files, in order to prevent the dissemination of personal or confidential information about employees. Balderston v. Fairbanks Morse Engine Div. of Coltec Indus., 328 F.3d 309, 320 (7th Cir.2003). The court should consider “the totality of the circumstances, weighing the value of the material sought against the burden of providing it,” and taking into account society’s interest in furthering “the truth-seeking function” in the particular case before the court. Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp., 281 F.3d 676, 681 (7th Cir.2002) (citation omitted). Here, the magistrate judge properly found irrelevant the discovery requests regarding discrimination from supervisors who were not involved with Brunker’s termination. See Little v. Ill. Dep’t of Revenue, 369 F.3d 1007, 1012 (7th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The information Brunker requested about the
holding that termination is an adverse employment action holding that evidence of discipline by a supervisor not involved in the adverse employment decision sheds no light on plaintiffs discrimination claim holding that an employer in an employment discrimination case may not justify its conduct based on evidence that did not motivate it at the time of the employment decision holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii holding that a twoweek lapse between the plaintiffs initial complaint to his supervisor and the adverse employment action was sufficient