Sexual Minorities of Uganda v. Lively

3 Citing cases

  1. Sines v. Kessler

    CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00072 (W.D. Va. Feb. 19, 2019)

    The subpoenas at issue here do not seek information courts have previously found covered by the First Amendment's associational privilege, such as the "identities of rank and file members" of an advocacy organization, "mailing lists and lists of conference attendees," "contributor lists," or "past political activities" of the members of an organization. Sexual Minorities of Uganda v. Lively, No. 3:12-30051, 2015 WL 4750931, at *3 (D. Mass. Aug. 10, 2015) (collecting cases). See also NAACP v. State of Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958) (noting that the associational privilege covers "[c]ompelled disclosure of membership in an organization engaged in advocacy of particular beliefs" (emphasis added)).

  2. Aronstein v. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co.

    Civil Case No. 15-12864-MGM (D. Mass. Jun. 29, 2017)   Cited 7 times

    In any event, as the parties are aware, this court is already on record as being of the view that "[r]edactions of documents that are responsive and contain some relevant information should be limited to redactions of privileged information when, as in this case, there is a protective order restricting the use and dissemination of . . . sensitive information." Sexual Minorities of Uganda v. Lively, Civil Case No. 3:12-30051-MAP, 2015 WL 4750931, at *4 (D. Mass. Aug. 10, 2015). It remains the court's view that the weight of authority on this issue is on Aronstein's side.

  3. Theidon v. Harvard Univ.

    314 F.R.D. 333 (D. Mass. 2016)   Cited 5 times
    In Theidon v. Harvard Univ., 314 F.R.D. 333, 337 (D. Mass. 2016), the court approved a discovery proposal by Harvard University to deduplicate its production of emails.

    As for the last category of information in dispute, the Court denies Harvard's request to disclose the identities of the ad hoc committee members on an attorneys' eyes basis only. Attorneys' eyes only disclosure is appropriate only in limited circumstances, such as cases involving trade secrets, because it hinders the plaintiff's ability to aid counsel in the review of the evidence and to determine her litigation strategy in light of it. Ragland v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.D., No. 1:12-cv-080, 2013 WL 3776495, at * 1 (D.N.D. June 25, 2013); see Sexual Minorities of Uganda v. Lively, No. 3:12-30051-MAP, 2015 WL 4750931, at * 5 (Doc. No.Mass. Aug. 10, 2015) (citing defendant's right to participate in his defense in denying attorneys' eyes only designation). Although Harvard would certainly prefer to keep the identities of the ad hoc committee members secret from Theidon, it has not demonstrated that it is entitled to confidentiality under the law.