City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:18-cv-07591
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma, Judge Corley found privilege logs inadequate and ordered private review of listed documents.
The order affects the plaintiffs, who withheld the documents, and Walgreens, which challenged the privilege-log descriptions. It directs the plaintiffs to submit the listed documents for the court’s private review.
What happened
In City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P., the plaintiffs withheld documents under a California law protecting certain hospital quality-improvement committee records from discovery.
Walgreens challenged twelve example entries, arguing that the descriptions did not provide enough information to show the documents were protected. The plaintiffs argued that their descriptions were sufficient.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ruled that the plaintiffs had not provided enough information and ordered them to send the listed documents for private court review by November 29, 2021. The court said the dispute would be resolved if the documents were properly withheld; otherwise, it would issue another order about correcting the descriptions.
The detailed version
- City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P. · No. 3:18-cv-07591
- Charles Breyer
- Nov. 23, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs withheld numerous documents from discovery by invoking California Evidence Code § 1157. That law protects the proceedings and records of certain organized hospital medical-staff committees responsible for evaluating and improving the quality of care.
Walgreens filed a dispute letter challenging the adequacy of the plaintiffs’ privilege-log entries. A privilege log is a list describing documents withheld from discovery and identifying the legal basis for withholding them. Walgreens pointed to twelve example entries and argued that the descriptions did not contain enough information to establish that § 1157 applied. The plaintiffs responded that the entries adequately stated the basis for protection.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the plaintiffs had not carried their burden of providing enough information to show that the documents fell within § 1157. For several entries, the plaintiffs appeared to rely mainly on committee names such as “Performance Improvement” or “Quality Improvement.” The court found that a committee’s name alone was insufficient; additional information about the committee’s functions and responsibilities was needed to show that its work concerned efforts to improve quality of care.
The court also identified entries that did not adequately describe the documents themselves. Examples included descriptions such as “Performance Improvement Program document,” “Quality Improvement Summary Document,” and “Discussion of credentialing and policies and procedures.” The court further noted that some descriptions changed while the parties were preparing the joint dispute letter, which raised additional questions about the adequacy of the log.
Order
Although the court found the privilege-log entries deficient, it ordered an in-camera review, meaning private review by the judge, of the documents listed in Exhibit 4. The plaintiffs were ordered to email those documents to the court by close of business on November 29, 2021. If the court determined that the documents were properly withheld under § 1157, the matter would be deemed resolved. If not, the court would issue a further order addressing how to handle the deficiencies.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered the order on November 23, 2021. The opinion does not state that the court made a final determination that any particular document was or was not protected.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.