A party can prove that the purpose of a communication was to seek legal advice by offering evidence that the communication was relayed to an attorney. See Prowess, Inc. v. RaySearch Labs. AB, No. 11-cv-1357, 2013 WL 1856348, at *4 (D. Md. Apr. 30, 2013) ("communication may only be attorney-client privileged if those communications were transmitted to attorneys"). Without this evidence, the rationale for protecting full and frank communications between attorneys and their client is lacking.

But Judge Schulze relied on sufficient evidence in granting Defendants' new motion to compel without having to consider any additional proffered in camera material. See Prowess, Inc. v. RaySearch Laboratories AB, No. WDQ-11-1357, 2013 WL 1856348, at *15 (D.Md. Apr. 30, 2013) (rejecting plaintiff's request to submit document in camera, where plaintiff argued that the "document would aid the Court in determining whether the documents that Defendants seek to compel are privileged."). In fact, in the motion for leave to submit Paul Janaskie's declaration in camera, Plaintiffs concede that "their existing privilege logs are sufficient to allow the court to evaluate those privilege claims, if it chooses to do so."

"The attorney-client privilege and the work product rule serve different objectives." Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1200 n.4; accord Prowess v. Raysearch Laboratories AB, No. WDQ-11-1357, 2013 WL 1856348, at *2 (D. Md. April 30, 2013) ("[T]he work product protection . . . arises from different circumstances and protects different interests than the attorney-client privilege." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted));