Permitted disclosures: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 11: Line 11:
*A civil litigation between you and some other dude, even if it somehow involves the disclosing party’s {{confiprov|confidential information}}, is generally sensitive and may not be the sort of thing you want the disclosing party to know about: there is a “clash of the confidentialities” here
*A civil litigation between you and some other dude, even if it somehow involves the disclosing party’s {{confiprov|confidential information}}, is generally sensitive and may not be the sort of thing you want the disclosing party to know about: there is a “clash of the confidentialities” here
*As a litigant you will be generally incentivised to resist wider disclosure than is absolutely necessary and so shouldn’t need to have to promise this to the disclosing party. But it is not inconceivable that this confidential agreement ''is'' exactly the ammunition you need to shut down the litigation, so your interests may favour disclosure, while the “discloser’s” may not. You don’t want your confidentiality agreement to crimp your ability to show your best you to the court process.
*As a litigant you will be generally incentivised to resist wider disclosure than is absolutely necessary and so shouldn’t need to have to promise this to the disclosing party. But it is not inconceivable that this confidential agreement ''is'' exactly the ammunition you need to shut down the litigation, so your interests may favour disclosure, while the “discloser’s” may not. You don’t want your confidentiality agreement to crimp your ability to show your best you to the court process.
AT THE END OF THE DAY: these are all extraordinarily remote and implausible hypotheticals. They neatly illustrate the fatuity of obsessing over the minutiae of an imponderable future, However is in just such a fatuous neck of the woods that the [[legal eagle]] likes to build its nest so — unless you want to die in a ditch in that fatuous neck of the woods: some do; there is no accounting for taste — you might just take a view and nod along.
When all is said and done, these are all ''extraordinarily'' remote and implausible hypotheticals. They neatly illustrate the fatuity of obsessing over the minutiae of an imponderable future, and it pains me to even talk about them. ''However'', it is in just such a fatuous neck of the woods that the [[legal eagle]] likes to build its nest so — unless you want to [[die in a ditch]] in that fatuous neck of the woods (some do; there is no accounting for taste) — you might just take a view and nod along.
==={{confiprov|Regulatory disclosure}} and the definition of {{confiprov|confidential information}}===
==={{confiprov|Regulatory disclosure}} and the definition of {{confiprov|confidential information}}===
{{confidentiality and regulatory disclosure}}
{{confidentiality and regulatory disclosure}}
{{ref}}
{{ref}}

Navigation menu