In Harding Lawson Associates v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 7, the court stated: "A showing of relevancy may be enough to cause the court to balance the compelling public need for discovery against the fundamental right of privacy. . . . However, the balance will favor privacy for confidential information in third party personnel files unless the litigant can show a compelling need for the particular documents and that the information cannot reasonably be obtained through depositions or from nonconfidential sources." (Id. at p. 10.) In Harding, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not made the requisite showing. But the court's opinion did not state why the plaintiff sought the personnel files or how their production (or nonproduction) might affect the litigation.