Epstein Secrets

at Rule 412 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 haras

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

at Rule 412 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 haras

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

port of her position that Rule 412 prevents the discovery 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); Gibbon

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

routinely rejected in federal courts. See, e.g., Barta v. City and County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. 132 (D

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

nd County of Honolulu, 169 F.R.D. at 135. 5 EFTA00222175 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 94 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 6 of 10 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 employee brought a sexual harassme

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'. Zabihi, 166 F.R.D. 500 (D. N.M. 1996) (explaining that la]lthough the present motion arises in the context of discovery under Rule 26, the Court must rema