Eduardo C. Robreno

“ It is true that allegations of, inter alia, sexual assault and battery, not only by plaintiff, but also by the Jane Doe witnesses, may cause defendant serious embarrassment. Embarrassment alone, however, even if serious, does not justify the cloak of confidentiality over all discovery in this case. Defendant, as the party seeking protection, must show a nexus between the potential for serious embarrassment and the particular information sought to be kept confidential. ”

“ What is critical is that a district court’s “analysis . . . always reflect a balancing of private versus public interests.” Glenmede Trust Co., 56 F.3d at 483.
Here, plaintiff seeks a protective order cloaking the identity of Jane Doe witnesses who are expected to offer testimony at trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 415 [8] in a mantle of confidentiality. On this record, plaintiff has not shown good cause why this information should be protected as to all witnesses for all purposes. ”

“ The public’s exercise of its common law access right in civil cases promotes public confidence in the judicial system by enhancing testimonial trustworthiness and the quality of justice dispensed by the court. ”

“ Given that the defendant failed to connect the private interests which may be implicated (e.g., embarrassment, invasion of privacy or jury taint) to any specific discovery item, defendant has not shown that the private interests in this case outweigh the public interest in access to these proceedings. Therefore, on the basis of this record, the Court cannot conclude that good cause has been shown to warrant a blanket protective order. [10]
Finally, two points need to be underscored. One, typically, discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is conducted by the parties in private. ”

“ It is the duty of the lawyer not to release or authorize the release of information or opinion for dissemination by any means of pubic communication, in connection with pending or imminent criminal litigation with which the lawyer is associated, if there is a reasonable likelihood that such dissemination will interfere with a fair trial or otherwise prejudice the due administration of justice. ”

“ A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. ”

“ When prejudicial statements have been publicly made by others, responsive statements may have the salutary effect of lessening any resulting adverse impact on the adjudicative proceeding. Such responsive statements should be limited to contain only such information as is necessary to mitigate undue prejudice created by the statements made by others. ”

“ P. 83.6 (Rule IV (B) ) .↑ Under Rule 415, a party may offer evidence in a civil case that the defendant previously committed another offense or offenses of sexual assault. Fed. R. Evid. 415 (a) . ↑ The District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has adopted a detailed local rule, applicable to criminal cases, defining the duty of attorneys concerning the release of information by means of public communication. ”