afforded by the order to “grand jury information, Title III materials, informant files,” “highly sensitive Giglio material” and the privacy of individuals noted in the discovery material. (Docket Entry ## 678 & 694). As aptly noted in a civil case in the context of a motion to vacate a protective order, a court “must weigh that party’s need for modification against the other party’s need for protection, and ought to factor in the availability of alternatives to better achieve both sides’ goals.” Murata Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Bel Fuse, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 175, 180 (N.D.Ill.2006). The privacy interests of third parties, including the victims, weigh in the mix of interests to consider in this ease. See United States v. Robinson, Cr. No. 08-10309, 2009 WL 137319, at *3 (D.Mass. Jan. 20, 2009) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Salemme, 985 F.Supp. 193,
holding that jury may consider victims mental capacity in determining whether defendant acted with victims knowledge and consent holding that proof of motive could be inferred from absence of victims purse and victims refusal of defendants sexual advances recognizing and discussing importance of privacy interests of victims in context of newspapers request for court to order governments disclosure of victims identity holding that the offense of sexual battery requires the state prove the victims lack of consent regardless of the victims age and charge the jury on the same holding that the circuit court properly allowed the victims schoolteacher to testify as to the victims general reputation for truthfulness