437 P.3d 355
Utah2019Background
- Dr. LeGrand Belnap applied for surgical privileges at Jordan Valley Medical Center; statements by Drs. Ben Howard and Steven Mintz during an Executive Committee peer‑review meeting were alleged to be defamatory.
- Belnap sued for defamation and related claims and sought discovery of the peer‑review materials and testimony.
- Howard and Mintz invoked the peer‑review/care‑review discovery and evidentiary privilege under Utah R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and § 26‑25‑3, and the district court barred the requested discovery.
- Belnap filed an interlocutory appeal to the Utah Supreme Court, arguing Rule 26(b)(1) should include a bad‑faith exception permitting discovery of peer‑review materials.
- The court examined the plain text of Rule 26(b)(1), the legislative note accompanying the 2012 amendment, and the statutory history of §§ 26‑25‑1, 26‑25‑3, 58‑13‑4, and 58‑13‑5.
- The court affirmed: Rule 26(b)(1) contains no bad‑faith exception to the discovery privilege, although separate statutory immunity provisions for peer/care review (§§ 58‑13‑4, ‑5) do include a good‑faith qualification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 26(b)(1) includes a bad‑faith exception to the peer/care‑review discovery privilege | Belnap: the rule (read with its legislative note) is ambiguous and should be read to permit discovery when statements were made in bad faith | Howard & Mintz: Rule 26(b)(1)’s plain text creates an absolute discovery/admissibility privilege for materials created as part of peer/care review; no bad‑faith carve‑out | Held: No bad‑faith exception. The rule’s plain language is broad and unambiguous; the legislative note and statutory history do not add a discovery exception. |
| Whether the legislative note to Rule 26 alters or creates a bad‑faith exception | Belnap: the note incorporates statutory provisions (including immunity statutes) that imply a good‑faith requirement should apply to the privilege | Respondents: the note merely references prior statutes; it does not change Rule 26(b)(1)’s plain, unqualified discovery protection | Held: The note does not create a bad‑faith exception. Immunity statutes (§ 58‑13‑4, ‑5) are separate and qualified by good faith, but the discovery privilege in Rule 26(b)(1) and § 26‑25‑3 is not. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moler v. CW Mgmt. Corp., 190 P.3d 1250 (Utah 2008) (existence of privilege is legal question reviewed for correctness)
- Allred v. Saunders, 342 P.3d 204 (Utah 2014) (discussing Rule 26 amendment and treatment of legislative note)
- Vered v. Tooele Hosp. Corp., 414 P.3d 1004 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (distinguishing care‑review and peer‑review protections and purposes)
- Marshall v. Planz, 145 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (M.D. Ala. 2001) (rejecting a good‑faith limitation on peer‑review discovery privilege while recognizing qualified immunity)