The Salvation Army Kelley v. Bennett, 229 Ariz. 204

The Salvation Army and John and Kyna Kelley challenge a trial court order requiring redacted summaries of interviews conducted by a private investigator at counsel’s direction to be disclosed.
Bennetts sought production of Consoli’s interview tapes and notes; Salvation Army refused citing attorney-client privilege and work-product protection.
The issue involves whether Consoli’s summaries of Salvation Army employees’ interviews fall under attorney-client privilege and/or work-product doctrine.
Arizona §12-2234 governs corporate attorney-client privilege and was amended in 1994 to broaden protection for communications between corporate employees/agents and attorneys; Samaritan II limits later developments.
The court vacates the order to disclose employee interview summaries, finding privilege; remands to determine if Salvation Army volunteers are “agents” under §12-2234 and thus their interviews are privileged.
This is a special action addressing a non-appealable discovery order, with the court treating the issue as one of law where possible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Consoli’s summaries of Salvation Army employees’ interviews are privileged	Bennetts contend summaries are non-privileged fact statements.	Salvation Army argues summaries are protected as attorney-client communications or work product.	Employee-interview summaries are privileged under §12-2234 (attorney-client privilege).
Whether the summaries are protected by the work-product doctrine, and the need-showings required	Bennetts claim substantial need and lack of alternatives justify disclosure.	Salvation Army argues work product protection applies and mental impressions must be shielded.	Work-product protection may apply, but the court does not need to decide fully; privilege controls if communications reveal communications rather than mental impressions.
Whether Salvation Army volunteers can be considered agents under §12-2234	Bennetts argue volunteers could be covered if agency relationship exists.	Salvation Army asserts volunteers may be agents, but record insufficient to decide.	Volunteers’ agency status not determined on this record; remand for factual development to decide if volunteers are “agents” or “members” under §12-2234.

Samaritan Found. v. Goodfarb, 176 Ariz. 497 (Ariz. 1989) (corporate privilege raised in Samaritan II (upholding corporate privilege))
Samaritan II, 862 P.2d 870 (Ariz. 1989) (expanded corporate privilege; adopted functional approach to corporate communications)
Samaritan I, 844 P.2d 599 (Ariz. 1992) (antecedent ruling on privilege involving hospital interview summaries)
Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (U.S. 1981) (corporate privilege scope; communications to counsel from employees)
Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix v. Superior Court, 62 P.3d 970 (Ariz. App. 2003) (legislative amendments to § 12-2234; scope of corporate privilege in civil actions)
Longs Drug Stores v. Howe, 134 Ariz. 424 (Ariz. 1983) (work-product protection; substantial need/undue hardship)
Butler v. Doyle, 112 Ariz. 522 (Ariz. 1975) (characterization of work-product protections and discovery)