CODIFYING COMMON LAW 597
Nonetheless, the court refused to allow discovery of the
committee’s opinions and fact-findings. First, the court felt that
the plaintiff did not demonstrate a compelling need for
disclosure because he already “obtained and supplied opinions
from three separate experts supporting his claim of medical
malpractice.”^113 Second, the court noted that justifications for
disclosure were based on allegations of the factual discrepancies,
and having inspected the documents in camera, the court was
“convinced” that by allowing disclosure of the other material,
“[the] plaintiff’s compelling needs [had] been addressed.”^114 The
court further ruled that the committee’s factual findings were “of
no use to plaintiff, as such findings are within the sole province
of the jury” and that “disclosure might discourage a peer review
committee from making factual findings because such findings
often include a determination of what is credible.”^115
Because the PSA explicitly referenced (without comment) the
holding in Christy, it is worth asking: what was the holding? On
a basic level, it reaffirmed two basic and interrelated principles
of self-critical analysis: first, that facts are generally
discoverable; and second, that privileged material can
nonetheless be discovered upon a showing of “substantial” or
“compelling” need. In short, the privilege is qualified.^116
Nonetheless, it is possible that Christy did not have any
discernible holding but was instead a series of fact-sensitive
rulings—a good faith attempt to balance the competing interests
and equities of rival discovery claims. The Christy court
happened to conclude that the plaintiff demonstrated a
compelling need to discover factual materials. One cannot be
sure that the Christy court would reach the same conclusion in
only slightly different circumstances. For example, the plaintiff
in Christy was denied discovery of the evaluative materials
committee has itself been unable to resolve the issue due to the missing
information, the possible whereabouts of which is described in the subject
sentence.” Id. at 942.
(^113) Id.
(^114) Id.
(^115) Id. at 942–43.
(^116) The references to Christy during the Senate hearings seem to
subscribe to this reading. See infra Part III.