NHTSA Issues Recommended Best Practices for Protective Orders and Settlement Agreements in Private Litigation

24 March 2016 Dashboard Insights Blog

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) last week issued “Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2015-01: Recommended Best Practices for Protective Orders and Settlement Agreements in Civil Litigation,” which is intended to discourage the use of confidentiality provisions that present a potential barrier to the flow of safety-related information to the agency.

The bulletin, published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2016 (81 Federal Register 13026), states:

NHTSA recommends that all parties seek to include a provision in any protective order or settlement agreement that—despite whatever other restrictions on confidentiality are imposed, and whether entered into by consent or judicial fiat—specifically allows for disclosure of relevant motor vehicle safety information to NHTSA and other applicable governmental authorities.

NHTSA cites the importance of early identification of motor vehicle risks or defects as justification for its guidance and recommendations. It points to its recent investigations involving Takata airbag inflators and GM ignition switches as examples, implying that, without restrictive confidentiality provisions, the agency would have identified these and other safety defects earlier. This guidance is consistent with similar provisions that have been included in recent consent orders. For example, the FCA US LLC consent order requires FCA to use “best efforts” to include a provision in any protective order or settlement agreement in safety-related litigation that explicitly allows FCA to provide information and documents to NHTSA. (AQ14-003, Attachment A, ¶B.12) Similar provisions were included in NHTSA’s consent orders with BMW of North America, LLC (AQ15-004, Consent Order ¶24) and Triumph Motorcycles (America) Ltd. (AQ15-001, Consent Order Attachment A, ¶B.11). The Agency stopped short of recommending specific language to be used in settlement agreements and protective orders, leaving it up to the litigants to determine appropriate language in each case depending upon the facts and circumstances.

As NHTSA noted, “[t]his Bulletin is not a final agency action and is intended as guidance only.” Indeed, as voluntary guidelines, they are subject to the limitations contained in 49 USC 30111(f)(1) (recently added by Section 24406 of the FAST Act), which provides:

No guidelines issued by the Secretary with respect to motor vehicle safety shall confer any rights on any person, State, or locality, nor shall operate to bind the Secretary or any person to the approach recommended in such guidelines. In any enforcement action with respect to motor vehicle safety, the Secretary shall allege a violation of a provision of this subtitle, a motor vehicle safety standard issued under this subtitle, or another relevant statute or regulation. The Secretary may not base an enforcement action on, or execute a consent order based on, practices that are alleged to be inconsistent with any such guidelines, unless the practices allegedly violate a provision of this subtitle, a motor vehicle safety standard issued under this subtitle, or another relevant statute or regulation.

The full bulletin, which includes a discussion of NHTSA’s legal and policy arguments in support of this guidance, can be found in the Federal Register notice, available here.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights