A bill that would curb the ability of courts to impose secrecy orders on public health and safety information was favorably reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. See the report (pdf) on the Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2011, August 2, 2011.
“Court secrecy prevents the public from learning about public health and safety dangers,” the Committee report said. “Over the past 20 years, we have learned about numerous cases where court-approved secrecy, in the form of protective orders and sealed settlements, has kept the public in the dark about serious public health and safety dangers.”
Such cases, many of which are cataloged in the report, have included “complications from silicone breast implants, adverse reactions to a prescription pain killer, ‘park to reverse’ problems in pick-up trucks, and defective heart valves.”
“This problem most often arises in product liability cases,” the report said. “In exchange for monetary damages, the victim is often forced to agree to a provision that prohibits him or her from revealing information disclosed during the case.” As a result, “the public remains unaware of critical health and safety information that could potentially save lives.”
To address the problem, the bill would require judges to consider the public’s interest in disclosure health and safety information before issuing a protective order prohibiting its disclosure.
The bill, which has been introduced repeatedly without success since 1994, was opposed by most Committee Republicans. (Senators Grassley and Graham supported it.)
In a minority statement appended to the report, the Republican Senators said the bill was unnecessary and would be counterproductive.
“Without the certainty that a protective order will be upheld, litigants will raise significantly more objections to litigation discovery in order to protect confidential information. Parties will be less willing to submit to discovery if they believe information will be disclosed to the public,” the dissenting Senators wrote.
“This bill would simply provide a tool to trial lawyers to conduct fishing expeditions and file frivolous lawsuits with impunity,” they said.
The bill was also opposed by the American Bar Association, who said the proposal was unwarranted and burdensome.
As humans expand our geographic reach, encroach on untouched natural territories, and interact more with animal populations, we will encounter novel zoonotic diseases that threaten the human body. The sooner we act to address these risks, the better.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.