On June 12, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in Adkins v. Christie that state medical peer review privilege, which protects from discovery records containing performance reviews and assessments of physicians by their peers, does not apply in federal discrimination cases. In reaching its determination, the court followed the lead of the Fourth and Seventh Courts of Appeal, which had previously found the peer review privilege inapplicable in federal discrimination cases. In reaching its holding, the court noted the existence of “a strong presumption against privileges which may only be overcome when it would achieve a ‘public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means of ascertaining truth.'” Although the court acknowledged that the peer review privilege serves important interests and is recognized in all fifty states and the District of Columbia, the court concluded that the medical peer review process did not warrant the extraordinary protection of an evidentiary privilege in federal civil rights cases. The full text of the court's decision in Adkins v. Christie can be viewed by following this link or by going to: http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200613107.pdf.