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 position, however, is mispl

ied 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 "[a]lthough the present motion arises in the context -4- EFTA00222165 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 93 Entered on FLSD

d 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 remain mindful of Rule 412 an