S.2449 - Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2007 Sponsor: Herbert Kohl / 110th Congress

Title
110th Congress - A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, disclosures of discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes. hidemore...
Summary
A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, disclosures of discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes. (by CRS)
Status
The bill has passed through committee and has been put on a legislative calendar.

Customize

Customize the interests supporting and opposing this bill

To remove an interest, click the Remove button next to its name below this box.

To add an interest, choose one from this list:

To add an interest, click Support or Oppose.

You can share your customized pages with other people by sending them the URL for pages about this bill. Other MAPLight.org users will not see your customizations unless they use the URL you send them. To save your customizations for your next visit, create a free New Account, then Sign In.

Done

Interests who did want this bill to become law included these interests and specific groups:

Interests who did not want this bill to become law included these interests and specific groups:

Contribution data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org)

Comments RSS feed

More Sunshine or More Litigation? by Peter Volberding, Jun 30, 2008 (9:47pm)

S 2449 allows for more transparency in the court process. During civil cases involving out of court settlements, many plaintiffs are required to sign a secrecy clause; ie, they are not allowed to talk about anything in the lawsuit. This has shrouded the legal process in secrecy. So why wouldn’t we want a bill that ‘enlightens’ us with more information? The response is two-fold. Firstly, many (especially lawyers and legal experts) say that it will create a new litany of lawsuits against companies. It will further delay and overwhelm an already overburdened system. It will cost more, create longer cases, and most importantly increase the number of cases. The second argument is privacy—many businesses are angered that they may be subject to more media press (gasp!) but also perhaps a revealing of trade secrets, etc.
However, it seems the benefits from this could also be substantial. Watchdog groups point to the plethora of examples where the suppression of information can be to the detriment of consumers, such as “Firestone tires, Graco childrens’ products, the Shiley heart valve, the Dalkon Shield contraceptive device and the anti-depressant Prozac.” By not revealing the potential problems, it is creating safety hazards for the rest of us.
It is clear that more transparency is needed in the courts when exposing safety hazards. In fact, judges still have the prerogative to determine whether or not to release the info, if it happens to be for the benefit of the community at large. Thus, while definitely not perfect, this bill enough sunshine to warrant its approval.

Reply to this comment
Reply to this comment close
[ Tags ]
[ Tags ] close
[ Spam ]
[ Spam ] close