Outlaw sealed lawsuits

[Checkmite]

One good example would be Wal Mart. Wal Mart has been sued repeatedly for stealing employees' earned overtime by editing their hours worked records. (They've been sued for a lot of other bad acts, but I'm focusing on this one for illustration.) They most of the time offer a settlement on the condition that the record be sealed. This permits them to use the legal system to hide evidence of repetitive, deliberate lawbreaking on the part of Wal Mart from future plantiffs, who have to build their cases from scratch every time.

But Wal Mart isn't using the legal system to hide the evidence. If they've settled, then the matter was handled outside of court. You're confusing a settlement with a judgment.

As I said, when two parties settle, the only thing that happens in court is that the plaintiff withdraws the lawsuit he filed. The civil court cannot compel a plaintiff to explain or justify doing so; as the party asking for justice, withdrawing a lawsuit is a plaintiff's protected right. The court most certainly cannot force a plaintiff to pursue a lawsuit they voluntarily wish to withdraw, nor can they force a plaintiff to give a public reason for deciding to withdraw their complaint.

As the plaintiffs, the shafted Wal Mart employees have a right to reject any proposed out-of-court settlement and continue to pursue the lawsuit through to a judgment. They also have a right to withdraw their lawsuit at any time for any reason, including an agreement they happened to reach with the defendant outside of court.

Besides, from a strictly legal standpoint justice is done by Wal Mart's settlements anyway; the suing employees likely receive all the money they're owed plus a hefty additional sum as compensation. As the injured parties, if they're okay with that, and choose not to pursue any further damages against Wal Mart, who is the court to tell them they're wrong?

 

[leftysergeant]

Once a trial has begun, there is no justification for sealing the records.

If a public entity is involved, there is no justification at any point in the process.

 

[Checkmite]

Once a trial has begun, there is no justification for sealing the records.

If a public entity is involved, there is no justification at any point in the process.

Well that's the thing; when a lawsuit is filed, a court date is set. The court date becomes something of an unofficial 'deadline'; if the parties wish to meet before then (and come to an agreement on their own or not, as they will), that's their prerogative. Otherwise, on that date is the first hearing of the case and of course anything that happens in court becomes part of the public record. Settlements always happen before the court date and avoid becoming public record because they don't happen in court rooms, they happen in lawyers' offices or restaurants, that sort of thing.

 

[Cobalt]

If you outlaw sealed lawsuits, only outlaws will have sealed lawsuits.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Settlements are routinely sealed as well, another practice that should be prohibited by law.

Which would result in almost no settlements and a further clogged court system.

 

[Muldur]

You mean: blackmail. Give me some cash to keep the bad things you did to me secret, so you can do them to other people.

Either way, if the aim of a suit is to not only compensate a victim, but to punish the victimizer so that they reform their behavior, the goal is best served by banning sealed records entirely.

 

[Muldur]

But Wal Mart isn't using the legal system to hide the evidence. If they've settled, then the matter was handled outside of court. You're confusing a settlement with a judgment.

Sophist nonsense. The suit was brought in public court, let the entirety of the outcome be a part of the public record.

As the plaintiffs, the shafted Wal Mart employees have a right to reject any proposed out-of-court settlement and continue to pursue the lawsuit through to a judgment. They also have a right to withdraw their lawsuit at any time for any reason, including an agreement they happened to reach with the defendant outside of court.

And the general public, which has a right to expect the suits to put pressure on WM to reform it's behavior has a right to demand those agreements be part of the record.

But that would mean putting documentation as to WM's thefts of employee earnings right out there for everyone to see.

Sealing the record allows WM to maintain the fiction that it doesn't do this routinely in state after state after state.

Besides, from a strictly legal standpoint justice is done by Wal Mart's settlements anyway; the suing employees likely receive all the money they're owed plus a hefty additional sum as compensation. As the injured parties, if they're okay with that, and choose not to pursue any further damages against Wal Mart, who is the court to tell them they're wrong?

What about the injuries to the public as a body as a result of what WM does? The businesses that lose customers and sales they could have had if WM paid what it agreed to pay? The states, counties and cities that have to pay out in welfare benefits to make up for WM's crappy employment practices?

What WM does directly to it's employees, it does to everybody else indirectly.

 

[Muldur]

Which would result in almost no settlements and a further clogged court system.

There are ways to deal with that w/o allowing corporate malefactors to hide their admissions of guilt in sealed records.

You want less clogged courts? Put a better sort of person in charge of corporations than the current crop of sociopaths.

 

[Checkmite]

Sophist nonsense. The suit was brought in public court, let the entirety of the outcome be a part of the public record.

The entire outcome insofar as the public court is concerned was that the plaintiff withdrew the complaint, as was his/her/their right as a plaintiff.

And the general public, which has a right to expect the suits to put pressure on WM to reform it's behavior has a right to demand those agreements be part of the record.

But that would mean putting documentation as to WM's thefts of employee earnings right out there for everyone to see.

Sealing the record allows WM to maintain the fiction that it doesn't do this routinely in state after state after state.

You are wrong. The public has no such right because it is not a party to these individual lawsuits. The public only has a right to know what was decided by a judge. If the lawsuit is canceled before a judge ends up making a decision, then the plaintiff and defendants are no longer a plaintiff or defendant in anything, and any contracts they make with each other are privacy-protected just like any other contract made between private parties - you and your wireless phone provider, for instance. Once the lawsuit is withdrawn by the plaintiff before any court action takes place, there's literally no "record" for any settlement agreement to be made "part of".

What about the injuries to the public as a body as a result of what WM does? The businesses that lose customers and sales they could have had if WM paid what it agreed to pay? The states, counties and cities that have to pay out in welfare benefits to make up for WM's crappy employment practices?

What WM does directly to it's employees, it does to everybody else indirectly.

Those are valid concerns certainly. But those issues can be addressed by the state bringing a lawsuit in the name of the public, which does happen from time to time; very rarely does the state settle on confidential terms on such occasions.