Williams v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of Southern Nev.

• Decision Date: 09 March 2010
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:09–cv–00554–PMP–PAL.
• Citation: 760 F.Supp.2d 1026
• Parties: Charles WILLIAMS, M.D., Plaintiffs,v.UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

760 F.Supp.2d 1026

Charles WILLIAMS, M.D., Plaintiffs,

v.UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:09–cv–00554–PMP–PAL.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

March 9, 2010.

Jacob L. Hafter, Michael K. Naethe, Law Office of Jacob Hafter & Associates, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiffs.David Roger, District Attorneys Office, Amanda Brookhyser, Lisa J. Jolly, Lynn M. Hansen, Jimmerson Hanson, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants.

ORDER

(Mtn to Compel—Dkt. # 44)

PEGGY A. LEEN, United States Magistrate Judge.

Before the court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for Rule 37 Sanctions (Dkt. # 44). The initial motion to compel was filed August 14, 2009. The court conducted a hearing August 20, 2009 and extended some of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines and resolved certain of the parties' disputes which were the subject of the motion to compel. The court also directed counsel to meet and confer to discuss any further discovery disputes and scheduling issues and set a status conference for September 24, 2009 at 11:00 a.m., requiring the parties to submit a joint status report outlining any discovery disputes. The court conducted the status and discovery dispute resolution conference on September 29, 2009 and October 20, 2009.

The parties' respective positions with respect to their ongoing discovery disputes are articulated in Joint Status Reports (Dkt. # 59, 62) filed September 30, 2009 and October 16, 2009, respectively. The parties' remaining discovery disputes concern whether the defendants should be compelled to disclose documents and information defendants assert are covered by Nevada's medical peer review privilege. At the hearing on October 20, 2009, the court ordered counsel for defendants to submit documents withheld from production on the grounds of the medical peer review privilege to the court for in camera review by the close of business October 21, 2009.

BACKGROUND

The Complaint (Dkt. # 1) in this case was filed March 23, 2009. Plaintiff was granted leave and filed a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. # 30) June 10, 2009. This case involves plaintiff Charles Williams' claims against University Medical Center (“UMC”) and other defendants arising out of the revocation of plaintiff's medical staff privileges at UMC. The first amended complaint asserts claims against the defendants for: (1) violation of his Fourteenth Amendment Rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; (2) anti-trust violations under the Sherman Act; (3) violation of the Clayton Act; (4) tortious interference with business relationships and prospective business relations; (5) tortious interference with employment, trade, or profession; (6) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; (7) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (8) negligence; (9) defamation; (10) defamation per se; (11) libel; and (12) slander. Plaintiff seeks a judgment against the defendants withdrawing their suspension of plaintiff's medical privileges; a declaratory judgment that his privileges should not have been suspended; an order requiring the defendants to adhere to the procedures in their Bylaws, Credentialing Manual, fair hearing procedure, and other documents; monetary damages; and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff served written discovery requests on the defendants which have been answered and supplemented. However, defendants have refused to produce certain documents and answer certain interrogatories on the grounds that Nevada's statutory peer review privilege, codified at N.R.S. § 49.119, protects the documents and information from disclosure. Defendants served a privileged document log on the plaintiff October 14, 2009. Plaintiff asks that the court overrule defendants' peer review privilege objections and order: (1) defendant Ellerton to answer Interrogatory Nos. 7 and 8 to the extent a privilege is claimed; (2) the Medical Staff defendants to answer Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 to the extent a privilege is claimed; (3) further responses to plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents Nos. 2, 18, 27 and 32, to the extent that a privilege is claimed; (4) further responses to plaintiff's Second Request for Production Nos. 1 and 5 to the extent a privilege is claimed; and (5) further responses to plaintiff's Third Request for Production Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

The documents withheld from production on privilege grounds which were submitted to the court in camera consist of plaintiff's Performance Improvement File, Anesthesia Committee Minutes, Credentials Committee Meeting Minutes, Sentinel Event Reports, and Medical Executive Committee Meeting Minutes.

DISCUSSION

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) permits discovery into any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to any party's claim or defense. It is undisputed that the documents and information plaintiff seeks in his motion to compel are relevant within the meaning of Rule 26(b). Defendants resist discovery of the information and documents on the grounds Nevada's medical peer review statute protects them from compelled disclosure. Nevada's medical peer review statute, N.R.S. 49.119, provides: “A review committee has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing its proceedings and records and testimony given before it.” Id. A review committee is defined by N.R.S. 49.117. “The privilege may be claimed by any member of the review committee, any person whose work has been reviewed by the committee or any person who has offered testimony, an opinion or documentary evidence before the committee.” N.R.S. 49.121(1). Plaintiff claims that pursuant to Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal common law governs. Therefore, Nevada's medical peer review privilege does not apply to this federal case, and in Agster v. Maricopa County, 422 F.3d 836 (9th Cir.2005), the Ninth Circuit failed to recognize a federal common law peer review privilege.

Defendants concede that Rule 501 determines applicable privileges in this federal action. However, defendants assert that the Ninth Circuit's holding in Agster was limited to the context of that case which involved the death of a prisoner. During oral argument, counsel for defendants argued that the court should recognize and create a new federal common law peer review privilege in this case.

Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs the determination of whether material sought in discovery is privileged. It provides:

Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience. However, in civil actions and proceedings, with respect to an element of a claim or defense as to which State law supplies the rule of decision, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with State law.

Id.

Plaintiff's amended complaint states both federal and state claims against the defendants. In the Ninth Circuit, it is well settled that “in federal question cases with pendant state law claims, the law of privilege is governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in light of reason and experience.” Religious Technology Center v. Wollersheim, 971 F.2d 364, 367 at n. 10 (9th Cir.1992) (refusing to apply California litigation privilege in copyright action with pendant state law claims); Roberts v. Heim, 123 F.R.D. 614, 620–21 (reviewing cases holding federal common law of privileges governs all privilege issues in federal question case with pendant state law claims); see also Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 501 (stating that state law applies only in diversity cases). “Where there are federal question claims and pendant state law claims present, the federal law of privilege applies.” Agster, 422 F.3d at 839.

No case in the Ninth Circuit has recognized a federal medical peer review privilege. Id. However, in enacting Rule 501 in 1975, Congress authorized federal courts to define new evidentiary privileges by interpreting “the principles of the common law ... in light of reason and experience.” Advisory Committee Notes to FRE 501. Rule 501 manifests a Congressional intent “not to freeze the law of privilege” but to provide federal courts with the flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 100 S.Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Rule 501 directs federal courts to “continue the evolutionary development of testimonial privileges.” Id. Rule 501 “should be understood as reflecting the view that the recognition of a privilege based on a confidential relationship ... should be determined on a case-by-case basis.” Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9, 116 S.Ct. 1923, 135 L.Ed.2d 337 (1996) ( citing S.Rep. No. 93–1277 at 13 (1974) reprinted in U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1974 at 7051, 7059).

Testimonial privileges are disfavored because they deprive litigants and the public of “everyman's evidence.” Trammel, 445 U.S. at 47, 100 S.Ct. 906. Testimonial privileges “are not lightly created or expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth.” United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974). Federal courts should not create and apply a new privilege unless it “promotes sufficiently important interests to outweigh the need for probative evidence.” Trammel, 445 U.S. at 51, 100 S.Ct. 906. “The Supreme Court has been especially reluctant to recognize a privilege in an area where it appears that Congress has considered the relevant competing concerns but has not provided...