June 7, 2001

TO: MEMBERS OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY

FROM: JOHN H. SULLIVAN, PRESIDENT, CJAC

Subject: AB 36 (Steinberg)

The Civil Justice Association of California respectfully requests that you vote NO on AB 36.

Amendments and discussion have not resulted in a bill that meets the proponents' stated goals without unfair damaging consequences to persons and firms named in lawsuits and unnecessary burdens on the people who work in our courts.

No one wants to see information concealed which would otherwise protect people from harm. But existing case law, rules of court, and public access to the filing of every lawsuit has been found in practice and by a respected Federal Court study to provide the kind of public information AB 36's proponent's claim to want. Last fall Congress enacted a strong law to improve the collection of auto and tire safety information.

If legislation would improve this process, it should be done without the unnecessary and damaging consequences of AB 36, which include:

• Loss to competitors of a company's critical research, business planning, and other proprietary information. AB 36 focuses only on the narrow definition of "trade secrets" and puts excessive additional burdens on a defendant to protect confidential information which has already been granted a protective order by the court.
• Increased court congestion and higher costs to everyone involved in litigation. AB36's vague and broad language would result in more haggling over the discovery process and hearings over protecting the privacy of information that in fact would provide any useful to information the public concerning a specific product or hazardous material.
• Increased numbers of speculative lawsuits. AB 36's increased threat to privacy would force many defendants to pay to make cases "go away" when otherwise they might be successfully fought. The prospect of bigger settlements with less effort only encourages more "entrepreneurial" litigation.

While attempts have been made to narrow the bill, the opposition ranging from TechNet to PricewaterhouseCoopers to the California Healthcare Institute is a strong and clear message that the bill remains a harmful statement of public policy. As of this morning, 399 firms and associations have joined the CJAC list of opponents.