Q: Shall review of privilege log in respect to demand for contract with hospital providers be in chambers?

A: Here is my response to the legal question:

Whether review of a privilege log with respect to a demand for contracts between a hospital and providers should be conducted in camera (i.e. in the judge's chambers) is a case-specific determination that depends on several factors:

1. The sensitivity of the information contained in the contracts. If the contracts contain confidential business information, trade secrets, or private patient data, there is a stronger argument for in camera review to protect that sensitive information from unnecessary disclosure.

2. The relevance of the contracts to the litigation. If the party demanding the contracts can show they are highly relevant to key issues in the case, the court may be more inclined to conduct a close in camera review. If their relevance is more tangential, the court may rely on the privilege log and party representations.

3. The extensiveness of the privilege claims. If the responding party is claiming privilege over a large volume of documents, in camera review of everything may be impractical and the court may rely more heavily on the privilege log and sampling. For more limited privilege claims, in camera review could be appropriate.

4. The rules and practices of the specific court and judge. Some courts have local rules or standing orders addressing in camera review procedures. Individual judges also have different preferences and default practices.

Ultimately, the judge has broad discretion in determining the appropriate procedure for evaluating privilege claims. If the party demanding the contracts believes in camera review is necessary, they can file a motion explaining why the circumstances warrant it in this particular case. The responding party can then argue in opposition if they believe the privilege log is sufficient or in camera review is unwarranted. The judge will then decide the appropriate approach based on the specific facts and arguments presented.

This response aims to provide an objective overview of the key legal considerations, but the ultimate outcome depends heavily on case-specific factors. More details would be needed to predict the likely ruling in any particular case. I've tried to use legally accurate terminology while still keeping the explanation understandable for a general audience.