> 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 c

> 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.