Epstein Secrets

ot only the admissibility of evidence at trial, but must also “inform the discovery process.” Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996). The 3 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 3 of 10 Committee Notes state, in relevant part, a

hn Hopkins Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.RD. 179 (D. Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving discovery motion); Sanchez v. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that “[a]lthough the present motion arises in the context of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must rem

ot only the admissibility of evidence at trial, but must also “inform the discovery process.” Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996). The Committee Notes state, in relevant part, as follows: Courts should presumptively issue protective orders barring discovery unless the

ohn Hopkins Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.RD. 179 (D. Md. 1997) (looking at both Rule 26 and Rule 412 in resolving discovery motion); Sanchez v. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that “[a]lthough the present motion arises in the context Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered

ery of Plaintiff’s sexual activities, Plaintiff cites to a string of employment related cases, Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996); Herron v. Eastern Industries, Inc., 2007 WL 2781211 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 19, 2007); Gibbons v. Food Lion, Inc., 1999 WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 1

1999 WL 33226474 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 19, 1999); P.J. Herchenroeder v. John Hopkins Univ. Applied Physical Lab, 171 F.R.D. 179 (D. Mad. 1997); Sanchez v. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996); and Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp., 1996 WL 397563 (D. Kan 1996). Plaintiff’s reliance on these cases in support of her po

a v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996) (granting protective order pursuant to Rul

e 412 in resolving discovery motion); Sanchez v. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that “