If what is posted has any truth, Watson would be the first person in history that would agree to settlement without an NDA. The NDA not only covers the payment as discussed here but usually has clauses that Watson doesn't admit guilt and the plaintiffs are gagged from talking about the settlement. To think for a moment that a high profile person such as Watson would not want an NDA and allow the women in question to freely talk about the payment, amount, the accusations and fairness of the deal seems highly suspect. Without an NDA, the women could write books, give interviews and slander the deal without reprimand. A settlement is a process to make the situation go away - with no NDA it would never leave.
It is common in settlement agreements for the defendant to insist on the case being confidential. The defendant wants to avoid paying more out in the future to the original claimant as well as others in the future.
Additional Litigation when Confidentiality Not Imposed
However, when a business settles a case, it may often lead to additional litigation. If the public knows that a person received a large award, similarly-situated plaintiffs may try to bring forward similar types of cases, exposing the business to more litigation. For example, if a landlord knows that it did not properly safeguard tenant information or violated federal consumer protection laws, not including a nondisclosure agreement in a settlement agreement can result in other tenants finding that their information was also compromised and taking action against the landlord. When the amount of the settlement is not revealed and confidentiality is imposed, the public would be unable to scrutinize the case. Likewise, if details about what led to litigation are also protected, the public may not have much information about what caused the dispute and may avoid the publicity that it is running from.
Similarly, if the public is aware of settlement agreement details, individuals may use these values to artificially drive up the value of their own cases.
That said, why in the world would Watson want to partake in a settlement without an NDA? What in the world would his lawyer be thinking by allowing Watson to be open game for any therapist he's ever had contact with to want a piece of the pie since they know what has been paid and the story that got them the non NDA deal? Like I said, it may have truth but is a serious head scratcher!
| 
