Question: Plaintiff pro se Wilfredo A. Golez (Golez) fi led a motion to compel the work attendance records of two former coworkers who are not parties to the instant litigation. Golez states that he requires the employment records of his former coworkers to show that other employees who were late were not terminated as he was and, therefore, rebut defendants' contention that his own attendance irregularities led to termination. Plaintiff argues that he was improperly terminated during FMLA-protected absences. In addition to the rule set forth in the Privacy Act of 1974, federal courts generally recognize a privacy right that can be raised in response to discovery requests. The party whose privacy is affected may object, as defendants have done here, or seek a protective order. Resolution of a privacy objection or request for protective order requires a balancing of the need for the particular information against the privacy right asserted. Should Golez be permitted to compel production of records of his coworkers over their objections? Explain your reasoning.