Disclosure and SB 711

It is genuinely ironic that your editorial (“Burying It Doesn’t End It,” April 5) purportedly in favor of full disclosure of information is itself an outstanding example of keeping important information from consumers.

First, you say the bill (SB 711) has the support of consumer groups, but you do not mention that the proposal came from the California Trial Lawyers Assn. This is the same organization that has blocked auto insurance reform in this state, that has blocked laws to put reasonable limits on the liability of people who volunteer their time for the public good, and that most recently blocked a State Bar proposal to use more arbitration and mediation instead of costly litigation. They want more, not fewer, lawsuits. And SB 711 will produce those results. This legislation is part of a national contingency-fee lawyer effort.

The bill is not needed. Any attorney who thinks there is something going on in a lawsuit that should be the subject of a broader investigation can say so to the proper government agency at any time.

You claim that without the bill “attorneys scramble to rediscover evidence other lawyers had previously unearthed” and costs are raised for “companies trying to fend off redundant legal-document requests.” How many cases did you find where that happened? It is clear in federal law, which California follows, that a plaintiff in a later similar case can get access to prior discovered material by intervening in the earlier case. This is done specifically to prevent duplicate efforts.

This bill would drive up the costs to defendants--usually businesses. It would drive up costs in the courts. As William Schwarzer, former U.S. District Court judge in San Francisco, currently director of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington (and an advocate discovery reform), has said: “The legislation would create more disputes and more expense.”

JOHN HOWARD SULLIVAN

President, Association for California

Tort Reform, Sacramento