Epstein Secrets

t “[a]lthough the present motion arises in 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”).

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

d on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 9 - - 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”). A

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

emain mindful of Rule 412 and its implications); Stalnaker v. Kmart Corp. 12. As the above-referenced case

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