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

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

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

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

b (Me ol enonor ~ha apat an tdenrOnc lods bander (Vit bli pa/na%a UBS Vat debit ord mostom t cal 800162.1000. o« lone lo UBS namul Swat t%.. ICCO Barta (Ad, 6th Kor. ~Wark^ NI 07036, Alin UNOSU Sensot Calu roik li $006 x>oeu car.. 4 y:41 fi lc ps galen** a recept o we/g capa med moro ntonets<nabx

areas which will clearly fail to satisfy the balancing test" set forth in Rule 412. See Barta I. 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 employee brought a sexual harassm

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