l judge maintains discretion under Fed. R. Evid. 403 to control the way in which non-party claims of privilege reach the jury." BAD Servs., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 808 F.2d 271, 272 (3d Cir. 1986), quoted in LiButti, 107 F.3d at 122. See Evans v. City of Chicago, 513 F.3d 735, 740-41 (7th Cir. 2008)

ernal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, at least one New York court has found that British privilege law is "apparently similar" to New York's. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London, 4 "Where there is no attorney involved in the communication ..., there can be no `legal advice