Roberts v. Peppersack

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that prohibiting plaintiffs employees from having access to discovery materials could impair its ability to prosecute its claims
• stating that a party seeking a protective order must demonstrate harm in “meaningful detail.”
• allowing Plaintiff’s in-house personnel access to confidential information 8 because preventing access would impair Plaintiff’s ability to prosecute claims at the 9 heart of the suit
• permitting disclosure to in-house personnel who had substantial experience in a narrow field that cannot be replaced in the open market and that prohibiting access could impair the party's ability to prosecute its claims
• rejecting a two- 12 tiered protective order, and allowing Plaintiff’s in-house personnel access to 13 confidential information because (1) preventing access would impair Plaintiff’s ability 14 to prosecute claims at the heart of the suit, (2
• “Thus, the risk of anyone abusing his or her knowledge of confidential information appears to be small.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).