Cathy L. Waldor

On a Rule 45/Rule 26(b) discovery dispute she applies the established balancing tests and will compel sensitive material when the moving party clears them -- e.g. the DeMasi two-part test for income tax returns (relevance + compelling need + otherwise unavailable) -- but channels disclosure through a confidentiality order to limit intrusion rather than denying outright.

“in the context of a request to compel production of tax returns, a two-part balancing test applies: 'first, the court determines the relevance of the tax returns to the litigation; if the returns are found to be relevant, the court then determines whether there is a compelling need for the tax returns due to the sought after information being otherwise unavailable.'”

On a contested motion to remand she leans hard on the anti-removal presumption: once the federal claims drop out before trial, the Carnegie-Mellon economy/convenience/fairness/comity factors point overwhelmingly toward remand, and a plaintiff's post-removal forum manipulation alone is not enough to keep a purely state-law case in federal court.

“As with remand generally, the presumption in these instances cuts drastically toward declining jurisdiction. ... this is a textbook non-extraordinary case where the relevant factors militate in favor of remand.”