Cahill v. Franciscan Health System

Filing 95

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle denying 46 Motion to Compel.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 DEBORAH CAHILL,
9

Plaintiff,

10

v.

11 FRANCISCAN HEALTH SYSTEM,
12

CASE NO. C12-5829 BHS
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
COMPEL

Defendant.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Franciscan Health System’s

15 (“FHS”) motion for in camera review and to compel production of documents (Dkt. 46).
16

On October 21, 2013, FHS filed the instant motion requesting that the Court

17 conduct an in camera review of certain documents (Dkt. 55) and then rule on whether
18 Plaintiff Deborah Cahill (“Cahill”) should produce the documents. Dkt. 46. On
19 November 4, 2013, Cahill responded. Dkt. 52. On November 11, 2013, FHS replied.
20 Dkt. 71. On December 9, 2013, the Court issued an order renoting the motion and
21 requesting additional briefing. Dkt. 89. Specifically, the Court relied on the standard set
22 forth in Fellows v. Moynihan, 175 Wn.2d 641 (2012), and stated that “[i]t appears that the

ORDER - 1

1 documents in question may have been prepared for a potential peer review proceeding,
2 but there is a lack of evidence in the record to support this conclusion.” Dkt. 89 at 2.
3

On December 20, 2013, Cahill filed a supplemental brief and the declaration of

4 Stuart Freed. Dkts. 91 & 92. On December 27, 2013, FHS filed a supplemental brief.
5 Dkt. 93.
6

Based on review of the documents and the declaration of Dr. Freed, the Court

7 finds that the documents in question are subject to the peer review privilege. Therefore,
8 the Court DENIES FHS’s motion to compel.
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of January, 2014.

A

11
12

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2