Confidentiality Agreement In Mediation

Erie`s doctrine states that a federal court that handles a case on the basis of the jurisdiction of diversity applies the material law of the state in which it finds itself. The confidentiality of mediation is governed by the confidentiality rules of the Evidence, but the courts differ on whether the rules of evidence are physical or procedural. Lawyers who wish to apply California law with respect to the confidentiality of mediation may, for example, consider that California law applies to the underlying litigation and even its relationship to that litigation. Second, it is both a part of the content of the subsequent dispute and a clause in a contract negotiated by the parties – not a clause that is submitted to the parties by a person who is not a party to the dispute. Participants and the Ombudsman understand and accept the strict confidentiality of their mediation. Mediation interviews, documents, correspondence, draft resolutions and unsigned negotiated agreements are not permitted in any legal proceedings or other proceedings in dispute. Only an agreement signed by all parties can be allowed. In addition, participants agree not to call the mediator to testify about mediation or to provide mediation material as part of a court proceeding between the parties. Mediation is considered by the participant and the Ombudsman to be a settlement negotiation. In Wilcox, Mary and Earl Wilcox had filed an action against Maricopa County and several of its officials. (Id. at 874.) The applicants filed both federal claims.

1983, as well as additional state rights. (Ibid.) They claimed that their claims had been settled through a mediation program set up by the county. (Ibid.) The applicants attempted to assert their transaction and, in support of their application, sent an e-mail from the County Ombudsman, in which they stated that the claim had been settled. (Id. at 874.) The county argued that the county`s mediator`s emails were inadmissible under Arizona`s prerogative. (Id. at 875.) The applicants asserted that the federal privileges law applied. (Ibid.) Agreement was reached with the complainants.

Although the law of the state`s contracts resolved the question of whether the parties had reached an agreement, the underlying remedy, which would have been settled, contained both federal and regional claims.