Utah Supreme Court
Can the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure create evidentiary privileges? Allred v. Saunders Explained
Summary
Lisa and Marlin Allred sued Dr. Saunders for medical malpractice, seeking discovery of his credentialing file and the hospital’s incident file related to a lithotripsy procedure. The district court denied defendants’ motion for protective order, ruling that the 2012 amendment to rule 26(b)(1) did not create an evidentiary privilege and ordering in camera review of the incident file.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Lisa and Marlin Allred filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Ronald Saunders, alleging he committed malpractice during a lithotripsy procedure that resulted in second and third-degree burns. During discovery, the Allreds subpoenaed American Fork Hospital for Dr. Saunders’ credentialing file and the hospital’s incident file related to the procedure. The hospital and Dr. Saunders moved for a protective order, claiming the documents were protected by peer-review and care-review privileges under Utah Code sections 26-25-1 and 26-25-3, as well as the 2012 amendment to Rule 26(b)(1) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the 2012 amendment to Rule 26(b)(1) created a freestanding evidentiary privilege protecting peer-review and care-review materials from discovery. The district court ruled that only the Utah Rules of Evidence could create evidentiary privileges, not the Rules of Civil Procedure, and therefore relied solely on the former version of the statutory privilege. The court also ordered in camera review of the incident file to determine privilege applicability.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Rules of Civil Procedure can create evidentiary privileges. The court noted that Rule 501 of the Utah Rules of Evidence specifically recognizes privileges contained in “other rules adopted by the Utah Supreme Court,” including the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court pointed to existing examples, such as the attorney work-product privilege in Rule 26(b)(5). The plain language of amended Rule 26(b)(1) clearly states that “privileged matters” are “not discoverable or admissible,” demonstrating legislative intent to create an evidentiary privilege.
Practice Implications
The decision clarifies that Utah practitioners can rely on Rule 26(b)(1) as an independent source of peer-review and care-review privileges. However, the court emphasized that parties asserting privilege must create detailed privilege logs rather than making blanket assertions. These logs must identify each document withheld and provide sufficient foundational information to establish privilege applicability on an individualized basis. The court also clarified that in camera review is not automatic but lies within the district court’s sound discretion after considering foundational materials provided by the privilege-asserting party.
Case Details
Case Name
Allred v. Saunders
Citation
2014 UT 43
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20120985
Date Decided
October 21, 2014
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Rule 26 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure can create evidentiary privileges, and the 2012 amendment to rule 26(b)(1) established a freestanding peer-review and care-review privilege protecting such materials from both discovery and admission into evidence.
Standard of Review
The district court’s interpretation of statutory and rule-based privileges is reviewed for correctness, while the district court’s decision regarding in camera review is reviewed for abuse of discretion
Practice Tip
When asserting peer-review or care-review privileges, prepare detailed privilege logs identifying each document withheld and providing sufficient foundational information to establish the privilege applies to each specific item, rather than making blanket assertions of privilege.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.