Epstein Secrets

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

to prevent a sexual battery and harassment victim from having to disclose off-duty sexual contacts with persons other than defendant in discovery); 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. 19, 1999); P.

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

to prevent a sexual battery and harassment victim from having to disclose off-duty sexual contacts with persons other than defendant in discovery); Herron v. Eastern 4 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 4 of 10 Industries, Inc., 2007 WL 2781211 (N.D. Fla

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

with persons other than defendant in discovery); Herron v. Eastern Industries, Inc., 2007 WL 2781211 (N.D