In litigation against drug companies, state and federal courts routinely enter broad protective orders that prohibit plaintiffs from disclosing information they receive through discovery. Discovery refers to the phase in a lawsuit during which parties can ask questions and request the production of documents. These protective orders are troubling and often do not advance the public interest, as discussed in this issue of JAMA Internal Medicine by Egilman and colleagues.1 Courts also frequently “seal” documents that the parties place in the record, keeping those documents out of the public view.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Cohen IG, Bagley N. Private Rights and the Public Interest in Drug and Medical Device Litigation. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(2):299–300. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5164
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: