However, courts have declined to recognize the medical peer review privilege in cases with claims not directly connected to malpractice. See Wisconsin Province of Soc'y of Jesus v. Cassem, No. 3:19-mc-00130 (VLB), 468 F.Supp.3d 482, 487–89 (D. Conn. 2020) (declining to recognize the medical peer review privilege in a dispute regarding a deceased doctor's capacity to designate a beneficiary); Gargiulo, 826 F. Supp. 2d at 327-28 (declining to recognize the peer review privilege in an employment discrimination case implicating civil rights); KD ex rel. Dieffenbach v. United States, 715 F. Supp. 2d 587, 597 (D. Del. 2010) (noting that claims alleging malpractice do not have the same important federal interest at stake as claims "alleging violation of federal civil rights (which implicate the strong federal policy of rooting out invidious discrimination) or anti-trust laws (which involve the equally vital purpose of eradicating anticompetitive business practices"); Krolikowski, 150 F. Supp. 2d at 248-49 (declining to apply peer review privilege to sex discrimination claim). The instant case involves a closer question.