4 ms·

> Judge Stephens was bound by West Virginia law to weigh secrecy against transparency and provide in the court record his reasoning. Like many judges in his pos

by Meekro 7y ago

> Judge Stephens was bound by West Virginia law to weigh secrecy against transparency and provide in the court record his reasoning. Like many judges in his position, he did neither. "This case was sealed because both sides agreed and asked me to seal it," he told Reuters. As a practical matter, this is why it happens: the court system is inherently adversarial. If the two sides agree that something should happen in their case, the judge is likely to rubber-stamp it. Judges don't want to waste time litigating something that isn't actually disputed.

sampleinajar 7y ago
Thank you. I would add to this that prior to it coming before the judge there is the leverage of "We can get 600 mil now or go into years and years of litigation that we have a non-zero chance of losing, and all we have to do is agree to let them hide their documents." hindsight is 20/20, how many would really choose the years and years of litigation over the payout?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
inflatableDodo 7y ago
There are at least four sides when it comes to sealing documents though, the two parties in court, the state and the public. edit - or maybe at least five, if you count the law.
CalChris 7y ago
If there were criminal charges as in the Perdue case then the court has a public interest to consider.
rstuart4133 7y ago
> If the two sides agree that something should happen in their case, the judge is likely to rubber-stamp it. Except of course that isn't what happens in most cases. One side wants the details of the case kept secret, the other may not care but more likely (as in this case) would prefer the details to be made public so others can at least learn from their experience. But if there is a power imbalance (which there is this case because $X has far more effect on one side than the other), the side with the most money can simply buy their way out of the unwanted publicity. It's effectively a bribe, but since it's tied up with the settlement and the negotiations are also secret that's impossible to prove. I can't see how this is the judges fault. If every case was forced to be public there would be all sorts of unpleasant consequences. If judges were forced to go through all the evidence in these cases and rule on which bits should be made public it would increase their work load considerably.
- headsoup 7y ago
  The judges aren't forced to make every case public. There are clear guidelines for when not to, where otherwise there are requirements to clarify the reasons. The judges aren't following the guidelines, because there's no repercussions and it makes their job easier. That needs to change. And also the judges are supposed to weigh up the secrecy vs public interest, which is clearly not happening.

by Meekro 7y ago

sampleinajar 7y ago

Thank you. I would add to this that prior to it coming before the judge there is the leverage of "We can get 600 mil now or go into years and years of litigation that we have a non-zero chance of losing, and all we have to do is agree to let them hide their documents." hindsight is 20/20, how many would really choose the years and years of litigation over the payout?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

inflatableDodo 7y ago

There are at least four sides when it comes to sealing documents though, the two parties in court, the state and the public. edit - or maybe at least five, if you count the law.

CalChris 7y ago

If there were criminal charges as in the Perdue case then the court has a public interest to consider.

rstuart4133 7y ago

> If the two sides agree that something should happen in their case, the judge is likely to rubber-stamp it. Except of course that isn't what happens in most cases. One side wants the details of the case kept secret, the other may not care but more likely (as in this case) would prefer the details to be made public so others can at least learn from their experience. But if there is a power imbalance (which there is this case because $X has far more effect on one side than the other), the side with the most money can simply buy their way out of the unwanted publicity. It's effectively a bribe, but since it's tied up with the settlement and the negotiations are also secret that's impossible to prove. I can't see how this is the judges fault. If every case was forced to be public there would be all sorts of unpleasant consequences. If judges were forced to go through all the evidence in these cases and rule on which bits should be made public it would increase their work load considerably.

headsoup 7y ago
The judges aren't forced to make every case public. There are clear guidelines for when not to, where otherwise there are requirements to clarify the reasons. The judges aren't following the guidelines, because there's no repercussions and it makes their job easier. That needs to change. And also the judges are supposed to weigh up the secrecy vs public interest, which is clearly not happening.