On a related note, perusing lawfare, which is a really fantastic source for things Trump and others, I came across this.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/m.-evan-corcoran-s-attorney-client-privilege-in-florida
It's a discussion of why the DC District Court's order piercing attorney-client privilege on the crime fraud exception may not bind, or even persuade Cannon (her proclivities aside).
For one thing, it's an order of another, co-equal district court. I thought it had been fully appealed to the DC Circuit, but apparently not, they just declined to stay the order and did not hear a full appeal on the merits. Even if the DC Circuit had, its ruling would not be binding on a court in the 11th Circuit, just highly persuasive.
But the main issue, according to the article, is that it's not the same party, so issue preclusion (res judicata species) does not apply. I suppose that's technically true in that the witness was Corcoran, not Trump, but everything seemed to indicate that Trump's attorneys were there asserting his interest in the privilege, including the abortive appeal. And, of course, the privilege is Trump's not Corcoran's to waive or otherwise lose. That would seem to make him the "real party in interest" even if he wasn't technically the one before the grand jury or before the courts.
I am intrigued by this issue, because it seems like if Corcoran's notes and testimony are excluded from the MAL trial, the obstruction case gets a bit harder. Maybe not with the separate DeOliveira/surveillance issue.