Cited by

¶ 15 (2000) (“[T]here is more than relevance and materiality needed to find waiver, for communications with counsel are almost always very relevant and material.”).

(quoting Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D.

¶ 12 (2000) (noting that discovery rulings relating to privilege are reviewed for an abuse of discretion)); ¶ 5 (App. 2002) (review a ruling on a motion to compel for an abuse of discretion).

1975), and adopted by our supreme court in State Farm Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lee , , we hold that the court erred.

¶ 23, ); Tallabas, 155 Ariz. at 324, 746 P.2d at 494 (citation omitted).

–57, ¶¶ 10–11, –74 (2000).

¶ 10 (2000) (quoting Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D.

bear[ing] on the reasonableness of its belief that Empire West agreed to provide coverage of the easement.” P.3d 1169 (2000), the court of appeals stated that this case concerns “a party’s reasonable belief about a particular situation,” not whether an insurer reasonably responded to a demand for coverage.

bear[ing] on the reasonableness of its belief that Empire West agreed to provide coverage of the easement.” P.3d 1169 (2000), the court of appeals stated that this case concerns “a party’s reasonable belief about a particular situation,” not whether an insurer reasonably responded to a demand for coverage.

¶ 12, (noting that discovery rulings relating to privilege are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

McDonald’s denied it had impliedly waived the attorney-client privilege, arguing it had never “put into issue” the redacted material because it was not claiming its conduct in handling Mendoza’s workers’ compensation claim was “subjectively reasonable based on its ...

¶ 23 , ( , ) (stating that “a waiver [of the attorney-client privilege] can be implied when a party injects a matter that, in the context of the case, creates such a need for the opponent to obtain the infor

Making no factual findings, the judge further stated he did “not believe that the attorney/client privilege applies to the motion to compel under” , (hereinafter referred to as Lee).

(although trial court has broad discretion in ruling on a party’s assertion of privilege, that discretion does not permit misapplication of law or a ruling predicated on irrational bases).