MAPLight.org

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

[ Tags ]

[ Tags ]

• S 2449 (110th)

[ Spam ]

[ Spam ]