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