IN RE Dalvin COOK, Petitioner, Gracelyn Trimble, Respondent, v. Dalvin Cook, Petitioner A22-1649 Court of Appeals of Minnesota Filed January 03, 2023 Panel members: Segal, Susan L., Gaitas, Theodora K., Wheelock, Sarah Segal, Susan L., Judge SPECIAL TERM ORDER NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS DESIGNATED AS UNPUBLISHED AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY MINN. ST. SEC. 480A.08(3). Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. *1 BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: Petitioner Dalvin Cook seeks a writ of prohibition to preclude the district court from enforcing a November 7, 2022 order that granted in part a motion to compel discovery brought by respondent Gracelyn Trimble. A writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy when a district court orders the production of information clearly not discoverable and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re Paul W. Abbott Co., Inc., 767 N.W.2d 14, 17 (Minn. 2009); In re Lawrence, 954 N.W.2d 597, 602 (Minn. App. 2020), rev. denied (Mar. 16, 2021). A “party objecting to the production of information has the burden of establishing that the sought-after information is immune from discovery.” In re Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 735 N.W.2d 706, 712 (Minn. 2007); see also In re Polaris, Inc., 967 N.W.2d 397, 409 (Minn. 2021). And the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure require a party resisting discovery to “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 26.02(f). This is typically accomplished through preparation of a privilege log. See, e.g., Lawrence, 954 N.W.2d at 600 (describing privilege log of nearly 800 email exchanges allegedly protected by attorney-client privilege). Cook seeks to avoid producing—on the ground that they are privileged—communications between him and his sports agent, Zac Hiller, and between Hiller and Cook's attorneys (the Hiller communications). Cook did not prepare a privilege log or otherwise provide a particularized record on which the district court could have determined that specific documents were immune from production. Rather, Cook sought from the court a blanket ruling that all of the Hiller communications were protected by the work-product doctrine and attorney-client privilege. “The work-product doctrine ... protects from disclosure an attorney's opinions, conclusions, mental impressions, trial strategy, and legal theories in materials prepared in anticipation of litigation.” Energy Pol'y Advocs. v. Ellison, 980 N.W.2d 146, 152 (Minn. 2022). But “materials prepared in anticipation of litigation that do not contain opinions, conclusions, legal theories, or mental impressions of counsel are not work product and are discoverable.” Dennie v. Metro. Med. Ctr., 387 N.W.2d 401, 406 (Minn. 1986). Under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 26.02(d), work-product protection may extend to documents prepared by a “party's representative (including the [ ] party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent),” but the documents must still satisfy the requirements that they be prepared in anticipation of litigation. Moreover, the rule expressly allows discovery of nonparty witness statements. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 26.02(d) (“Upon request, a party or other person may obtain without the required [work product] showing a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that person who is not a party.”). *2 Cook has provided no information—through a privilege log or otherwise—from which this court could determine that any or all of the Hiller communications are protected by the work-product doctrine. The attorney-client privilege applies as follows: (1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) except the protection be waived. Energy Pol'y Advocs., 980 N.W.2d at 152. “Ordinarily, parties waive the protection of the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine when they disclose protected information to third parties.” Id. But third-party disclosure may not waive the privilege if “it is reasonably necessary for the transmission of the information.” Brown v. Saint Paul City Ry. Co., 62 N.W.2d 688, 700 (Minn. 1954). Cook has provided no information—through a privilege log or otherwise—that would allow this court to determine that the Hiller communications are mediated communications between Cook and his attorneys, or that it was reasonably necessary for Cook to communicate with his attorneys in that fashion. On the record provided, we conclude that Cook has not met his burden to demonstrate that the Hiller communications are protected from disclosure by the work-product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege. And we therefore conclude that he has not demonstrated that a writ is necessary to prevent the disclosure of documents clearly not discoverable. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The petition for a writ of prohibition is denied.