• June 15, 2010

[UPDATE: ┬áMag. Judge Jeanne Graham (D. Minn.) rejects the defendant’s theory of the breadth of privilege from discovery but provides a procedure to evaluate a subset of some of the privilege claims made.]

Arguing for a protective order of a scope and breadth that this author’s not seen before, counsel for Taren Ibn Zayad Academy seeks to designate as confidential “all information disclosed by the TiZA Defendants.” The TiZA Defendants sought this based on “repeated threats of brutal violence against TiZA and its teachers, students and staff.” Any such threats are, of course, reprehensible (and perhaps criminal) but it is unclear why the existence of such threats mandates a protective order of such a breadth. (The TiZA defendants’ argument is broader than this. See the entire argument after the break.)

ACLU v Tarek Ibn Ziyad Academy Prot Order Dispute height=”500″ width=”100%” > value=”http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=24780737&access_key=key-23rn1x4pauisxe156ohy&page=1&version=1&viewMode=list”>

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *