Harris v. One Hope United, Inc., 28 N.E.3d 804

One Hope United contracted with DCFS to provide family preservation services; seven‑month‑old Marshana Philpot died after being returned to her mother while in One Hope’s Intact Family Services program.
The Public Guardian sued One Hope (and others) for wrongful death, alleging One Hope failed to protect the child and should not have permitted return to the mother.
During discovery the Public Guardian learned of One Hope’s internal “Priority Review” (continuous quality review) report and moved to compel its production.
One Hope withheld the report, asserting a self‑critical analysis privilege protecting internal reviews from discovery; the trial court ordered production and found One Hope contumacious, imposing a token fine on its law firm to permit immediate appeal.
The appellate court refused to recognize the privilege under Illinois law and ordered production; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, declining to create the new privilege and vacating the contempt order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Illinois should recognize a self‑critical analysis (peer‑review) privilege protecting internal quality reviews from discovery	The Public Guardian argued the report is discoverable and no privilege applies (seeking truth and evidence for wrongful death claim)	One Hope argued the report is protected by a self‑critical analysis privilege—needed to promote candid internal review and public safety improvements	Court declined to recognize the privilege in Illinois, reasoning privileges are disfavored, relevant statutes (Medical Studies Act, Child Death Review Team Act) show a limited, legislative approach, and this is a policy decision for the General Assembly; report is discoverable
Validity of contempt order for refusal to produce the report	Public Guardian sought enforcement and sanctions for noncompliance	One Hope’s counsel claimed good‑faith refusal to preserve appellate rights; trial court imposed nominal fine to permit appeal	Appellate court vacated the contempt order; Supreme Court affirmed vacation of contempt, recognizing the appellate interest in resolving the novel privilege question

Bredice v. Doctors Hospital, Inc., 50 F.R.D. 249 (D.D.C. 1970) (origin of the self‑critical analysis privilege in medical peer‑review context)
Niven v. Siqueira, 109 Ill. 2d 357 (Ill. 1985) (discovery privilege is a question of law; discussion of Medical Studies Act purposes)
People ex rel. Birkett v. City of Chicago, 184 Ill. 2d 521 (Ill. 1998) (court should ordinarily defer creation/extension of privileges to the legislature)
Homer Community Consolidated School Dist. No. 208 v. Illinois Educational Labor Relations Bd., 132 Ill. 2d 29 (Ill. 1989) (rare recognition of a qualified privilege where legislative indicia support confidentiality)
Dowling v. American Hawaii Cruises, Inc., 971 F.2d 423 (9th Cir. 1992) (articulated multi‑part test used by some federal courts for the self‑critical analysis privilege)
Coates v. Johnson & Johnson, 756 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1985) (federal discussion referenced regarding recognition of privilege)