The applicable rule Ms. Mills is attempting to invoke is Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides in pertinent part:
A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending—or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
...
(F) requiring that a deposition be sealed and opened only on court order;
I would point out that Ms. Mills bears the burden of establishing that she is entitled to the protective order, those orders are not favored under the law, and I don’t see “they intend to make political hay out of this” as a listed reason in the main paragraph. She has to show “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” The standard for “embarassment” is not that it will expose her as a lying criminal.
These protections are typically for questions of a very personal nature. They do not cover professional activities. For example, if Judicial Watch wants to question Ms. Mills on the nature of her lesbian relationship with Ms. Clinton, Ms. Mills is entitled to have the deposition, or that portion thereof, sealed. However, if the questioning is whether Ms. Clinton deliberately ordered her to bypass regular State Department security procedures in handling classified information, that is not subject to a protective order unless the information is itself classified. However, that privilege does not belong to Ms. Mills, but rather to the State Department.
Thank you for that explanation.