The district court agreed with Walgreen, and we cannot gainsay its conclusion: personnel files often contain sensitive personal information, just as pharmacy files do, and it is not unreasonable to be cautious about ordering their entire contents disclosed willy-nilly. Indeed, the Supreme Court has underscored that "the requirement of Rule 26(b)(1) that the material sought in discovery be 'relevant' should be firmly applied, and the district courts should not neglect their power to restrict discovery [to protect] 'a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, [or] oppression . . . .'" Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 177 (1979) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)); see also Gehring v. Case Corp., 43 F.3d 340, 342 (7th Cir. 1994) (no abuse of discretion where "privacy interests, coupled with [the district court's] determination to keep the trial focused . . . , justified limiting [plaintiff's discovery of] personnel files"). This is not to say personnel files are categorically out-of-bounds. By way of example only, had Ms. Touhy issued a more narrowly targeted request focused only on documents (whether from the personnel file or elsewhere) that might indicate disciplinary action against Ms. Whitlock after Ms. Touhy filed suit, we would face a very different question. But the district court had to assess the discovery request Ms. Touhy put before it for decision, and we cannot say that the court exceeded its discretion in finding that request overly broad.
Fourth, for similar reasons, we perceive no abuse of discretion in the district court's holding that Ms. Touhy's requests for "all communications
- 13 -
