Laxalt v. Ck McClatchy’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.2d 885 · 1987
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably In re Sealed Case (2004), Pippinger v. Rubin (1997)
10 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 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 28 U.S.C. § 292 · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on Warth v. Seldin · National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians · District of Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc. · Freeman v. Seligson · Voegeli v. Lewis
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Privacy Act ... does not create a qualified discovery privilege as that concept is generally understood, and we find no basis in the statute or its legislative history for inferring one. Nor does the Act create any other kind of privilege or bar that requires a party to show actual need as a prerequisite to invoking discovery. Rather, the plain language of the statute permits disclosure “pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(ll) (1982)____ We therefore find no basis for inferring that the statute replaces the usual discovery standards of the FRCP— in particular, Rules 26 and 45(b)—with a different and higher standard.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a party can invoke discovery of materials protected by the Privacy Act through the normal discovery process and according to the usual discovery standards, and the test of discoverability is the relevance standard of Rule 26(b)(1) of the FRCP.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he fact that a document is subject to the Privacy Act is not, however, irrelevant to the manner in which discovery should proceed. Although discovery standards ... permit access to relevant documents protected by the Act, those same ... standards give the District Court ample discretion to fashion appropriate protective orders upon a showing of "good cause." ... .... ... [A]s is true with respect to other statutory publication bans, the applicability of the Privacy Act to the materials requested is a relevant factor for the District Court to consider in determining the appropriate scope and manner of discovery in a given case.”
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.