PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 4, 1999
Sunshine in Litigation Act of 1999 - Amends the Federal judicial code to require a court to enter an order (under rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) restricting the disclosure of information obtained through discovery, approving a settlement agreement that would restrict the disclosure of such information, or restricting access to court records in a civil case only after making particularized findings of fact that: (1) such order would not restrict the disclosure of information which is relevant to the protection of public health or safety; or (2) the public interest in disclosure of potential health or safety hazards is clearly outweighed by a specific and substantial interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the information or records in question and the requested protective order is no broader than necessary to protect the privacy interest asserted. Provides that: (1) no such order (other than an order approving a settlement agreement) shall continue in effect after the entry of final judgment unless at or after such entry the court makes a separate particularized finding of fact that such requirements have been met; (2) the party who is the proponent for entry of the order shall have the burden of proof; (3) no Federal court may approve or enforce any provision of an agreement between or among parties to a civil action, or approve or enforce an order subject to this Act, that prohibits or otherwise restricts a party from disclosing any information relevant to such civil action to any Federal or State agency with authority to enforce laws regulating an activity related to such information; and (4) any such information disclosed to a Federal or State agency shall be confidential to the extent provided by law.
People & committees
Sen. Kohl, Herb [D-WI] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4678-4679)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. 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 S.957 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 S.957 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 S.957 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 S.957 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.