holding generalized claim that public disclosure of videotaped deposition could infringe upon appellant's privacy or cause him embarrassment insufficient to raise type of issue which is “too important to be denied review” under collateral order doctrine
How later courts described this case
- holding generalized claim that public disclosure of videotaped deposition could infringe upon appellant's privacy or cause him embarrassment insufficient to raise type of issue which is “too important to be denied review” under collateral order doctrine
- noting that tax returns are subject to privacy rights pursuant to state law and confidentiality under a federal statute
- individuals have “privacy interest in information contained in federal tax returns. . . . Such information is made confidential per federal statute”
- individuals have a “privacy interest in information contained in federal tax returns. … Such information is made confidential per federal statute.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Senior Judge LEADBETTER,
concurring.
I join in the thoughtful opinion of the court. I write separately simply to emphasize that, with respect to the second prong of the collateral order doctrine, appellant’s asserted claims of harm are simply too speculative to evaluate. Had the deposition gone forward and some concrete and substantial invasion of privacy occurred, application of the doctrine might have been in order. However, in the present posture it is impossible to say that appellant has any interest at all to protect, let alone one “too important to be denied review.”