http://overlawyered.com/2007/01/privacy-and-trial-lawyers/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=privacy-and-trial-lawyers Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Sun, 27 May 2012 03:58:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://overlawyered.com/2007/01/privacy-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-5617 Ted Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:53:57 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4455#comment-5617 While it's entirely possible that a protective order is in place that will limit the invasion of privacy by plaintiffs' attorneys, the California Supreme Court'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. While it’s entirely possible that a protective order is in place that will limit the invasion of privacy by plaintiffs’ attorneys, the California Supreme Court’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.

]]> http://overlawyered.com/2007/01/privacy-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-5616 Kimberly A. Kralowec Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:32:25 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4455#comment-5616 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'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. 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’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.

]]>