I understand that by law the public has rights to know certain things about various government officials and their actions. But I’m wondering by what legal principle the public has the right to see a private entity’s internal communications, simply because they were involved in a lawsuit.
Appeals court orders Manfred letter to Yankees unsealed | AP News
I believe if the communication was presented as evidence in a court case then it is part of the public record and subject to Freedom of Information laws.
Otherwise it would be considered “privileged” and the attorneys would be under no obligation to produce it (and would actually get in trouble if they did).
Agreed, every piece of evidence introduced in open court is considered part of the public record. The lawyers can ask that evidence be sealed from the public if the potential for damage outweighs the public’s right to know.
Based on the information in the story, I suspect the Court did not feel the commissioner’s comments on an MLB investigation into sign-stealing would cause much damage.
Here’s an interesting twist (not related to the OP’s example but a public company trying to hide evidence):
I recall hearing that as a tactic in assorted businesses about a decade ago - invite the lawyer to sit in on the business meeting to make it privileged.
IIRC the comment from actual lawyers was that unless the meeting dealt with actual legal matters, the conversation is not privileged. What you decide to order for group lunch, or dealing with your production numbers, are not privileged communications.
Press organisations will tend to make the blanket assumption that everything they write is ‘in the public interest’ and therefore protected from any concerns or regulations about privacy. It’s untrue, but it seems to be their default.
That is, speaking from recent experience of trying to get a major newspaper to un-dox me in their online version. I sent a GDPR ‘right to be forgotten’ request; they declined on the grounds that it is in the public’s interest to know my full name and home address (on a fluffy non-news article about cooking bacon that they lifted from my website, no less)
I guess for the OP - the answer is simple. If you don’t want certain information to become part of the public record, don’t make it part of a lawsuit (or criminal case). If A has an argument with B that could result in legal action, A can either choose to fight B in court or vice versa, or if A’s information is sufficiently private, settling with B out of court is the option to choose. Basically, that sets a value on the need for privacy - what’s it worth to keep the dirty laundry hidden? There’s a reason so many settlements end up including a non-disclosure agreement.
(I see this with the Prince Andrew case - it seems to me that she was 17 which is above the age of consent in NYC and London; but rather than answer under oath about what sort of sexual activity Andrew got up to, and contest whether he in fact forced her - with the implication his testimony may involve legally under-aged girls and assorted salacious shennaigans - he chose to pay what it cost. This is precisely the OP’s question, how to not make something public record.)
Once a party asks the court (the impartial arm government) to settle a disagreement, then the public has a right to know whether the proceedings and basis for the decision were truly impartial and fair.
That sounds like government-sanctioned extortion. (More than “sanctioned”, actually, because the government is an active participant.)
Someone has done nothing wrong morally or legally but now has to pay a ransom in order to keep their private matters private.
See the highlighted bit above. The real world isn’t perfect, and sometimes we have to make a decision that balances an individual’s interests against the interests of the public.
And the public does have a vested interest in being able to see what information was used to reach a verdict, in order to maintain trust in the courts.
Imagine a world in which the courts routinely found in favor of rich people who were being sued for various shenanigans, and every time we asked, “Hey, how did this person get acquitted?”, the judges said, “Oh, because of details in this private message your have no right to see, just trust us, he’s totally not guilty!” How long do you think it would be before everyone just assumed the courts were being bribed? How long do you think it would be before a lot of the courts actually were being bribed?
We know that bribes already occur, even now. Insisting that all this sort of evidence routinely be kept secret would almost certainly make things worse.
I’m extremely skeptical of this. And my impression is that in Europe things are not done this way, without disastrous results.
I believe it’s really all about the power of the press in the US, which is the primary vested interest in digging out salacious information via the court system.
I don’t recall a single instance where the press exposed some information via the public’s “right to know” that would have been a game changer in terms of the verdict. But the press exposing information that humiliates people but helps the press sell themselves is routine.
E.g. it’s common for the press to request access to divorce pleadings so that they can report on every nasty thing the parties said about each other in the height of the battle. I’ve never seen anything which was even presented to the public under the pretense of assessing the divorce decree in the context of these allegations. It’s always “well look at this juicy stuff we got here …”.
It’s kinda the other way around. Some has done something wrong morally or legally, and is yet able to pay to keep the public from being aware of it.
A private party is using the government (through the courts) to impose their will on another group. For example, you violated our contract and I’m going to get the government to compel you to uphold the contract. You violated my rights, and I’m going to get the government to compel you to pay me. And so on.
Because the force of the government is being used, the idea is that we as the public have the right to know why the government is doing what it’s doing. There are exceptions, such as withholding the names of juveniles in trials, rape shield laws, sealed evidence, etc.
In the US this is part of our strong free speech culture related to the first amendment. Europe generally falls more to the side of privacy than free speech. It is a trade off. The same rules in Europe that let you keep your embarrassing details out of the press also let bad people keep their bad behavior out of the press. There isn’t a “right” answer on where to land. Free speech and privacy are both important rights, which are often opposed to each other.
Not that I think this should make a difference, as above, but worth noting that in this case, no one compelled anyone to do anything via the courts. The people who sued MLB lost the case. But nonetheless, the letter was to be released.
Is there any evidence at all to support this notion that judiciary corruption is higher in Europe due to their policies?
This is the situation that falls under the category of “shit happens”. If your private behaviour results in a potentially tortious action by someone else, then you must publicly defend your actions - or pay. You are always welcome to try to defend your actions without revealing certain private details, but if they are crucial to proving you are not at fault, then the public is entitled to know that the courts adjudiated fairly.
On a contrasting note, I see that for example, photos of Bob Saget’s death are in fact sealed by a judge. In this case, the public’s right to see these are not considered as urgent as the family’s right to not be subject to these in the media…
I would imagine the same would apply to photos of any death or serious accident. The description of the incident is public record, and not contested by either participant in any lawsuit, to the extent that seeing the photos would alter the accepted facts. Therefore there is no real interest served by releasing gruesome photos other than satisfying some people’s morbid curiosity.