View video here.

NARRATOR: It's your life with Hugh Downs and Barbara Walters.

NARRATOR: This is 20/20.

NARRATOR: The secrets they keep.
HUGH DOWNS: Well tonight, Lynn Sherr brings it all out in the open with a telling investigation of the secrets they keep.

LYNN SHERR: This is a story about secrets, legal secrets. Information buried in court documents that may affect people's lives, but that large corporations want to keep private.
In most out of court settlements, victims are paid only if they agree not to reveal sensitive corporate secrets. So, in courthouses all over the country, there are documents like these, sealed from public scrutiny by order of a judge.
In some cases, even government officials are denied access. As a result, we may use a defective product, take a harmful drug, or live in a toxic area without realizing it because the facts are hidden by court order. It is only when a case comes to trial that such critical information becomes public.
How does the public get access to such information?

LYNN SHERR: A Supreme Court justice, Louis Brandeis, came up with one remedy for corporate secrets protected by the legal system. Sunlight, he said, is the best disinfectant. Electric light, the most effective policeman. So two years ago, in an attempt to illuminate the darkness, the judges of San Diego adopted a bold new rule. It says confidentiality agreements and protective orders are disfavored and will be granted only in extreme circumstances. In other words, here in San Diego, secrecy is out.
FEMALE VOICE: Please remain seated. Come to order. This court is now in session.
LYNN SHERR: That kind of measure on the local level points up the pressure on judges like Judith McConnell who supported the anti-secrecy rules here. She says to settle cases quickly and avoid costly trials, judges, including herself, used to go along with companies' requests and sign protective orders routinely.
JUDGE JUDITH MCCONNELL: In the olden days, I would sign an order that stipulated that the moon was made out of cheese if, if the lawyers came in and asked me to sign it. And we routinely signed orders because they didn't create any work for us and they resolved issues and there was no one around asking that anything else be done.
LYNN SHERR: Was the public being served with all those documents being sealed?
JUDGE JUDITH MCCONNELL: I don't think so.
LYNN SHERR: Do you think it's possible that lives were lost as a result of confidentiality agreements and sealed documents?
JUDGE JUDITH MCCONNELL: I'd hate to think that's the case.
LYNN SHERR: And in your case?
PATRICIA MILLER: In our case, it cost us our son's life and the paralysis of Richard.
LYNN SHERR: Jim and Patricia Miller blame court secrecy and the seatbelts installed in their Ford Escort, the ones that buckle up over your lap in the back seat, for the accident that occurred four years ago.
PATRICIA MILLER: It never dawned on me that the lap belts the boys put on that day would cause their injuries.
LYNN SHERR: On a Sunday drive in 1988, the boys were dutifully strapped in when a car swerved across the center line on a dangerous curve and crashed head-on with their Ford Escort.
PATRICIA MILLER: I remember Richard calling out. Help me, momma, he said. And I remember hearing nothing from James. And when I as in the hospital, I can remember saying over and over, "Where's James? Where's James? Where's James?"

LYNN SHERR: Eight-year-old James died.

LYNN SHERR: His twin brother, Richard, was paralyzed from the waist down.
RICHARD MILLER: After my brother's death, I felt that I had to live my life as, as I would have always lived my life. Ever since the beginning I've just had a positive outlook on things. I don't think this wheelchair makes me any different from any other person. I just keep on trying and I try to be like everyone else.
LYNN SHERR: The Millers sued Ford and were shocked to discover there had been other accidents.
 
LYNN SHERR: Other lawsuits under protective order that convinced them Ford knew for years the rear lap belts were inadequate and that adding a shoulder harness made them much safer.
LYNN SHERR: They were angry that such information had been hidden and were incensed that Ford hadn't installed the shoulder belts for a mere $12.
PATRICIA MILLER: I'm very angry and very bitter because they are the people that could protect the public and they're not doing that.
LYNN SHERR: Ford agreed to settle the case, provided the Millers kept the amount secret. But the Millers refused. They were so outraged at having been denied information themselves, they wouldn't go along with any secrecy. Besides, they believed that only by publicizing the extraordinary settlement, $6 million, could they get the attention they wanted to crusade against rear lap belts.

LYNN SHERR: Ford gave in and paid them anyway. If Ford had its way, and had a confidentiality agreement, what would have happened with this case?
CRAIG MCCLELLAN: Nothing. The Millers would have received the $6 million. The matter would have been hushed. No heightened public awareness and that's not to mention the crippling and the maiming that would continue in the rear seats of vehicles.
MALCOLM WHEELER: The public can be badly misled and I think the public has been badly damaged by the misrepresentations that have been made about rear seat lap belts.
LYNN SHERR: In a rare broadcast interview, a Ford legal consultant accused victims' attorneys of distorting corporate records to win lawsuits. In effect, misleading their own clients and the public.
MALCOLM WHEELER: You're going to find that the representations that are being made about the defective product or about documents being withheld are vastly overstated and in many instances simply outright false.
LYNN SHERR: You're saying that rear lap belts are safe?
MALCOLM WHEELER: Absolutely.
LYNN SHERR: Wheeler says Ford paid the Millers $6 million and asked them to keep the amount secret simply because the company believed it could not get a fair trial. What do you think they wanted to keep quiet?
JIM MILLER: I think they wanted to keep the product defect quiet, absolutely.
MALCOLM WHEELER: I know of no one since--in my work for Ford Motor Company in which there was some document that the public didn't know about that if they'd known about it would have provided them with some shocking information, would have caused them to act differently for their own safety. The easiest thing in the world to do is to take a person who has suffered a personal tragedy and say look at this terribly injured person and look at this big corporation. And right away you've got two strikes. It's very easy.
LYNN SHERR: That may be true. But how else to judge the harm suffered by real victims like Richard Miller and decide whether a corporation bears any responsibility for how his life has been changed.
RICHARD MILLER: The hardest part is probably seeing kids running around playing soccer which was my favorite sport. And it's hard for me to accept that I can't do that one thing that I used to love to do.
LYNN SHERR: The Millers say they would never have had peace of mind if they'd agreed to keep silent.
JIM MILLER: Every day, even now, we see children getting in the back seats of cars and I can look--I look at the parents and those parents think their kids are safe. And I want to shout a warning. I want to say hey, stop, be careful. We're upset because nobody else, neither the manufacturers nor the federal regulatory agencies are doing that. They're ignoring it. Somebody has to tell people they're in danger.
LYNN SHERR: The question is, once a case is decided, should the victims be allowed to use what they've discovered to inform the public? Or should that information be locked up in a courthouse safe?
HUGH DOWNS: Did you find that lawsuit was filed that the public had absolutely no access to the material in the case?
LYNN SHERR: Hugh, it depends on what stage we're talking about. In the early stages of many lawsuits, companies, Ford and Pfizer told us, told us this, other companies as well, in those early stages, public allegations are on the record very frequently and they are often reported in the press. So then you might find out. And of course, if it actually goes to trial, then the public will find out.
HUGH DOWNS: Yeah. It's--when it's locked up what happens if you, if you violate a gag order?
LYNN SHERR: Well, we do know of some cases where both attorneys and individuals were cited for contempt of court by a judge and fined. But we know of no cases where because someone talked and broke a confidentiality agreement the money had to be returned.
HUGH DOWNS: Oh, I see. So that has not happened.
LYNN SHERR: Not that we know of.
HUGH DOWNS: Well, you mentioned this has become the national debate now.
LYNN SHERR: Right.
HUGH DOWNS: And where does it stand now? How is the debate going?
LYNN SHERR: There are four states that now have anti-secrecy laws and legislation is pending in six other states. But you know what's really happening is that judges are getting more sensitive to it. Not only in New York, as we showed you, but in Texas as well, judges are trying to change the rules. So what's happening in that judges are just starting to ask tougher questions and just not allow a gag rule quite so quickly.
HUGH DOWNS: Fascinating. Thank you, Lynn. Well, coming up...