<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Privacy and trial lawyers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://overlawyered.com/2007/01/privacy-and-trial-lawyers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/01/privacy-and-trial-lawyers/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:39:32 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ted</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/01/privacy-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-5617</link>
		<dc:creator>Ted</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:53:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4455#comment-5617</guid>
		<description>While it&#039;s entirely possible that a protective order is in place that will limit the invasion of privacy by plaintiffs&#039; attorneys, the California Supreme Court&#039;s opinion made no such limitation on its sweeping rule of law, which will make it difficult for defense attorneys to obtain such protective orders in the future.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While it&#8217;s entirely possible that a protective order is in place that will limit the invasion of privacy by plaintiffs&#8217; attorneys, the California Supreme Court&#8217;s opinion made no such limitation on its sweeping rule of law, which will make it difficult for defense attorneys to obtain such protective orders in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kimberly A. Kralowec</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/01/privacy-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-5616</link>
		<dc:creator>Kimberly A. Kralowec</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:32:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4455#comment-5616</guid>
		<description>The trial court had already issued a protective order limiting the purposes for which the information could be used.  This was mentioned during the Supreme Court oral argument.  Therefore, the Supreme Court&#039;s opinion did not need to address that issue and probably assumed that the protective order would be complied with.  If it was a typical protective order, it probably limited both the persons who would be allowed to see the information and the purposes for which the information could be used.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The trial court had already issued a protective order limiting the purposes for which the information could be used.  This was mentioned during the Supreme Court oral argument.  Therefore, the Supreme Court&#8217;s opinion did not need to address that issue and probably assumed that the protective order would be complied with.  If it was a typical protective order, it probably limited both the persons who would be allowed to see the information and the purposes for which the information could be used.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

