be considered in light of the particular facts at issue, see Davin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 60 F.3d 1043, 1060 (3d Cir.1995) (opting not to adopt a “per se rule” regarding an individual’s privacy interests). When considering whether disclosure of certain information implicates privacy interests, courts are especially concerned with information that could be considered sensitive, derogatory, or intimate. In particular, both the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit have been highly protective of information that links a private individual to a criminal or national security investigation. See Favish, 541 U.S. at 166, 124 S.Ct. 1570 (concluding that there is “special reason” to protect “intimate personal data” connecting an individual to a criminal investigation); Davin, 60 F.3d at 1060 (<HOLDING>). Courts have also found privacy interests to
holding that the constitutional protection of an individuals reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her home does not extend to a place of business recognizing an individuals privacy interest in not having his or her identity revealed in the context of a criminal or national security investigation holding that every citizen has a constitutional right of privacy in his or her medical records holding that individuals have no expectation of privacy in their license registration or insurance documents and citing outofstate cases that have held that individuals do not have a privacy interest in their registration records holding that an expert can comply with the timing requirement if an experts research even after his or her deposition revealed that the standard of care in his or her community was the same or similar to the standard of care in the community in which he or she is testifying when the injury occurred