In the world of ADR news, California’s mediation confidentiality provisions are achieving “Kardashian”-like levels of fame at the moment, with a comparable amount of dramatic fireworks to boot. Since 1993, California has included in its Evidence Code provisions which guarantee mediation confidentiality and greatly limit the discovery and admission of evidence procured from mediations. However, between an initiative to rewrite the California Evidence Code and a recent decision in Delaware’s influential Court of Chancery, these protections face a challenge, one that threatens to jeopardize the reliability of mediation as a viable dispute resolution process in the Golden State. (more…)
Posts Tagged ‘confidentiality’
CA Confidential: How The Latest Challenges to California’s Evidence Code Undermine Mediation
Just Court ADR, November 3rd, 2015A Court Clash on Confidentiality and Mediation Policy
Just Court ADR, February 27th, 2013The Indiana Supreme Court recently declared that the state’s judicial policy supports “robust confidentiality” in mediation. In doing so, the court vacated a Court of Appeals ruling that would have expanded the circumstances in which confidentiality could be broken to obtain evidence. The two rulings reflect a strong contrast in interpretations of ADR rules and judicial policy toward mediation. (more…)
Indiana Court Pierces Mediation Confidentiality For Possible Error
Just Court ADR, December 4th, 2012A recent decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals shows the uneasy balance between the rules of confidentiality in an ADR process, and the rules of evidence in a court trial. In the family law case Horner v. Carter, the Indiana court has interpreted its state rules of ADR and Evidence so that clients may introduce evidence from confidential ADR sessions for a much broader range of reasons than the court had previously allowed. While the case is limited to Indiana, and currently under appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court, other ADR professionals may wish to tune in for two reasons. First, other states beyond Indiana may follow similar rules. Also, the case is an interesting example of the uneasy balance that can exist between the protection and privilege of ADR, and how that veil may be pierced unexpectedly in a court proceeding. (more…)
Delaware’s Chancery Court Arbitration Procedure Ruled Unconstitutional
Jennifer Shack, September 4th, 2012Last year, the Delaware Coalition for Open Government sued Delaware’s Chancery Court judges for operating a private arbitration system. Empowered by legislation passed in 2009, the judges were acting as arbitrators in business disputes, which, the Coalition argued, effectively made court proceedings confidential. According to the Coalition, this violated the presumptive right to access to judicial proceedings and documents, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Judge Mary McLaughlin from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agrees. In a 26-page opinion, she rules that the arbitrations are sufficiently like a trial to be covered by the right to access presumption in the First Amendment. In coming to this conclusion, she argues that unlike arbitrators, who are private actors selected by the parties, judges are appointed to public service and therefore must act in the public interest.
For more analysis of the opinion, see Delaware Litigation and Steven Davidoff’s post in The New York Times.
