30-3C-1 [1975] et seq. creates a privilege for peer review organizations, we reject City Hospital’s argument that the statute is so broad that it prohibits an in camera inspection of the requested material. In Syllabus Point 7, Bennett v. Warner, 179 W.Va. 742, 372 S.E.2d 920 (1988) (reversing a protective order prohibiting the deposing of the appellee’s counsel) we said: Issuance of a broad protective order, based upon the assertion of a blanket privilege against discovery, without scrutiny of each proposed area of inquiry and without giving full consideration to a more narrowly drawn order constitutes abuse of discretion under West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). In State ex rel. McGraw v. West Virginia Judicial Review Board, 164 W.Va. 363, 367, 264 S.E.2d 168, 171 (1980) (<HOLDING>), we said: “A protective order may be given,
holding the state must prove that at the time of the homicide the defendant was engaged in the commission of the felony holding the protective order forbidding the deposition of the chairman of the judicial inquiry commission on the grounds of blanket privilege was improper holding that the amount of a commission to be awarded to the personal representative requires the exercise of judicial discretion and judgment by the clerk who has original jurisdiction in the matter holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding that production of documents without seeking a protective order waives the right to such an order unless there is a showing of good cause for the delay