I assume they hid it because if it was known they would have got backlash over changing the policy to allow gay troops.
Or because there are privacy issues when minors are involved. Any lawyers want to chime in?
Not necessarily.
What is called "hid" may be "attorney-client privilege".
I'm currently reading a book about corruption in the music industry in the 1970s and 1980s. As payola scandals were once again looming, the RIAA sought to circle the wagons and do some investigating of just what the hell was actually going on. But they were concerned that they could then be required to fork over their internal findings to a prosecutor. How the investigation is initiated and under what circumstances can determine if such internal reports can be "hidden" legally.
The attorneys are likely trial lawyers seeking a payout (or out of court settlement). They want as damning of evidence as they can get in their hands and an internal report could be considered “admission of guilt” or “criminal conspiracy” to a jury.
If they aren’t seeking jail time over financial settlement, then their own motives as lawyers are suspect.
Just as Obama is okay apparently with Assad using machine guns to kill dissenters, so long as he doesn’t use “chemical weapons”.