Hampton Police Ass'n v. Town of Hampton, 162 N.H. 7

Association sought copies of all invoices from Town's outside attorneys related to the probationary employees' grievance, arbitration, and petition to enforce the arbitration award under RSA 91-A.
Town advised that most invoices contained confidential narratives shielded by attorney-client privilege and provided only partial pages.
Trial court ordered 34 invoices to be reproduced and 35 invoices to be summarized by outside counsel, creating a revised bill for the Association.
Association challenged the revised invoice as outside counsel creating a new document; Town argued the narratives were confidential and privileged.
Court conducted in camera review, ultimately requiring production of the 34 original entries and directing a summary for the 35 entries.
Town appealed, challenging both the revised-invoice requirement and the privilege ruling; court affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revised invoice was properly compelled.	Association: existed as subset of existing data; no new document creation.	Town: compiling a new document violates RSA 91-A:4, VII.	Reversed; did not require creation of a new document.
Whether original narratives in invoices are confidential under the attorney-client privilege.	Association: narratives not automatically privileged; disclose subject matter and amounts.	Town: narratives are confidential and privileged.	Not per se privileged; burden on Town to prove applicability; some narratives may be privileged but not all.
Whether the court properly applied the balancing test for confidential information under RSA 91-A:5, IV.	N/A	N/A	Court allowed privilege to be considered on a case-by-case basis; not all narratives exempt.

Brent v. Paquette, 132 N.H. 415 (1989) (no duty to compile information into a new form if it does not exist)
Hawkins v. N.H. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 147 N.H. 376 (2001) (do not create new records; provide originals where appropriate)
New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union v. City of Manchester, 149 N.H. 437 (2003) (subset of existing records may be disclosed without creating new documents)
Goode v. N.H. Legislative Budget Assistant, 148 N.H. 551 (2002) (burden on requester to show confidentiality balancing)
Riddle Spring Realty Co. v. State, 107 N.H. 271 (1966) (attorney-client privilege recognized and enforced in NH)
Clarke v. American Commerce Nat. Bank, 974 F.2d 127 (9th Cir. 1992) (billing records generally not privileged; nuances exist)
Chaudhry v. Gallerizzo, 174 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 1999) (billing statements typically not per se privileged)
In re Gibco, Inc., 185 F.R.D. 296 (D. Colo. 1997) (billing statements may reveal strategy and be privileged)
Maxima v. 6933 Arlington Dev., 641 A.2d 984 (Md. 1994) (billing descriptions generally not protected, unless reveal strategy)
Cypress Media, Inc. v. City of Overland, 997 P.2d 681 (Kan. 2000) (narratives in billing records not automatically privileged)
City Pages v. State, 655 N.W.2d 839 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003) (partial disclosure of records does not require new document creation)