context: Whether the images fall neatly into the definition of sexual behavior or sexual predisposition is ultimately besides the point because I have the discretion under Rule 26 to balance defendant's need for the images against plaintiffs valid privacy concerns.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.parenthetical: though Rule 26 "contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule."
citation_a.sentence: Cf. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 35 n. 21, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L.Ed.2d 17 (1984) (though Rule 26 “contains no specific reference to privacy or to other rights or interests that may be implicated, such matters are implicit in the broad purpose and language of the Rule.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 809 F.2d 890, 890
citation_b.parenthetical: under Rule 26 it is "appropriate for the court [to] exercise[e] its discretion ... to undertake some substantive balancing of interests"
citation_b.sentence: See Laxalt, 809 F.2d at 890 (under Rule 26 it is “appropriate for the court [to] exercise[e] its discretion ... to undertake some substantive balancing of interests”). See also Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 87 F.3d 508, 517 (D.C.Cir.1996) (balancing “the requester’s need for the information from this particular source, its relevance to the litigation at hand ... and the harm which disclosure would cause to the party seeking to protect the information”).