Collins v. Braden, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 180

Collins seeks a writ of prohibition to stop disclosure of documents the hospital claims are attorney-client privileged.
Documents at issue include an Investigative Case Report with attachments and a Risk Occurrence Report prepared by hospital attorneys and staff.
Trial court initially denied discovery, then granted it after more discovery; hospital did not seek in camera review or protective order.
Court of Appeals granted the writ, finding privilege applied based on attorney direction and confidentiality policies.
Court of Appeals relied on St. Luke Hospitals (Ky.) to treat the documents as privileged; Collins challenges that ruling.
This Court reverses, holding hospital did not meet burden to prove the privilege and the writ was improvidently granted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a writ of prohibition lies for privileged-disclosure orders	Collins argues writ is improper unless privilege is clearly shown.	Hospital argues writ is appropriate to enforce privilege and prevent disclosure.	Writ available when privilege breach is asserted and remedy by appeal is inadequate.
Whether attorney-client privilege applies to the documents	Documents contain non-privileged facts; privilege not established.	Documents contain confidential legal communications and instructions to obtain or defend legal services.	Hospital failed to prove the privilege applies; burden on hospital not met.
Burden of proof to establish privilege in a writ action	Burden lies with hospital to prove privilege exists for the communications at issue.	Polices and documents were prepared for legal services and confidential communications.	Hospital bears the burden; record insufficient to establish privilege now.
Effect of policy-driven documents and potential third-party disclosure	Policies show collection for discovery avoidance, undermining privilege.	Policies relate to seeking legal strategies and confidentiality; third-party disclosure question relevant but not dispositive.	Ambiguity in content prevents a ruling; in this posture, privilege not proven.

St. Luke Hospitals, Inc. v. Kopowski, 160 S.W.3d 771 (Ky. 2005) (privilege violation satisfies no adequate remedy and serious justice concerns)
Stidham v. Clark, 74 S.W.3d 719 (Ky. 2002) (test for strict construction of privileges; burden on claiming party)
Lexington Public Library v. Clark, 90 S.W.3d 53 (Ky. 2002) (interprets privilege and third-party disclosure concerns)
Hoskins v. Mancie, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 2004) (two classes of writ relief; extraordinary remedies require great injustice)
Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trude, 151 S.W.3d 803 (Ky. 2004) (special-case exception to writs where great injustice may occur)