Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): privilege, “we can only determine the applicability of the privilege based upon what the [documents] reveal on their face.” Starting with the first category of documents, HRMC has pointed to no evidence in the record that Shirley Trantham, who sent the 17 December 2007 e-mail, or Janet Ledford, who received it, were members of a medical review committee. The author and recipients of the 18 December 2007 memorandum are not even identified. Neither of these documents explicitly states that it was generated by members of a medical review committee or for a medical review committee’s consideration. There is absolutely no evidence in the record from which this Court can infer that either document is privileged under § 131E-95(b). See Brown, 183 N.C. App. at 535, 645 S.E.2d at 122 (<HOLDING>). The third document, the 19 December 2007 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant failed to establish that board of directors meeting minutes were protected by attorneyclient privilege because documents listed individuals as being present at meeting but did not identify their positions and therefore defendant could not demonstrate that privilege had not been waived (B) holding that a defendant waived his attorneyclient privilege with regards to a seized letter because he waited six months after the seizure to assert his privilege (C) holding that the information is not protected by attorneyclient privilege (D) holding that corporate president who called and participated in shareholders meeting to elect directors was estopped from questioning the legality of the meeting and election of directors who later removed him (E) recognizing privilege
Output (English): holding that corporate president who called and participated in shareholders meeting to elect directors was estopped from questioning the legality of the meeting and election of directors who later removed him