Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdiscoverystatutemotionHIPAAconfidentiality agreement
plaintifflitigationdepositiondiscoverymotion

Related Cases

Champion Pro Consulting Group, Inc. v. Impact Sports Football, LLC, 976 F.Supp.2d 706
View Case »
American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2012 WL 3854042, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1774
View Case »
James v. New York Racing Ass’n, 233 F.3d 149, 84 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 761
View Case »
Humphries v. Lincoln Parish School Bd., 467 So.2d 870, 24 Ed. Law Rep. 1074
View Case »
Shamsky v. Garan, Inc., 167 Misc.2d 149, 632 N.Y.S.2d 930
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Harris v. Portland, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 1317125

Facts

This case involves a motion by plaintiff Jennifer E. Harris for an order allowing the production of documents related to team practices and academic performance of team members at The Pennsylvania State University. The court considered the implications of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act on the production of these documents. The parties agreed to a confidentiality agreement to protect sensitive information during the discovery process. The court ultimately granted the motion for document production.

The parties to this litigation and their counsel believe that there may be occasions where there is good cause within the meaning of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) to keep confidential certain written responses to discovery, documents produced, and responses during depositions.

Issue

Whether the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act preclude the production of certain documents in this case.

Whether the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act preclude the production of certain documents in this case.

Rule

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) do not prevent the production of documents if the parties agree to a confidentiality agreement that protects sensitive information. The court must ensure that the confidentiality of the information is maintained while allowing for necessary discovery.

Analysis

In this case, the court analyzed the applicability of FERPA and HIPAA in the context of the requested document production. The court noted that the parties had entered into a confidentiality agreement, which provided a framework for handling sensitive information. This agreement allowed for the production of documents while ensuring that the confidentiality of the information was preserved, thus satisfying the legal requirements under both statutes.

The designating party shall retain the burden of demonstrating the requisite 'good cause shown' to enter or maintain the confidential status of the information being challenged.

Conclusion

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for document production, allowing the requested documents to be produced under the terms of the confidentiality agreement.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 42) is GRANTED as follows:

Who won?

The plaintiff, Jennifer E. Harris, prevailed in this motion as the court granted her request for the production of documents. The court recognized the importance of the requested information for the case while balancing the need for confidentiality under federal law. The confidentiality agreement established a clear protocol for handling sensitive information, which satisfied the court's concerns regarding privacy.

The plaintiff, Jennifer E. Harris, prevailed in this motion as the court granted her request for the production of documents.

You must be