St. Alexius Medical Center v. Nesvig

Summary

The North Dakota Supreme Court granted St. Alexius Medical Center’s petition for a supervisory writ and directed the district court to vacate its order compelling disclosure of information concerning documents claimed to be protected by the statutory medical peer review privilege. The Court held that the privilege log adequately described the records and that the dates, authors, recipients, and positions associated with the documents did not have to be disclosed. The Court also recognized that a district court has discretion to conduct an in camera review when a privilege claim is challenged.

Holdings

1. The Supreme Court may grant a supervisory writ to review a discovery order that is not immediately appealable when the order leaves the privilege claimant with no adequate alternative remedy and requires disclosure or exposure to contempt.
2. A party asserting North Dakota's medical peer review privilege is not required to disclose the dates on which the privileged documents were created when the privilege applies regardless of when the records were created.
3. A party adequately identifies documents for purposes of a North Dakota medical peer review privilege claim by describing them as peer review committee correspondence, meeting minutes, or similar peer review committee documents; the party need not disclose the identities or positions of the documents' authors and recipients.
4. A district court has discretion to conduct an in camera review of documents when a party challenges a peer review privilege claim identified in a sufficient privilege log.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Supreme Court should exercise supervisory jurisdiction over a nonappealable discovery order compelling disclosure of information concerning allegedly privileged peer review records.
2. Whether the dates of documents withheld under North Dakota's medical peer review privilege must be disclosed in a privilege log.
3. Whether the identities and positions of the authors and recipients of the withheld documents must be disclosed.
4. Whether a district court has discretion to conduct an in camera review of documents when a sufficiently identified peer review privilege claim is challenged.

Disposition

writ_granted