Confidentiality and court secrecy kills people. We all know that. We have known it for decade since the tragic product liability law suits involving the Corvair and the Pinto. Reuters reported a recent story about secrecy by government regulators at https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-courts-secrecy-regulators/. As Reuters has documented in earlier articles in this series, a thick blanket of secrecy covers product-liability litigation in the United States. In just a handful of cases over the past several decades, hundreds of thousands of people were killed or injured by defective products – cars, drugs, guns – while information about the risks was hidden from consumers and regulators, sometimes for years, behind broad protective orders.
The article discusses the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and secrecy behind the defective and unsafe design of Yamaha Motor Co off-road vehicle Rhino. After dozens of incidents, CPSC sent a subpoena to Yamaha, forcing it to hand over a trove of information, much of which had lain hidden under judges’ protective orders in the lawsuits against the company. By then, more than 40 people, including more than a dozen children, had been killed in Rhino crashes.
“CPSC is one of more than a dozen regulatory agencies tasked with protecting Americans from dangerous products. And the Rhino episode reveals a troubling dynamic in the way these watchdogs do their jobs: Sometimes the only way they can learn about and act on a possible threat to consumers is from evidence produced in lawsuits, but that evidence is often hidden behind a wall of secrecy.”
“These orders, though meant to protect specific information such as medical records and trade secrets, often give companies wide latitude to designate as confidential material exchanged between litigants in the pretrial discovery process – internal emails, data, research, meeting minutes, sworn depositions and the like. The secrecy typically persists for the life of the case, and long after, though court documents are, by law, presumed to be public.”
A few years ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and CPSC issued pleas for easier access to evidence introduced in court under protective orders. But the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and 15 other federal departments or agencies surveyed by Reuters did not point to any explicit policy or guidance on gaining access to court evidence potentially relevant to their oversight functions.
Lawyers challenged defendants’ claims of confidentiality for material relating to public health and safety in 26 of the 55 big cases Reuters analyzed, and in most of them, judges refused to unseal the evidence. Some of those cases involved attempts to share information with the FDA. Judges are human beings who love and care for their fellow citizens. Lately, they have shown a rare willingness to grant requests from plaintiffs, expert witnesses or news organizations to share information with regulators or the public.
In September, the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler planned to reintroduce the Sunshine in Litigation Act to address the problem of court secrecy. The bill would allow parties in litigation to share evidence related to public health and safety with state and federal regulators, regardless of protective orders.
Previous iterations of the bill introduced repeatedly since the early 1990s, despite enjoying bipartisan support, have ultimately failed in the face of sustained opposition from large corporations. Hopefully, courts will challenge confidential designations that affect the health and safety of people or that cover up fraud.