F.Supp. at 582. As such, a court must “ ‘weigh the need for truth against the importance of the relationship or policy sought to be furthered by the privilege, and the likelihood that recognition of the privilege will in fact protect that relationship in the factual setting of the case.’ ” Memorial Hospital, 664 F.2d at 1061-62 (citation omitted); see also In re Franklin National Bank Sec. Litigation, 478 F.Supp. 577 (E.D.N.Y.1 ion would ensure more efficient governmental decision making on the state level. Id. The court further reasoned that such a conclusion was consistent with Illinois’ emerging policy of protecting governmental deliberative materials. Id.; see also Hoffman v. Department of Corrections, 158 Ill.App.3d 473, 110 Ill.Dec. 582, 584, 511 N.E.2d 759, 761 (1st Dist.1987) (<HOLDING>); Carrigan v. Harkrader, 146 Ill.App.3d 535,
holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause recognizing utswmc as a governmental unit under the act recognizing the protection of preliminary governmental materials holding section 1010215 does not waive governmental immunity merely because a governmental action falls within the listed governmental functions thus further inquiry under the act is necessary recognizing governmental interest in rehabilitation