June 18, 2001

Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, CA


VIA FACSIMILE

Dear Editor:

The Times claims SB 11 is needed (editorial June 17, 2001) so the public can see "court documents" and "trial court records." However, under current law these are already open to the public.

What the personal injury lawyers sponsoring SB 11 have written into their bill is the ability to extort settlements from innocent companies by threatening disclosure of research and business information. The truth is, the laws in other states don't come close to SB 11, and truly similar legislation has been rejected in 43 states.

Additionally, a Federal Judicial Center study has found that "that there is no evidence that protective orders in fact create any significant problem in concealing information about public hazards or in impeding efficient sharing of discovery information."

In the event legitimate information truly important to the public safety exists, judges in California have the power to deny confidentiality. The plaintiffs' lawyers behind SB 11 don't want a bill to facilitate a judge's review in these situations. They want a bill to help line their pockets and fuel their litigation machine.

Sincerely,

John H. Sullivan
President
Civil Justice Association of California