irresponsible and unfounded charges, and (2) encouraging the participation of witnesses by providing protection against retaliation and harassment. Owen v. Mann, 105 Ill.2d 525, 532-33, 86 Ill.Dec. 50 Inc. v. United States, 2004 WL 783106 (N.D.Ill.2004) (refusing to recognize the Illinois Medical Studies Act evidentiary privilege because, inter alia, the Government’s interest in accessing the information to investigate alleged health care fraud outweighed the policy underlying the peer-review privilege); State of Ill., 148 F.R.D. 587 (refusing to recognize the Illinois Medical Studies Act evidentiary privilege in a federal civil rights case because doing so would thwart the purpose of the underlying federal statute); but see Freeman v. J.W. Fairman, Jr., 917 F.Supp. 586 (N.D.Ill.1996) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff argues that regardless of the
holding that a claim of privilege to bank records pursuant to federal public policy was without merit holding that the statelaw protecting employees from retaliatory discharge was independent from the cba because the statelaw claim could be resolved without interpreting the agreement itself recognizing the statelaw privilege because there was no federal claim to which the records sought would be relevant recognizing privilege under federal rules recognizing privilege