would leave the researchers with the knowledge throughout continuation of their studies that the fruits of their labors had been appropriated by and were being scrutinized by a not-unbiased third party whose interests were arguably antithetical to theirs. It is not difficult to imagine that that realization might well be both unnerving and discouraging. . . . In addition, the researchers could reasonably fear that additional demands for disclosure would be made in the future. . . . To these factors must be added the knowledge of the researchers that even inadvertent disclosure of the . . . data could jeopardize both the studies and their careers.
Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States or provided by Act of Congress or in rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority, the privilege of a witness, person, government, State, or political subdivision thereof shall be governed by the principles of the common law as they may be interpreted by the courts of the United States in the light of reason and experience.
Id. This rule allows courts to grant rights of privilege on a case by case basis in order to prevent sensitive relationships from being harmed by mandatory disclosure of information which would otherwise remain confidential. See, e.g., Equal Employment Opportunity Commn v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac, 715 F.2d 331 (7th Cir. 1983).