The powers controlling the present Congress continue to conceal testimony given behind closed doors. They persist in their refusal to make public the transcripts of testimony given under oath many months ago. All despite the wishes of the witnesses that the testimony be made public, and all despite the agreement of many others who have also read the transcripts that there are no good reasons to seal them off from the public view.
An observation by a United States Magistrate Judge concerning secrecy in Court proceedings is a useful counterpoint to the Congressional powers continuing secrecy in their closed-door proceedings. In this bad-faith case, the Court ruled that communications from a lawyer about the case at hand should be produced in the litigation in which the defendant insurance company had apparently raised the defense of that counsel's advice, as reported on Insurance Claims and Issues on Monday, January 8, 2018.
The Court observed in that case:
“Rule 26 ... is not a blanket authorization for the court to prohibit disclosure of information whenever it deems it advisable to do so, but is rather a grant of power to impose conditions on discovery in order to prevent injury, harassment, or abuse of the court's processes.” Williams v. City of Dothan, Ala., 745 F.2d 1406, 1416 (11th Cir. 1984) (quoting Bridge C.A.T. Scan Assocs. v. Technicare Corp., 710 F.2d 940, 944–45 (2d Cir. 1983)).
Hibbett Patient Care, LLC v. Pharmacists Mut. Ins. Co., No. CA 16–00231–WS–C, 2017 WL 4817992, at *1 (S.D. Ala. January 26, 2017) (Cassady, USMJ).
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, or to put another way in this particular instance, what's good for the Courts is good for the Congress.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments