Outlaw sealed lawsuits

[leftysergeant]

Listening to Norman Goldman just now and I am steamed. It appears that some corporation wants to shut down the web site of the Consumer Proterction Agency and has filed papers asking the court to seal all aspects of the case so that nobody will ever know who sued to shut them up.

Why is this permitted? Why does any entity have a right to keep it a secret that they have harmed somebody, and still do business? What really forces them to clean up their act?

We have a right to know if we have bought a product that has harmed somebody. I do not see how any dirtbag corporation has a right to keep it a secret.

 

[Checkmite]

If the suit is actually decided in court, all the information will be made public. Suits are allowed to be sealed beforehand because the possibility of negative publicity and other extra-judicial consequences against a plaintiff before a case is decided can have a chilling effect on parties that may genuinely deserve justice, keeping them from filing suits they're entitled to pursue.

 

[Dunstan]

Listening to Norman Goldman just now and I am steamed. It appears that some corporation wants to shut down the web site of the Consumer Proterction Agency and has filed papers asking the court to seal all aspects of the case so that nobody will ever know who sued to shut them up.

Without a link it's hard to tell what's going on, but so far all you're saying has happened is that "some corporation" has asked a court to do something.

Why is this permitted?

Asking courts to do stuff? It's in the petition clause of the First Amendment, for starters. It's also kind of the point of having courts.

Why does any entity have a right to keep it a secret that they have harmed somebody, and still do business? What really forces them to clean up their act?

We have a right to know if we have bought a product that has harmed somebody. I do not see how any dirtbag corporation has a right to keep it a secret.

And if the court actually grants the relief being sought, then we can talk. But so far you're working yourself up into outrage over next to nothing.

 

[Dunstan]

If the suit is actually decided in court, all the information will be made public. Suits are allowed to be sealed beforehand because the possibility of negative publicity and other extra-judicial consequences against a plaintiff before a case is decided can have a chilling effect on parties that may genuinely deserve justice, keeping them from filing suits they're entitled to pursue.

At least in the U.S., that's very very rare, though. There's a strong presumption that court pleadings are open to the public. Often portions of a record are filed under seal, because they contain private or trade secret information, but an entire lawsuit?

 

[leftysergeant]

Sealing it also means that there is no opportunity to solicit additional defense witnesses.

 

[Muldur]

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

 

[jj]

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why this particular court case should be sealed, and furthermore, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why all problems with products should not be public knowlege.

 

[SezMe]

lefty, do you have anything we could look at in addition to your report of a radio show?

 

[MontagK505]

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

In a civil suit I believe this usually requires the consent of both parties. Basically, the defendant offers you more money if you promise not to talk about it.

 

[Checkmite]

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

Who would have the power to enforce such a law?

A settlement means the plaintiff and defendant have reached an agreement outside of court and the plaintiff has withdrawn their lawsuit. That removes the court's jurisdiction over the issue.

 

[Checkmite]

At least in the U.S., that's very very rare, though. There's a strong presumption that court pleadings are open to the public. Often portions of a record are filed under seal, because they contain private or trade secret information, but an entire lawsuit?

Well, assuming that's what happened. We're dealing with a somewhat unobjective source.

 

[Checkmite]

Sealing it also means that there is no opportunity to solicit additional defense witnesses.

I don't think that's true. I think the defendant is still entitled to all information contained in the suit in order to prepare their defense; they're just not allowed to speak on it publicly.

 

[SezMe]

Who would have the power to enforce such a law?

A settlement means the plaintiff and defendant have reached an agreement outside of court and the plaintiff has withdrawn their lawsuit. That removes the court's jurisdiction over the issue.

The courts again. Any settlement will involve a written contract that stipulates, typically, both parties will keep their mouth shut. If one party reneges, it's back to court we go. I've personally been involved in just such a "recase".

 

[sarge]

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why this particular court case should be sealed, and furthermore, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why all problems with products should not be public knowlege.

I assume then that you have read the actual particulars of this suit. Could you post a link so that I may do the same?

 

[Mark6]

The courts again. Any settlement will involve a written contract that stipulates, typically, both parties will keep their mouth shut. If one party reneges, it's back to court we go. I've personally been involved in just such a "recase".

I think Checkmite was asking "who would have the power to enforce law that bans sealed settlements". You explained who (and how) enforces current law, which allows binding non-disclosure agreements. Muldur wants binding non-disclosure agreements to be banned. Sounds like he wants public disclosure to be mandatory, because otherwise if both parties want details to remain private they will do so even without binding agreement.

 

[Dunstan]

A little bit of semantics: settlements aren't usually "sealed," because they typically aren't filed with the court at all. The only thing that gets filed with the court is the request or stipulation for dismissal (or, sometimes, a stipulation for judgment). Sometimes there might be a notice of settlement to advise the court that the parties have settled and a dismissal will be forthcoming.

The settlement agreement may be "confidential" meaning that the parties agree not to disclose it to any third party. But that's not unique to settlement agreements; parties to any contract can include a confidentiality clause.

 

[Checkmite]

The courts again. Any settlement will involve a written contract that stipulates, typically, both parties will keep their mouth shut. If one party reneges, it's back to court we go. I've personally been involved in just such a "recase".

Yes, but the written contract in a settlement is not necessarily composed under the guidance or supervision of the court. It doesn't ever have to see the inside of a courtroom until and unless it's violated. Before such a violation happens, or if it never does, as long as both sides agree to keep the contract details private there's no reason any court would want to force them to speak out. They'll be glad to have the case off the docket.

 

[Muldur]

In a civil suit I believe this usually requires the consent of both parties. Basically, the defendant offers you more money if you promise not to talk about it.

In other words: hush money. Here's some cash to keep the bad things I did to you secret so I can do them to other people.

Who would have the power to enforce such a law?[//quote]

The courts, as with all law.

A settlement means the plaintiff and defendant have reached an agreement outside of court and the plaintiff has withdrawn their lawsuit. That removes the court's jurisdiction over the issue.

The court also has a responsibility to the greater public good to ensure that justice is transparent, and that malefactors don't attempt to hide the proof of their wrongdoing with legal trickery.

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.

 

[theprestige]

In other words: hush money. Here's some cash to keep the bad things I did to you secret so I can do them to other people.

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.

 

[Mojo]

Listening to Norman Goldman just now and I am steamed. It appears that some corporation wants to shut down the web site of the Consumer Proterction Agency and has filed papers asking the court to seal all aspects of the case so that nobody will ever know who sued to shut them up.

There's been quite a bit of discussion of similar orders recently in the UK, where they are known as "superinjunctions" See, for example: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/superinjunctions