Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[lushka]

Judge Sweeny also wrote:



"It bears noting that plaintiffs are not foreclosed from utilizing Mr. Howard’s services as a nontestifying expert. Moreover, despite plaintiffs’ argument that Mr. Howard’s prior employment with Fannie Mae makes him “uniquely positioned” to assist with “interpreting the complex and often arcane financial information” that may be found in the documents produced during discovery, they provide no reason why other financial experts would not be able to fulfill the same task, particularly since Mr. Howard’s employment with Fannie Mae was terminated in 2004, four years prior to the 2008 economic collapse that gave way to its placement in conservatorship.
Defendant has clearly defined a serious injury that could occur if protected information is disclosed—not merely to one discrete business, which would, in itself, justify denial of the motion, but rather, to United States financial markets.

Overall, the “goals of full disclosure of relevant information and reasonable protection against economic injury ‘are in tension and each must be fairly balanced against the other.’”