Over the centuries, common and statutory law developed numerous general and specific privileges that restrict adversaries from discovering communications. Lawyers understandably focus mostly on legal privileges, but other professions (especially in the medical area) can rely on other privileges to protect their communications.
In Guzman v. City of New York, No. 24-CV-00363 (CM) (VF), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43838 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2026), the administrator of the estate of a man who died by suicide while in custody filed a civil rights case against the City of New York. The city withheld a “morbidity and mortality report,” citing its “peer-review privilege.” Id. at *3. The court found that the city’s tardiness waived any such privilege. Moreover, the court cited numerous earlier decisions rejecting the application of “medical peer review materials” privilege in civil rights and other actions. Id. at *3-4.
Every now and then, lawyers seek to rely on a vague “peer review” or “self-critical” privilege to resist discovery. Some of those exist in very narrow ranges, mostly involving the medical field. Any more broadly applicable discovery protections are, like the long-standing rumors of alligators lurking in New York City’s sewers, urban myths.