cause determination is not at issue, discovery into its adequacy is not relevant in most cases. In light of Plummer and Heyne, however, and the fact that in this case Plaintiffs reserve the right to place before the jury the conclusions contained in the reasonable cause determination, the adequacy of ACRD’s reasonable cause determination is a relevant question on which discovery is appropriate. II. Deliberative Process Privilege The ACRD bases its motion for a protective order preventing Thompson’s deposition on the deliberative process privilege, and to a lesser extent on the attorney-client privilege. Significantly, Arizona Courts have declined to recognize a deliberative process privilege in the state common law. Rigel Corp. v. Arizona, 225 Ariz. 65, 234 P.3d 633 (Ct.App.2010) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, in the absence of a statutory
recognizing privilege holding that no scholars privilege exists under the first amendment or common law holding that the joint defense privilege preserved the attorneyclient privilege against waiver in the context of a group with common interests seeking common representation recognizing application of federal deliberative process privilege to internal state communications holding that there is no statutory deliberative process privilege in arizona and declining to create such a privilege under the common law