In what circumstances will a bank be able to clear a person's name clearing objective?

In reference to the name clearing objective comment made in Goodman v. Rossi, it is well to remember the plaintiff is not suing the bank for wrongful dismissal. It is suing the bank for intentional infliction of mental suffering. Success in that action will not necessarily demonstrate that the police were wrong in their belief that the plaintiff was a crook or that they maliciously or recklessly transmitted false information about him to the bank. One example will suffice. The plaintiff, in his statement of claim, alleges that bank "took deliberate steps to influence the auditor and to achieve its predetermined objective of finding the plaintiff guilty of wrong doing and/or incompetence." A finding that such an allegation was true would not be tantamount to a finding that there was no basis for allegations of dishonesty against the plaintiff. Only in a proceeding against the police can such an objective be achieved.

Both Goodman v. Rossi and Disher v. Kowal relied upon by the defendants, require an examination of the prejudice to both the discovered party and the producing party in weighing the request made by the applicant. It seems clear that in the circumstances of this case, the prejudice to the plaintiff in denying relief would far outweigh the prejudice to the defendant in granting the relief. CONFIDENTIALITY