In Helget v. City of Hays, No. 13-2228 (D. Kan. Mar. 28, 2014), the court held that communications among non-lawyer employees may be privileged so long as they were made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.  In this employment discrimination matter, the defendant City withheld on grounds of privilege emails among its employees, even where a lawyer was neither the author nor the recipient of the emails.  The court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel.  The court explained that it is well-established in the District of Kansas that the attorney-client privilege does not require an attorney to have either authored or received the document at issue to maintain the privilege.  Organizational clients and business entities are personified by a number of employees.  In preparation for, or in the midst of consultations with an attorney, employees may consult one another to gather factual information requested by the attorney.  What is vital to the privilege is that the communication be made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.  Here, it was undisputed that the communications were the direct result of requests by counsel for the City and were for the purpose of obtaining legal advice with respect to responding to plaintiff’s discovery requests.