(R.I.2006). “Privileges, by their nature,” create limitations on the legal process that must be viewed with skepticism because they attempt to “ ‘shut out the light’ on ‘the ascertainment of the truth.’ ” Id. at 1078 (quoting State v. Almonte, 644 A.2d 295, 298 (R.I.1994)). When a party who is resisting discovery of so-called confidential or protected information asserts a privilege, “[t]he burden of establishing entitlement to nondisclosure rests on the party resisting discovery.” Moretti, 592 A.2d at 857. This Court has refused to recognize new privileges, even when a “statute manifests and effectuates an important legislative policy favoring confidentiality and generally prohibits disclosure of information[.]” Mallette v. Children’s Friend and Service, 661 A.2d 74, 76 (R.I.1995) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, we have declared that a statute
holding that statute making child welfare agency records confidential but disclosable pursuant to a court order did not create an absolute privilege for such records holding that disclosure to department of defense audit committee without a confidentiality agreement waived privilege in irs investigation holding that ferpa and state law did not create an educational records privilege recognizing a corporations legal rights to confidentiality and privilege holding that the statute establishing the confidentiality of department of children youth and famines records did not create a testimonial privilege