MosbyCo, a New York Corporation, designed a building for Stinson, a citizen of Connecticut, six years ago. Part of the building collapsed last year, causing damage in excess of $80,000. Stinson filed an action against MosbyCo in the U.S. District Court in New York, alleging damages resulting from the negligent design of the building. MosbyCo filed an answer denying negligence and asserting as an affirmative defense that the statute of limitations for negligence is two years. At the time the building was being constructed, Ericsson, an attorney and member of MosbyCo's board of directors who occasionally handled legal matters for MosbyCo, prepared and sent the following memorandum to the president of MosbyCo: I have been informed by Chet Robbins, an architect who used to work for MosbyCo, that the materials being used by the contractor, Builder Corp., in constructing the building are substandard. Stinson filed a timely motion for pretrial production of the Ericsson memorandum. The motion was denied. Stinson filed a timely motion for summary judgment, relying on an affidavit made by Robbins that set forth facts consistent with Ericsson's memorandum. MosbyCo also filed a motion for summary judgment, accompanied by an affidavit that the building had been constructed six years ago. Both motions were denied. If MosbyCo asserted the work product privilege in response to Stinson's motion for production of Ericsson's memorandum, should it prevail