Safety Versus Privacy Rights

* Re “State Bill Would Scale Back Secrecy in Court Settlements,” Sept. 5.

State Sen. Adam Schiff fails to mention that the approach for “sunshine” he proffers has been rejected by most states and by a respected federal judiciary study.

He also fails to mention that noted Harvard Law School professor Arthur Miller, in an Aug. 12 letter on SB 1254 to California legislators, wrote that “SB 1254 looks at the civil justice system from a vary narrow and--in my judgment--distorted perspective. If enacted it would have many harmful effects on the California civil justice system--metaphorically, the pretrial process could become more snarled and perilous than the Los Angeles freeways during rush hour.”

Schiff also failed to mention an Aug. 30 opposition letter signed by 14 Silicon Valley chief executives and venture capital leaders that stated, “The high technology industrial sector is essentially defined by its reliance on intellectual property. SB 1254 concerns us because it would make it extremely difficult to protect confidential intellectual property from disclosure to competitors or the general public.”

SB 1254 is not needed and will cause problems, not solve them.

Letting judges continue to play their important independent role is the best way to protect both the public’s safety interests and everyone’s privacy.

BARBARA M. WHEELER

Vice President, Legislation,

Civil Justice Assn. of California

Sacramento