1E9Ct5D

RHODE ISLANDStephen B. LangHIGGINS, CAVANAGH & COONEY, LLPThe Hay Building 123 Dyer StreetProvidence, RI 02903Phone (401) 272-3500www.hcc-law.comslang@hcc-law.com1. Does your state recognize an exemption from discovery (or a privilege) forpre-suit investigation materials? Is there a key to preserving thisexemption/privilege (i.e. involvement of counsel)?In Rhode Island, pre-suit investigation materials may be afforded qualified immunityfrom discovery if considered “factual” work product, with “the party asserting thedoctrine ha[ving] the burden of establishing that the document was prepared inanticipation of litigation.” State v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, Inc., 64 A.3d 1183, 1193 (R.I.2013) (citing Gaumond v. Trinity Reperatory Co., 909 A.2d 512, 517 (R.I. 2006)). Thisapplies to “any material gathered in anticipation of litigation,” even those materialsprepared by non-attorneys. Id. (quoting Henderson v. Newport Cnty. Reg’l YoungMen’s Christian Ass’n, 966 A.2d 1242, 1248 (R.I. 2009)). However, a party seekingsuch discovery may still overcome this qualified immunity by showing substantial needand an inability to obtain equivalent materials without undue hardship. See id. (citingCrowe Countrywide Realty Associates, Co. v. Novare Engineers, Inc., 891 A.2d 838,842 (R.I. 2006)); see also R.I. Super. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).2. What is your state’s rule with regard to the discoverability of written orrecorded statements taken during investigation of an incident?The qualified immunity provided to factual work product applies to all “documents andtangible things,” which would include written or recorded statements taken during aninvestigation provided that such statements were recorded “in anticipation of litigation.”R.I. Super. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).3. Does your state recognize a “self-critical analysis” privilege?Yes, Rhode Island recognizes a “self-critical analysis” privilege with regard to the“records” and “proceedings” of medical peer-review boards. See R.I.G.L. § 23-17-25(a).However, the privilege “does not render immune information otherwise available fromoriginal sources even if the information was presented at a peer-review committeemeeting.” Moretti v. Lowe, 592 A.2d 855, 858 (R.I. 1991).