PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 9, 2011
Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2011 - Amends the federal judicial code to prohibit a court, in any civil action in which the pleadings state facts relevant to the protection of public health or safety, from entering an order restricting the disclosure of information obtained through discovery, approving a settlement agreement that would restrict such disclosure, or restricting access to court records, unless in connection with such order the court has first made independent findings of fact that: (1) the order would not restrict the disclosure of information relevant to the protection of public health or safety; or (2) the public interest in the disclosure of past, present, or potential health or safety hazards is outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information, and the requested protective order is no broader than necessary to protect the confidentiality interest asserted.
Prohibits a court, again in any such civil action, from: (1) enforcing any provision of an agreement between or among parties to the civil action, or an order entered under this Act, that restricts a party from disclosing information to any federal or state agency with authority to enforce laws regulating an activity relating to such information; or (2) enforcing any provision of a settlement agreement between or among parties to such civil action that prohibits a party from disclosing that a settlement was reached or the terms of the settlement (excluding any money paid) that involve matters relevant to the protection of public health or safety, or from discussing matters relevant to the protection of public health or safety involved in such civil action. Excepts from this enforcement prohibition (thus allowing enforcement of) a settlement agreement provision about which the court finds that the public interest in the disclosure of past, present, or potential public health or safety hazards is outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information in question, and the requested protective order is no broader than necessary to protect the confidentiality interest asserted.
Creates a rebuttable presumption that the interest in protecting personally identifiable information of an individual outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, require, or authorize the disclosure of classified information, as defined under the Classified Information Procedures Act.
People & committees
Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-8] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.592 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.592 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.592 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.592 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.