What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You

Gov. Pete Wilson vetoed a bill last year that would have limited the ability of trial judges to approve secret agreements that keep evidence of product defects, environmental hazards or financial fraud from the public. Now, Sen. Bill Lockyer, the author of that bill, is trying again.

This week the Hayward Democrat introduced a resolution asking the California Judicial Council, the administrative arm of the courts, to adopt a statewide rule restricting such orders of secrecy. This pro-consumer proposal deserves support.

The legislative resolution, while not binding, would give a major push--one that would be difficult to ignore--to the council to change the existing standards. The rule change would impose statewide limits on the ability of superior courts to keep secret information that becomes known during litigation.

For example, most evidence that a product is faulty or is an environmental hazard could not be kept from consumers. At the same time, the resolution would protect businesses from being forced to reveal trade secrets or other proprietary and confidential information when that information is not at issue in a lawsuit.

Supporters of the vetoed 1992 bill, including the California Judges Assn. and consumer and health advocacy groups, saw the measure for what it was: a carefully crafted way to protect consumers from needless injuries caused by foreseeable dangers.

Defendants in lawsuits resulting from personal injuries caused by faulty products often require the sealing of evidence of such dangers as a condition of settlement; plaintiffs must agree to the secrecy or forfeit compensation for their injuries.

In the short run, burying evidence of product defects can discourage others from filing similar lawsuits, keeping a lid on the compensation paid to victims. Opponents of last year’s legislation effectively used such an argument. But in the long run, these settlement agreements may have precisely the opposite effect. By burying evidence of a legitimate danger, rather than correcting the defect, businesses risk more injuries and more protracted, expensive litigation.

That’s why four states have already enacted laws protecting the openness of court records. And that’s why the San Diego Superior Court has adopted a local court rule to do the same thing and the Los Angeles Superior Court is considering one.

Lockyer’s joint resolution asking the Judicial Council to draft a rule is a weaker approach than passing a statute ordering the council to act, but it would, nonetheless, do much to protect Californians against foreseeable dangers.