[Michael Michael]

You are the one who said that Obama had never claimed, in any court document, that he would be embarrassed by releasing the documents requested.

And nowhere in any court document has Obama or his lawyers ever claimed they would be embarrassed by releasing the documents requested.

I proved you completely wrong on that point.

You proved no such thing. You only cited something which I had previously made mention of which did not say anything at all what was claimed to have been said.

Again, where do the phrases "legitimate privacy concern" and "particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documentation" anywhere in that motion?

The answer is, NOWHERE.

Where in the motion does Obama argue that turning over the requested documents would cause serious embarrassment?

The answer again, is NOWHERE.

[Kansas58]

“II. Discussion

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.”

---

the above taken from Obama’s motion.
-— “oppression” is not the reason, we are talking about the POTUS.
-—”undue burden or expense” is not the reason, he has spent more to defend himself than it would cost to produce the documents in question.