In assessing whether a party has control over documents held by another person or entity, “[t]he relationship between the party and the person or entity having actual possession of the document is central[.]” Osborne v. Billings Clinic, CV 14-126-BLG-SPW, 2015 WL 1412626, at *6 (D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2015) (citing Estate of Young ex rel. Young v. Holmes, 134 F.R.D. 291, 294 (D. Nev. 1991)). But see Otos v. WHPacific, Inc., 2:16-cv-01623-RAJ, 2017 WL 2452008, at *2 (W.D. Wash. June 6, 2017) (refusing to assess the nature of the relationship of the parties in determining “control”). Courts consider a number of factors related to the nature of a relationship between entities, including (1) commonality of ownership, (2) exchange or intermingling of personnel, (3) exchange of documents in the ordinary course of business, and (4) employing the same attorneys.

See, e.g., United States v. Int'l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers, 870 F.2d 1450, 1453-54 (9th Cir. 1989) (defining “control” as “the legal right to obtain documents upon demand” and noting control “must be firmly placed in reality” and cannot merely be theoretical) (internal citations omitted); see also, Otos v. WHPacific, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-1623-RAJ, 2017 WL 2452008, at *1-2 (W.D. Wash. 2017) (noting that “convenient access to documents does not translate to the legal control necessary” to grant a party's motion to compel). Even assuming that Plaintiff's Counsel represented Terry Strong during his deposition approximately two years ago, that does not demonstrate that counsel has legal access to the medical records of a former client who has since died. Therefore, the Court finds good cause exists to issue the protective order. Product Identification Testimony and Competency