ARCHIVED CONTENT
You are viewing ARCHIVED CONTENT released online between 1 April 2010 and 24 August 2018 or content that has been selectively archived and is no longer active. Content in this archive is NOT UPDATED, and links may not function.By Craig Ball
I’m sitting outside a courtroom in Texas where I have left the proceedings rather than risk the assertion that I learned confidential information offered as testimony in open court. Sounds crazy, I know; but when lawyers agree to protective orders and judges enter them (then order that they apply to anyone sitting in the courtroom, signatory or not), judges and lawyers tend not to consider what impact those orders have on persons not parties to the case. Just as there must be a right to protect truly privileged information and trade secrets, there must be a corollary right not to take on the burden and risk of protecting such information when you neither seek nor require disclosure of confidential data. We have a right not to know.
Read the complete article at: The Right Not to Know