3Defendant seeks to avoid producing any affirmative action plans as privileged self-critical analysis. Plaintiff responds that the self-critical analysis privilege has been “expressly rejected” by the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Pl. Response at 5 (citing Univ. of Pa. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 493 U.S. 182, 189, 110 S.Ct. 577, 107 L.Ed.2d 571 (1990); Virmani v. Novant Health, Inc., 259 F.3d 284 (4th Cir.2001)). The court has reviewed these cases and concludes that they do not stand for so broad a proposition. Instead, the court embraces the more specific conclusion that even if the self-critical analysis privilege exists in this Circuit, it does not protect Goodyear's affirmative action plans from disclosure in this case. Courts in this Circuit have made clear that this particular privilege is “of recent origin and one that is *250 narrowly applied even in those jurisdictions where it is recognized.” In re Air Crash at Charlotte, N.C. on July 2, 1994, 982 F.Supp. 1052, 1054 (D.S.C.1995); cf.
Warren v. Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc., 896 F.Supp. 540, 542 (E.D.N.C.1995) (noting that “two recent decisions by United States District Courts in the Fourth Circuit have concluded that the Fourth Circuit does not recognize the self-critical analysis privilege”). Assuming that this privilege is valid in the Fourth Circuit, courts in the Circuit have been especially hesitant to apply this privilege in the employment discrimination context to preclude discovery of relevant documents. See, e.g.,
Witten v. A.H. Smith & Co., 100 F.R.D. 446, 449–54 (D.Md.1984) (finding that privilege did not bar disclosure of defendant's affirmative action plans and EEO–1 reports, including self-evaluative portions), aff'd per curiam,
785 F.2d 306 (4th Cir.1986) (unpublished table decision); accord
Deel v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. CIV.A.7:04CV00150, 227 F.R.D. 456, 459–60 (W.D.Va.2005) (“Assuming that the self-critical analysis privilege is a valid privilege at federal common law, the Court finds that the defendant has not developed sufficient facts to justify its application here.”). In Etienne v. Mitre Corp., 146 F.R.D. 145 (E.D.Va.1993), the court explained that most courts have held that affirmative action plans are not protected by the privilege. Etienne, 146 F.R.D. at 148 (citing Reynolds Metals Co. v. Rumsfeld, 564 F.2d 663, 667 (4th Cir.1977)).