United States v. United States Gypsum, 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525, 542, 92 L.Ed. 746 (1948). It is with this standard in mind that we review Ms. Bobkoski’s objections. B. The Deliberative Process Privilege The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern discovery disputes in civil actions brought in federal court. Rule 26(b)(1) states that “parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Federal Rule of Evidence 501 provides that federal common law governs any privilege question in this case. See Fed. R.Evid. 501. We are also free, however, to consider state law to determine whether a state privilege should be recognized as a matter of federal law. See Memorial Hospital v. Shadur, 664 F.2d 1058, 1061 (7th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, when a “state holds out the
holding that  a strong policy of comity between state and federal sovereignties impels federal courts to recognize state privileges where this can be accomplished at no substantial cost to federal substantive and procedural policy  holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law holding that federal courts presiding over causes of action created by state law should apply state substantive law but federal procedural law holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural 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