Lawyers For Mining Companies Threaten Scientific Journals

An anonymous reader writes "ScienceInsider got hold of a threatening letter that lawyers for the mining industry sent to various scientific journals (PDF) concerning data from the U.S. 'Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study.' Many occupational health researchers believe the study will show a link between diesel exhaust and cancer. A handful of scientists have commented on the letter and its implications."

Comments

Re:Link not working

[wbav]

Document link:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/DEMS%20documents.pdf

Wrong link in summary

[kimhanse]

This is the right link: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/DEMS documents.pdf

"Threaten"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to stick up for the mining companies, but the letter actually seems like it's asking publishers nicely.

So?

[Troyusrex]

The lawyers aren't being egregious, they are just making people aware of ongoing litigation and court orders that might land them in the middle of something they don't want to be in the middle of if they publish. I don't think it's extortion as they don't claim they will sue if the study is published, they just warn the publication there's an ongoing issue and an injunction. Moreover, it makes it clear that it's only a 90 day restriction. Without reading the lawsuit I can't judge at all if the mining industry is being nasty and litigious to the authors or if they have a valid claim but either way warning publications to talk to counsel seems like a good idea.

Re:So?

[phantomfive]

90 days after the complaints have all been addressed.

Really? My reading of the court order (in the first link that doesn't work) says 90 days after they provide the paper to the opposing side in the lawsuit. 90 days after that, they can do whatever they want. Here is the relevant part from the court order, so you can interpret it yourself:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, as agreed to by Plaintiffs, that Plaintiffs and Plaintiff's counsel, agents, or contractors shall not disclose or disseminate further the drafts, data, or materials produced hereunder during the 90 days commencing on the date the Defendants send those drafts to Plaintiffs except for the purpose of making comments about the drafts to defendants, the publishing journals, or to the Congressional Committee.

Also, here is another paragraph from the court order that explains why the lawyers sent the letter in the first place:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants immediately inform all recipients, including journals, of the above described study draft reports, not yet published, that they are prohibited from further distribution of said drafts until at least 90 days after Defendants have complied with this order

There's a court order here...

[PhysicsPhil]

It seems that this report is the subject of litigation, and there is a court order outstanding that says:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants immediately inform all recipients including journals (emphasis mine) of the above described study draft reports, not yet published, that they are prohibited from further distribution of said drafts until at least 90 days after Defendants have complied with this Order;

The "threatening" letter, which seems to be from the Plaintiffs in the action, informs the journal that the report is the subject of litigation, draws their attention to the court order, informs the journals that the Plaintiffs don't think the Defendant has yet complied with the court order and asks them to check with their legal counsel before publishing.

This isn't a standard "publish and we'll sue" letter, it's "publish and you risk contempt of court". It looks like an advisory letter rather than a direct threat.

Re:There's a court order here...

[SydShamino]

Any press publication with a two-bit lawyer will laugh at a judge who issues an injunction to prevent publication of a factual story.

They'll go back through the story with a fine-toothed comb and make sure everything is 100% based on reliable sources, but they'll publish nonetheless and have the full backing of the Constitution as their defense.

Re:it's

[amck]

To quote the Oracle, wikipedia:

Muphry's law is an adage that states that "if you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in what you have written". The name is a deliberate misspelling of Murphy's law.