|
In ordering two restaurant owners to produce discovery regarding their communications with a consultant, a federal district court in California rejected the owners’ argument that mediation confidentiality applied to those communications. Even though the consultant may have been helping the parties resolve a dispute between them, mediation confidentiality did not apply because there was no “formal mediation” involving the parties to the lawsuit.
In E.E.O.C. v. Albion River Inn, Inc., No. C 06-05356 SI, 2007 WL 2560718 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2007), the EEOC brought suit against the Albion River Inn for allegedly retaliating against a restaurant manager who asked customers making race-based comments to leave the restaurant.
When the manager was fired, the two restaurant owners, Healy and Wells, sought advice from a financial planner, Jones, who had previously assisted them in resolving financial disputes. At deposition, Healy and Wells refused to testify about their conversations with Jones.
The EEOC subsequently moved to compel discovery of the communications with Jones. In opposing the motion, Healy and Wells claimed that the communications were privileged and confidential because Jones was acting as mediator.
The Court found that the owners’ conversations with Jones were not protected by mediation confidentiality because the rule cited by the restaurant owners applied only to court-sponsored ADR, and there was no evidence that the parties were involved in court-sponsored ADR when the communications were made.
Moreover, the Court rejected the argument that federal common law protected the communications. In rejecting this argument, the Court explained that there was no “formal mediation” because Jones was not attempting to help the restaurant resolve its dispute with the EEOC. Instead, Jones was attempting to help the restaurant owners resolve a dispute between them.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|