Although some of the information contained in the documents should be available from the parties themselves, there is no readily available source of other information, and the production of these items makes it unnecessary for the court to require production of other items containing the same or similar information but also containing highly sensitive information which would likely, if disclosed, have repercussions upon MGC's ability to effectively carry out its investigatory responsibilities. Even though neither MGC nor any other agency of the State of Mississippi is a party to this litigation, and the state therefore has no direct interest in it, that does not preclude the discovery because it will not adversely impact important governmental functions. Furthermore, as the court noted in Laxalt I ,the benefits of factual disclosure in a defamation case will usually outweigh confidentiality interests. In addition, as between Arce and defendant, Arce has waived his confidentiality interest in any information disclosed to Dan McDaniel, the attorney jointly representing Arce and defendant in the licensure application proceedings, as well as information disclosed to others in the presence of McDaniel while the joint representation continued. Arce also contends that disclosure of only part of the file may be unfair to him because the disclosed items may paint a distorted picture not representative of the entire file.
Partial disclosure can certainly have that result.
However, in this case the court has carefully examined the entire file, and based on that examination it finds that the items required to be produced by MGC contain information both arguably favorable and arguably unfavorable to Arce in a proportion which is fairly representative of the entire file, and in a proportion which, in any event, is not prejudicial to Arce. See , Laxalt I , at 635. In the opinion of this court confidentiality interests sometimes do outweigh the benefits of disclosure, particularly where the same or like information is available from a less sensitive source and the confidential information is only marginally relevant. The court will not undertake to elaborate in detail upon its decision to deny discovery of certain of the items found in MGC's file. To do so would in many instances be functionally equivalent to making them public.