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 FRIEDMAN,
concurring and dissenting.
I join in parts I, II, and III of the majority opinion. I respectfully dissent from part IV of the majority and join the dissenting opinion of Judge Colins.
I write separately only to emphasize that based on the parties’ protracted adversarial history, Appellant’s fears are real and not speculative. From the evidence presented, I would conclude that because the harm alleged is more likely than not to occur, Appellant has established good cause, thus warranting the limited protective order requested.