(U.S.A.) Inc., 97 F.R.D. 37, 39 (E.D.N.Y.1983) (citations omitted). In federal cases in which state privileges apply, those privileges “should be interpreted no more broadly than necessary.” Am. Tobacco Co., 880 F.2d at 1527. On this issue, Connecticut stands in a different position than the other States. Because Connecticut’s complaint against Lilly involves a federal question'—arising under the federal civil RICO statute—that case is not governed by Connecticut’s statutory or common law privileges, including its physician-patient privilege. And because there is no physician-patient privilege under federal law, the non-party records Lilly seeks in Connecticut’s case are discoverable pursuant to an order of this Court, with or without redaction. Cf. Nw. Mem’l Hosp., 362 F.3d at 924-26 (<HOLDING>). As to the remaining States, the
holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes 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 holding that where state rules of civil procedure apply to courts of the state they do not apply to adjudicatory proceedings before state agencies holding that state privileges do not apply to nonparty hospital because underlying litigation involved a federal question recognizing common law privileges