Tavoulareas v. Washington Post Co.’s Empirical Analysis
724 F.2d 1010 · 1984
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 9 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably Continental Illinois Securities Litigation Continental Illinois Corp (1984), United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (1984)
16 federal appellate · 9 district · 7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 6103 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 44 U.S.C. § 2107 (Civil Rights Cold Case Records Collection Act of 2018) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act) · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Hickman v. Taylor · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Mobil has adequately specified the harm likely to result absent a protective order. As Mr. MacDonald attests, the public disclosure of many of these documents might undermine Mobil’s relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, hamper its ability to compete in the marine transportation business, and threaten its access to substantial volumes of crude oil from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, many of the discovery requests appear likely to reveal confidential, internal Mobil documents dealing with strategy, negotiations, and long-range corporate planning. The conclusion is inescapable that public disclosure of these kind of sensitive corporate documents would cause Mobil competitive harm sufficient to warrant imposition of a protective order adequate in character and balanced to the needs of the parties.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“After full consideration, we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Mobil’s showing was insufficient to justify continued confidentiality of those depositions never used at trial. Our decision follows from a different view of the relevant statutory and constitutional interests from that of the district court. While we acknowledge that discovery is presumptively open under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we believe that statutory, common law, and constitutional privacy interests require protecting the confidentiality of Mobil’s sensitive commercial information. Public dissemination of confidential discovery materials not used at trial cannot be justified by a common law or constitutional right of access or by a first amendment right of free speech or free press. (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.