IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF ARIZONA

DIVISION TWO

THE SALVATION ARMY, a foreign 

non-profit corporation authorized to do 

business in Arizona; JOHN 

MATTHEW KELLEY; and KYNA 

KELLEY,

Petitioners,

v.

HON. KYLE BRYSON, Judge of the 

Superior Court of the State of Arizona, 

in and for the County of Pima,

Respondent,

and

ETHAN BENNETT, a minor, through 

ROSA S. BENNETT aka ROSE S. 

BENNETT, his natural mother and 

Guardian Ad Litem, and ROSA S. 

BENNETT, a single woman in her 

individual capacity,

Real Parties in Interest.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2 CA-SA 2011-0091

DEPARTMENT B

O P I N I O N

SPECIAL ACTION PROCEEDING

Pima County Cause No. C20095112

JURISDICTION ACCEPTED; RELIEF GRANTED IN PART

FILED BY CLERK

COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION TWO

MAR -2 2012
2

Goering, Roberts, Rubin, Brogna,

 Enos & Treadwell-Rubin, P.C.

 By William L. Rubin

and

Melinda K. Cekander

and

Renaud Cook Drury Mesaros, PA

 By William W. Drury, Jr., John A. Klecan,

 and Noel C. Capps

Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C.

 By Michael J. Crawford and Douglas H. Clark, Jr.

Tucson

Flagstaff

Phoenix

Attorneys for Petitioners

Tucson

Attorneys for Real Parties in 

Interest

E S P I N O S A, Judge.

¶1 In this special action, petitioners the Salvation Army and John and Kyna 

Kelley (herein collectively referred to as the Salvation Army), defendants in the 

underlying personal-injury action that arose from the near drowning of real party in 

interest Ethan Bennett, challenge the respondent judge’s order requiring them to produce 

redacted summaries of interviews of four of the Salvation Army’s employees and six of 

its volunteers. An investigator had conducted the interviews at the direction of the 

Salvation Army’s attorneys, and the Salvation Army maintains the summaries are 

protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine. We accept 

jurisdiction because the Salvation Army has no remedy by appeal and because “a special 
3

action ‘is the proper means to seek relief’ when a party believes a trial court has ordered 

disclosure of material protected by a privilege or work product shield.” Green v. 

Nygaard, 213 Ariz. 460, ¶ 6, 143 P.3d 393, 395 (App. 2006), quoting Emergency Care 

Dynamics, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 188 Ariz. 32, 33, 932 P.2d 297, 298 (App. 1997).

¶2 It also is appropriate to accept special-action jurisdiction here because, at 

least with respect to the interviews of the Salvation Army’s employees, the challenge to 

the respondent judge’s ruling involves “a pure issue of law that may be decided without 

further factual inquiry.” Winner Enters., Ltd. v. Superior Court, 159 Ariz. 106, 108, 765 

P.2d 116, 118 (App. 1988). For the reasons that follow, we conclude those interviews 

fall within the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-2234 and therefore are protected by the attorneyclient privilege. Accordingly, we vacate the respondent judge’s order requiring the 

Salvation Army to disclose summaries of the interviews of its employees, and we direct 

the respondent to determine whether the Salvation Army’s volunteers are its “agents” 

under the statute, which would render the investigator’s interviews of them privileged as 

well.

Background

¶3 The complaint filed in the underlying action alleges that the Salvation 

Army and “its employees, volunteers, officers and/or agents” negligently failed to 

provide adequately trained personnel to supervise children attending the organization’s 

summer day camp and swimming at its Temple Corps Community Center swimming 

pool in Tucson. The complaint further alleges that, as a result, Ethan Bennett sustained
4

permanent injuries when he nearly drowned there on June 2, 2009. During discovery, the 

Bennetts sought production of “copies of all tapes and interview notes of all witnesses 

tape recorded and interviewed by Vivian Consoli,” a private investigator retained by the 

Salvation Army’s counsel to investigate the incident. The Salvation Army objected to 

production of Consoli’s interview summaries on the ground that those documents were 

“protected by the attorney client privilege and the work-product doctrine.” It also 

asserted the request for production was “overbroad and unduly burdensome in that it does 

not set a time-frame or identify the interviewees and literally asks for all tapes and 

interview notes for all interviews ever conducted by Ms. Consoli.”

¶4 The Bennetts filed a “Motion to Resolve Pending Discovery Disputes 

between the Parties,” listing Consoli’s summaries as among “documents and information 

previously requested” that the Salvation Army had not produced. In response, the 

Salvation Army cited its earlier objections to disclosure of the summaries, maintaining 

“those investigative materials are privileged and will not be produced.” Relying on 

Rule 26(b)(3), Ariz. R. Civ. P., and Longs Drug Stores v. Howe, 134 Ariz. 424, 430, 657 

P.2d 412, 418 (1983), the Salvation Army further argued Consoli’s summaries revealed 

its attorneys’ mental processes and consequently were entitled to protection from 

disclosure. It also maintained the Bennetts could not show “substantial need” for 

Consoli’s summaries of her interviews with Salvation Army employees and volunteers, 

as required by Rule 26(b)(3), “because they have already deposed all of The Salvation 
5

Army’s employees and volunteers who were at the pool on June 2, 2009, as well as some 

of the children who were there that day.”

¶5 At a hearing on their discovery motion, the Bennetts claimed they had no 

ability to interview witnesses “within a couple of weeks” after the incident, as Consoli 

had, and so had a substantial need for any witness statements found in the summaries and 

no other way to obtain “what they said or remembered at that time.” They asserted that 

“the substance of what [the witnesses] said” during the interviews “is not privileged,” 

even if Consoli’s “thoughts and impressions” in preparing the summaries were protected 

under the work-product doctrine.

¶6 In response, the Salvation Army noted it had released redacted summaries 

of interviews Consoli had conducted of children attending the day camp, as previously 

directed by another judge, but it argued those disclosures were justified by the “special, 

unique circumstances” associated with child witnesses. It maintained the interviews 

Consoli had conducted of the children should not be “analogize[d]” to the interviews she 

had conducted of Salvation Army employees or volunteers. As to the latter, the Salvation 

Army stated, “[A]ny of those interview summaries where she’s communicating her 

thoughts and impressions to [counsel] are privileged. They’re work product.” It 

emphasized that, in conducting the interviews, Consoli had been an “agent of defense 

counsel,” acting “at his order[,] undertaking directions from him[, and] reporting to him,”

and it maintained Consoli’s summaries, made “at the specific request of defense counsel 

[who asked] for certain interviews . . . is work product, period.” It again contended the 
6

Bennetts had made no showing of “substantial need” for the summaries or an “inability” 

to obtain the information contained in them by other means, see Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3), 

because they had deposed the same employees and volunteers that Consoli had 

interviewed.

¶7 After argument, the respondent judge directed the Salvation Army to 

“redact the work product” from Consoli’s interview summaries and disclose the redacted 

summaries to the Bennetts.1The Salvation Army filed a motion for reconsideration and, 

citing § 12-2234, argued Consoli’s summaries were protected by attorney-client privilege 

as well as the work-product doctrine. The respondent declined to reconsider his ruling 

and denied the motion without further comment. This special action followed.

Discussion

¶8 We will grant special-action relief from a discovery order only if we find 

the respondent judge has abused his discretion or exceeded his jurisdiction or legal 

authority. Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Burke, 204 Ariz. 251, ¶ 10, 63 P.3d 282, 284-85 

(2003). But an “‘error of law . . . in the process of reaching [a] discretionary 

conclusion’” may constitute an abuse of discretion, and “[w]hether a privilege exists is 

largely a question of law, which we . . . review de novo.” Id., quoting Grant v. Ariz. Pub. 

Serv. Co., 133 Ariz. 434, 456, 652 P.2d 507, 529 (1982) (alteration in Twin City).

 

1Consistent with Rule 26(b)(3), we assume the respondent judge thus authorized

the redaction of material reflecting “the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or 

legal theories” of Consoli or counsel. Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
7

¶9 The Salvation Army relies on both the attorney-client privilege and the 

work-product doctrine in arguing the respondent judge abused his discretion by ordering 

it to produce redacted versions of Consoli’s summaries. Those concepts are distinct and 

often pertain to different subjects, and their application to the same material may produce 

different results with respect to disclosure. It appears the Salvation Army conflated the 

two doctrines at the hearing on the Bennetts’ discovery motion. At that time, it

emphasized that the Bennetts were seeking summaries of interviews of employees and 

volunteers, but it failed to articulate the relevance of this fact. Although the relationship 

of the interviewed individuals to the corporation is material to a claim that the 

communications were protected by the attorney-client privilege held by a corporate 

client, it is irrelevant to the question of whether counsel’s summaries of oral statements 

made by witnesses are protected by the work-product doctrine.

2 Compare § 12-2234 with

Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Accordingly, we begin by distinguishing the two concepts.

 

2Relying on Ramsey v. Yavapai Fam. Advocacy Ctr., 225 Ariz. 132, ¶ 18, 235 P.3d 

285, 290-91 (App. 2010), the Bennetts suggest we should decline to consider the claim of 

attorney-client privilege because the Salvation Army did not cite and rely on § 12-2234, 

the statute governing the privilege, until it filed its motion for reconsideration. See id.

(generally, arguments raised for first time in motion for reconsideration not considered on 

appeal in part because prevailing party below may be deprived of opportunity to fairly 

respond), citing Evans Withycombe, Inc. v. W. Innovations, Inc., 215 Ariz. 237, ¶ 15, 159 

P.3d 547, 550 (App. 2006). Our considerations are different, however, in a special action 

concerning nonappealable, interlocutory orders. See Ariz. R. P. Spec. Actions 3; Mann v. 

Superior Court, 183 Ariz. 586, 587-89, 905 P.2d 595, 596-98 (App. 1995) (granting 

special action relief based on argument first raised in motion for reconsideration); cf. In 

re Mario L., 190 Ariz. 381, 383, 948 P.2d 998, 1000 (App. 1997) (interlocutory orders 

“‘may always be reconsidered prior to final judgment’”), quoting Langevine v. District of 

Columbia, 106 F.3d 1018, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Moreover, whether Consoli’s 

interviews with Salvation Army’s employees were protected by attorney-client privilege 
8

Work-Product Doctrine

¶10 Generally, “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not 

privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action.” Ariz. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Thus, the protection afforded an attorney’s 

work product, codified in Rule 26(b)(3), never has pertained to privileged

communications between attorney and client, but instead addresses the “discovery of 

documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of [Rule 

26] and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or 

for that other party’s representative (including the other party’s attorney).” Id. (emphasis 

added). 

¶11 Under Rule 26(b)(3), disclosure of such trial preparation materials is 

required “only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of 

the materials in the preparation of the party’s case and that the party is unable without 

undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” Id. 

And, “[i]n ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been 

made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, 

opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the 

litigation.” Id.

 

is a pure issue of law; the Bennetts have not been surprised by the objection, first asserted 

in the response to their request for production; and, they have had an opportunity to 

respond to the argument in this proceeding. Cf. State ex rel. Horne v. Campos, 226 Ariz. 

424, n.5, 250 P.3d 201, 205 n.5 (App. 2011) (identifying factors relevant to 

consideration, on direct appeal, of issue first raised in motion for reconsideration).
9

¶12 Significantly, the work-product doctrine affords only a qualified protection 

from discovery that may be overcome by “a showing of substantial need and inability 

without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means.” Butler v. 

Doyle, 112 Ariz. 522, 524, 544 P.2d 204, 206 (1975). But, in contrast, a claim of 

attorney-client privilege “makes a discussion of substantial need and unavailability of the 

substantial equivalent irrelevant. Rule 26(b)(1) recognizes that privileged material is not 

discoverable.” Id.

¶13 The respondent’s order directing the Salvation Army to disclose redacted 

versions of Consoli’s interview summaries appears to have been based on the workproduct doctrine. However, at least with respect to Consoli’s interviews with the 

Salvation Army’s employees, we need not determine whether her summaries were 

subject to disclosure under that rule or whether the respondent judge’s order adequately 

“protect[ed] against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal 

theories of an attorney or other representative of a party.” Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). As 

discussed below, if those summaries “reveal communications, they are . . . protected by 

the attorney-client privilege.” Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 401 (1981) 

(unnecessary to consider work-product protection where material subject to attorneyclient privilege). And, “[t]o the extent they do not reveal communications, they reveal 
10

the attorneys’ [or investigator’s] mental processes in evaluating the communications,” 

subject to Rule 26(b)(3).3Id.

Arizona’s Attorney-Client Privilege for Corporate Clients

¶14 In promulgating the general rule of privilege in Rule 501, Ariz. R. Evid., 

our supreme court has, to a large extent, “deferred to any legislative definition of 

‘privilege[,]’ . . . [by] specif[ying] that questions of privilege are governed by the 

common law except when statute dictates otherwise.” State ex rel. Thomas v. Schneider, 

212 Ariz. 292, ¶ 19, 130 P.3d 991, 995 (App. 2006).4 Before it was amended in 1994, 

§ 12-2234 identified the attorney-client privilege as follows: “In a civil action an 

attorney shall not, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any 

communication made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of 

professional employment.” 1994 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 334, § 1. In addition, the statute 

provided that “[a]n attorney’s secretary, stenographer or clerk” was entitled to the same 

 

3Arizona recognizes the application of the work-product immunity rule to 

investigators working for legal counsel or insurers. See Longs Drug Stores, 134 Ariz. at

430-31, 657 P.2d at 418-19.

4Rule 501, Ariz. R. Evid., provides:

Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the 

United States, the Constitution of Arizona, or by applicable 

statute or rule, privilege shall be governed by the principles of 

the common law as they may be interpreted in light of reason 

and experience, or as they have been held to apply in former 

decisions.
11

protection with respect to “any fact the knowledge of which was acquired in such 

capacity.” Id.5

¶15 As our supreme court has observed, although it protects only the client’s 

communications to an attorney, and not the facts known by the client, the privilege “is 

not without its costs. It can interfere with the search for truth when, for example, the 

client cannot remember that which it told its lawyer. One would like to go to the lawyer 

and ask.” Samaritan Found. v. Goodfarb, 176 Ariz. 497, 501, 862 P.2d 870, 874 (1993)

(Samaritan II), vacating in part Samaritan Found v. Superior Court, 173 Ariz. 426, 844 

P.2d 593 (App. 1992) (Samaritan I); see also Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 390 (privilege protects 

“not only the giving of professional advice to those who can act on it but also the giving 

of information to the lawyer to enable him to give sound and informed advice”).

¶16 Moreover, “things become complex” when the attorney’s client is a 

corporation because “[t]he corporation is a fictional entity” that “can only act through its 

agents,” giving rise to the question: “[W]hich communications made by the

corporation’s agents are those of the corporate client and not merely those of the 

individual speaker?” Samaritan II, 176 Ariz. at 502, 862 P.2d at 875.

¶17 In Samaritan II, our supreme court considered whether summaries of 

interviews of four hospital employees, conducted by a paralegal at the direction of 

 

5Relevant in this case and addressed below, § 12-2234 was amended in 1994 to 

add protection for an attorney’s “paralegal” or “assistant,” and to identify the parameters 

of privileged communications with respect to an attorney for “a corporation, 

governmental entity, partnership, business, association or other similar entity or an 

employer.” 1994 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 334, § 1.
12

hospital counsel, fell under the protection of the attorney-client privilege. Id. at 500, 862 

P.2d at 873. Plaintiffs sought production of the summaries when, at depositions two 

years later, the employees were unable to recall what happened in the operating room. 

The hospital resisted, claiming the material was protected by the attorney-client privilege 

and the work-product doctrine, but the trial court ordered the summaries produced for in 

camera review, stating it would “strike out [protected] attorney work product and then 

release to the plaintiffs those portions of the summaries that would otherwise constitute 

witness statements.” Id. This court accepted jurisdiction of the special action that 

followed but denied relief. Samaritan I, 173 Ariz. at 440, 844 P.2d at 607, vacated in 

part sub nom. Samaritan II, 176 Ariz. 497, 862 P.2d 870. On review, the supreme court 

addressed only the issue of corporate attorney-client privilege, vacating that portion of 

this court’s opinion. Samaritan II, 176 Ariz. at 500, 862 P.2d at 873.

¶18 The court in Samaritan II rejected the analysis in Upjohn, in which the 

United States Supreme Court concluded the attorney-client privilege protected counsel’s 

communications with corporate employees because “‘[t]he communications concerned 

matters within the scope of the employees’ corporate duties, and the employees 

themselves were sufficiently aware that they were being questioned in order that the 

corporation could obtain legal advice.’” Id. at 505, 862 P.2d at 878, quoting Upjohn, 449 

U.S. at 394. Our supreme court reasoned that extending the attorney-client privilege to 

any communication by a corporate employee that “concerns factual information gained in 

the course of performing the speaker’s corporate duties” would be too broad an 
13

application, because often such an employee’s “connection to the liability-causing event 

is too attenuated to fit the classical model of what it means to be a client.” Id. The court 

instead adopted a “functional approach,” holding as follows:

[W]here someone other than the employee initiates the 

communication, a factual communication by a corporate 

employee to corporate counsel is within the corporation’s 

privilege if it concerns the employee’s own conduct within 

the scope of his or her employment and is made to assist the 

lawyer in assessing or responding to the legal consequences 

of that conduct for the corporate client.

Id. at 506-07, 862 P.2d at 879-80. The court added, “This excludes from the privilege 

communications from those who, but for their status as officers, agents or employees, are 

witnesses.” Id.

¶19 The following year, apparently in response to Samaritan II, the Arizona 

Legislature amended § 12-2234, broadening the test for corporate attorney-client 

privilege announced in that case.

6

 The statute now provides as follows:

A. In a civil action an attorney shall not, without the 

consent of his client, be examined as to any communication 

 

6

See 1994 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 334, § 1; Roman Catholic Diocese, 204 Ariz. 225, 

¶ 11, 62 P.3d at 974 (App. 2003) (“We conclude from the language of the statute and the 

legislative history that the Legislature intended to modify the ruling in Samaritan [II].”). 

“A fact sheet prepared during the legislative process by the Senate staff . . . explains that 

H.B. 2161 would ‘enact’ Upjohn to ‘replace the case law authority of Samaritan, and 

conform the elements of Arizona’s corporate attorney-client privilege to those of the 

federal courts and the majority of other states’ courts.’” David G. Campbell, A 

Legislative Response to Samaritan: Arizona’s Restive Attorney-Client Privilege for 

Corporations, Ariz. Att’y, Dec. 1994, at 35, quoting Senate Fact Sheet, H.B. 2161, 41st 

Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. at 2 (Ariz. Apr. 19, 1994). According to Campbell, the statute’s 

protections for communications are significantly broader than those envisioned by 

Upjohn. Id. at 33.
14

made by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the 

course of professional employment. An attorney’s paralegal, 

assistant, secretary, stenographer or clerk shall not, without 

the consent of his employer, be examined concerning any fact 

the knowledge of which was acquired in such capacity.

B. For purposes of subsection A, any communication 

is privileged between an attorney for a corporation, 

governmental entity, partnership, business, association or 

other similar entity or an employer and any employee, agent

or member of the entity or employer regarding acts or 

omissions of or information obtained from the employee, 

agent or member if the communication is either:

1. For the purpose of providing legal advice to the 

entity or employer or to the employee, agent or member.

2. For the purpose of obtaining information in order 

to provide legal advice to the entity or employer or to the 

employee, agent or member.

C. The privilege defined in this section shall not be 

construed to allow the employee to be relieved of a duty to 

disclose the facts solely because they have been 

communicated to an attorney.

§ 12-2234.

¶20 Relying on Roman Catholic Diocese of Phox. v. Superior Court, 204 Ariz. 

225, ¶¶ 6, 11, 62 P.3d 970, 973-74 (App. 2003), the Bennetts assert, “Despite changes to 

A.R.S. § 12-2234 enacted in 1994, Samaritan [II] remains the law in Arizona and the 

decision continues to be cited with approval by Arizona appellate courts.” But the 

underlying proceeding in Roman Catholic Diocese was a criminal case, and the court 

there held only that the 1994 amendments to § 12-2234 did not affect the attorney-client 

privilege because the legislature did not similarly amend A.R.S. § 13-4062(2), the 
15

“statutory codification of the attorney-client privilege in criminal cases.” Roman 

Catholic Diocese, 204 Ariz. 225, ¶¶ 4, 7, 62 P.3d at 972-73. With respect to civil cases 

governed by § 12-2234, the court stated, “Under the 1994 amendment, any

communications between an attorney and an employee or agent of the corporation, made 

for the purpose of providing legal advice or obtaining information to provide legal 

advice, are protected.” Id. ¶ 6. Recognizing the legislature had “expanded” the 

application of attorney-client privilege beyond communications encompassed by the 

holding in Samaritan II, the court stated, “[W]e cannot say it is irrational for the 

Legislature to confine its expanded statutory privilege to civil actions.” Id. ¶ 16.7

¶21 “When a statute’s language is clear, we need not look beyond its plain 

language to determine its meaning.” City of Casa Grande v. Ariz. Water Co., 199 Ariz. 

547, ¶ 22, 20 P.3d 590, 597 (App. 2001). And we will strictly construe a privilege 

granted by statute. State v. Morales, 170 Ariz. 360, 363, 824 P.2d 756, 759 (App. 1991). 

The language in § 12-2234, however, is broad, and it appears to apply here, at least with 

respect to Consoli’s summaries of interviews of Salvation Army employees. Based on its 

express terms, the statute protects from disclosure communications between a 

corporation’s attorney—or his “paralegal, assistant, secretary, stenographer or clerk”8—

 

7At oral argument, counsel for the Bennetts conceded the legislature’s 1994 

amendments to § 12-2234 have superseded the holding in Samaritan II with respect to 

civil cases. 

8

The Bennetts have not suggested the statute does not apply because Consoli was a 

private investigator retained by counsel, rather than a “paralegal” or “assistant.” See 

§ 12-2234; see also Samaritan I, 173 Ariz. at 432, 844 P.2d at 599 (“We believe that the 
16

and “any employee, agent or member of the entity or employer regarding acts or 

omissions of or information obtained from the employee, agent or member . . . [f]or the 

purpose of obtaining information in order to provide legal advice to the entity or 

employer or to the employee, agent or member.” § 12-2234(B). Accordingly, we 

conclude the respondent judge abused his discretion in ordering the Salvation Army to 

disclose summaries of Consoli’s interviews of its employees, even in redacted form, 

because those communications are protected by attorney-client privilege as defined by 

§ 12-2234. See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (discovery limited to “any matter, not 

privileged,” relevant to subject matter of litigation); Butler v. Doyle, 112 Ariz. 522, 524, 

544 P.2d 204, 206 (1975) (privileged material not discoverable under Rule 26(b)(1)).

Salvation Army Volunteers as “Agents” under A.R.S. § 12-2234

¶22 The Salvation Army maintains Consoli’s interviews of its volunteers were 

also privileged communications under § 12-2234. It suggests the Bennetts “presume The 

Salvation Army’s volunteers were its agents because their claims against The Salvation 

Army are based, in part, upon the actions of those volunteers.” Relying on Bond v. 

Cartwright Little League, Inc., 112 Ariz. 9, 14, 536 P.2d 697, 702 (1975), it also contends 

its volunteers were agents because they “submitted themselves to the direction and 

control of” the Salvation Army, with the “primary purpose” of serving it. Cf. Scottsdale 

 

legislature intended by reference to ‘secretary, stenographer or clerk’ [in previous version 

of § 12-2234] to list a representative, not exclusive, group of agents through whom a 

lawyer and client might confidentially confer.”), vacated in part on other grounds sub 

nom. Samaritan II, 176 Ariz. 497, 862 P.2d 870.
17

Jaycees v. Superior Court, 17 Ariz. App. 571, 574, 499 P.2d 185, 188 (1972) (volunteer 

may be considered “agent” of organization for purpose of respondeat superior liability, 

leaving question of “when . . . agency commence[d]”).

¶23 Although the Salvation Army’s argument with respect to its volunteers has 

considerable appeal, we decline to address it on this limited record. Generally, whether 

an agency relationship exists is a question of fact, although we may determine the 

existence of such a relationship as a matter of law when the material facts are not in 

dispute. Ruesga v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. W., L.L.C., 215 Ariz. 589, ¶ 21, 161 P.3d 1253, 

1259 (App. 2007). But notwithstanding the Salvation Army’s assertion that its volunteers 

were agents who had submitted to its control, “no facts of record support those 

assertions.” Andresano v. Cnty. of Pima, 213 Ariz. 65, n.4, 138 P.3d 1192, 1196 n.4

(App. 2006) (no support in record for plaintiff’s asserted presence at facility “on behalf 

of” organization as volunteer fund-raiser). Absent development of some factual record 

regarding the relationship between the Salvation Army and these volunteers, we do not

resolve this issue.9 

 

9

Should the trial court determine after remand that Consoli’s interviews with 

Salvation Army’s volunteers were not protected by Arizona’s attorney-client privilege, as 

set forth in § 12-2234 and discussed above, and that the Bennetts have met the 

requirements for production under Rule 26(b)(3), see, e.g., Klaiber v. Orzel, 148 Ariz. 

320, 323, 714 P.2d 813, 816 (1986), we recommend the “approved process” for 

disclosure of the summaries set forth in Samaritan I, 173 Ariz. at 430, 844 P.2d at 597, 

vacated in part on other grounds sub nom. Samaritan II, 176 Ariz. 497, 862 p.2d 870.
18

Conclusion

¶24 We conclude the respondent judge abused his discretion in ordering the 

Salvation Army to disclose the summaries of interviews of Salvation Army employees,

prepared by an investigator at the direction of legal counsel. These communications were 

privileged under § 12-2234 and are not subject to discovery under Rule 26(b)(1). 

Consequently, we grant the Salvation Army relief in part by vacating this portion of the 

respondent’s order. With respect to the Salvation Army volunteers, we direct the 

respondent to determine whether such volunteers are “agents” or “members” of the 

Salvation Army, as contemplated by § 12-2234(B), entitling their communications to the 

same privilege, and to conduct such further proceedings as are necessary, consistent with 

this decision.

/s/ Philip G. Espinosa

PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge

CONCURRING:

/s/ Garye L. Vásquez

GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge

/s/ Virginia C. Kelly

VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge