City officials say lawsuit settlement secrecy not their idea
Baltimore officials hit back Thursday at claims that they pushed for secrecy in a six-figure settlement involving a man mistakenly arrested by city police, providing a document that they say shows the man's lawyer pushed for confidentiality.
But the lawyer responded by releasing other documents that he says prove the city initiated the discussion over privacy, and that his counterproposals were made to protect his client.
City attorneys produced a Feb. 18 letter from Kupferberg in response to their draft agreement in which he suggests replacing their "non-disparagement" clause with a section titled "confidentiality agreement." In e-mail responses, city attorneys said his changes were not possible because the agreement had to go before the Board of Estimates.
"When monies are paid on [the city's] behalf, that fact is subject to public inspection," an attorney for the Police Department, Neal M. Janey, wrote to Kupferberg. "There is nothing we can do about that."
"At no point in time was any of that ever discussed or suggested as an option until sometime after the mediation meeting, at their insistence," said David Hainline, another lawyer working on the case.
In a Feb. 9 letter to city attorneys, Kupferberg asks the city for time to review the settlement "since you have suggested a confidentiality agreement as to the amount of the settlement, which was not an issue at our mediation."
