Law Commons^™

A Modest Proposal: Recognizing (At Last) That The Federal Rules Do Not Declare That Discovery Is Presumptively Public, Richard L. Marcus

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure worked a revolution in American litigation by introducing broad party-controlled discovery. The framers of those Rules intended broad discovery to facilitate decisions on the merits, and their revolution served as a catalyst for many types of claims in American courts. American discovery also became anathema in the rest of the world, which saw it as too great a cost to pay for better or more accurate litigation results. As American discovery hit full stride in the 1970s, nonparties began to argue that the Federal Rules made all material turned over in …

Uncovering, Disclosing, And Discovering How The Public Dimensions Of Court-Based Processes Are At Risk, Judith Resnik

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In this essay—considering "privacy" and "secrecy" in courts—I first offer a brief history of the public performance, through adjudication, of the power of rulers, who relied on open rituals of judgment and punishment to make and maintain law and order. Second, I turn to consider why, during the twentieth century, the federal courts became an unusually good source of information about legal, political, and social conflict. Third, I map how, despite new information technologies, knowledge about conflicts and their resolution is being limited by the devolution of court authority to agencies, by the outsourcing of decisions to private providers, and …

Introduction To Secrecy In Litigation, Nancy S. Marder

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The clash between privacy and public disclosure in dispute resolution demands the attention of legal academics, empiricists, and practitioners. Recent advances in technology have made information accessible in ways that were inconceivable a few years ago. Parties to disputes find their thoughts and interactions open to far greater disclosure than ever before. At the same time, the move toward alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has effectively taken many disputes out of the public realm and has transformed them into private transactions. Whereas in the past the public could observe disputes resolved at trial, now many disputes are resolved behind the veil …

Sealing And Revealing: Rethinking The Rules Governing Public Access To Information Generated Through Litigation, Andrew D. Goldstein

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The current law governing public access to information generated through civil litigation is flawed in two ways: (1) while many states and courts in theory require rigorous standards to be met before court documents, including judicially-approved settlement agreements, can be sealed, in practice courts often allow pressure from private parties to trump public interests; and (2) the public's lack of any ability to access unfiled discovery materials deprives the public of information it often has an interest in seeing and permits litigants to enter into secrecy agreements that hide their bad acts.

This Article details the deficiencies in the existing …

Public Courts Versus Private Justice: It's Time To Let Some Sun Shine In On Alternative Dispute Resolution, Laurie Kratky Dore

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In her article, Public Courts versus Private Justice: It's Time to Let Some Sun Shine in on Alternative Dispute Resolution, Professor Laurie Doré explores the divergent attitudes toward confidentiality in litigation and confidentiality in alternative dispute resolution. In adjudicating even seemingly private disputes, a court balances the legitimate need for confidentiality against any countervailing public interest in disclosure. A strong presumption of public access attaches to judicial records and proceedings and good cause must support any protective, sealing, or confidentiality order of a court. Today, however, an increasing number of disputes that would otherwise be litigated before a judge …