Opinion ID: 1232435
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Undue Hardship and the Professional Privilege Claims

Text: Finally, we address the issues relating to professional privilege raised by the intervening petitioners. [20] Essentially, these petitioners argue that an Arizona court should decline to issue subpoenas based on the undue hardship exception in A.R.S. § 13-4092(B) because the Navajo District Court might not recognize the Arizona statutory privileges for attorney-client and accountant-client relationships. Quite simply, the professional privileges are a matter for the requesting jurisdiction to rule on and are not appropriately addressed to the state court issuing the subpoena. See In re California Grand Jury Investigation, 471 A.2d 1141, 1145 (Md. App. 1984), cert. denied sub nom. Rees v. Los Angeles County, 467 U.S. 1205, 104 S.Ct. 2388, 81 L.Ed.2d 346 (1984) (Maryland witness subpoenaed to testify in California under the Uniform Act could not claim he would suffer undue hardship based on being forced to testify in California regarding matters privileged under Maryland's Press Shield Law, as that law had no extraterritorial application). Because the professional privileges are not based on any constitutional mandate, the laws of each jurisdiction may appropriately vary. In addition, the testimonial privileges have been held to contravene the fundamental principle that the public has a right to every man's evidence, and they are therefore strictly construed and weighed against other policy considerations. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 50, 100 S.Ct. 906, 912, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Thus, we need not consider whether the courts of the Navajo Nation recognize the attorney-client or accountant-client privileges as those privileges exist in Arizona. [21] We do not believe that petitioners face any undue hardship by having the Navajo District Court rule on the merits of their privilege arguments at the time the testimony is sought.