Filter This View

  • S.B. v. S.S.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-15
    Practice Area: Family Law | Privacy
    Industry:
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Murray
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 19-0031

    Trial court's gag order preventing second wife and her attorneys from publicly discussing anything that might identify or harm the child in a child custody case was constitutionally permissible since it was narrowly-tailored to advance the substantial governmental interest of safeguarding the child from physical and emotional harm. Affirmed.

  • In re: Fortieth Statewide Investigating Grand Jury

    Publication Date: 2018-12-18
    Practice Area: Criminal Law | Privacy
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1532

    Redaction of information from grand jury report that tended to impair reputational rights of individuals named in report but not criminally charged was best available due process remedy, where re-empaneling grand jury and/or directing supervising judge to review new exculpatory and rebuttal evidence was not statutorily authorized. Order of the court affirmed.

  • Harmon v. RapidCourt, LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-12-04
    Practice Area: Creditors' and Debtors' Rights | Privacy
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Schiller
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18-1444

    FCRA claim not cognizable where consumer reporting agency obtained stale criminal history information but did not include such information in a consumer report provided to the subject's prospective employer, who ultimately hired the subject. Defendant's motion to dismiss granted.

  • Chester Housing Auth. v. Pohala

    Publication Date: 2017-12-12
    Practice Area: Discovery | Privacy
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Covey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1805

    Defendants request for the home addresses of township tenants receiving Section 8 housing benefits represented an intrusion on the tenants constitutional right to privacy in their home addresses, and the township failed to demonstrate a significant government interest that outweighed the tenants right to privacy in that information. The court reversed a court order directing disclosure.

  • Wright v. City of Philadelphia

    Publication Date: 2017-12-12
    Practice Area: Discovery | Privacy
    Industry: State and Local Government
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Pratter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1814

    Court granted plaintiffs motion to strike defendants motion to enforce a confidentiality agreement regarding homicide files produced in response to discovery in plaintiffs §1983 action over constitutional violations in his arrest, first trial and imprisonment because under the Pansy balancing test, defendants could not assert a blanket claim of confidentiality over 10,000 pages of documents or over all homicide files. Motion granted.