or other recognizable public interest militating toward access. Doe v. Attorney General, 941 F.2d at 796 (quoting Westinghouse, 638 F.2d at 578). This list is not exhaustive, and the relevant considerations will necessarily vary from case to case. In each case, however, the government has the burden of showing that “its use of the information would advance a legitimate state interest and that its actions are narrowly tailored to meet the legitimate interest.” Id. In most cases, it will be the overall context, rather than the particular item of information, that will dictate the tipping of the scales. Compare Roe v. Sherry, 91 F.3d at 1274 (Navy’s interest in investigating a serious crime outweighed privacy interest in HIV test results) with Doe v. City of New York, 15 F.3d at 267 (<HOLDING>). In filling his side of the scales, Ferm makes
holding that hiv status generally falls within the constitutional right to informational privacy holding right to testify was federal constitutional right holding that constitutional right of privacy does not apply to medical records recognizing a constitutional right of privacy in mental health records holding that every citizen has a constitutional right of privacy in his or her medical records