[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6574103,"mediaKeyId","3115090-1a45286ca930d54ee2fd3058773713a9","parentId",3115090,"title","Bill to clarify library‑user privacy and impose penalty advances after Goffstown disclosure dispute","audioSeconds",736,"startMs",8677000,"endMs",9413000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3115090-1a45286ca930d54ee2fd3058773713a9&start=8677&end=9413","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3115090-1a45286ca930d54ee2fd3058773713a9/thumbnail_8677000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6574103/New-Hampshire/Bill-to-clarify-libraryuser-privacy-and-impose-penalty-advances-after-Goffstown-disclosure-dispute","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6574103-ec1bd33e1d26fa934cb6bb54b391b2aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159856&Signature=GuJsckgDBnwePFkqfC9Ay5UfVUazu2R~GujQTYVoxD5OnwJcuo0zNlsH6hSLiHpnwyRZ7IraRR06tGea6v99ITZ95sEyTNC1Gur~3dJRAaJWxGmj-6Fmp55hXUtqme~9x2vfet36meqKyZ0mYG6AO6HOVRWeBBffvZ74PoHJQqBPafPPiSMc9LWlZNzB5c1kSYKbZIcGKWA8ruN1C8Bh~Dzy5Bx8EfFfVSx-sCf4wVzPBAaMzWASppVO40mEDuzCsA5CfCpRsyBBWYS~LqZGtsOiXDW5Ml2GUUmzaaHCWfiMYi~1VN85sa5sbfuIN4gR~UzW56gd6Vop4UITx63GFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-04-24T20:07:07.603Z","article","Representatives and library trustees told the Senate Judiciary Committee HB 666 is intended to resolve confusion about whether library cards and membership status are covered by New Hampshire’s confidentiality law for library records and to provide a civil remedy when those records are improperly disclosed.

Sponsor Rep. Lisa Mazer, who represents Hillsborough District 44, said the bill clarifies RSA 201‑D:11 so it explicitly includes library cards and membership status among records protected from public disclosure. She described a local case in which library cards were produced in response to a right‑to‑know request and then posted on social media; she said that outcome “should never happen again.”

The bill would also add a civil penalty for violations and allow an affected person to seek a certified apology and monetary damages. Mazer said the House Judiciary Committee increased the penalty amount during the House floor process because members felt a larger deterrent was needed.

Opponents — including a Windham library trustee and a former state representative who sits on library boards — said parts of the bill are poorly drafted and could have unintended consequences. Attorney and trustee D.J. Withy said a library card in isolation carries limited personal information and warned that adding more categories into law without careful drafting can weaken open‑government norms. He also criticized a required notarized apology as “compelled speech” and urged the committee to remove that provision.

Senators asked whether a library card alone reveals what someone has read; witnesses said the card itself is a unique patron identifier that can be used to access borrowing history and library services, and that staff and patrons treat the card as personal information.

Representative Henry Geising (Hillsborough District 29) emphasized safety risks for victims of domestic violence, saying that published library registration information could reveal where someone is living and so place vulnerable people at risk. Several supporters suggested narrowing or rewording the bill to remove drafting problems while retaining an enforceable privacy safeguard.

The committee received mixed testimony; some municipal officials and public commenters supported stronger penalties and clearer statutory language, while attorneys and library trustees asked for specific drafting fixes and for removal of the notarized apology requirement.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Judiciary (04/24/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","HB 666 would clarify that library cards and membership status are covered by New Hampshire’s law protecting library records and would create a civil remedy for unauthorized disclosure; supporters said the change is needed after an incident in which a local library released cardholder information that was later posted online.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29511,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6574108,"Debate over third‑party litigation finance bill centers on transparency, access to justice and insurer concerns",2928,4928000,7856000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3115090-1a45286ca930d54ee2fd3058773713a9&start=4928&end=7856","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3115090-1a45286ca930d54ee2fd3058773713a9/thumbnail_4928000.jpg","/articles/6574108/New-Hampshire/Debate-over-thirdparty-litigation-finance-bill-centers-on-transparency-access-to-justice-and-insurer-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6574108-a33ff730405af388172a3516a2a4ceb9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159856&Signature=at84UPLrIY7XVee6pKFlP5BQ6SCL~qMelLxreduqPva6HqPx1XXo0CxpSDPbPxCVO5aWbbeQG7TlbolShHfWIjfWzDM1UgflHy1c7kYmrP569d5-ezLSCDTJr3xcxNtErjDHjbC48B0fVatGPP~pSXOX8fOn5MN2nYMpH2DdCSTpY3cJ5~irTLaBIQbyj9NZCvyMHETQE~QtM0A13bn7mVQ9ZETz0QzGrnlDG4TT3qA0GblfmZ7CI4JXLsJFyxIRsxheMs640-nlnk8UFsUZnU9sasEBjEcIT2NVk3FuhcCAROlRvU6nNbE4SCEux-6D67yUMZhabU0ysewW5vZjUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Judiciary Committee heard an extended and sharply contested hearing on HB 733, which would require disclosure of certain commercial third‑party litigation finance (TPLF) agreements to courts and other parties and bar investment in commercial litigation by specified foreign entities. Supporters said the bill restores transparency and helps insurers and businesses assess litigation risk; opponents said mandatory, automatic disclosure would provide defendants with undue tactical advantage and drive financiers out of the New Hampshire market, reducing access to justice for smaller claimants.

Sponsor Representative Brian Cole described TPLF as an industry that “turns our civil justice system into another commodity for investors to make exorbitant profits,” and argued the bill’s disclosure and foreign‑investor limits would protect local defendants and insurance markets. He told the committee he based the draft on a National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) model and noted 13–14 other states have enacted similar transparency measures.

Insurance and business groups strongly backed the bill. Nathan Fennessy of AIG described HB 733 as “a common sense reciprocal transparency bill” and State Farm’s representative said the amended House version is “a step in the right direction” to bring disclosure parity between plaintiffs and defendants. Insurance Commissioner DJ Bettencourt testified the bill would improve risk transparency, underwriting and claims management and could ease New Hampshire’s hard insurance market for nonprofits and child‑care providers.

Opponents included representatives of the International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) and commercial funders, who warned automatic pre‑discovery disclosure of financing agreements is highly prejudicial and would cause many commercial funders to refuse to operate in New Hampshire. Sean Thompson of ILFA said the Kansas compromise — which provides for in‑camera judicial review of funding agreements and other protections — is a preferable model because it gives judges access to agreements without exposing sensitive financing terms to opposing counsel.

Witnesses also debated the policy’s scope. Backers stressed the House amendment narrowed the bill to large‑scale commercial financing rather than consumer payday‑style funding, and included a provision to bar investments by foreign “entities of concern.” Opponents said the bill’s original language improperly swept in law‑firm side‑funding and could force financing arrangements underground.

Committee members heard suggestions for compromise from multiple sides: mandatory disclosure of a funding notice plus in‑camera review of full agreements, limits on funder control over litigation strategy, and prohibitions on funders accessing confidential discovery materials. The committee did not take a final vote on the measure during the hearing; parties said stakeholder negotiations were ongoing.","HB 733, a measure to require disclosure and impose guardrails on commercial third‑party litigation financing, drew support from insurers and some business groups and opposition from litigation funders who warned mandatory early disclosure would chill financing and harm access to justice.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6574112,"Bill on class-action leftover funds raises questions about redirecting unidentified settlement money to state",712,3674000,4386000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3115090-1a45286ca930d54ee2fd3058773713a9&start=3674&end=4386","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3115090-1a45286ca930d54ee2fd3058773713a9/thumbnail_3674000.jpg","/articles/6574112/New-Hampshire/Bill-on-class-action-leftover-funds-raises-questions-about-redirecting-unidentified-settlement-money-to-state","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6574112-7a7bca11d583d4d17f8b14b02b51fbda/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159856&Signature=R~sAuBLNk0rH4D3xKosV8Wlu~gBbg0cJ3CiuOkZY13hNsJFFlNmo98EPlrvLxOvd3BhZsSDD-xFLfdbddsdATLs6Iw1rptfK9e-KzENOldXAidx5oh9xataHaZS8aYxg4H0XwJ9Td3xebA63vc7cOu3eHEgOQn3EoiLG5TNdgu-B80Pd5LW0m5aSPFp3C-wwzYbtwHmVGXa4iFsNDxqQS757kC5gwL95R0piQBg0oKTos4lNN2LiPfgXQfy4LUWgy6wKLeu9y~rt9LM9CDRHimF6~vR74AuxYgAkPP6lpXch4F2RWOaQJiTaImZ5~yELorQJrtTkmkYJ4PifJSCvLw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A bill to change how unclaimed or non‑distributed funds from class‑action settlements are handled drew testimony from its sponsor and legal observers in a brief Senate Judiciary hearing. The measure would require any settlement funds that cannot be distributed to identified class members to be deposited in the New Hampshire general fund rather than going to a third‑party organization, and it would put a cap on plaintiffs’ attorney fees tied to an established schedule.

The sponsor described “sue-and-settle” and related practices in which plaintiffs’ lawyers and aligned groups secure settlements that direct unclaimed funds to non‑governmental organizations, sometimes with tenuous ties to the harmed class. The sponsor said the bill aims to ensure leftover funds benefit the public instead of private groups and to limit excessive fee awards via a statutory fee schedule.

Several senators asked procedural and substantive questions about when residual funds would be declared unclaimable and who would determine the timeline for distribution. The sponsor said current court practice already allocates undistributed funds in certain cases and that this bill would redirect that portion to the state rather than to outside entities.

Opponents and some legal observers said most high‑value class actions are litigated in federal court, limiting the state legislature’s ability to alter outcomes for large, multi‑jurisdictional settlements. An attorney who has worked on class actions said diverting residual funds to the state could complicate negotiations and might dissuade parties from settling in state court, with the practical effect of moving more cases to federal venues.

The committee heard no final action on the bill during the session. Witnesses emphasized tradeoffs: proponents argued the bill would prevent activist-directed or commercially driven diversion of settlement proceeds; opponents said state-level reform may not reach the cases of most concern and could have unintended consequences for access to relief for victims.","A hearing on HB 6807 considered requiring leftover settlement funds from class actions be directed to the state general fund and capping attorneys’ fees; sponsors said the bill would prevent activist-driven settlements that divert funds to NGOs, while opponents warned it may not apply broadly and could push cases to federal court.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6574117,"Senate Judiciary votes to recommend ITL for HB 66 after lengthy right-to-know debate",3209,418000,3627000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3115090-1a45286ca930d54ee2fd3058773713a9&start=418&end=3627","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3115090-1a45286ca930d54ee2fd3058773713a9/thumbnail_418000.jpg","/articles/6574117/New-Hampshire/Senate-Judiciary-votes-to-recommend-ITL-for-HB-66-after-lengthy-right-to-know-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6574117-61361de67bc60842effe25a96d114fc4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159856&Signature=jyn0L4b4nvC9GeI~zUr12Ijtb9JVtY0ywkpXlqwDg-xzZIhvRsWacT9Sc-J7IYbgfVJlvqKieEuQILrk2-clJEZEvzq-3vNM2FD1ZHAVtvW~8Ne8TmRLRqr0mkNDc2zrmV4TAFosDTRjSWYrE4C6-PEAaM7N3G0I8Mipl82RE3gONXTdX~PpN3gkAXTb7RkLubwVJC2XZMj1RsVv0iWMb1JlAE1ykiu170uge1NoHEaT2ZkGpB72tiGmRrMW4x7SGPzs-SR~fUIcKpD8CMFy3IfvxmFTncAvI-OYpb-MseaKU53RaR~AzEWe9l1JEtm~7c2FAvaUIMNotl-jP0IuFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 66, a bill that would replace the word “citizen” with “person” in the state’s right-to-know statute and add limits on how and when public bodies must provide records to out-of-state requesters. The committee’s action followed several hours of testimony from lawmakers, municipal officials, police representatives and transparency advocates.

Sponsor Rep. Bob Lynn, a Windham Republican, framed the bill as a clarification of the existing statute: “This bill makes several, important changes to the right to know law. First, it replaces the undefined term citizen in current law with the word person,” he told the committee, adding the change was meant to reflect how courts and agencies have treated requests. Lynn also described a provision that would require out-of-state requesters who lack a New Hampshire connection to appear in person to receive records that are not already provided electronically.

Supporters said the change aligns statute and practice. Gilles Bissonette, legal director at the ACLU of New Hampshire, told the committee the amendment is “not an expansion; it is designed to merely reflect the current state of the law” and cited a Superior Court decision and related statutory language to argue courts have not limited requests to state residents.

But municipal officials, police chiefs and town staff warned the amendment would create new costs and confusion. Kate Horgan of the New Hampshire Association of Counties said the bill raises hard questions about how to identify a “person” and whether taxpaying status or other ties must be verified: “We really think this will cause more confusion than help,” she said.

James McLeod, director of planning and development for the town of Raymond, described a prior 91-A request that he said required producing more than 20,000 pages and about 200 hours of his time; he said the cost to his town exceeded $10,000 to defend that work in court. “The expense for 91-A on our communities cannot be understated,” McLeod said.

Police leaders said the volume of records requests already strains law enforcement operations. Assistant Chief Ken Louie of the Manchester Police Department, speaking for the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, said his department had already handled roughly 1,400 requests last year and that responding has become an “overwhelming and crushing” burden that pulls officers from patrol duty.

Other municipal lawyers urged caution about a provision that would require public bodies to mail or otherwise provide paper records on request, warning it would create a new operational burden for towns and committees. Cordell Johnston, an attorney who represents a number of towns, said the current practice is that requesters can inspect records at a public office; compelling agencies to assemble and mail large paper sets would be “a significant new burden.”

Several witnesses described abusive or commercial uses of records requests, including a Peterborough case in which a requester published police reports behind a paywall; Nicole McStay, the town’s representative, said the process cost local taxpayers about $500 a week while the request was being fulfilled.

After hearing from more than a dozen speakers, the committee entered executive session and then voted to recommend ITL for HB 66. Committee members discussed that the bill’s goal — clarifying who may request records and limiting commercial scraping — is defensible, but that its language needs more work to avoid imposing new, costly obligations on municipalities and police departments.

The hearing record includes repeated references to RSA Chapter 91-A (the right-to-know law), a Rochester Superior Court decision cited by proponents, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision McBurney v. Young (2013), which was raised during the hearing as background on state-level limits other states have enacted.","The Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 66 after testimony split between those who said changing 'citizen' to 'person' simply codifies existing practice and officials who warned the bill would increase burdens and enable misuse of records requests.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill to clarify library‑user privacy and impose penalty advances after Goffstown disclosure dispute

Debate over third‑party litigation finance bill centers on transparency, access to justice and insurer concerns

Bill on class-action leftover funds raises questions about redirecting unidentified settlement money to state

Senate Judiciary votes to recommend ITL for HB 66 after lengthy right-to-know debate