Township Council Meeting — Agenda

agent of either confidentially used to transmit the communications . . . .'" State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341, 361 (1989), superseded by constitutional amendment on other grounds, N.J. Const. art. I, ¶ 12, as stated in State v. Cruz, 163 N.J. 403, 411 (2000). "Such 'necessary intermediaries' have been held to include a psychiatrist retained by defense counsel, arson experts hired by defense counsel, a handwriting expert employed by defense counsel, and an engineering firm hired as a consultant for litigation assistance." Tractenberg, 416 N.J. Super. at 376 (citations omitted). Plaintiff argues the emails at issue are not privileged "because the attorneys for [d]efendant Township did not have an attorney[-]client relationship with the [p]lanning [b]oard," which plaintiff asserts "retained [HGA]." Plaintiff claims that "because no attorney-client relationship existed between [the Township's] attorneys and the [p]lanning [b]oard," the Township's counsel's "communications with [HGA] could not be privileged." Plaintiff also correctly notes "[a]lmost all of the [confidential communications — thirty-one out of thirty-two emails —] were between [HGA] and [d]efendant Township’s lawyers, not the [p]lanning [b]oard’s lawyer." The burden of proving a communication is protected by the attorney-client privilege rests with "the person . . . asserting the privilege." Hedden v. Kean A-2287-19 15 Pa015