|
A party may not compel discovery of information from mediation proceedings through interrogatories or requests for production of documents when an in camera review reveals the relevant information in the mediation materials is readily available from other available sources, according to a Connecticut federal court.
In Bradley v. Fontaine Trailer Co. Inc., No. 3:06-CV-62, 2007 WL 2028115 (D. Conn. July 10, 2007), Fontaine moved to compel answers to interrogatories and the production of documents related to mediation proceedings between the Bradley plaintiffs and a third-party, proceedings related to the same accident which was the subject of the instant case. Bradley objected to the motion, claiming that both Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-235d and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 created a mediation privilege that protected such materials from discovery. In response, Fontaine argued that the circumstances of the case satisfied the exception to such protection that comes into play when the "interests of justice" outweigh the "need for confidentiality."
Upon an in camera review of the disputed materials, the Court held that the mediation information contained no information that would compel its release in the "interests of justice." Specifically, the Court found that the materials requested contained no written indemnity agreements and no factual statements or descriptions of the accident that were not also contained in settlement materials or government reports. Since Bradley had agreed to provide the settlement reports to Fontaine, and since the government reports were freely available to Fontaine, the Court found that the "interests of justice" did not outweigh the "need for confidentiality."
The Court also noted that the Federal Rules of Evidence limit the admissibility of evidence related to settlement negotiations. Therefore, even if a settlement agreement contained admissions, the Federal Rules of Evidence would nevertheless curtail their usefulness through discovery by prohibiting the introduction of any settlement-related materials at trial for the purposes of proving or disproving liability.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|