Generally, yes; illegally obtained evidence is admissible. There is an exception made for evidence illegally obtained by the police in violation of the defendant's rights, but that is a special case to prevent the police from using illegally obtained evidence.
Originally Posted by jabcash
In the old days, the police could beat a confession out of you, or bust into your home to gather evidence, and your only recourse was to sue. The Supreme Court made a rule that evidence illegally obtained by the police is inadmissible. That rule does not extend to civil litigants.
You need to find out if you have a cause of action against your opponent for illegally accessing your records.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from making you answer any questions that may incriminate you.
Go watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Refusing to answer questions is NOT obstruction. Lying to the police is obstruction. If you say "I don't know" when you really do, that's obstruction. I suggest using the phrase "I'm sorry, but I don't believe it is in my best interest to answer your questions".