Epstein Secrets

- - 5 of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must remain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan. 1996) (noting that Rule 412 “is applicable and has significance in deciding certain discovery motions”). As the above-referenced cases make abunda

restriction on discovery to preclude inquiry into areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test” set forth in Rule 412. See Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. In Barta, the Court confronted this issue in the context of a discovery motion in a civil case. 169 F.R.D. at 133. A former

the context of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must remain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan. 1996) (noting that Rule 412 “is applicable and has significance in deciding certain discovery motions”). As the above-referenced cases make abunda

2 is merely an evidentiary rule that should be disregarded in discovery disputes has been routinely rejected in federal courts. See, e.g., Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996) (granting protective order pursuant to Rule 412 to prevent a sexual battery and harassment victim from having to disc

on into their private affairs. , 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan. 1996) (noting that Rule 412 “is applicable and h

rejected in federal courts. See, e.g., Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996) (granting protect