U.S. Congress - S.537 Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2009
S.537 - Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2009
A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, disclosures of discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes. view all titles (2)
All Bill Titles
- Official: A bill to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, relating to protective orders, sealing of cases, disclosures of discovery information in civil actions, and for other purposes. as introduced.
- Short: Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2009 as introduced.
This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.
Bill's Views
- Today: 2
- Past Seven Days: 6
- All-Time: 1,054
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Committees
Official Summary
3/5/2009--Introduced.Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2009 - Amends the federal judicial code to prohibit a court from entering an order restricting the disclosure of information obtained through discovery, approving a settlement disagreement that would restrict such disclosure, or restrictinOfficial Summary
3/5/2009--Introduced.Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2009 - Amends the federal judicial code to prohibit a court from entering an order restricting the disclosure of information obtained through discovery, approving a settlement disagreement that would restrict such disclosure, or restricting access to court records in a civil case, unless the court has found that:(1) such order would not restrict the disclosure of information which is relevant to the protection of public health or safety; or
(2) the public interest in the disclosure of potential health or safety hazards is outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information, and the requested protective order is no broader than necessary to protect the privacy interest. Prohibits any party from requesting, as a condition for the production of discovery, that another party stipulate to an order that would violate this Act. Prohibits a court from:
(1) approving or enforcing an order prohibited under this Act, or any provision of an agreement between parties to a civil action, that restricts a party from disclosing information to any federal or state agency with authority to enforce laws regulating an activity relating to such information; or
(2) enforcing any provision of a settlement agreement that prohibits a party from disclosing that a settlement was reached or the terms of the settlement, other than the amount paid, or from discussing a case or evidence that involves matters related to public health or safety, except where the court finds that the public interest in disclosure of potential health and safety hazards is outweighed by a confidentiality interest. Creates a rebuttable presumption that the interest in protecting personally identifiable information relating to an individual's financial, health, or other similar information outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, require, or authorize the disclosure of classified information, as defined under the Classified Information Procedures Act.
...Read the Rest
Organizations Supporting S.537
- Public Citizen
- Public Justice
Organizations Opposing S.537
- Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- National Association of Manufacturers
- American Insurance Association
- National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies
- Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
- ...and 15 more. See all.
Recent News Coverage
Hmmmm, no news coverage found for this bill at this time. This means that this this bill has not yet been mentioned on a publicly-searchable news website by either its official number (for example, "H.R. 3200") or title (for example, "America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"). As soon as that changes, our daily automated search across the Web will catch it and include it here. If this bill is of interest to you, you can write a letter to the editor referring to this bill by name, and if your letter is published on the Web, a link back your letter will appear here within about one day. Or, if you know of a news article about this bill to display here, email us the web address of this page and the web address of your suggested news article: Our editorial team will post relevant links as quickly as possible. Thanks for helping to build public knowledge about Congress.
Recent Blog Coverage
View All (71)
|
View Top Rated
Ex parte MCCULLOCH. In re MCCULLOCH | 73 Wire
n(9) 3 B. & S. 537. may be worth. It is a very material circumstance that the only person who is really contesting it is the debtor. We have nobody before us but the debtor, who says that he ought not to have been made a bankrupt. ...
COOKE v COOKE | 73 Wire
In this instance it was not until after the bill was filed that the Defendant revived his powers of arbitration, and made the submission. n(1) 1 S. & S. 537, 540. n(2) 3 My. & K. 431. n(3) 2 Ph. 79; S. C. 1 Coop. C. C. 386, 413. ...
AUSTRITT ÖSTERREICHS AUS DER EU. AUTOR: HELMUT SCHRAMM: Die ...
11 Vgl. K. A. Schachtschneider, Freiheit in der Republik, S. 537 ff., 544 ff. 12 Dazu K. A. Schachtschneider, Medienmacht versus Persönlichkeitsschutz, in: ders., Freiheit – Recht – Staat, hrsg. von D. Siebold/A. Emmerich-Fritsche, ...
Vote on This Bill
-
Share This Bill
More Share via Email
