BILL ANALYSIS
AB 36
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 8, 2001
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Darrell Steinberg, Chair
AB 36 (Steinberg) - As Amended: February 5, 2001
As Proposed to Be Amended
SUBJECT : SECRET SETTLEMENTS: NEW "SUNSHINE" REQUIREMENTS
KEY ISSUE : should california follow the lead of many other
states BY adopting a new "consumer's right to know" law to limit
the use of secrecy AGREEMENTS WHICH THREATEN THE PUBLIC, or will
SUCH legislation INCREASE LITIGATION and CAUSE the release of
VITAL business trade secrets?
Synopsis
This Bill Continues A Longtime Goal Of Many Consumer Protection
Groups And Attorney General Lockyer To Add California To A
Growing List Of States That Have Already Adopted A Similar
"Sunshine" Law Or Court Rule. The Bill Restricts, But Does Not
Ban, The Use Of Secrecy Agreements In Those Cases Where The
Public Is Most At Risk Of Repeat Harm: Cases Involving
Defective Products, Financial Fraud, Unfair Insurance Claims
Practices, Or Environmental Hazards. The Bill Tracks A Court
Rule Already Adopted By The California Supreme Court And Many
Other Courts For All Documents Formally Filed In Court. Similar
To The New California Court Rule, The Bill Presumes That
Documents In Lawsuits Should Be Public, And Places The Burden On
Those Demanding Secrecy To Identify Documents That Need To Be
Shielded From Public View. To Meet This Burden, The Party
Seeking Secrecy Must Show A Court That The Particular Document
Is Privileged Or Is A Trade Secret, Or That, Among Other Things,
There Exists An Overriding Interest That Overcomes The Right Of
Public Access To The Evidence Of Potential Abuse. The Bill
Prohibits Attorneys From Selling Evidence Obtained Through
Discovery.
Business Opponents Of The Bill Vociferously Contend The Bill
Will Lead To Increased Litigation, And The Likely Loss Of
Protection For Intellectual And Other Property Rights. For
Example, The Civil Justice Association Of California States That
The Threat To Trade Secrets Is So Great That Enactment Of The
Bill Will Constitute The Taking Of Property Requiring State
AB 36
Page 2
Compensation. This Group And Other Opponents Also Contend The
Bill's Ban On The Selling Of Evidence Is Illusory, And That The
Bill Violates Existing Privacy Protections.
SUMMARY : Seeks to limit the use of secrecy agreements and
protective orders in specified cases to bring greater "sunshine"
on potentially lethal or financially devastating harms to the
public. Specifically, this bill :
1)Finds that secrecy agreements that prohibit disclosure to the
public or public safety agencies of information relating to
defective products, financial fraud, unfair insurance claims
practices, or environmental hazards are injurious to the
health, safety, and economic well-being of all Californians,
and that it is against the public interest to allow them in
these cases except in very limited circumstances.
2)Finds that the Judicial Council has adopted Rule 243.1 of the
California Rules of Court, which creates a presumption against
secrecy for certain documents filed with our courts, and
states that it is the intent of the Legislature to better
protect the health and safety of Californians by creating a
similar presumption against secrecy in cases involving
defective products, financial fraud, unfair insurance claims
practices, or environmental hazards.
3)Applies solely to lawsuits claiming injury, wrongful death, or
financial loss allegedly caused by a defective product,
financial fraud, unfair insurance claims practice, or an
environmental hazard.
4)Provides that in these types of lawsuits, evidence which is
shielded from public view either through settlement or
confidentiality agreements not filed with the court, or
through discovery protective orders, shall be presumed to be
public information, and may not be kept confidential pursuant
to agreement of the parties.
5)Further provides that such information may nevertheless be
kept confidential, for a time period determined by a court, if
the court orders such confidentiality based on a finding that
the evidence is either: (1) a trade secret, as defined, or
otherwise privileged under law; or (2) there exists, among
other factors, an overriding interest that overcomes the right
of public access to the information.
AB 36
Page 3
6)Provides that, unless the information is a trade secret or
otherwise privileged under existing law, any portion of an
agreement or contract that restricts a party from disclosing
information that is evidence of a defective product, financial
fraud, unfair insurance claims practice, or environmental
hazard to a governmental agency with enforcement authority
over the public hazard is void and may not be enforced.
7)Prohibits any attorney from selling or offering for sale any
information obtained through discovery to any member of the
State Bar or to any other person in violation of the
prohibitions on attorney solicitation, fee splitting, or
financial arrangements among lawyers or non-lawyers. A
violation would be a basis for professional discipline by the
State Bar.
8)Provides that nothing in the bill shall prohibit the
enforcement of that part of an agreement between the parties
which requires the amount of any money paid in a settlement to
be kept secret.
9)Defines the terms "defective product," financial fraud,"
"unfair insurance claims practice," and "environmental
hazard."
EXISTING LAW :
1)Provides the court with authority to control or limit the
enforcement of confidentiality agreement, settlement
agreements or protective orders. ( Mary R. v. B & R Corp.
(1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 308.)
2)Provides the public with a long-standing right to inspect and
review court records "where there is no contrary statute or
countervailing public policy." ( Craemer v. Superior Court
(1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 216, 222, 71 Cal.Rptr. 193.) "Since
court records are public records, the burden rests on the
party seeking to deny public access to those records to
establish compelling reasons why and to what extent these
records should be made private." ( Estate of Hearst (1977) 67
Cal.App.3d 777, 784-785.)
3)Provides, upon a showing of good cause, that courts may issue
protective orders to prevent the public distribution of
AB 36
Page 4
subpoenaed documents, writings or papers. (Code of Civil
Procedure section 2031(f).)
4)Provides, under Rule 243.1 of the California Rules of Court,
that court records are presumed to be open unless
confidentiality is required by law. (California Rules of
Court ("Rule") 243.1(c).) The new court rule also provides
that a court may order a record sealed only if it expressly
finds that: (a) there exists an overriding interest that
overcomes the right of public access to the record; (b) the
overriding public interest supports sealing the record; (c) a
substantial probability exists that the overriding interest
will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; (d) the
proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and (e) no less
restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
(Rule 243.1(d).)
5)Provides for the confidentiality of trade secrets in an action
under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, by authorizing the court
to issue a discovery protective order which prohibits the
disclosure of a trade secret or limits its disclosure without
prior court approval. (Civil Code section 3426.5.)
6)Provides for the confidentiality of specified government
records, medical records, and financial records maintained by
a financial institution. (See, e.g., Civil Code section 56.10
et seq .)
7)Provides that settlements involving public entities generally
are subject to public disclosure. (Government Code section
6250 et seq .; see also Register Division of Freedom Newspapers
v. County of Orange (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 893.)
8)Provides that "[u]pon motion by a party ... from whom
discovery is sought, ... and for good cause shown, the court
in which the action is pending ... may make any order which
justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,
including ... (7) that a trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or commercial information not be
disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way." After
such an order is entered, the remedies for violation include
sanctions against the offending party in the form of costs and
attorney fees, evidence preclusion, issue preclusion, striking
pleadings, entering a default judgment, and holding the
AB 36
Page 5
offending party in contempt. (Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 26(c).)
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : This bill seeks to add California to a long and
growing list of states that have already adopted similar
"sunshine" laws or court rules. The bill restricts, but does
not ban, the use of secrecy agreements and protective orders
which require secrecy in the typical types of lawsuits where the
public is most at risk of repeated and society-wide harm. The
bill is the byproduct of substantial efforts by the proponents
to compromise and narrow the legislation. AB 36, and its
companion measure SB 11 which is awaiting consideration on the
Senate Floor, delete several key provisions contained in prior
years' legislation, including an earlier standing provision
which allowed other parties to contest secrecy orders or
agreements, and a provision requiring notification to the
Attorney General. This year's bills also specifically allow
secrecy agreements for "privileged information," a provision not
included in prior years' anti-secrecy bills.
In support of the bill, the author writes:
I believe this bill embodies the statement made by Justice
Louis Brandeis almost 100 years ago that "[p]ublicity is
justly recommended as a remedy for social and industrial
disease. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants?"
Setting aside the ample rhetoric that has surrounded this
bill, a careful review reveals the bill has been narrowed
to apply to only four types of lawsuits that typically pose
particular threats to the public at large. Nor is this
bill radical in concept. Though we started the discussion
over a decade ago, 20 states are now ahead of us, and the
bill is modeled directly after a court rule adopted last
year by our Supreme Court. . . . Similar to the new court
rule, AB 36 appropriately presumes that documents not
formally filed with a court, should, like those filed with
the court, presumptively be public.
The fact is, most secret settlement agreements, like the
ones filed in the Firestone cases, are never actually filed
with a court. AB 36 thus fills the large "secrecy" gap
AB 36
Page 6
that still exists since the Supreme Court adopted its own
openness rule, a rule which is inherently limited to the
relatively few documents formally filed with the courts.
In short, the time has come to put the rhetoric aside and
let California join the ranks of many other states to
enunciate a strong policy disfavoring secrecy and, to
paraphrase Justice Brandeis, to bring potentially
life-threatening dangers out into the sunlight.
The New Court Rule : Late last year, and effective this past
January, the Judicial Council adopted Rules 243.1 and 243.2 of
the California Rules of Court to provide a standard and
procedures for courts to use when a request is made to seal a
court record. In general, court records are presumed to be open
unless confidentiality is required by law. (Rule 243.1(c).)
The Advisory Committee Comment to the rule notes that the
standard is based on NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV) Inc. v. Superior
Court (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 1178, which held that there is a first
amendment right of access to documents used at trial or as a
basis of adjudication. The comment also notes that the rules do
not apply to records that the court must keep confidential by
law, and do not apply to discovery proceedings, motions, and
materials that are not used at trial or submitted to the court
as a basis for adjudication.
Trial court statistics continue to indicate that only about 2%
of the civil cases go to trial. In other words, the great
majority of cases settle before trial. When this high
proportion of cases is settled before trial, evidence uncovered
during discovery which may, if open to the public and press,
potentially save countless lives and deter devastating financial
losses, is rarely, if ever, filed with the court. In fact,
settlement agreements typically require the return of documents
and the preservation of their confidentiality. The provisions
of this bill are therefore intended to supplement, and
complement, the court rule already adopted by the Supreme Court.
They would apply to evidence obtained during discovery when the
evidence helps demonstrate a specified public hazard.
The Recent Firestone Tire Tragedy : The recent
Firestone/Bridgestone tire debacle highlights the extent to
which secrecy orders may literally be the difference between
life and death. To date, more than 150 people have died and
more than 500 people have been injured while driving on
defective Firestone tires. Recalls of Firestone tires began
AB 36
Page 7
last summer. But long before, over the previous ten years, over
200 of these cases were quietly settled with secrecy orders
attached, effectively muzzling victims, attorneys, and the media
from warning the public about the potentially fatal dangers
associated with their products. As many consumer groups have
noted, had information about tire separations been made public
years ago, there seems to be little question that many lives
could and would have been saved.
Other Examples Cited by the Sponsors in Support of This
Anti-Secrecy Measure : Two other separate public health hazards,
tobacco and the drug Fen-Phen, are also cited by the bill's
sponsors to show how disclosure of health risks can have
dramatically different outcomes -- and, according to the bill's
supporters, demonstrate the protective power of disclosure.
Regarding tobacco, supporters note that in 1994, the state of
Florida brought an action against several tobacco companies to
recover health care costs it expended due to tobacco-related
illnesses. During the litigation, tobacco documents were
discovered that showed that: (1) the companies had knowledge of
the harmful effects of tobacco; (2) the companies knew nicotine
was addictive; and (3) the companies specifically targeted
minors in advertising campaigns. Although this information had
surfaced in prior cases throughout the country, the information
was hidden from the public when the defendants obtained
protective orders to keep the documents secret. Fortunately,
the bill's supporters state, "Florida passed a 'Sunshine in the
Courts Act' in 1991, and the tobacco companies could not hide
the documents under Florida law. The discovery of these
documents allowed California to sue for the same cost recovery
in 1996. The California cases are now settled with a net gain
of $25 billion for California taxpayers over the next 25 years."
Conversely, assert the bill's supporters, "lack of disclosure
can lead to ugly consequences for consumers. In May 1997, a San
Francisco case settled against the manufacturers of Fen-Phen, a
popular diet drug, on the condition that documents be kept
secret. [The documents] showed that Fen-Phen caused heart valve
damage and the life threatening disease, pulmonary hypertension.
It was not until September 15, 1997, when the FDA removed the
product from the market, that the dangers became public. During
the five months between the first settlement and the recall,
unsuspecting patients continued to ingest Fen-Phen, causing
enormous harm, particularly since these heart disorders are
affected by the length of time the patient took the drug. At
AB 36
Page 8
least ten manufacturers, including American Home Products, had
received 'adverse reaction reports' indicating the danger, but
failed to take adequate steps to protect users. Instead,
manufacturers used the current court system to hide the dangers.
There are currently coordinated actions pending in California
and in federal courts."
Status of the Claimed Litigation Explosion in California : One
of the principal attacks on the bill made by the bill's
opponents is that the bill will dramatically increase litigation
in California, which, they argue, has been suffering from an
explosion in lawsuits. However recent evidence suggests the
claimed litigation explosion is more rhetoric than reality. In
a February 1, 2001, L.A. Times article, entitled "We Aren't
Seeing You in Court," the paper reported that "America's
litigation explosion has fizzled. Americans are no longer suing
each other as much. Californians are suing each other much
less. After years of steady decline, the number of big-money
personal injury lawsuits in California is roughly half of what
it was a decade ago. Small claims have fallen to levels unseen
in 30 years." According to this report, "No systematic research
has been done on the causes ? But a review of statistics kept by
the center and by California's Judicial Council makes it clear
that nationally, over the last decade, the rate of tort lawsuits
has slightly declined while, in California and some other
states, the rate has plunged."
Lack of Any "Litigation Explosion" in Other States Which Passed
Anti-Secrecy Laws : If, as the bill's opponents assert, passage
of an anti-secrecy law in California will lead to a new
litigation explosion, one would expect to find the same trend in
other states that have already enacted similar laws. However a
review of case filing statistics in other states that have
passed anti-secrecy legislation suggests that case filings have
not in fact increased after the new laws took effect. For
example, Florida has one of the strongest anti-secrecy statutes
in the country. Its anti-secrecy law, which took effect over a
decade ago, covers all public hazards, not just the limited
categories found in this bill. If the opponents' arguments
about an explosion is true, one would expect to see a spike in
case filings after Florida's "Sunshine Act" took effect in 1990.
Yet Florida's per capita case filings and dispositions actually
decreased during this period. A similar trend has been apparent
in the state of Texas as well, which has long had a similar
anti-secrecy policy via court rule.
AB 36
Page 9
Recent Editorial Support: This past April 15, the Los Angeles
Times strongly editorialized in favor of AB 36 and SB 11. Wrote
the Times , in an editorial entitled "Sometimes, Secrecy Kills":
Here's the question: Should consumers be told of product
defects uncovered in the course of litigation? A
no-brainer, right? Not to the companies that for years
have fought to keep such information secret as the price of
settling with consumers who bring lawsuits. Texas, Florida
and more than a dozen other states already require that
court records involving product defects be open to the
public. Bills that would do the same in California are now
before the Legislature, and after years of failed efforts
they may have enough momentum to succeed?
Secrecy agreements are standard for large corporations in
product liability lawsuits. The list is long: asbestos
products, heart valves, contraceptive devices. In each
case, dangerous products stayed on the market. Lawyers had
to build the documentary evidence from scratch in each
case? Opponents--including manufacturers, insurers and
drug companies--insist that opening up trial court records
would unleash a flood of litigation and cause businesses to
flee California. Neither has happened in states with
strong disclosure laws...
ISSUE: WOULD AB 36 INCREASE THE TIME AND EXPENSE OF LITIGATION ?
Opponents argue that increased litigation to protect
confidentiality will result in increased legal costs to both
parties, as well as increased public costs for the additional
court time. They further assert that AB 36 would also result in
increased court congestion since confidentiality currently
promotes cooperation in discovery and private settlement of
legal disputes outside of the courtroom. Without
confidentiality, opponents contend that these components of
litigation will end up back before the judge, requiring
increased attention that could have been used to resolve other
cases.
Proponents respond that opponents' arguments ignore the success
of similar legislation in several states and local court rules.
In particular, currently nine states limit or disallow
confidentiality agreements in lawsuits that affect public
safety, including Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky,
AB 36
Page 10
Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia and Washington. In
addition, superior courts in San Diego, San Francisco, Santa
Clara, Alameda and Los Angeles counties, along with courts in
Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Michigan, New York and Texas, have
adopted court rules addressing secrecy. Proponents assert that
these provisions have been enacted and enforced without any
evidence of unmanageable delays or expense.
ISSUE: WOULD AB 36 RESULT IN FEWER OR MORE SETTLEMENTS ? Some
opponents assert that AB 36 will force many more manufacturers
and businesses to settle frivolous claims against them in order
to avoid the public dissemination of information the defendant
wishes to be kept confidential. Other opponents say that AB 36
will have the opposite effect. They assert that defendants now
settle what they see as a frivolous case because they believe
that the cost of litigation will exceed the amount of the
proposed settlement. Opponents argue that under the bill such
defendants would be less willing to settle because disclosure of
settlements could lead to "copycat" and nuisance lawsuits.
Opponents also contend that defendants would be reluctant to
settle cases if there is a substantial risk that sensitive
information may thereby become publicly available and land in
the hands of competitors.
Proponents respond that defendants now use secrecy agreements to
shield their exposure for defective products, financial fraud,
or environmental hazards, and not simply as a tool to reduce the
cost of litigation. In addition, they argue that even if the
law prohibited the sealing of the records, defendants would
still settle a case in order to avoid the potential of a
"runaway" jury award. They point to the Florida tobacco case as
an example, which was settled before the trial ended despite a
prohibition on secret settlements in that state.
As to the alleged risk that sensitive trade secrets or other
privileged information may be disclosed, the bill would provide
specific protection to this information and would allow the
court to order confidentiality in all others cases when the
public safety is not at risk or that risk is outweighed by the
need for confidentiality. Moreover, proponents respond that
since other states have successfully implemented similar
statutes without any negative impact, there is additional
evidence that opponents' fears are unfounded. Proponents argue
that the bill would simply stop the unfortunate industry tactic
of hiding behind illusory trade secrets to escape responsibility
AB 36
Page 11
for dangerous products.
ISSUE: HOW DOES AB 36 DIFFER FROM PREVIOUS LEGISLATION ? There
are many important differences between AB 36 and prior measures.
The major change is the narrowing of the proposal in light of
the Judicial Council's adoption of Rule 243.1. Previously, SB
711 of 1992 and SB 1254 of 1999 also sought to cover papers and
writings filed with the court. With Rule 243.1 mandating a
presumption of public access to court records, AB 36's
application is narrowed to those writings and documents that are
not filed with the court, including information contained in
confidential settlement agreements and evidence obtained through
discovery that is not filed with the court (because, for
example, the case was settled with a confidentiality agreement).
With the adoption of Rule 243.1, the broader provisions were no
longer necessary.
Another major change is the expansion of the bill to also
include unfair insurance claims practices. This was added in
response to practices by some insurers who for years unlawfully
failed to pay Northridge Earthquake claims and then, when their
illegal practices were uncovered, successfully shielded their
unlawful practices from other insureds by requiring secret
settlements.
A third major change is the deletion of provisions in prior
bills that would have allowed third parties, including
newspapers, to challenge the issuance of a post-settlement
protective order for a period up to five years after the order.
Opponents had argued that this provision undermined the issuance
of protective orders, and promoted bounty hunter and repeated
litigation by parties seeking attorney's fees under the
proposal. Proponents had pursued the provision, thinking that
it served as a valuable safety mechanism in the system to
discourage defendants from offering a substantially higher
settlement to a plaintiff to enter into a secrecy agreement.
A related major change is deletion of the notice provision
requiring notice to the Attorney General of the public hazard
where the court found that a protective order was justified. To
the opponents, this provision denied them their confidentiality
even when the court found valid trade secret concerns. AB 36
would provide absolute protection for trade secrets. AB 36 also
removes the "redaction" provisions which opponents thought were
insufficiently protective and burdensome.
AB 36
Page 12
Another major change is the inclusion of any privileged
information within the automatic exception, not just those
recognized in Evidence Code Section 1040. A minor change is the
fine-tuning of the former language to eliminate ambiguity. For
example, opponents had objected to SB 1254 because it would have
applied to "information that indicate allegations of" a public
hazard. AB 36 has recrafted the language to say "information
concerning" or "relating" to a public hazard. However,
opponents have raised objections to those changes as well.
Thus, author's amendments in committee will refer to
"information that is evidence" of a public hazard.
ISSUE: SHOULD THE BILL PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR HEARING
PROTECTIVE ORDER MOTIONS ? Unlike past bills, AB 36 does not
specify a procedure for hearing a motion for a protective order.
Without a specific process, court rules would necessarily be
adopted for its implementation. In comparison, SB 1254 provided
that the party or parties seeking the protective order would be
required to identify for the court's review the writings or
information that are proposed for confidentiality and shall bear
the burden for its justification. Any writing or information
that is not identified for review by the court would not be
subject to any protective order granted by the court. The court
would be required to independently examine the basis of the
proposed protective order and would make findings for each
writing or item of information proposed for nondisclosure under
the motion for a protective order.
Author's Amendments : Among other things, the Civil Justice
Association of California (CJAC) complains that under the bill
"a mere allegation" of a product defect is an adequate basis for
denying confidentiality to a defendant's documents. The result,
CJAC asserts, is that the bill assumes guilt and allows
plaintiffs' lawyers to publicly disseminate a defendant's
sensitive business information just because the lawyer files a
lawsuit claiming a product "may be" defective. In order to
clarify his intent that evidence which can be appropriately
weighed by a judge is required in the bill, the author shall
amend the bill to replace the term "information" with "evidence
of."
In addition, a technical amendment shall be made to the bill to
clarify the author's intent that settlement "discussions" and
not "agreements" are exempted from the bill's provisions, as has
AB 36
Page 13
been the case in the prior versions of this legislation.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author and the
co-sponsors, AB 36 is needed because of the public harm that can
result from keeping information of known risks away from the
public. Proponents assert that the public has seen too many
examples of a product defect or other public hazard that is
known to cause injury to the public, yet the evidence of that
public risk is sealed from public view by protective orders or
settlement agreements that keep the risk hidden from the public.
For example, known risks kept secret from the public include
the shred-prone Firestone Tires that were recalled only after
hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries, hidden
environmental hazards as publicized by the Erin Brockovich case,
the diet drug Fen-Phen, silicone gel implants, tobacco products,
and asbestos, to name just a few.
These cases illustrate that the non-disclosure of known
information of public hazards have led to countless human
tragedies and severe financial loss. AB 36 seeks to stop the
secrecy in order to protect human lives.
According to the author, despite the potential adverse impact
upon the public, information discovered in litigation that is
evidence of a defective product or other public hazard is
routinely kept secret when a discovery protective order is
routinely renewed without any public hearing and usually without
the court reviewing the information to be sealed and determining
whether secrecy is appropriate.
Proponents stress that the Legislature needs to end the practice
of allowing information of a public hazard to be routinely
sealed from public scrutiny without court consideration of the
public risks. The author argues that AB 36 is a fair bill that
balances the public's need to know of risks with the business
community's interest in protecting its trade secrets and
privileged information, while reducing the injury, death, and
damage to unsuspecting consumers that could and should be
avoided.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: Opponents vociferously contend that
AB 36 would lead to increased litigation, more costly
litigation, and the likely loss of protection for intellectual
and other property rights. CJAC writes that the threat to trade
secrets is so great that enactment of AB 36 will cause taking of
AB 36
Page 14
property that will require state compensation. CJAC also
contends that AB 36's prohibition about selling the information
is illusory, that nothing prevents a plaintiff from freely
distributing the information on the Internet or sharing it with
colleagues without charge. "Once the information is public, the
value of the property at issue will be severely diminished, if
not destroyed," writes CJAC.
Opponents also contend that AB 36 would run roughshod over
existing privacy protections and may thus infringe upon the
constitutional right of privacy.
Opponents argue that reducing the court's discretion to order
protective orders will leave courts unable to protect the
fundamental privacy and property rights of the litigants. In
that event, they assert that parties will necessarily litigate
every discovery request involving information the party believes
is a trade secret, privileged, confidential, proprietary, and
private, to prevent the public dissemination of that
information. As one example, opponents assert that the "trade
secret" exception is too narrow because many courts refuse to
classify non-technical information (such as marketing and
product plans) as a trade secret, thus forcing the party to make
a showing that the information is protected under the five-part
balancing standard.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Attorney General Bill Lockyer
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California District Attorney's Association
California Conference of Machinists
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
California Newspaper Publisher's Association
California Nurses Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Center For Public Interest Law
Children's Advocacy Institute
Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways
Congress of California Seniors
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Federation of California
AB 36
Page 15
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
Consumers Union
Engineers and Scientists of California
Foundation for Taxpayer And Consumer Rights
Golden State Mobilehome Owners League, Inc.
Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers
Homeowners Against Deficient Dwellings, Inc.
Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees International Union
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Older Women's League of California
Region 8 States Council of the United Food & Commercial Workers
Service Employees International Union
Sierra Club
Trauma Foundation
United Policyholders
Opposition
3M
Advanced Medical Technology Association
Advanced Tissue Sciences
AG Edwards and Sons Inc.
Agouron
Alcatel USA
Alliance of American Insurers
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Alliance Pharmaceutical Corporation
Allstate Insurance Company
Akkadix
American Electronics Association
American Insurance Association
Apple
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.
Association of California Insurance Companies
Association of California Life & Health Insurance Companies
Baxter Healthcare Corporation
Bay Area Bioscience Center
Bayer Corporation
BIOCOM/San Diego
Bristol-Myers Squibb
BP Amoco
California Apartment Association
California Association of Health Facilities
California Association of Professional Liability Insurers
California Building Industry Association
AB 36
Page 16
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California Citizens for a Sound Economy
California Financial Services Association
California Healthcare Institute
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Retailer's Association
California Restaurant Association
California Taxpayers' Association
Cal-Tax
Caterpillar, Inc.
Celgene Signal Research Division
Central California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
Chevron
Cistem
Civil Justice Association of California
Clorox
Compaq
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors of California (CELSOC)
Elitra Pharmaceuticals
Employers Health Care Coalition
Enterprise Rent-a-Car
Esperian
Exodus Communications, Inc.
Exxon
Federation of Insurance and Corporate Counsel
First American Financial Corporation
GeneFormatics
General Motors
Gen-Probe Incorporated
GlaxoSmithKline
Goldsberry, Freeman & Swanson
Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce
Hewlett Packard
Holliseden
Hydrocephalus Association
IDEC Pharmaceuticals
Idun Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Insurance Agents and Brokers Legislative Council
Intel
International Association of Defense Counsel
Intuit
Jack In The Box
Johnson & Johnson
AB 36
Page 17
La Jolla Pharmaceutical Company
Lawyers for Civil Justice
Livingston & Mattesich
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Los Angeles Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
Maxia Pharmaceuticals
Maxim Pharmaceuticals
Mitokor
Money Mailer, LLC
NHBB, Inc.
Nationwide Insurance Enterprise
Nereus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Neurogenetics
New United Motor Manufacturing (NUMMI)
Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commmerce
Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, LLp
Nissan North America
Norwood Pedrotti
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
Orange County Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
Personal Insurance Federation
Pfizer, Inc.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PHARMA)
PPG, Industries, Inc.
Prometheus
Quebecor World
Quorex Pharmaceuticals
Raymond James Financial Services
Robinson Helicopter Co.
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.
San Diego Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation
S.C. Johnson
SGI
Securities Industry Association
Semiconductor Equipment & Materials International (SEMI)
Sequenom Industrial Genomics
Silicon Valley Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
State Farm
Sun Microsystems
TechNet
The Doctor's Company
Trega Biosciences
TRW
AB 36
Page 18
Western Digital
Western States Petroleum Association
Wilke, Fleury, Hoffelt, Gould & Birney, LLP
Wine Institute
Xilinx
Analysis Prepared by : Drew Liebert / JUD. / (916) 319-2334