Court Opinion

ID: 9807970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:22:46.807135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:03.153670
License: Public Domain

*1030CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY
STRASSBURGER, J.:
For the reasons provided by the Majority, I too would affirm the March 11, 2014 order. I therefore join Part II of the Majority Opinion. However, unlike the Majority, I also would affirm the June 26, 2014 order. Thus, I dissent to Part III of the Majority Opinion.
As to the June 26, 2014 order, I agree with the trial court’s assessment of UPMC’s attorney-client-privilege argument. UPMC did not claim that Ms. Con-cordia is a lawyer, and nothing in the record would permit a finding that her presentation to the Board was a discussion with legal counsel. For these reasons, I conclude that the trial court properly determined that the attorney-client privilege does not protect the information the plaintiffs sought in requests 23 and 24.
I further note that the trial court refused to address UPMC’s claim that the information in-question was protected by the peer review privilege, essentially because UPMC failed to present the court with a developed argument in support of that claim. Because I agree with the court, I believe the peer review privilege is not grounds for relief concerning the June 26th order.
For these reasons, I would affirm the trial court’s orders.