v. Douglas, No. Civ. 95-307 BB/DJS, slip op. at. 9-10 (Amended Order, February 14, 1996).) Rather than rejecting the existence of the privilege, Magistrate Svet properly concluded that the self-critical analysis privilege did not apply to a report prepared in anticipation of litigation. Finally, while a magistrate judge in the District of New Jersey roundly rejected the privilege in Spencer, he did so in the context of a discovery dispute over a report by the Plaintiff Bank’s loan review committee, not in light of the life saving discussions conducted during a morbidity and morality conference. 960 F.Supp. 835. Moreover, another magistrate judge in that district recognized the privilege only one year earlier. See Harding v. Dana Transport, Inc., 914 F.Supp. 1084, 1100 (D.N.J. 1996) (<HOLDING>). These authorities lend only limited support
holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law recognizing existence of selfcritical analysis privilege but finding it not applicable to protect investigative materials from discovery recognizing a selfcritical analysis privilege for materials related to hospital morbidity and mortality conferences recognizing privilege recognizing trial courts decision on discovery issues implies a finding that requested discovery was not reasonably available