essential elements: “ ‘(1) Where legal advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the communications relating to that purpose, (4) made in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself or by the legal adviser, (8) unless the protection be waived.’” In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1071 n. 2 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir.2002). Because the attorney-client privilege is in derogation of the search for truth, it is “narrowly and strictly construed.” United States v. Gray, 876 F.2d 1411, 1415 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 930, 110 S.Ct. 2168, 109 L.Ed.2d 497 (1990); see also Fisher, 425 U.S. at 403, 96 S.Ct. at 1569 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, “[t]he burden is on the party
holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege holding that a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel waives attorneyclient privilege holding since attorneyclient privilege has the effect of withholding relevant information from the factfinder it applies only where necessary to achieve its purpose holding that governmental entities may assert attorneyclient privilege to prevent disclosure of information otherwise required by statute holding that on a motion for attorney fees the requesting party must disclose its time sheets to the other party redacted as necessary where protected by the attorneyclient privilege