sharing it with colleagues is an essential part of the legislative process. Thus, it is clear that Representative Kriseman and his aide were performing a legitimate legislative function. See Kamplain v. Curry County Bd. of Comm’rs, 159 F.3d 1248, 1251 (10th Cir.1998) (stating that the courts apply a functional test in determining whether the privilege applies). Hence, the testimony Expedia wishes to elicit is protected. Furthermore, we have little doubt that the privilege may be asserted by legislative staff members as well as the legislators themselves. The reason for affording a legislative privilege could be subverted entirely if an aide could be forced to disclose that which the senator or representative would be entitled to keep private. See Gravel, 408 U.S. at 628, 92 S.Ct. 2614 (<HOLDING>). It follows that Mr. Flintom is entitled to
holding that there is no statutory deliberative process privilege in arizona and declining to create such a privilege under the common law holding that production of documents without a claim of privilege waives the right to later claim that privilege holding that the privilege applied to both the senator and his aide recognizing privilege holding that a defendant waived his attorneyclient privilege with regards to a seized letter because he waited six months after the seizure to assert his privilege