In the 9th Circuit, courts apply the “primary purpose” test to determine whether an attorney-client communication for the dual purpose of tax or business advice and legal advice is attorney-client privileged. This decision affirms the district court’s use of that test rather than the “because of” test used for work product protection (from the totality of the circumstances was the document created because of anticipated litigation, and would it not have been created in substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation). The court does not decide whether it is “the” primary purpose or “a” primary purpose that counts for the attorney-client privilege since the narrow circumstances under which In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 2014) 756 F.3d 754 applied the “a” primary purpose test are not present in this case.