Six years of such information could be far too long in many cases. A year prior to an alleged incident would seem reasonable. Production of this information should be limited to relevant claims, such as unsuitability. Requiring customers to produce this information DOES NOT balance the requirement of firms to produce customer complaints and disciplinary action from all time periods. The Commission should avoid defining legal privileges.
Arbitrators are quite capable of deciding privilege issues under well-established legal principles.
In fact, it is critical that the Commission avoid restricting in any way what relevant audit reports are presumptively discoverable. Therefore, the broadest possible language should be used in describing what reports should be produced. Absolutely no date limitations should be placed around any audit reports. Generally, the older the audit report, the more longstanding the problem and the greater the failure to supervise liability the report could show. One could logically exempt newer reports, but not older ones.