Committee Summary for Senate Judiciary (04/24/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB66 00:07:43.199 - 12:05:44 PM	Public Hearing	relative to material subject to disclosure under the right to know law.	Lynn, Bob(R)[A]2024
HB66 00:59:30.400 - 12:57:31 PM	Executive Session	relative to material subject to disclosure under the right to know law.	Lynn, Bob(R)[A]2024
HB687 01:01:34.000 - 12:59:35 PM	Public Hearing	relative to class action settlements and consent decrees.	Corcoran, Travis(R)[A]2024
HB687 01:13:54.480 - 1:11:55 PM	Public Hearing	relative to class action settlements and consent decrees.	Corcoran, Travis(R)[A]2024
HB687 01:20:15.280 - 1:18:16 PM	Executive Session	relative to class action settlements and consent decrees.	Corcoran, Travis(R)[A]2024
HB733 01:21:49.040 - 1:19:50 PM	Public Hearing	relative to reporting requirements for persons or entities financing lawsuits.	Cole, Brian(R)[B-]2024
HB666 02:24:05.359 - 2:22:06 PM	Public Hearing	relative to adding restitution payment for violations of the confidentiality of the library use records and adding library cards and membership status to the list of confidential matters.	Mazur, Lisa(R)[A]2024

HB66: Bob Win, Representative from Windham, Rockingham District 17 Support00:07:43.199 - 12:05:44 PM; Representative Bob Win from Windham supports HB66, which aims to amend the right to know law by replacing the term 'citizen' with 'person' to clarify that anyone can make a request, regardless of their residence. The amendment also introduces limitations to prevent abuse by out-of-state requesters, requiring them to physically come to New Hampshire unless they are media representatives or have a connection to the state. The bill was intended to clarify existing practices rather than expand the law, as out-of-state and out-of-country requests had been handled without issue until a specific case in Rochester. He also mentioned a US Supreme Court case suggesting states can limit requests to citizens, but noted New Hampshire would be among a minority if it did so. Win addressed concerns about voluminous requests, noting that a previous bill, House Bill 105, was passed to help recover costs for such requests, but this bill does not address that issue directly.
HB66: Kate Han, New Hampshire Association of Counties Oppose00:18:02.039 - 12:16:03 PM; Kate Han, representing the New Hampshire Association of Counties, opposes HB66. She raised concerns about how to define 'person' and the practical implications of determining whether a requester is a taxpayer, which could involve extensive research and cause confusion rather than help. The association appreciates the intent to address out-of-state requests but believes the bill's approach is not the right way forward.
HB66: James Mloud, Director of Planning and Development for the town of Raymond Oppose00:19:20.280 - 12:17:21 PM; James Mloud from Raymond opposes HB66, citing the burden of voluminous requests on local governments. He shared an example where a request required producing over 20,000 pages of documents, costing his department significant time and money. Mloud is concerned about 'prankster' requests that aim to waste time and elicit negative responses. He believes the bill would give bad actors more opportunity to abuse the law at taxpayers' expense without significantly improving residents' access to governmental information.
HB66: Gil Viset, Legal Director, ACLU of New Hampshire Support00:23:08.960 - 12:21:09 PM; Gil Viset from the ACLU of New Hampshire supports HB66, emphasizing that the bill does two important things. Firstly, it clarifies the law by changing 'every citizen' to 'any person', reflecting historical interpretations and a Superior Court decision, not expanding but clarifying the law. Secondly, the bill addresses the dissemination of documents, aiming to reduce barriers to transparency by allowing electronic dissemination, particularly for requests that would otherwise require physical travel. Viset acknowledges concerns about the burden of electronic requests but points out that the bill includes language to mitigate such burdens, referencing similar provisions in other states.
HB66: Cordell Johnston, Attorney, Municipal Law Oppose00:29:06.320 - 12:27:07 PM; Cordell Johnston, an attorney specializing in municipal law, opposes HB66, specifically focusing on Section 4. He argues that the requirement for towns or state agencies to send requested documents, particularly when they exist only in paper form, represents a significant new burden. He explains that under current law, individuals can inspect records at the town hall, but the proposed change would shift this to a 'research and delivery service'. Johnston suggests that removing Section 4 would make the bill acceptable to the towns he represents, although he is speaking for himself.
HB66: Ken Louie, Assistant Chief of Police, Manchester Police Department, representing the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police Oppose00:36:10.240 - 12:34:11 PM; Assistant Chief Ken Louie testified against HB66, highlighting the overwhelming burden that the current Right to Know Law (RSA 91A) places on police departments. He noted that Manchester PD is on track to exceed last year's 1,400 requests, which has turned a lieutenant's ancillary duty into a primary one, pulling officers from patrol duties. Louie expressed concerns about the proposed amendment expanding the workload, as it would be challenging to verify the requester's eligibility. He also mentioned the issue of uncollected responses, suggesting some requests are used as a form of 'paper terrorism.' He urged the committee to deem the bill inexpedient to legislate due to its impact on public safety and officer retention.
HB66: Brian Lebec, Officer, Manchester Police Department Oppose00:40:27.920 - 12:38:28 PM; Officer Brian Lebec testified in opposition to HB66, supporting Assistant Chief Louie's testimony. He emphasized the vagueness of the term 'media' in the digital age, which could lead to anyone claiming to be a journalist. Lebec provided an example of a data request from a company aggregating purchase data, illustrating how such requests can burden municipalities. He noted that requiring in-person retrieval of records has reduced frivolous requests, and he urged the committee to consider the implications of expanding the Right to Know Law.
HB66: Mat Terrifac, Deputy Chief, Manchester Police Department Oppose00:43:36.640 - 12:41:37 PM; Deputy Chief Mat Terrifac from the Manchester Police Department testified in opposition to HB66, concurring with Assistant Chief Louie's concerns. He did not provide additional details beyond his opposition to the bill.
HB66: Sarah Burke, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose00:44:37.359 - 12:42:38 PM; Sarah Burke testified against HB66 on behalf of the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA). She argued that the bill expands the definition of 'citizen' in RSA 91A, which has been in place since 1967. Burke referenced the Rochester Voice case, suggesting that the term 'citizen' should remain as is. She highlighted the burden of responding to records requests, especially when requesters do not retrieve them. NHMA conducted a survey on the time municipalities spend responding to 91A requests and offered to share this data with the committee.
HB66: Katherine Koko, representing Right to Know New Hampshire Support00:47:35.599 - 12:45:36 PM; Katherine Koko testified in support of HB66, representing Right to Know New Hampshire. She emphasized that she is not paid to lobby, unlike other speakers. Koko argued that the interpretation of 'citizen' in RSA 91A should align with the Attorney General's 2015 memo, which did not require proof of citizenship for accessing public documents. She criticized the conflation of large requests with the bill's intent and noted that HB10002 from the previous year addressed such issues. Koko stressed the importance of training in managing Right to Know requests and suggested that the current practice of requiring in-person retrieval of records is outdated.
HB66: Chief Shagori, Police Chief Oppose00:52:04.319 - 12:50:05 PM; Chief Shagori testified in opposition to HB66, adding to the concerns raised by Chief Louie and Chief Lebec. He expressed worries about data mining companies accessing law enforcement records, which could compromise privacy. Shagori highlighted the potential for AI to request records, making it difficult to verify requesters. He provided an example of a request for all calls to a multifamily housing complex, which could reveal personal information even after redaction.
HB66: Nicole McTay, resident of Peterborough Oppose00:54:13.240 - 12:52:14 PM; Nicole McTay testified against HB66, representing the town of Peterborough. She provided specific examples of burdensome requests, including those generated by AI to undercut competition and others used to avoid legal disclosure processes. McTay described a case where an individual requested 20 years of police use of force records, which required significant resources to fulfill. She argued that the current Right to Know Law works well for New Hampshire residents and businesses and urged the committee to vote the bill inexpedient to legislate.
HB66: Committee Member Vote00:59:30.400 - 12:57:31 PM; A motion was made to deem HB66 inexpedient to legislate (ITL). The committee discussed the bill, noting that while the idea behind it was good, the application was not well fleshed out. They felt that better parameters were needed to meet the bill's goals. The motion to ITL was seconded and passed with the committee voting in favor.
HB687: Representative Support01:01:34.000 - 12:59:35 PM; The representative testified in support of HB687, which addresses the issue of 'sue and settle' processes and class action lawsuits. The bill aims to redirect any undistributed funds from class action settlements to the New Hampshire general fund instead of third-party organizations. The representative explained that the bill also includes a cap on lawyers' fees, which was debated in the House. They clarified that the fee schedule mentioned in the bill, although not a New Hampshire schedule, is commonly used in New Hampshire courts. The representative urged an OTP (ought to pass) motion for the bill.
HB687: Unnamed Attorney Oppose01:13:54.480 - 1:11:55 PM; The unnamed attorney expressed opposition to HB687, arguing that transferring cases from state to federal court would diminish the control and input of New Hampshire citizens. They highlighted their experience with class action lawsuits, particularly mentioning the Sinco Bay case. They responded to concerns raised by Senator Abis about the potential impact of state law changes on settlement processes, suggesting that mandating leftover funds to go to the state's general fund could complicate settlements. They emphasized the difficulty of locating all class members and the importance of allowing the class to choose beneficiaries for leftover funds, rather than mandating it to the state.
HB687: Committee Members Vote01:20:15.280 - 1:18:16 PM; During the executive session, a motion was made to find HB687 inexpedient to legislate. The motion was seconded and passed with a vote in favor.
HB733: State Representative Brian Cole, Hillsborough Support01:21:49.040 - 1:19:50 PM; Representative Brian Cole from Hillsborough supported HB733, which focuses on third-party litigation financing (TPLF). He explained that TPLF involves investors financing lawsuits for profit without a personal stake in the case. He noted the lack of disclosure requirements, which he believes leads to litigation abuse and increased costs for businesses and insurance in New Hampshire. Cole mentioned the study committee on nonprofits and the difficulty they face in obtaining affordable insurance due to litigation risks. He advocated for transparency laws similar to those in other states to regulate TPLF and protect the civil justice system from becoming a commodity for profit.
HB733: John Reynolds, State Director for the National Federation of Independent Business Support01:28:27.040 - 1:26:28 PM; John Reynolds supported HB733, emphasizing the need for a level playing field in civil litigation. He argued that knowing who is involved in a lawsuit, including third-party financiers, is crucial for defendants to prepare their defense and settlement strategies. Reynolds highlighted the broad public interest in controlling tort judgments and settlements, which impact the cost of goods, services, and insurance in New Hampshire. He drew an analogy to past legislative actions on stranger-originated life insurance, suggesting similar transparency and regulation are necessary for TPLF.
HB733: Tony (Last Name Not Provided) Oppose01:33:15.880 - 1:31:16 PM; Tony opposed HB733, arguing that it unnecessarily invades the attorney-client relationship and is irrelevant to trial proceedings. He explained that third-party litigation funding typically occurs after a case is filed and a lawyer is hired, to help the injured party while the case is pending. He refuted claims of venture capitalists bankrolling cases, stating such actions would be unethical. Tony emphasized that knowing about third-party funding does not facilitate case resolutions and could chill victims' access to justice, particularly in cases of sexual abuse where third-party funding has been crucial.
HB733: DJ Benton, Commissioner of the New Hampshire Insurance Department Information Only01:43:40.880 - 1:41:41 PM; Commissioner DJ Benton provided insights from an insurance perspective on HB733. He highlighted ongoing discussions among stakeholders aimed at reaching a compromise on the bill. He advised the committee to potentially delay executing the bill to allow for these negotiations. Benton emphasized that the bill is modeled after a national law designed for state-by-state customization, which explains some of its provisions. He clarified that the bill focuses on disclosure rather than banning third-party funding and applies specifically to commercial litigation. He discussed the insurance market's challenges, particularly the hard market dynamics affecting nonprofits in behavioral health and child care, which are crucial for state contracts and workforce participation. He explained how third-party litigation disclosure could enhance risk transparency, improve market competition, inform underwriting decisions, encourage innovative solutions, and better manage claims, potentially leading to more affordable premiums and a more stable market.
HB733: Will Infantine, Former House Member and Insurance Agent Support01:52:34.400 - 1:50:35 PM; Will Infantine, representing the Insurance Agents Association, expressed support for HB733, emphasizing the need for transparency in third-party litigation financing. He mentioned the Kansas State Plan as a potential model for compromise, noting that it omits certain disclosures but includes others, such as preventing funders from influencing settlements and accessing private plaintiff information. Infantine suggested these elements could improve the bill while maintaining transparency and doing no harm to the current system.
HB733: Cam Leine, Boring Reno, representing American Property Casualty Insurance Association and New Hampshire Association of Domestic Insurance Companies Support01:55:59.920 - 1:54:00 PM; Cam Leine supported HB733, focusing on what the bill specifically does: defining terms, prohibiting certain foreign entities from investing in litigation financing, and requiring automatic disclosure of financing agreements. He clarified that the bill, as amended, addresses large-scale commercial litigation financing, not smaller consumer cases. Leine emphasized the importance of the bill for businesses in New Hampshire, as highlighted by the Business and Industry Association, and addressed concerns about the bill's impact, noting it does not ban litigation financing but adds safety measures.
HB733: Sean Thompson, International Legal Finance Association (ILFA) and Parabellum Capital Oppose02:01:45.880 - 1:59:46 PM; Sean Thompson, representing ILFA and Parabellum Capital, opposed HB733 in its current form, arguing it would undermine access to justice for small and medium-sized entities by mandating early disclosure of sensitive financing arrangements. He distinguished between commercial and consumer litigation finance, noting the bill's focus on the former. Thompson highlighted three main issues with the bill: it threatens access to justice, sidesteps judicial oversight in discovery, and inappropriately targets law firm financing. He proposed the Kansas compromise as a better alternative, which involves in-camera review by judges and a sworn certification to parties, limiting disclosure to claimant-side funding.
HB733: Kirsten Schultz, State Farm Support02:12:16.400 - 2:10:17 PM; Kirsten Schultz, representing State Farm, supported HB733 as amended by the House, advocating for greater transparency in third-party litigation funding. She noted that the amendment at least allows for discovery of the presence of funding, though she mentioned potential improvements, such as making the process less burdensome and adding confidentiality protections. Schultz emphasized the bill's step towards ensuring that third-party litigation funding actors do not exploit the legal system for financial gain.
HB733: Nathan Fedesy, Attorney at Pretty Flity representing AIG Support02:14:58.880 - 2:12:59 PM; Nathan Fedesy, representing AIG, supported the amended version of HB733, describing it as a common sense reciprocal transparency bill. He compared it to existing rules requiring defendants to disclose insurance agreements and argued that similar transparency should apply to plaintiffs with third-party funding. Fedesy criticized the Kansas model for lacking true transparency due to its in-camera review process and expressed concerns about uneven judicial application if the bill were not to mandate automatic disclosure. He questioned why there was resistance to disclosing litigation financing agreements and suggested that such transparency would not cause insurers to leave the state, as it did not happen when similar rules were applied to insurance policies.
HB733: Marissa Chase, representing the Civil Plaintiffs Association in New Hampshire Oppose02:21:18.080 - 2:19:19 PM; Marissa Chase clarified that YDC claims are against the state and do not involve insurance, thus they should not be confused with the insurance market issues mentioned earlier. She emphasized that consumer legal funding, which is the subject of HB733, is not a prevalent issue in New Hampshire, as there are no significant multi-district litigation venues in the state. She argued that the bill is part of a broader national effort to pass similar legislation in multiple states and urged the committee not to waste time on this non-issue in New Hampshire.
HB666: Lisa Maer, representing Hillsborough District 44, towns of Goffstown and Hillsboro Support02:24:05.359 - 2:22:06 PM; Lisa Maer introduced HB666, aimed at enhancing the confidentiality of library user records and establishing penalties for violations. She explained the need for the bill by citing an incident where a local library mistakenly released library card information in response to a right-to-know request, which was subsequently posted on social media. Maer emphasized the importance of privacy in libraries, stating that the bill would clarify existing laws to prevent such incidents and introduce civil penalties as a deterrent. She also mentioned that the New Hampshire Library Trustee Association had raised questions about the implementation of the bill, but was concerned that the most critical question—why the privacy violation occurred and how to prevent it—was not addressed.
HB666: Representative Henry, representing Hillsborough 29th District, Goffstown Support02:38:29.600 - 2:36:30 PM; Representative Henry supported HB666, emphasizing the government's duty to protect citizens' privacy rights, particularly in the context of library usage. He highlighted the risks associated with the release of personal library information, such as potential threats to individuals in sensitive situations like domestic violence. He stressed that the bill's penalties and clear definitions would help ensure libraries adhere to the same privacy responsibilities as other government agencies, thereby protecting some of the state's most vulnerable citizens.
HB666: Senator, representing Goffstown Information Only02:41:02.640 - 2:39:03 PM; The senator questioned the efficacy of the bill, particularly in regards to the addition of library cards and library membership status to the protected information under the law. They highlighted a scenario in Goffstown where the library sought legal advice on responding to a right-to-know request. The senator expressed concern over the 'knowingly and recklessly' standard for the penalty, suggesting that legal advice could negate this standard. They also questioned the necessity and enforceability of the proposed apology requirement as part of the penalty.
HB666: DJ Wy, Attorney and Library Trustee, representing Windham Oppose02:47:28.640 - 2:45:29 PM; DJ Wy, a former state representative, expressed strong opposition to the bill, describing it as a 'micro bill' and criticizing its approach to privacy. He argued that including library cards in privacy protections weakens open government and does not strengthen privacy. He pointed out drafting issues, suggesting that the bill fails to properly distinguish between library cards and circulation data. Wy was particularly critical of the $1,000 penalty for disclosing library card information, which he found excessive compared to penalties for disclosing actual circulation data. He also opposed the mandated apology, seeing it as compelled speech that could violate constitutional freedoms.
HB666: Representative Timothy Oregon, representing Straford County District 10, Durham Oppose02:59:55.319 - 2:57:56 PM; Representative Oregon, who holds library cards from Durham and UNH, opposed the bill. He was part of the judiciary committee where the bill passed on a party line vote. He supported the critique of the bill's legal issues and highlighted the excessive nature of the $1,000 penalty, which was increased from $500 during negotiations. He also criticized the addition of the educational materials clause as a floor amendment, which he believed conflicted with the right to read. Oregon mentioned ongoing conflicts in Goffstown involving political candidates and the library, suggesting this influenced the bill. He recommended not passing the bill in its current form but acknowledged potential need for clarifying library privacy laws in the future.
HB666: Representative Kelly Patenza, representing Straford District 19 Support03:07:01.399 - 3:05:02 PM; Representative Patenza strongly supported the bill, emphasizing the importance of penalties for privacy violations. She noted that incidents similar to the one in Goffstown have occurred in other towns, stressing the need for enforceable privacy protections. Patenza advocated for working with the sponsor to address any flaws in the bill, highlighting the constitutional right to privacy as a key reason for her support.

Gannon, Bill(Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Abbas, Daryl(V Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024
McConkey, Mark(R)	Reardon, Tara(D)