TITLE FIVE — PRIVILEGES AND DISQUALIFICATION
Rule 510. Judicial Deliberation Privilege
Disclosure of Impressions. A judge has an absolute privilege to refuse to disclose the mental impressions and thought processes relied on in reaching a decision, whether harbored internally or memorialized in nonpublic material.
Who Holds; Who Is Covered. The privilege is held by the judicial officer and may be asserted by that officer, by the court on its own initiative, and by the Supreme Court. It extends to a Justice of the Supreme Court, a Judge of the Superior Court, a Judge of the Administrative Court, a Magistrate Judge, and a Special Magistrate, and to a law clerk, secretary, or other person assisting a judicial officer in the judicial function, as to matter learned in that assistance.
What Is Covered. The privilege covers the mental impressions, thought processes, opinions, and conclusions of a judicial officer concerning a pending or a decided matter, and covers drafts, notes, memoranda, and communications among judicial officers and their assistants concerning such a matter, whether recorded in the judicial channel of the electronic filing system, in a communication channel restricted to the court, in a direct message, or elsewhere. It covers the deliberations of the Justices sitting en banc.
What Is Not Covered. The privilege does not cover:
an order, judgment, ruling, decree, opinion, or memorandum of decision entered by the court, or findings made under Rid. R. Civ. P. 34;
the record of a proceeding, the docket, the assignment of a judge, or the audit record of clerk action described in Rid. R. Civ. P. 5.3(17);
the fact that a judicial act was done, its date, and its terms;
a communication made to a judicial officer by a person outside the court, including a communication that a rule forbids, and the fact and content of such a communication where a party contends it was made;
a communication that is itself the subject of a charge of misconduct or of a criminal offense, an offer, solicitation, or receipt of a bribe not being a deliberation; or
a matter as to which the judicial officer is a percipient witness otherwise than in the judicial function.
Absolute; No Balancing. The privilege stated in Rule 510(a) is not subject to balancing against the need of a party, and no showing of need or of hardship overcomes it. Nothing in this rule, however, limits:
the administrative control of the Supreme Court over all the courts of the State and its disciplinary authority concerning all judicial officers and attorneys, Const. art. V, § 3;
the suspension of a judicial officer from the judicial function in the exercise of that disciplinary power, Const. art. V, § 8;
the power of the Senate to order an impeachment, Const. art. VI, § 3, or the trial of an impeachment by the Supreme Court, Const. art. VI, § 5; or
the prosecution of a judicial officer for a criminal offense.
Judge as Witness. The presiding judge may not testify as a witness at the trial, as Rule 605 provides. A judicial officer shall not be called to testify, in any proceeding, upon the reasons for a ruling, upon the course of the officer’s reasoning, or upon what was said in deliberation. The remedy for an erroneous ruling is that stated in Rule 103 and an appeal.
Assertion. A subpoena, a notice of deposition, or a request for production directed to a judicial officer or to a person described in Rule 510(b), seeking matter within Rule 510(c), shall be quashed upon motion or upon the court’s own initiative. A motion to quash is made under Rid. R. Civ. P. 32 or Rid. R. Crim. P. 17 and is heard by a judge other than the officer whose deliberations are sought, where one is available.