Two computer companies, Apple and Microsoft, are engaged in copyright infringement litigation over software that Apple claims it now owns after purchasing the small company that created it. Microsoft claims it has a valid licensing agreement that predates the sale of the small company to Apple. During discovery, Apple asks Microsoft for any correspondence between it and its legal counsel regarding the viability of continuing the licensing agreement if the company were ever sold. Although Microsoft's lawyers in this present suit were getting ready to refuse that request, claiming it was protected by attorney-client privilege, copies of some letters and emails between Microsoft and its legal counsel were inadvertently sent to Apple. During the firestorm that followed the inadvertent disclosure, Apple learned that one of Microsoft's paralegals summarized every correspondence and email that had been inadvertently sent, as well as other correspondence and email that hadn't been sent. The trial court rules that the privilege still attached to those correspondences and email, so Apple's counsel then requested that Microsoft send the paralegal's summaries. Are the paralegal's summaries covered by the work product doctrine? Why or why not? Are the paralegal's summaries covered by the attorney-client privilege? Why or why not