On April 18, 2015, Attorney Erin Copeland was quoted in an informative story written by staff writer Sue Ambrose and published by the Dallas Morning News concerning information sharing in Texas safety lawsuits. The article entitled,  "Could Texas' high court curb trade-secret sharing in safety lawsuits?" details the battle between big corporations and individuals who have brought injury lawsuits against the corporations over access to information within the company files.

In Texas, there is a longstanding legal decision that allows attorneys who have similar cases against a company to share information obtained during a lawsuit. This can cover cases like those arising out of the alleged failed ignition switches in GM vehicles or the recent Takata air bag recalls. This sharing enables lawyers to "cut costs and compare notes," wrote Ambrose.  It can also serve to level the playing field between large corporation with deeper pockets and regular citizens who do not have the same resources to fund a lawsuit against corporate giants by containing costs. 

Individuals and the lawyers representing them in lawsuits against large companies should not have to reinvent the wheel every time a new legal claim is filed. If the information was obtained in one lawsuit and another lawsuit arising out of the same or similar facts is filed, the information discovered in the first lawsuit should be made available to the parties in subsequent lawsuits. Not only can this conserve resources, it can also ensure that companies are honest in litigation and give the same information every time.  As the Texas Supreme Court noted in the landmark 1987 ruling between GM and a man burned in a rear-end collision of a GM vehicle, "[W]hen lawyers share, attorneys don't have to prove over and over, in similar cases, that they deserve the same information that other lawyers have already received. The courts are more efficient."

In recent years, corporations like GM have asked the Texas Supreme Court to reverse the 1987 ruling. Arguably these efforts are tied to the conservative nature of the current court in comparison to that in 1987. "They're taking it up to a Supreme Court that's got a track record for protecting corporations and giving them what they ask for," attorney Erin Copeland told Dallas Morning News writer Sue Ambrose. If the high court reverses its earlier decision, it will be much harder and much more costly for litigants to get information deemed "trade secrets" by the corporate defendants. Moreover, lawyers who were able to get the information would not be permitted to share that information with other lawyers pursuing similar claims.