CODIFYING COMMON LAW 607
However, the court declined to comment further because neither
party challenged the PSA on separation of powers grounds.^157
B. Remand: Judge Reddin’s OpinionOn remand, Valley asserted that only two out of six
documents were deserving of PSA protection: a summary of a
roundtable discussion convened by the hospital’s Director of
Patient Safety to engage in a self-critical analysis of the
Applegrad occurrence (“DV2”) and a document which
memorialized specific activities conducted following the
roundtable discussion (“DV5”).^158 Following in camera
inspection, testimony of hospital officials, and several days of
oral arguments, the trial judge, the Honorable Raymond A.
Reddin, delivered an oral ruling.^159 While recognizing “some
inconsistency between Christy and the language of the statute,”^160
he nonetheless ruled that the intent of the PSA was to allow
individuals to “speak freely without a fear of retribution” and
therefore the self-critical analysis documents created pursuant to
the Act were “entitled to a full privilege and no Christy analysis
is warranted.”^161 Nonetheless, the judge held this absolute
“[t]he Supreme Court shall make rules governing the administration of all
courts in the State and, subject to the law, the practice and procedure in all
such courts”). The Evidence Act, N.J. STAT. ANN. §§ 2A:84A-33–34 (West
2011) mandates special procedures to ensure that rules of evidence be
adopted only through the joint collaboration of all three branches of
government. See State v. Byrd, 967 A.2d 285, 294–97 (N.J. 2009)
(discussing the history of and rationale for the Rules of Evidence).
(^157) Applegrad I, 2011 WL 13700, at *8.
(^158) See Applegrad ex rel. C.A. v. Bentolila (Applegrad II), 51 A.3d 119,
129 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2012) (“Defendants, on reflection, modified
their earlier position that all of the withheld documents were privileged under
the PSA, and instead limited their claims of PSA confidentiality to exhibits
DV2 and DV5.”). See subheadings “DV2” and “DV5,” id. at 132–33,
detailing the purpose of each document.
(^159) Stenographic Transcript of Proceedings Decision, Sept. 12, 2011,
Applegrad ex rel. C.A. v. Bentolila, No. PAS-L-908-08 (N.J. Super. Ct.
Law Div. Sept. 26, 2011) [hereinafter Sept. 12 Record].
(^160) Id. at 26.
(^161) Id. at 31.