The Drafters ultimately settled on the use of the privilege |
structure, the primary means by which communications are |
protected at law, an approach that is narrowly tailored to |
satisfy the legitimate interests and expectations of |
participants in mediation, the mediation process, and the |
larger system of justice in which it operates. The privilege |
structure also provides greater certainty in judicial |
interpretation because of the courts' familiarity with other |
privileges, and is consistent with the approach taken by the |
overwhelming majority of legislatures that have acted to |
provide broad legal protections for mediation confidentiality. |
Indeed, of the 25 States that have enacted confidentiality |
statutes of general application, 21 have plainly used the |
privilege structure. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 12-2238 |
(West 1993); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 16-7-206 (1997); |
Iowa Code Section 679C.2 (1998); Kan. Stat. Ann. Section 60- |
452 (1964); La. Rev. St. Ann. Section 9:4112 (1997); Me. R. |
Evid. Section 408 (1997); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, Section 23C |
(1985); Mont. Code Ann. Section 26-1-813 (1999); Nev. Rev. |
Stat. Section 48.109(3) (1993); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Section |
2317.023 (West 1996); Okla. stat. tit. 12, Section 1805 |
(1983); Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. Section 36.220 (1997); 42 Pa. |
Cons. Stat. Ann. Section 5949 (1996) (general); R.I. Gen. Laws |
Section 9-19-44 (1992); S.D. Codified Laws Section 19-13-32 |
(1998); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Section 154.053 (c) |
(1999); Utah Code Ann. Section 30-3-38(4) (2000); Va. Code |
Ann. Section 8.01-576.10 |