<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Privacy and trial lawyers	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/privacy-and-trial-lawyers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/privacy-and-trial-lawyers/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 20:55:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Ted		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/privacy-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-5617</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ted]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:53:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4455#comment-5617</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[While it&#039;s entirely possible that a protective order is in place that will limit the invasion of privacy by plaintiffs&#039; attorneys, the California Supreme Court&#039;s opinion made no such limitation on its sweeping rule of law, which will make it difficult for defense attorneys to obtain such protective orders in the future.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While it&#8217;s entirely possible that a protective order is in place that will limit the invasion of privacy by plaintiffs&#8217; attorneys, the California Supreme Court&#8217;s opinion made no such limitation on its sweeping rule of law, which will make it difficult for defense attorneys to obtain such protective orders in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Kimberly A. Kralowec		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/privacy-and-trial-lawyers/comment-page-1/#comment-5616</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kimberly A. Kralowec]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:32:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4455#comment-5616</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The trial court had already issued a protective order limiting the purposes for which the information could be used.  This was mentioned during the Supreme Court oral argument.  Therefore, the Supreme Court&#039;s opinion did not need to address that issue and probably assumed that the protective order would be complied with.  If it was a typical protective order, it probably limited both the persons who would be allowed to see the information and the purposes for which the information could be used.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The trial court had already issued a protective order limiting the purposes for which the information could be used.  This was mentioned during the Supreme Court oral argument.  Therefore, the Supreme Court&#8217;s opinion did not need to address that issue and probably assumed that the protective order would be complied with.  If it was a typical protective order, it probably limited both the persons who would be allowed to see the information and the purposes for which the information could be used.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
