Richmond Health Facilities-Madison, LP, d/b/a Madison Health & Rehabilitation Center; Preferred Care Partners Management Group, LP; Preferred Care, Inc., d/b/a Preferred Care of Delaware, Inc.; and Kentucky Partners Management, LLC v. Hon. William G. Clouse, Jr., Judge, Madison Circuit Court; and Extendicare, Inc.; Extendicare, L.P.; Extendicare Homes, Inc.; Fir Lane Terrace Convalescent Center, Inc., d/b/a Madison Health & Rehabilitation Center; Extendicare Health Network, Inc.; Extendicare Holdings, Inc.; Extendicare Health Services, Inc.; and Extendicare Health Facility Holdings, Inc. v. Hon. William G. Clouse, Jr., Judge, Madison Circuit Court

Summary

The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' denial of writ petitions seeking to prevent discovery of financial and quality-assurance materials in a nursing-home wrongful-death and negligence action. The Court held that the requested financial information was relevant and that the petitioners failed to establish that the Federal Quality Assurance Privilege applied because they provided no privilege log, in-camera materials, or sufficiently detailed descriptions of the documents. A separate opinion concurring in result would have adopted a narrow interpretation of the federal privilege, protecting only records generated by a nursing home's quality-assurance committee.

Holdings

1. A writ was unavailable because the requested financial information was relevant to the estate's negligence and punitive-damages claims, and compelling production of relevant information did not establish irreparable injury, great injustice, or the absence of an adequate appellate remedy.
2. The defendants were not entitled to a broader protective order because they offered no specific showing that the existing order was inadequate, and the trial court acted within its discretion in balancing the discovery request against privacy and proprietary concerns.
3. The defendants failed to carry their burden of establishing that the Federal Quality Assurance Privilege applied because they did not produce a privilege log, seek in-camera review, or provide a sufficiently detailed description of the disputed documents.
4. The majority declined to decide the scope of the Federal Quality Assurance Privilege because the defendants had not supplied an adequate factual record to which either interpretation could be applied.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a writ of prohibition was appropriate to prevent discovery of the defendants' corporate financial information.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by entering a protective order that did not cover all of the defendants' requested financial information.
3. Whether the defendants established that the Federal Quality Assurance Privilege applied to the disputed discovery materials.
4. Whether the writ petitions were sufficiently supported by an adequate record and preserved arguments.

Disposition

writ_denied