Defendant], and then shared those opinions in their communications with [Defendant] . . . . The evidence, including the Court’s review of the subject emails, demonstrates that any legal or business advice given by AUM’s in-house counsel was given to AUM’s employees, for the benefit of AUM. AUM’s employees’ decision to share that information with their customer did not extend any privilege that might exist to that customer.” 2016 WL 3211992, at *3.
Schilling v. Mid-America Apartment Cmtys., Inc., No. A-14-CV-1049-LY, 2016 WL 3211992 (W.D. Tex. June 9, 2016).