Ernest M. D?Orazio, III v. Washington Township, et al

Opinion & Order

more+
less-

Issue: Whether defendants should disclose the identities of two (2) confidential informants who allegedly passes information critical to plaintiff?s case.

CI 1

The Court held that the identity of CI 1 should not be disclosed because his/her identity is not essential to ensuring that plaintiff has a fair opportunity to prepare his case.

CI 2

The court ordered the disclosure of CI 2 given the importance of his identity to the heart of the case, the fact that disclosure of CI 2?s identity would be limited, and lack of evidence that any harm will result to CI 2 if his identity is revealed.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Written by:

Published In:

Reference Info:Decision | State, 3rd Circuit, New Jersey | United States

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Barker, Scott & Gelfand, PC | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×