A single conference in this context promotes knowledge and understanding among numerous physicians about life saving techniques and potentially life threatening decisions. (See Def.’s Opp. Pl.’s Mot. Compel, Ex. A ¶¶ 4-7.) Thus, the public good is multiplied far beyond an individual patient’s care, as the information promotes more effective patient care throughout a hospital. This privilege is further supported by the Jaffee analysis. The Supreme Court “recognized that it is appropriate to treat a consistent body of policy determinations by state legislatures as reflecting both [the] ‘reason’ and ‘experience’ ” Rule 501 requires in the recognition of a new privilege. Jaffee, 518 U.S. at 13, 116 S.Ct. 1923; Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., 671 F.2d 100, 103 (3rd Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). The Jaffee Court concluded that federal
recognizing common law privileges holding that when there are federal law claims in a case also presenting state law claims the federal rule favoring admissibility  is the controlling rule the court found this approach consistent with the rule in federal practice disfavoring privileges not constitutionally based holding that federal law governs res judicata effect of an earlier federal judgment based on federal law holding that a federal court may resort to state law analogies for the development of a federal common law of privileges in instances where the federal rule is unsettled holding that the federal rule favoring admissibility of relevant evidence applies to state law claims in federal cases to which state law privileges might oth erwise apply