Epstein Secrets

ed, it does not appear that an analogous argument was made in any of the state court cases relied upon by Defendant. Furthermore, the discovery in Balas v. Russo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) was far narrower than that which is at issue here. It was limited to asking plaintiffs for their employ

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

that the requested information is not relevant? 7. Next, despite Plaintiffs' strained interpretation and application of the discovery requests in Balas v. Ruzzo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), rev. denied, 719 So.2d 286 (Fla. 1998), that case is instrumental in that, once again, we are at the "

vents discovery of Plaintiffs' sexual activities deal specifically with employer liability for workplace sexual harassment claims. See M-, Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D. Haw. 1996)(reasoning in a sexual harassment case, employer was entitled to Plaintiff's sexual history while on-duty but not her

eed, it does not appear that an analogous argument was made in any of the state court cases relied upon by Defendant. Furthermore, the discovery in Balas v. Russo, 703 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) was far narrower than that which is at issue here. It was limited to asking plaintiffs for their emplo

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