Rule 26(c)(1) authorizes the Court to enter a protective order to protect a party “from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” including an order forbidding the discovery or specifying terms for discovery.
Thank you. I must have used the wrong form of ‘embarrassing’ in my search. I was looking for something along the lines of:
“Obama’s lawyers have argued this would be too much of an embarassment for him to produce this document in Court.”
The quote you cited looks more like a standard piece of legalese. Don’t get me wrong. I believe Obama should have granted access to his documents years ago, and that the fact that he didn’t reveals either the complete absence of original documents or the existence of ruinous info on the original ‘birth records’.
That said, I do not see the one-for-one equation of the quote as cited at the beginning of this article and the rule you so kindly and helpfully pulled from the filing. Perhaps if I were a lawyer, I would see that the two are indeed exact equivalents.
You seem to know your way around the law, so let me pose a question: What if we were to sue Guthrie for passing false information to the public? Is this even plausible?