Draft transaction agreements can also be considered judicial records under public law and the courts do not agree on the degree of judicial participation of these projects to be converted into judicial records. The Michigan Supreme Court then upheld these decisions of the first instance of Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. The City of Detroit, when it refused the appeal and found that the first instance did not violate the decision that a transaction contract is a public record submitted to FOIA. The Supreme Court, like the Court of Appeal, stated that there was “no exception to FOIA for transaction agreements” and that “a public body could not remove its obligations under the BLW.” Proponents of confidential comparisons argue that they prevent copycat actions, ensure fair negotiations in future cases, protect the reputation of parties who pay a disputed debt, and give privacy to beneficiaries of a wide comparison. Opponents of these agreements argue that they prevent a real understanding of the value of business, that they have potential tax consequences, that they reduce the liability of a criminal and that they hinder future litigation by limiting access to information and witnesses. Often, a confidentiality clause in a transaction agreement results in higher billing. In his opinion of decision, the Information Commissioner stressed the value of transaction agreements: they allow employers and employees to end a business relationship and separate from the high heads. If the terms of a transaction agreement were disclosed, this could jeopardize this situation. The promotion of the transaction procedure by protecting the information exchanged during this trial was explicitly referred to by Brennan J. in grolier, in which he noted that all parties to the trial, including the government, “have an acute interest in maintaining and settling the manner in which they conduct their recurring litigation.” 462 U.S. to 31 (concordant notice).
Even the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Madison County recognized the “logic and strength” of these “strong political arguments.” 641 F.2d to 1040. The fact is that only the EXCEPTIONAL FOIA protection allows you to obtain the billing procedure. See Center for Auto Safety v. Department of Justice, 576 F. Supp. 748 (with the agreement that FOIA`s “bad situation” deserves to be corrected in this regard). Given the inconsistent patchwork of protections that exist in the laws of the Law on the Protection of Journalists and the obligation to protect confidentiality agreements, such codes of ethics impress journalists, such promises should not be taken lightly. In addition, it should be remembered that the types of documents routinely prepared during transaction negotiations are types of documents that, independently, can be protected under the more traditional privileges, which have already been expressly included in the BFIA exemptions. See z.B. Cities Service Co. v. FTC, Civil No.
83-812, slip op. at 11-13 (D.D.C July 1984) (Attorney Working Papers on transaction negotiations protected by the privilege of the legal product) (pending complaint); Murphy v. TVA, 571 F. Supp. 502, 505-06 (D.D.C. 1983) (assessment documents for potential institutions protected under the privilege of the advisory procedure); Fulbright – Jaworski v. Department of the Treasury, 545 F. Supp. 615, 620 (D.C 1982) (documents reflecting the details of contract negotiations protected by the privilege of the deliberative process). The community does not agree on the level of judicial participation, but if a transaction agreement is not submitted to the court, public access rights are significantly reduced.