In addition, the court acted within its discretion in scheduling its calendar and setting timetables for discovery when it denied the Arena defendants' cross motion for a scheduling order ( see Matter of Rattner v. Planning Commn. of Vil. of Pleasantville, 156 A.D.2d 521, 528, 548 N.Y.S.2d 943, appeal dismissed75 N.Y.2d 897, 554 N.Y.S.2d 831, 553 N.E.2d 1341). The court also properly exercised its discretion in awarding costs on the motion to plaintiff ( see Greenspan v. Rockefeller Ctr. Mgt. Corp., 268 A.D.2d 236, 237, 700 N.Y.S.2d 687; American Auto. Plan v. Corcoran, 166 A.D.2d 215, 215, 560 N.Y.S.2d 435).

We reject the contention that defendant would be unduly burdened by the discovery order ( see, Matter of Town of Pleasant Val. v. New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs., 253 A.D.2d 8, 16; Curtis Props. Corp. v. Greif Cos., 236 A.D.2d 237, 239). The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay $100 in motion costs ( see, Greenspan v. Rockefeller Ctr. Mgt. Corp., 268 A.D.2d 236, 237; American Auto. Plan v. Corcoran, 166 A.D.2d 215; cf., Wilson v. Leite, 43 A.D.2d 736).

This privilege applies to confidential communications between a corporation, as the client, and that corporation's counsel and extends beyond corporate directors and officers and applies to lower-echelon corporate employees ( see Niesig v Team I, 76 NY2d 363, 371; Rossi v Blue Cross Blue Shield, 73 NY2d at 591-592). Corporations are analogous to government agencies for the purpose of determining the applicability of the attorney-client privilege (see Matter of Morgan v NewYork State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation , 9 AD3d 586, 587 [3d Dept 2004]; American Auto. Plan v Corcoran, 166 AD2d 215, 215 [1st Dept 1990]; Radovic v City of New York, 168 Misc 2d 58, 60 [Sup Ct, New York County 1996]). Still, this is a qualified privilege "the invocation of which should be cautiously observed to ensure that its application is consistent with its purpose[;] the burden of proving each element of the privilege rests upon the party asserting it" ( Matter of Priest v Hennessy, 51 NY2d 62, 68-69).