Almost immediately after Stephens 2004 decided that the evidence against Purdue was sufficient to continue the case, Purdue settled with West Virginia for $ 10 million. Stephens left his seal order intact. The evidence was locked away in a vault in the McDowell County Courthouse. By the end of the year, opioid deaths had 65,000.
Stephens told Reuters that he simply honored the wishes of the litigants. "Of course, when you settle a case of this size and of this kind, Purdue Pharma would not let the world know that they were engaged in fraudulent marketing practices," he said.
Frances Hughes, West Virginia's Deputy Attorney at the time said the state agreed with Purdue's seal requests to obtain the necessary evidence and avoid a potential long-term court fight. "We did something that is very routine and necessary when you are involved in litigation with a major corporation," she said.
Many of the plaintiffs' lawyers had evidence that they could affect public health and safety, Reuters said they had often employed a similar calculation. Bound by ethical rules to put their customers' interests first, they will have access to records that can help their cases. Demanding transparency can cause long-term delays.
Many judges will avoid getting into confidentiality matches, said Jeremy Fogel, who, as a judge until last year, managed the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, DC, an agency that helps educate judges.
"You're overloaded. You have limited bandwidth. You've got lawyers fighting for everything. And then when they finally agree on something, you're too happy to accept it," said Fogel, now head of the legal institute. at Berkeley at the University of California.
As a result, he said "could really have made a difference, it will sometimes not be illuminated."
LITTLE DATA, LITTLE SUNSHINE
In the years following Stephen's expense, Purdue benefited from that secrecy who had enveloped West Virginia and similar cases.  The US Department of Justice in 2007 brought criminal charges against Purdue and accused it of lying in its marketing about how easy it was to abuse OxyContin by crushing the pills to get their full drug payload at one time.
In a filing at the Federal Court of Abingdon, Virginia, Purdue repeated its 12-hour claim: "When taken as stated without manipulating the product's delivery system, OxyContin is undoubtedly safe and efficient."
Under a plea bargain, three Purdue leaders admitted guilt, but earned no time. The company paid $ 600 million to resolve the case. The three leaders later left the firm.
Business records that dribbled over the years generated newspaper and government reports on aggressive sales tactics. But evidence undermining Purdue's allegations of OxyContin remained locked away in courthouses across the country. And Purdue continued to market his drug based on the contested 12-hour claim.
OxyContin sales rose in the top 2 billion in 2008. Opioid deaths rose to 135,000 by the end of 2008. Next year, Purdue's 80-milligram Oxycontin pill, the largest dose version was the company's largest moneymaker. This year, drug abuse – driven by the tip of opioid overdoses – attempted to violate car accidents as the cause of death in the United States.
Then, Mississippi lawyer Philip Thomas tried to bring information about Purdue's marketing of OxyContin under the attention of regulators. Thomas represented Patricia Gwen Kiser, a nurse who claimed in a lawsuit against Purdue that her doctor had prescribed OxyContin for her fibromyalgia and arthritis pain based on the company's false claims of drug safety.
Purdue turned over more than 250 boxing documents to Thomas, who designates most of the confidential evidence. Thomas asked Purdue to share only 21 of the documents – e-mails, meeting minutes and the Purdue script asking the dealers to use when OxyContin's doctors were at the FDA. Purdue fell.
Thomas asked Judge Linda Anderson, the judge who heard the case in federal courts in Mississippi, to allow him to share the records with the governor. Purdue opposed and argued that the records were confidential trade secrets. Anderson, in a 2010 order, agreed with Purdue.
Anderson did not respond to a request for comment. Purdue said in his statement to Reuters that it provided "the whole or most" of the documents to the Agency, even though they "do not contain the type of scientific information" that the agency normally trusts.
Some regulatory authorities have made efforts to counter the potential damage to the law. In 2016, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued guidance for judges to allow for exceptions in secrecy orders so that lawyers can share safety and security records with the Agency. Consumer Products The Security Commission followed suit.
The FDA does not. In a statement to Reuters, the agency said that the current regulatory system gives it "the tools to keep patients and consumers safe."
The year after the NHTSA issued its guidance, the Agency initiated a study of possible security errors in Goodyear tires on thousands of motorhomes. In its December 2017 Communication, the Agency said that the continuing demand was made only in part after an Arizona judge had allowed the release of the tire manufacturer's records, including insurance claims and complaint data.
Goodyear refused to comment, like NHTSA.
In the absence of such exceptions, lawyers or others who are familiar with confidential evidence are at risk if they share that information outside the court's boundaries.
David Egilman was an expert witness in a lawsuit claiming Eli Lilly & Co.'s antipsychotic drug Zyprexa may cause excessive weight gain and diabetes. Egilman, a clinical professor of family medicine at Brown University, made Lilly records he had reviewed in cases available to the New York Times.
When the newspaper published articles based on the documents, Lilly threatened to seek criminal sanctions against Egilman. In 2007, he agreed to pay the drug manufacturer $ 100,000 to resolve the case. About a year later, Lilly told him guilty and decided to pay $ 1.4 billion. Dollars for solving taxes that it illegally marketed Zyprexa.
Lilly refused to comment.
Egilman had the previous experience in mind when he tried to shine a light on OxyContin, which he had prescribed for a few patients in the early days of the drug. As he reviewed Purdue's records as an expert witness in a lawsuit against the company, Egilman was convinced that the doctors got the wrong message about OxyContin.
This time, he went to court to try to force the Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley to release evidence her office had gathered during a study of Purdue's sales practices.
Massachusetts Chief Judge Linda Giles took a weak view of his petition and asked Egilman's lawyer during a 2012 hearing, "What is his agenda?" and "You want me to believe He is a noble citizen?"
When he did not mean the case, he went, said Egilman, he agreed to withdraw his request instead of risking establishing an unfavorable precedent with a decision that evidence collected in a state survey was confidential.  "I could have stopped this," Egilman said in an interview. "I am morally and ethically responsible. I took an oath to protect my patient's health and not corporate profits."
Coakley and Giles refused to comment.
At the end of 2012, the opioid death penalty was 223,000.
The proof that OxyContin was not the benign pain relief that its maker said had remained locked away until 2016. That year, the Los Angeles Times published a report based on copies of sealed records specifying how Purdue sold OxyContin as A 12-hour medicine, even though the company knew it, wasn't that long.
The report cited the company documents that Stephens and other judges had been holding for a long time, revealing that OxyContin was early in Purdue test patients and that doctors complained to sales representatives about the problem. Deficiencies in the effects of a drug can cause pain, withdrawal and relief known to promote addiction.
The sealed journals further showed that despite what Purdue knew, he hired hundreds of sales representatives to push OxyContin as a 12-hour drug because insurance companies would strike by paying top dollar for a slightly different pain relief from cheaper alternatives.
After the Los Angeles Times report, Judge Stephens began releasing the records he had sacked in 2004 for news organizations requesting them, including Reuters. "I felt it would be helpful for others to pursue this type of trial," he said.
He was right. Many lawsuits against Purdue have cited the newspaper report and the original records.
When the opioid epidemic landed on judge Polsters docked in federal district court in Cleveland at the end of 2017, it had claimed 350,000 lives.
Guilt for the public – Health disaster was now aimed at the entire industry – drug manufacturers, distributors and retailers. The claims of the hundreds of cases consolidated in Polster's law remained consistent: Companies hung up opioids for everyday pain relief, dulled their habit and then accused the people who used them to become hooked.
"What happens in our country with opioid crisis is present and ongoing," padding told a courtroom packed with lawyers for a Jan 9, 2018, hearing. "As we lose more than 50,000 of our citizens every year, about 150 Americans will die today, just today while we meet."
The judge then said, as he has often said, that he would definitely have the suits quickly so that societies ravaged by addiction could receive money to fight the crisis. "I don't think anyone in the country is interested in a lot of fingertips," Polster told the standing room alone. "People are not interested in deposits and discoveries and trials."
The tobacco industry bill 20 years ago, however, shows that when evidence is presented, it can have great public influence. During their landmark agreement with 46 states in 1998, cigarette manufacturers paid $ 246 billion. Dollars and handed out over 26 million pages of listings showing how they had manipulated nicotine to promote addiction and funded research into swing policy. This information provided the basis for public health initiatives and regulatory actions in 160 countries. Since then, smoke frequencies in the United States have fallen to historical downs.
Quoted tobacco archives recently filed the public interest case briefly in Polish law, requesting that any decision on opioid procedures require the disclosure of all documents promoting research, changes in public order, regulations and consumption.
In Polish lawsuits, which lawyers began to dispute their cases against the opioid industry in altered complaints, they edited detailed information on corporate behavior. In almost all cases, Polster failed to give the record his justification for allowing the secret, even though the US Sixth Circuit Board of Appeal overseeing his jurisdiction has established a precedent that requires him to do so.
A few courts that recognize the breadth of the opioid crisis have recently signaled a less tolerant stance on secrecy, which contrasts with Polster.
Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Janet Sanders chaired a January hearing on Purdue's request to maintain hundreds of editions in a state-filed trial. News organizations, including Reuters, had asked Sanders to cancel the editors.
Sanders reminded the lawyers that they were in the courtroom where records of sexual abuse of children from Roman Catholic priests were recorded until the Boston Globe asked for the right of their release.
The case, she said, showed that although the trials on both sides want to keep the evidence secret, "the court must make a decisive decision."
Purdue's lawyers claimed that disclosure would show violence and scandal.
Taking note of the "big" public interest in the information, Sanders said: "This material – part or all of it – is going to come out someday. I'm not sure why it shouldn't be sooner rather than later. "
Tony LaGreca, whose son fell heavily after becoming addicted to opioids prescribed for football injury, was in the courtroom that day. "She was pretty amazing," he said about Sanders. LaGreca said parents like him are eager for the world to see evidence that places some responsibility for drug dependence. "It must all be made public," he said.
In an emergency filed with Polster's Cleveland Court, the Purdue urged the judge to block Sanders from lifting the editors. The Massachusetts trial was full of details that could make the company look bad, a Purdue lawyer complained during a hearing, and the effort to get Judge Sanders in Boston to release them was an attempt to bypass Polster's secrecy order.
Upholstery sympathized. "I'm also not very happy with Massachusetts AG," he said. But he decided he had no power to override Sanders.
The next day, an unredacted version of the Massachusetts trial was published. The state used excerpts from e-mails between Purdue board members and board members and details from other posts to strengthen its main responsibility: Purdue's sales campaign was a "lethal and illegal scheme to defraud doctors and patients" who had contributed to at least 671 fatal overdoses in Massachusetts since 2009.
The unredacted material backed allegations that Purdue, after promising reforms in the 2007 agreement with federal prosecutors, urged doctors to prescribe OxyContin to older and military veterans, groups that are addicted to addiction. The state also claimed that Purdue attempted to increase the prescription for larger doses, although an internal analysis in 2012 recognized that the more potent pills "very likely" represented an increased dose-related overdose risk. The underlying analysis remains under seal.
Purdue denies the allegations.
The raw material shows why doctors continued to write historically many OxyContin prescriptions, even as deaths, says Professor Jerry Avorn of Harvard Medical School. "It helps patients and doctors understand why so much OxyContin is used."
Judge Sanders refused to comment on the case. In product liability cases in general, "the public has a lot of right to know what's going on," she said. "Transparency provides assurance that what is happening is fair … There is no hanky-panky. There are no agreements between the parties that violate the public interest."
Polster has since ratcheted the secret in his court. He signed an February 11 order that allows trialists to designate any document as "very confidential – lawyers' information only". This provides information to everyone – even the mayors and other governmental and local officials represented by the lawyers – without the consent of the Oyster or the defendant who produced it.
Last week, the Sixth US Criminal Court sprinkled Polster for his secrecy orders, following the Washington Post and Gazette-Mail in Charleston, West Virginia, appealing his seal of government data on opioid flow around the country.
The three panel of judges agreed uniformly that Polster had not provided sufficient reasons to allow the parties to file documents under seal, not just about government data, but beyond. They ordered him to do it. Upholstery "is advised to keep in mind that the party seeking to surrender must give a" compelling reason "to do so," Judge Eric Clay wrote.
In the coming weeks, the applicants will still submit their most comprehensive briefs on the behavior of the opioid industry. It will be up to Polster to decide what the public is allowed to see.
Additional reporting by Charles Levinson, Andrea Januta, Erica Evans and Nathaniel Okun.
By Benjamin Lesser, Dan Levine, Lisa Girion and Jaimi Dowdell
Data: Benjamin Lesser, Jaimi Dowdell, Nathaniel Okun and Charlie Szymanski
Graphics: Feilding Cage
Photo Editing: Steve McKinley
Design: Troy Dunkley and Charlie Szymanski
Edited by Janet Roberts and John Blanton