U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

50–069 PDF 2010

SUNSHINE IN LITIGATION ACT OF 2009 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

H.R. 1508 

JUNE 4, 2009 

Serial No. 111–40 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chairman 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MICHONE JOHNSON, Chief Counsel 

DANIEL FLORES, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 4, 2009 

Page 

THE BILL 

H.R. 1508, the ‘‘Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2009’’ ............................................ 3 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Steve Cohen, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law ........................................................................................................... 1 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law .................................................................................................. 8 

WITNESSES 

Ms. Leslie A. Bailey, Public Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23 

Mr. Bruce R. Kaster, Kaster & Lynch, P.A. 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 40 

The Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, United States District Court for the District 

of Connecticut, on behalf of the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Judicial Conference 

of the United States 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 54 

Mr. Sherman l. Cohn, Georgetown University Law Center 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 114 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 116 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Letters submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks .............................................. 9 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Leslie A. Bailey, Public Justice ....... 128 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from Bruce R. Kaster, Kaster & Lynch, 

P.A. ........................................................................................................................ 137 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, 

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ........................... 143 

Letters from the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States submitted by the Honorable Steve 

Cohen .................................................................................................................... 155 

Letter of support for the bill, H.R. 1508, submitted by the Honorable Steve 

Cohen .................................................................................................................... 175 
(IV) 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

Enclosures to Bruce R. Kaster’s responses to the Questions for the Record from the 

Honorable Steve Cohen have been retained in the official Committee hearing 

record. 

Enclosures to Bruce R. Kaster’s responses to the Questions for the Record from the 

Honorable Trent Franks have been retained in the official Committee hearing 

record. 

Letter from Bruce R. Kaster to the Honorable Mark R. Kravitz has been retained 

in the official Committee hearing record. 

Enclosure to the testimony of the Honorable Mark R. Kravitz, ‘‘Sealed Settlement 

Agreements in Federal District Court,’’ has been retained in the official Committee hearing record. 

Enclosures to the Honorable Mark R. Kravitz’s responses to the Questions for the 

Record from the Honorable Steve Cohen have been retained in the official Committee hearing record. 

Letters from Cooper Tire and Rubber Company to the Honorable Steve Cohen have 

been retained in the official Committee hearing record. 
(1) 

SUNSHINE IN LITIGATION ACT OF 2009 

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL

AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:05 a.m., in 

room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Steve 

Cohen (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Cohen, Conyers, Maffei, Franks, Jordan, and Coble. 

Staff present: (Majority) Matthew Wiener, Counsel; Adam Russell, Professional Staff; and (Minority) Blaine Merritt, Counsel. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you for your indulgence. We will have to 

break in a few minutes for votes. But this hearing of the Committee of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law will now come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare a recess of the hearing and will do so in a few minutes. I will now recognize myself for a short statement. 

Serious concerns have been raised that too many confidentiality 

orders have been entered in Federal civil cases and they have concealed from the public information about dangerous or harmful 

products, environmental conditions and business practices that the 

public has a desire or duty to—a need to know. 

H.R. 1508, the ‘‘Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2009’’ responds to 

these concerns eliminating the circumstances under which a Federal court may restrict disclosure of information uncovered during 

discovery, during trial or other court proceedings which is relevant 

‘‘to the protection of public health or safety.’’ 

This hearing will give the Subcommittee an opportunity to consider this bill. Legislation introduced by Representative Wexler has 

key provisions that require Federal judges to do, as some of them 

already do which is consider the public interest before entering a 

confidentiality order that would conceal information ‘‘relevant to 

protection of public health and safety’’ uncovered during civil litigation. 

H.R. 1508 would not prohibit a court from entering a confidentiality order when confidentiality is due. It would simply require a 

court before entering such an order to find that the asserted interest and confidentiality outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure 
2 

and that order is no broader than necessary to protect that interest’s balancing acts. 

H.R. 1508 raises two principle questions. First is whether if confidentiality orders entered in Federal civil cases too often conceal 

from the public important information about dangerous products, 

environmental conditions and business practices. 

And second, whether we should leave this issue of courtroom secrecy in the hands of the Judicial conference and we hope that they 

can help us with this or whether as Chief Judge Abner Mikva said 

in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee some time ago in 

the Senate, that the issue is a basic policy issue too important to 

leave to the unelected rule changers. 

So with that spoken and not being the words of the House, I look 

forward to receiving today’s testimony. 

And I now recognize my distinguished colleague from Arizona, 

Mr. Franks, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for his opening 

remarks. 

[The bill, H.R. 1508, follows:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

And thank all of you for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the witnesses for their testimony today regarding H.R. 1508, the Sunshine in Litigation Act. 

Under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, during 

discovery, a trial judge may exercise great discretion in issuing an 

order of which ‘‘justice requires to protect a party or person from 

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense.’’ 

The judge may order that no disclosure or discovery may be had 

in certain areas or only on certain terms and conditions. The judge 

may also deny a protective order altogether. 

H.R. 1508 is the latest legislative proposal to change Rule 26(c). 

In general, the bill greatly limits the discretion that a judge may 

exercise in granting a protective order by forcing the court to determine whether each piece of discoverable information is relevant to 

the protection of public health or safety. 

As a practical matter, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1508 essentially compels each trial court to become a documents clearinghouse that will 

undoubtedly compromise the property and privacy interests of litigants. 

This legislation is opposed not only by the business community 

but by the Federal Judiciary and the American Bar Association as 

well. Now, while we get to hear from Department of Justice this 

year, the Bush Administration’s Department of Justice also opposed the bill. 

Mr. Chairman, at this time I would ask unanimous consent that 

opposition letters from the American Bar Association, Professor Arthur Miller of the New York University School of Law, and the Coalition to Protect Privacy, Property, Confidentiality and Efficiency 

in the Courts be entered into the record. 

Mr. COHEN. Without objection, that will be done. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, these 

groups oppose this bill, first, because it circumvents the regular 

order for promulgating changes to the Federal rules of civil procedures prescribed by the Rules Enabling Act. 

The Rules Enabling Act has worked well through the years because it is premised on the logical presumption that the courts are 
20 

the institutional experts when it comes to understanding how rules 

of procedure are best developed and implemented. 

I currently see no reason to abandon that process for the dramatic changes contemplated by H.R. 1508. This bill would also increase the burden in costs of litigation. 

If confidentiality and privacy are not protected, litigants will be 

forced to oppose any document request that an opposing party 

makes for information which may be sensitive or confidential. It 

also forces judges to make findings of fact every time a protective 

order is requested. 

As Judge Kravitz wrote in his testimony from a previous hearing, 

‘‘Requiring courts to review discovery information to make public 

health and safety determinations in every request for a protective 

order no matter how irrelevant to the public health or safety, will 

burden judges and further delay pre-trial discovery.’’ Well spoken. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is a bad bill, and that there 

exists no empirical evidence demonstrating its necessity. It compromises the legitimate property and privacy interests of plaintiffs 

and defendants in our Federal court system while generating unnecessary expense and delay. 

And, again, I want to thank the witnesses for their participation 

today. 

And I thank the Chairman. And yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Franks. 

I am now pleased to introduce the first witness, and we will hear 

testimony from all the witnesses. But I introduce witnesses before—as they speak. I want to thank each person for participating. 

And without objection, your written statement will be placed in 

the record. And we would ask you to limit your remarks to 5 minutes. We have a lighting system; when it is green, you are on and 

you have got 4 minutes, more or less, to proceed. And yellow, you 

are in your last minute. And red, your time is finished, and you 

should quickly terminate your remarks. 

After each witness has presented his or her testimony, the Subcommittee Members will be allowed to ask questions. But we wait 

until all of the witnesses have done that then and go forth. 

Our first witness is Ms. Leslie Bailey. Ms. Bailey is a staff attorney at Public Justice, a national public interest law firm based 

here in Washington. Her practice focuses primarily on consumer 

rights and civil rights. 

She has been counsel in several successful challenges to abusive 

class action bans and Federal preemption defenses before state supreme courts and Federal courts of appeal as well as two successful 

challenges to abusive secrecy orders: Jesse v. Farmer’s Insurance 

Exchange in the Colorado Supreme Court, and Davis v. Honda in 

California Superior Court. 

Thank you, Ms. Bailey, and we now take your 5-minute testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF LESLIE A. BAILEY, PUBLIC JUSTICE 

Ms. BAILEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting 

me to testify today on the problem of court secrecy. 
21 

Public Justice is a national public interest law firm based here 

in Washington. We are not a lobbying group but we do have a special project dedicated to fighting unwarranted secrecy in the courts. 

And, in particular, we intervene in cases on behalf of members of 

the public and the press to object to overbroad secrecy orders. 

It is undisputed that much of the civil litigation in today’s court 

is taking place in secret. The public courts are being used to keep 

smoking gun evidence of wrongdoing from the public eye. 

Court secrecy is at least as common today as it was in the 1990’s 

when the Firestone Tire scandal came to life. A recent Seattle 

Times series uncovered more than 400 cases in a single court that 

have been wrongly sealed, many involving cases of public safety. 

Just a couple of years ago, we learned that Allstate Insurance 

Company had implemented a program where it was intentionally 

underpaying its policyholders on legitimate claims in order to increase shareholder profits. 

It worked. The program resulted in record operating income during a time marked by some of the worst natural disasters in recent 

history, including Hurricane Katrina. 

The documents about this program were produced in litigation 

but were kept secret from the public pursuant to a protective order. 

And it wasn’t until a lawyer who had seen them published his 

notes that the contents of the documents became known. 

The reason this happens, this reason the system is not working 

is that each party is pursuing her own narrow interests and no one 

in the process, in most cases, is looking out for the interests of the 

public. 

Defendants want secrecy for the most part because information 

about hazardous products and fraudulent business practices is bad 

P.R. and, in the short term, could lead to more lawsuits. Plus, it 

is cheaper to pay off individual victims, as long as you can keep 

evidence secret, than it would be to fix the product or change the 

practice. 

And plaintiffs, for their part, may well go into a case with the 

goal of making sure that what happened to them doesn’t happen 

to anyone else. But then they are offered a settlement that can pay 

their medical bills or rebuild their homes if only they will agree to 

keep it quiet. 

Judges are overburdened, and as long as the parties agree, it is 

easy for a judge to sign off on secrecy in a lot of cases without considering the public interest. Meanwhile, we continue to drive unsafe cars, drink unsafe water, take dangerous drugs and put our 

money and our trust into institutions that are defrauding and deceiving us. 

That is the first and most obvious effect of secrecy. But there are 

other costs. Secrecy makes discovering the truth much more difficult and more costly. 

If a defendant can keep its wrongdoing secret, it won’t have to 

pay as much to the next person who is injured. As long as it is 

cheaper to pay damages, there is no incentive to make the product 

safer. And cases that would easily be resolved if the truth came 

out, take years. 

Public Justice has fought several secrecy orders in recent years. 

And in some cases, though certainly not all, we have succeeded in 
22 

making documents public that never should have been concealed in 

the first place. 

I want to briefly mention one case that I worked on. This was 

a case brought against Honda by Sarah Davis, a 17-year-old girl 

who was paralyzed in a crash. 

During trial, Honda’s expert witness went to examine the evidence. This witness was observed intentionally wiping away marks 

on the seatbelt that would have proved that Sarah Davis was wearing her seatbelt during the crash. 

When the trial judge found out he issued a scathing 36-page 

sanctions decision, detailing his findings, and he awarded liability 

against Honda. A few days later, the parties reached a settlement. 

And as a condition of that settlement, the judge was asked to sign 

off on an order vacating and sealing his sanctions decision. 

Once that court record was sealed, this same expert witness was 

used all over the country by other car companies sued by other people who had been hurt in car crashes, and no one was allowed to 

ask him about what he had done. 

We challenged that sealing order, and we got it reversed. But for 

every success story, there are hundreds of equally harmful secrecy 

orders that remain in force. It shouldn’t take intervention by a public interest group to make sure unnecessary secrecy is avoided. 

Hundreds of thousands of cases are handled by the courts each 

year and it is not possible for a small number of non-profits with 

a handful of lawyers to intervene in more than a tiny fraction of 

those cases, especially since challenges to secrecy orders offer no 

possibility of recovering attorneys’ fees. 

We need another solution. Convenience is not a good enough reason for concealing information from the public. If Federal judges 

were required by law to weigh the public interest before entering 

a secrecy order, facts would come out, people’s lives would be saved 

and the courts would be fulfilling their proper role as open, public 

government institutions. 

I want to thank the Subcommittee for focusing on this very important issue today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bailey follows:] 
23 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LESLIE A. BAILEY
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Ms. Bailey. I appreciate your testimony. 

And you already told some of the smoking gun secrecy. The tobacco 

lobby and the NRA gotten together? 

Our second witness is Bruce Kaster. Since graduation from the 

University of Florida College of Law in 1975, Mr. Kaster has practiced in Ocala, Florida, as a civil trial lawyer. 

His practice is limited to cases involving defective products in 

state and Federal courts across the country, focused primarily on 

tire failure related cases. He has pursued personal injury litigation 

against major domestic and foreign corporations on behalf of clients 

injured or killed by defective products including cases against Firestone, Michelin, Uniroyal, Goodyear and others. 

Mr. Kaster is nationally recognized for his expertise in tire-related vehicular accidents. He has been featured and quoted in the 

New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and numerous other papers and magazines across the country and across the seas. 

His extensive experience and knowledge as a result of products 

liability litigation in state and Federal courts across the country 

gives him a unique perspective on the impact of secrecy in legal 

proceedings. 

Mr. Kaster, we appreciate your coming to testify before us. And 

would you please begin your testimony? 

TESTIMONY OF BRUCE R. KASTER, KASTER & LYNCH, P.A. 

Mr. KASTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the 

Committee for this opportunity to speak on this very important legislation that I think is critical to protect the public. 

Having spent over 20 years in my career handling products liability cases, I have had the opportunity to see the human cost of 

secrecy in the courtroom. Literally, tens of thousands of Americans, 

if not hundreds of thousands, are killed or injured as a result of 

products that the manufacturer knows are defective but the public 

doesn’t. 

I have struggled against secrecy in legal proceedings for over 20 

years in state and Federal courts across this country and for the 

most time, unsuccessfully. In our present legal system the way it 

works, in practicality, is every time I request a document the manufacturer gets a protective order. 

I object and have never, ever had it denied. And then they place 

the documents under protection. Once they are placed under protection, I come back and ask that document protection be removed. 

I have never prevailed. And that is over 20 years of these cases 

in Federal courts across the United States. 

I appreciate Mr. Franks’ comments on the burden on the courts 

and Judge Kravitz has made the same point. And I think it is a 

good point. 

But you have got to weigh the burden on the court for the lives 

of American citizens, and their only protection is from the Congress 

to overcome secrecy that has resulted in so many unnecessary 

deaths and injuries. 

I would say that one good example to help us understand how 

this system is abused are some documents that I have brought 

with me and they are in your packet. If you look at the document 
39 

on the left, the Firestone Wilderness tires, the reason I brought 

that is to put the next document into context. 

We all are familiar with the Firestone recall and the fact that so 

many people were killed and injured as a result of the defective 

tires; biggest recall in the history of this country for tires. 

One of the major reasons that those tires failed was that they reduced the size of the wedge, and you will see it circled on the diagram. They did that as a cost-cutting measure; they cut it in half. 

Tread separations skyrocketed. People started dying. 

The document to the right is a redacted document that normally 

you wouldn’t be able to see. But we tried a case in Mississippi and 

this document came into evidence. It came into evidence in the 

courtroom. 

Now, the document was protected. You will see a confidentiality 

stamp on the lower left-hand corner. I had opposed protection of 

this document before I even saw it because I knew what it was. 

I came back to the Federal judge and asked the Federal judge, 

‘‘Remove protection. This is not a trade secret document. It is dirty 

laundry.’’ My motion was denied. 

The judge did rule that the defendant, Cooper Tire Company, 

could seal the courtroom. I thought that was unprecedented. Fortunately, they failed to do it. This document came into evidence in 

that redacted form. 

And what it tells us is that this manufacturer not only has a reduced wedge, it is worse than that. They don’t have any. They don’t 

even have the product that Firestone reduced that resulted in all 

these deaths. 

The public doesn’t know this, and they wouldn’t even know this 

document except for what I would say is a fluke. This is a type of 

document that is routinely protected, and I cannot get out from 

under protection that tells you the company did not put in this 

safety measure for cost considerations. 

Now, if the public knew that, they wouldn’t want to buy these 

tires. They wouldn’t want their family riding in a vehicle that has 

tires that don’t have a basic safety component. But the public 

doesn’t know. And there are literally thousands of these documents 

that I can’t show you from every tire manufacturer that show what 

is wrong with their tires. 

Now, I concentrate on tires because that is mostly what I do. But 

I have seen the same type of documents from motor vehicle companies in litigation I have been involved in, lawnmower cases, you 

name the product. In every case I have ever been involved in, the 

manufacturer put every document they produced under protection 

even documents from other entities. 

And I have never been able to overcome that. Judge Kravitz’ position, and I respect it, is come back to the judge and show the 

judge. I have done that. It doesn’t work. 

In the real world, manufacturers use protective orders to hide 

the truth about the defects in their products, and it is unwarranted 

and unnecessary. 

I would say, finally, that in my experience, protective orders kill 

people. You have got to weigh the value of that against the burden 

on the courts. If we remove protection from documents that 

shouldn’t be protected in the first place, the public is aware of 
40 

which products are defective and which are not. They can make an 

informed decision. Right now they cannot do that. 

I respectfully request that this legislation go forward as drafted. 

I have some experience in Florida with somewhat similar legislation that is not, quite frankly, as good as this, but it is a step in 

the right direction. 

This is clearly an improvement and necessary. And I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaster follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE R. KASTER
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

ATTACHMENT 1 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

ATTACHMENT 2 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Kaster. 

Our next witness will be Mark R. Kravitz. Judge Kravitz was appointed in 2003 by President George W. Bush, U.S. District Court 

in the District of Connecticut. 

Previously, he was a partner at the law firm of Wiggin and Dana 

where he worked for nearly 27 years, most recently as chair of the 
52 

firm’s Appellate Practice Group. Before joining Wiggin and Dana, 

Judge Kravitz served as law clerk to Circuit Judge James Hunter, 

III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and then to 

Justice William Rehnquist of the United States Supreme Court. 

From 2001 to 2007, he served as a member of the Standing committee on the Rules of Practice and Procedure in the United States 

Courts, the body that oversees the rules of procedure in evidence 

that apply in all Federal courts. During that period, he also served 

as the liaison member of the Advisory committee on Criminal 

Rules. 

June 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. appointed Judge 

Kravitz to chair the Advisory committee on Civil Rules, the body 

that oversees the Federal rules of civil procedure. 

Thank you, Judge Kravitz. You may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MARK R. KRAVITZ, UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE ON RULES OF 

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE AND THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RULES OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE 

OF THE UNITED STATES 

Judge KRAVITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appear today 

on behalf of both the Judicial Conferences committee on Rules of 

Practice and Procedure and the Advisory committee on Civil Rules, 

which I chair. 

I should say at the outset, no one is opposed to the concept that 

information that is injurious to the public health and safety should 

get in the hands of people who can fix that. That is not the issue 

here. 

This bill, therefore, has a good goal but its means are seriously 

flawed. And those means are likely to hurt rather than help. 

The Rules committee have studied this for years and we oppose 

it for really three different reasons. And I have to ask this Committee, and I would ask the witnesses themselves to distinguish 

here between what we are talking about. 

We have heard evidence of the Honda case. We have heard evidence of Seattle Times and 400 cases. Those are state court cases. 

What I want to hear is evidence of Federal courts abusing the process and not doing what the rule says it should do, which is only 

grant protective orders for good cause shown. And there is a huge 

body of case law. 

We have not seen any empirical evidence of that and the Rules 

committees rely on empirical evidence. But if this Committee has 

evidence of Federal judges abusing the process repeatedly, I want 

to know about that, and we will do something about it. 

Secondly, the burdens, again, I am not worried about me being 

burdened. Frankly, I have lots of things to do. But to the extent 

to which I spend my time looking document through document of 

truckloads of documents or electronic discovery, then other deserving litigants and critical issues are not going to get my attention. 

And, frankly, Mr. Kaster, whom I want to get those documents as 

quickly as possible is not going to get them in any time soon. 

So I would ask this Committee also to distinguish between two 

things. First, documents that come into evidence at trial or are 
53 

filed with the court. Frankly, the courts have more severe rules 

than this legislation as Ms. Bailey points out that require those 

documents not to be sealed absent extraordinary circumstances. 

So the law that exists there is actually more stringent than this 

legislation and it covers all cases not cases dealing with public 

health and safety. So what we are dealing with really is the exchange of information in discovery. 

And I want to get that information to Mr. Kaster and his experts 

as quickly as possible so that they will tell me if the public health 

and safety is implicated because I am not going to be able to know 

that myself. The notion that there are smoking guns out there in 

roomful of documents and me not knowing anything about the case 

will stumble upon the smoking gun, I think, is naive to say the 

least. 

So courts have a well-developed body of case law that allows parties to come in and get modifications to the document. I cited the 

Zyprexa case. That is the case where Judge Jack Weinstein of the 

Eastern District of New York had a protective order, allowed information to get to the plaintiffs and their experts, under the protective order. 

And then a couple of years later after he knew more about the 

case and there had been motions, he then unsealed all that material that he had previously sealed and got it to the right people. 

And he did it under the existing law. And it happens all the time. 

So I think the burdens here—this is just going to slow down Mr. 

Kaster getting any information. It is going to increase the cost of 

litigation at a time when the lawyers and the public are concerned 

about the cost of litigation. 

And I don’t think it is going to achieve the goal. And the reason 

I don’t think it is going to achieve the goal is he is going to agree 

to a private agreement, not a protective order but a private agreement, that will have the same terms in it so he can get the information sooner. 

And so the legislation at the end will not achieve what it is designed to achieve, which is a laudatory goal that we all support. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Kravitz follows:] 
54 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK R. KRAVITZ
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 

ATTACHMENT 1 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 

ATTACHMENT 2 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Judge Kravitz. 

Our final witness is Sherman Cohn, without an ‘‘e,’’ professor at 

the Georgetown Law Center since 1965. Professor Cohn specialized 

in the fields of civil procedure, professional responsibility and legal 

issues of a complimentary alternative and integrative medicine, of 

which he also lectures at Georgetown Medical Center. 

Before joining the Law Center faculty, he served as a clerk for 

Judge Charles Fahy of the D.C. Circuit and in the Appellate section of the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. He serves 

as the Administrator of Preview of U.S. Supreme Court cases from 

1976 to 1979 as director of Continuing Legal Education of the Law 

Center from 1977 to 1984. 

Thank you, Professor Cohn. Will you proceed with your testimony? And turn on your microphone? 

TESTIMONY OF SHERMAN L. COHN, 

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER 

Mr. COHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity. 

I came here with the idea that I would disagree with Judge 

Kravitz from his earlier testimony as I understood it. What he is 

talking about today I agree with, that this from the standpoint of 

discovery matters that are not brought to the judge’s attention that 

a judge should not have to go through the thousands and sometimes hundreds of thousands of pages in discovery. 

That is what plaintiff’s counsel should be there to bring to the 

judge’s attention. And it is up to plaintiff’s counsel, as Mr. Kaster 

pointed out, to bring that to the attention of the judge. 

I am just looking at it once it is at the judge’s attention. I am 

also looking at it from the standpoint of the end of the case. When 

there is a settlement entered and a settlement that is conditioned 

upon secrecy and they ask for the Federal judge to put his imprimatur, the power of the Federal court behind that secrecy agreement. 

In that situation, it is the defendant who has interest to keep the 

matter a secret for reasons that this Committee and the Senate 

Committee have often heard. The defense counsel wants to keep 

his client. The plaintiff has a pot of gold that would not be as high 

or possibly would not be as high, that is what the plaintiff is told. 

And plaintiff’s counsel gets a contingency fee based on the size 

of the pot of gold. Now, it may be that plaintiff’s counsel is like Mr. 

Kaster and will let that go and be interested in the public interest. 

That has not been what I have seen on the occasions that I have 

seen it. 

That quite often plaintiff’s counsel is torn between the plaintiff’s 

counsel interest in his or her own welfare and the greater welfare 

of society. In law school, we try to say that while you have a loyalty 

to your client and, yes, you have to stay in business; you got to pay 

your rent, things like that. But you also have a loyalty to society. 

Where that doesn’t occur and where the judge knows that there 

are issues of safety and health involved, then to then enter into a 

secrecy agreement which the judge signed so that behind it is the 

power of a sovereign United States, I think is wrong. 
115 

Now, I want to address for just a moment the question of where 

this belongs. My view is that this issue belongs here in Congress. 

This is a question of social value. And it is not just a question of 

procedure. 

I would like to suggest that this comes very close to or into the 

category of effecting substantive law. And under the Rules Enabling Act, the Rules committee, no matter how wise they are, do 

not have power in substantive law. 

That belongs to Congress so that the issue however it is resolved 

and here I join Abner Mikva in his views, that this is an issue of 

balancing of social values. And balancing of social values is a legislative matter and Congress should however you come out, is the 

place where this ought to be resolved. 

Thank you very much for listening and I hope this is helpful to 

your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohn follows:] 
116 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHERMAN L. COHN
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you so much. Now that we have completed 

our testimony, and I appreciate each of the witnesses, we will 

pause for questions. 

And I will first recognize Mr. Maffei and he will, if he would, and 

take the chair for a second. If Mr. Maffei would—— 

Mr. MAFFEI. We will take it here. 

Mr. COHEN. Why don’t you take it here? And he will take the 

chair, and he will have the first questions. So I yield—— 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thank you, Chairman Cohen. As a new Member of 

the Congress, I am actually very honored to even be the chair pro 

tem of a Committee. 

First question I do want to ask Ms. Bailey. Judge Kravitz notes 

in his prepared statement that the empirical data on which the Judicial Conference relies in opposing H.R. 1508 showed no evidence 

that protective orders create any significant problems of concealing 

information about public hazards. What is your response to that? 

Ms. BAILEY. Well, my understanding of that data is that it was 

being accumulated during the same period of time in which people 

were dying from defective Firestone Tires. So I don’t think that it 

is possible to account for all of the cases of secrecy, it is part of the 

nature of secrecy, that a statistical analysis is not going to come 

up with every case in which someone may have been injured due 

to secret documents. 

I think you actually need to look at real people and real cases. 

Mr. MAFFEI. During his oral testimony, Judge Kravitz talked 

about how a lot of these things are going on in state courts, and 

I couldn’t help but notice both you and Mr. Kaster scribbling. So 

I do want your response to that. 

Is this really a problem more in the state courts than Federal 

courts? 

Ms. BAILEY. Not to my knowledge. No. I like to talk about the 

Davis case because I worked on it, but in my written materials you 

will find examples of cases in Federal court where documents were 

improperly sealed or settlements were improperly sealed, including 

the Allstate case that I mentioned, which was in Federal District 

Court in Louisiana. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Mr. Kaster, same question to you. 

Mr. KASTER. Well, the case that I have used as an example today 

is just one of scores that I have been involved in in Federal court. 

I limited my comments today primarily to Federal court proceedings. 

For example in Mississippi where I followed exactly what Judge 

Kravitz suggested, let me say that I hold him in great esteem. If 

I had Judge Kravitz all the time, I wouldn’t have this problem. 

But I don’t have the same experiences as his empirical data tells 

you. I am in the real world. And in Federal courts, matter of fact 

you routinely get oppressive protective orders, and when I go back 

and challenge them with documents like this, they clearly shouldn’t 

be protected. I have never won in 20 years. So that is part of the 

real world that I live in. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Do you think the problem is that there is just no 

judicial scrutiny at all? How does—— 

Mr. KASTER. There is some—— 
122 

Mr. MAFFEI. Describe how a judge approaches one of your motions. 

Mr. KASTER. There is no judicial scrutiny. I have even asked 

judges to just look at sections of the documents. As a matter of fact 

as we sit here, in the Federal court in Georgia today, I believe, the 

court is entertaining the very question that we are here about. 

I have gone back and pulled out just a sample of documents that 

I have asked the court to look at because they clearly are not trade 

secret or should be protected. That ruling may happen while I am 

sitting here today, which would be very ironic. If I were to win, it 

would be the first time in 20 years. 

What happens is the Federal judges or the Federal magistrates 

do not look at the documents; they enter a protective order. I look 

at them; I come back and challenge the documents that should not 

be protected that would protect the public interest and I never win. 

Mr. MAFFEI. But what is going on in their mind? Why would they 

never rule? I mean, obviously judges have all sorts of different 

backgrounds and stuff. But—— 

Mr. KASTER. As I understand it, the view is this. You represent 

one client and you have what you need for that client. You do not 

represent the public at large, counselor. And I have actually had 

judges say that to me. 

I have a different view. This is actually against my own interest. 

If all of these documents become public, I happen to have a unique 

body of knowledge, and I know about documents that everybody 

else doesn’t. One reason people hire me is that I have this unique 

knowledge. 

If all of the knowledge were out there and any lawyer could get 

it, then that would diminish my practice. So it is against my interest to do this, but when I went to law school I was taught, you 

have a public interest as well. 

And as I have put in my written statement, every client that I 

approach on this whose lost a child or family members or terribly 

injured, they allow me to pursue the public interest because they 

don’t want the same thing to happen to someone else. 

And I pursue the public interest with the permission of my client. If I didn’t have that, I would be caught in the trap of not being 

able to push those documents to become public because my client 

has what they need. 

And if I were selfish and decided to go that route, then Congress 

has to mandate to the courts, you have got to take on that burden 

if a lawyer won’t do it. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Do you agree with Professor Cohn’s comments on 

the interest of various—— 

Mr. KASTER. We all agree that settlements should not hide the 

truth. That is, I think everyone here agrees to that. But that is not 

the problem. I have never had that as a problem. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thank you Mr. Kaster. 

Judge Kravitz, I assume you have a different take on how a 

judge looks at a motion to open up these documents. 

Judge KRAVITZ. Yes, I think this discussion has been interesting 

for a couple of different levels. I mean, if in fact Ms. Bailey and 

Mr. Kaster have all these decisions of judges routinely rejecting 

their motions to open up documents, then they have to exist. And, 
123 

in fact, Mr. Kaster said he is going to send me the Bradley decision, and I can take a look at it. 

But there are lots of decisions of judges opening up cases. And 

the key point that I think Mr. Kaster made, what you need to keep 

in mind is this, he got the document, and then he came back to the 

Federal court, and he could explain to the judge as was true in the 

Zyprexa case. 

But that is not what this legislation says. This legislation says 

before he even gets those documents, I have to do a document by 

document review without his assistance to try to figure out whether those documents are ‘‘relevant to public health and safety.’’ 

The truth is I am not going to be able to do that. I think as Professor Cohn said, we need to get the documents to Mr. Kaster, and 

then he needs to come back either under existing law or some 

changes in the rules that we would certainly be willing to entertain, to get the protective order lifted with respect to that. 

But it can’t be at the front end. That is the problem. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thank you, Judge Kravitz. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. 

Franks, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 

am observing some unprecedented common sense and dialogue between the witnesses here and it scares me to death. But it makes 

me think that perhaps there might be some middle ground here 

that perhaps, you know—— 

Mr. MAFFEI. Don’t worry, that is the judicial branch. We would 

never fall into any of that. 

Mr. FRANKS. You know, confidence like that is something one 

gets before they fully understand the situation, I suppose. But is 

it possible that the Rules committee or the entire Judicial Conference could craft a more narrow bill? That is the one suggestion 

that I would put forward. 

But let me ask you, Judge Kravitz, I kind of had a little epiphany in your last comment. You are saying, just for clarity here—— 

Judge KRAVITZ. Right. 

Mr. FRANKS [continuing]. That in Mr. Kaster’s case, even though 

the judge ruled against making some of the documents public, and 

you never know whether that was justified or not, that indeed, he 

got the documents that he asked for—— 

Judge KRAVITZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. FRANKS [continuing]. And that the difference that this bill 

would make is that before he ever got the documents he would 

have to go over them with a fine-toothed comb, as it were, before 

he ever got them. 

Judge KRAVITZ. By myself. Without his assistance. 

Mr. FRANKS. See, I find that a stunning crux of the discussion 

here. And again, maybe I am misunderstanding, but it sounds like 

Mr. Kaster’s comments here, I mean, he has been very forthright, 

and you have said that yourself. And maybe he has had some narrow-minded judges that he has dealt with. 

But isn’t it true then, based on that, that if those same judges 

were forced to go through all of that data before Mr. Kaster had 

ever gotten it, that they would probably come to the same conclusion that it was, you know, if they—in other words, if I am a judge, 
124 

and I am looking at this data, and I am going to try to move 

through it as quickly as possible. 

I am going to be much more deferential to a lawyer that comes 

in and says, ‘‘Judge, there is a problem here. This is a safety issue 

for the public. Please look at this.’’ I am going to look at that much 

more carefully. 

Judge KRAVITZ. Here is the thing, practically. In Mr. Kaster’s example, it is the defendants who have the document. They are going 

to give them to me to look at presumably in camera so I can figure 

out whether they impact public health or safety. 

Mr. Kaster doesn’t even have the documents. His experts don’t 

have the documents. And I am going to make up my mind. And 

who is the person who is going to be telling me whether the documents are a bear on public health and safety? It is the defendant, 

in his example. 

So what we need to do is get the documents in his hands as rapidly as possible, get his expertise and then have him come back to 

the judge, if that is what he wants. And that is exactly what happened with Jack Weinstein in the Zyprexa litigation. 

And I really urge the Committee to take a look at that decision, 

because Judge Weinstein in that case, after having gotten—had a 

protective order and gotten the information out says, public access 

is now advisable. 

Now that he can figure out that—because the litigation involves 

issues of great public interest, the health of hundreds of thousands 

of people, fundamental questions about our system or approval and 

monitoring of pharmaceutical products and the funding of many 

health and insurance plans. Public and private agencies have a 

right to be informed. 

And that information got out there. And that is under the existing rules. So I don’t think we need necessarily any new rules. 

But let me just say to Professor Cohn’s point. There are things 

in this bill that are substantive, like the provision that a court 

can’t approve an agreement that prevents people from going to a 

Federal agency with documents that bear on public health and 

safety. 

But the provisions of this that deal with protective orders and 

the time at which judges agree to protective order, that is a procedural question and the factors that a court is going to consider. 

And the Rules Enabling Act has been in existence for 70 years and 

has worked extremely well for 70 years. It is going to be 70 years 

about next month, I think. 

And as to procedure, the Congress has deferred to us, and I 

would ask them to continue to do so. To the extent there are substantive things that deal with social policy like getting information 

to relevant agencies or even the sealed settlements offers which I 

do not personally oppose at all. There shouldn’t be sealed settlements, frankly. Those are appropriate for the Congress and appropriate to enact. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am about out of 

time here. In fact, I am out of time as it looks like. 

But let just suggest to the full Chairman of the Committee—the 

Chairman of the full Committee, I should say. There may be an opportunity for reason to get the best of us all here. 
125 

Where Mr. Kaster’s comments were he has never won a situation 

like that may be where to focus our attention to where there is 

some type of appeals process or something that would overcome a 

recalcitrant or unreasonable judge that, you know, is simply not 

looking at the facts. 

If he has never won, one of two things. Either he is a really rotten lawyer and that doesn’t occur—— 

Mr. CONYERS. He is going to share with me those decisions. 

Mr. FRANKS. He is going to explain that, but I just think that 

there may be an opportunity for some reasonable compromise here 

that would solve the problems of everyone on the—maybe I am 

wrong, again, I don’t want to be too optimistic in an environment 

like this. 

But thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MAFFEI. Thank you, Mr. Franks. Since the distinguished 

Member of the full Committee is here, am I right in understanding 

that you are not interested in asking questions, but you are here 

to observe and—you are interested in healing us. 

Mr. CONYERS. My lips are sealed. [Laughter.] 

Mr. MAFFEI. Well, thank you to the Chairman. Then I will recognize the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble, 

for 5 minutes hoping that he doesn’t take the full 5 minutes, since 

we do have floor vote. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I will try to move it along. 

Judge Kravitz, let me put a two-part question to you. 

Judge KRAVITZ. Sure. 

Mr. COBLE. If this bill were enacted, how would this impact the 

workload of the Federal Judiciary, A, and B, how would you determine what matters effect public health or safety? Is there case law 

or judicial doctrine from which judges might draw to determine 

that distinction? 

Judge KRAVITZ. Okay. Two things. First, the average case load 

of an active Federal judge is about 550 cases. That is the average. 

There are judges in California who have 1,000 cases. And the notion that they could then fish through document by document and 

get that information to Mr. Kaster in any time horizon that is reasonable, I think, is illusory. 

So I think, again, I am not worried about my burden of doing 

this. I am worried about other litigants who deserve our time and 

attention. 

Secondly, as to whether there is any existing case law, there is 

existing case law under the good cause standard of Rule 26 that 

requires judges to consider the public interest and, of course, public 

health and safety. But this statute says anything that is relevant 

to public health and safety. 

And I said the last time, I mean, if I have an employment case 

and someone is accused of having child pornography on their computer, is that relevant to public health and safety? Maybe it is. I 

don’t know. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. I hate to cut you off but I am—— 

Judge KRAVITZ. No, that is fine. That is fine. 

Mr. COBLE. One more question to Ms. Bailey. Ms. Bailey, what 

issues or matters do not affect public health or safety? Give me a 

couple of examples. 
126 

Ms. BAILEY. Well, I think that is a tough question. And fortunately, at this point in my career, I am not a judge. So I am not 

in a position to be put to that test. 

But the examples that Judge Joe Anderson gave in his testimony 

on this same bill last year, made me believe that it is not that difficult to figure it out if you have the documents before you. I mean, 

obviously, a defective go-cart is something that is going to affect 

public safety. 

You know, the formula for Coca-Cola, hopefully, will not be something that affects public safety. I realize there is a great deal of 

gray area but my understanding is that judges engage in this kind 

of balancing every day as part of their jobs. And I think this is a 

worthwhile use of that skill. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you. And I am on a short leash. So I will yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. Thank you. We are all on short leashes. 

I want to ask one question, then we will be unleashed. 

Judge Kravitz asked to the panel, do you know of any Federal 

judges that are abusing the process? Does anybody know any Federal judges abusing the process? 

Mr. Kaster, quickly, because we have to vote. 

Mr. KASTER. Mr. Chairman, I can give you a list of numerous 

judges that I believe are abusing the process because they—— 

Mr. COHEN. Federal judges? 

Mr. KASTER. Federal judges. 

Mr. COHEN. And, Ms. Bailey, do you—— 

Mr. KASTER. I only talked about Federal judges today. 

Mr. COHEN. All right. Ms. Bailey, do you have any? 

Judge KRAVITZ. And he is going to send me that list. 

Mr. COHEN. All right. If you would give that list to Judge Kravitz 

and give it to us. And we need to go vote. 

And I would like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony. 

The Members who attended, without objection, Members have 5 

legislative days to submit any additional written questions which, 

as part of the witnesses, ask you to answer as promptly as possible 

to be made part of the record. 

Without objection the record will remain open for 5 legislative 

days for submission of any additional material. Thank you for your 

time and patience. The Subcommittee is adjourned. Done. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(127) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
128 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM LESLIE A. BAILEY, PUBLIC JUSTICE
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 

f 
137 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM BRUCE R. KASTER, 

KASTER & LYNCH, P.A. 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 

f 
143 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS FROM THE HONORABLE MARK R. KRAVITZ, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 

f 
155 

LETTERS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE STEVE

COHEN
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 

f 
175 

LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE BILL, H.R. 1508, 

SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE STEVE COHEN

Æ