Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[[legitimate interests in privacy are among the proper subjects of’ Rule 26(c)’s protection
• concluding that a claim that state statutory confidentiality provisions should be recognized as federal evidentiary privileges was important for purposes of Cohen
• finding that Rule 501 directs the courts to apply federal privilege law where the material is relevant to both federal and state claims
• observing that whereas state privilege or privacy laws do not control in federal discovery matters, courts remain free to fashion appropriate protective orders where appropriate under Rule 26(c
• observing that the MHPA privilege “is owned by—and fully waivable by— the patient”
• explaining that even if the Pennsylvania courts have described a statute providing for a duty of confidentiality as creating an evidentiary privilege “what these opinions have characterized as ‘privileges’ are not necessarily privileges within the meaning of Rule 501”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).