475 N.E.2d 886 (Ill.1985); People ex rel. The Illinois Judicial Inquiry Board v. Hartel, 72 Ill.2d 225, 232, 20 Ill.Dec. 592, 380 N.E.2d 801 (1978) (citing to Landmark, 435 U.S. 82, 98 S.Ct. 15359). Courts have declined to recognize a state evidentiary privilege when doing so would impose a substantial cost to federal substantive and procedural policy, particularly when a plaintiff would be precluded from pursuing his federal claims. See Univ. of Penn. v. EEOC, 493 U.S. 182, 193, 202, 110 S.Ct. 577, 107 L.Ed.2d 571 (1990) (refusing to create a new common-law privilege protecting records relating to the peer review process in a Title VII action, finding the records should be produced in part because it was the very peer review process itself that was at issue); Shadur, 664 F.2d at 1059 (<HOLDING>); Accreditation Ass’n for Ambulatory Health
holding that the state privilege should not apply when the peer review records sought directly related to the allegations challenging the peer review process holding that hospitals may be found liable for conspiring with members of medical staff and that evidence of pretextual sham peer review proceedings presented jury question whether hospitals conspired with peer review committees in violation of sherman act holding that public disclosure is permitted when the records of a peer review committee are utilized by the west virginia board of medicine holding that physicians claim against peer review committee satisfied the interstate commerce jurisdictional requirements of the sherman act holding that section 4 precludes medical malpractice plaintiff from discovering peer review information related to his own and other patients cases