| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="WebPreferences" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | Taming Discovery Costs Through Public Access
Introduction | | | The “good cause” standard for protective orders essentially eviscerates all notions of open access. Rule 26(c)(1) of the FRCP states that “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” What constitutes “annoyance” or “undue burden” is amorphous. Even the definition of traditionally private information like trade secrets has become bloated, including revenue information and profits (such information is publicly filed with the SEC). Judge Weinstein’s injunction related to the Zyprexa Litigation is a good example of the way judges view “good cause” determinations: he acknowledges “the general public’s interest in the information” but goes on to quote Arthur R. Miller: “The goals underlying the expansion of the discovery process were to facilitate preparation, to avoid surprise at trial, and to promote the resolution of cases on the merits – not to enlarge the public’s access to information.” | |
>
> |
- I don't think I understand this paragraph's role in the essay. If Judge Weinstein and Professor Miller are correct, then it's not that open access is an illusion, but that it isn't, as you say at the beginning, a presumption of the civil justice system. So either they are wrong, or your essay's premise is wrong. But you don't seem to acknowledge that, or do anything about it.
| | | Secrecy is Costly for Plaintiffs
Public access to information and the resolution of cases on the merits are not mutually exclusive. Protection orders and sealing mean that subsequent litigants retain new lawyers who need time to learn the case and must begin the process of scavenging through the data dump anew. If gag orders are still in effect, plaintiffs are limited in potential witnesses as well. For repeat defendants, each subsequent discovery process can be cheaper because the defendant uses the same lawyer and knows where to find all the needed documents, especially if utilizing electronic discovery. The documents the plaintiff produces are generally not as voluminous as the defendant’s and her facts do not differ substantially from those of previous plaintiffs. | | | Who Represents the Public Interest? | |
<
< | Plaintiffs agree to secrecy because they are paid a premium. Neither party has the interests of future plaintiffs in mind. While it is recognized that “the judge is the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process,” [3] in Seattle Times, the Court argued that “heightened First Amendment scrutiny of each request for a protective order would necessitate burdensome evidentiary findings and could lead to time-consuming interlocutory appeals.” [4] Obviating the need for a judge to acknowledge a countervailing public interest or to determine whether there are less restrictive alternatives to complete sealing, Seattle Times stripped the judges of their responsibility to represent the public as well. | >
> | Plaintiffs agree to secrecy because they are paid a premium. Neither party has the interests of future plaintiffs in mind. While it is recognized that “the judge is the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process,” [3] in Seattle Times, the Court argued that R
- I don't think I understand this paragraph's role in the essay. If Judge Weinstein and Professor Miller are correct, then it's not that open access is an illusion, but that it isn't, as you say at the beginning, a presumption of the civil justice system. So either they are wrong, or your essay's premise is wrong. But you don't seem to acknowledge that, or do anything about it.
20;heightened First Amendment scrutiny of each request for a protective order would necessitate burdensome evidentiary findings and could lead to time-consuming interlocutory appeals.” [4] Obviating the need for a judge to acknowledge a countervailing public interest or to determine whether there are less restrictive alternatives to complete sealing, Seattle Times stripped the judges of their responsibility to represent the public as well.
- And that concerns only one specific part of the problem. How could the system possibly impose on any party, particularly defendant parties who do not choose to be in the forum, compulsory publication of their private materials solely on the showing by someone else that it might lead to relevant evidence concerning disputes that might exist and might be justiciable? That would be fundamentally unfair, surely. You're not engaging in analysis here, just rhetoric that ignores what could and should be said on the other side.
| | |
New Arguments for Open Access
Where all abdicate any responsibility to the public, the public should at least be given the chance to fend for itself. When the courts don’t want to get their hands dirty in discovery and sweep the results under the rug, the justice system ceases to be about truth finding. It becomes just a war of attrition. It can be argued that unnecessary secrecy in litigation is as much a violation of equal protection as the 1st Amendment. Not exercising due discretion, judges are essentially shifting costs onto the public and poor plaintiffs. | |
>
> |
- But civil litigation is not a public concern unless public entities are involved. You haven't dealt with that point; you just keep on ignoring it.
| | | In Seattle Times the Court stated: “abuses of the Rules by litigants, and sometimes the inadequate oversight of discovery by trial courts, do not in any respect lessen the . . . the government's substantial interest in protecting the integrity of the discovery process.” [5] However, when the exception becomes the rule, perhaps it’s time to reconsider if there is any “integrity” left in the process worth protecting. | |
>
> |
- But the rule you are talking about doesn't exist. You knew that in your second section, and you just keep dodging its obvious implications.
| | | Rampant discovery abuse has not improved since 1984 despite revisions to the FRCP. A new standard for pre-trial protection orders may help reverse this trend. Prior to the FRCP, parties could only discover documents that would be admissible at trial. Documents should be presumptively public subject to demonstration that the disclosure of particular documents would cause specific harms or that the documents would be inadmissible at trial. This way, public hazards would not be concealed and fishing expeditions for unrelated suits would be prevented. | |
>
> |
- But what has evidentiary admissibility got to do with whether a party has a continuing right of privacy? And how could one judge admissibility without the surrounding evidentiary context?
| | | If parties are aware that all discovery documents are presumptively public, but remain subject to mandatory redaction, they will be less likely to dump items like thousands of invoices for pretzels, which include account numbers, or irrelevant documents they truly do not want exposed. They may also seek judicial discretion to narrow overly broad production requests. This will shift costs to the cheapest cost avoider: the document owner will have to parse through his own records, rather than forcing the other party to do so. Parties may be less likely to turn over relevant documents, but that has always been the case and sanctioning is available. For defendants, keeping discovery public would lower the costs of production: subsequent plaintiffs would be privy to the discovery received by other litigants and future plaintiffs may be eliminated entirely. Overall costs for defendants may not be lowered, but unlike the costs of discovery to potentially innocent parties, the prevention of further meritorious lawsuits is hardly a legitimate judicial concern. | |
>
> | | | |
[1] Van Etten v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 117 F.Supp.2d 1375, 1381 (S.D. Ga. 2000) | | | -- KateVershov - 05 Apr 2008 | |
>
> |
- Kate, the most puzzling thing here is your absolute refusal to acknowledge the existence of any entitlement to privacy about anything. You seem determined to treat civil discovery as though it were in isolation from everything else in the legal system. But every trade secret, private financial data, medical record, transactional identification, and every other piece of information that any privacy law applies to would be forcibly published once someone files a complaint, no matter how specious, and commences discovery. The problem with your analysis isn't in details: it's fundamental. Maybe you have an answer to why it is that no one's right to privacy should ever be entitled to any protection, or maybe you are going to modify this "default public" discovery rule to be a "default private, but" rule. Whatever you're going to do, you can't simply leave the other side of the argument unarticulated, unanalyzed, and unacknowledged.
| | | |
|