Is Your Mediation Confidential?
In the absence of national rulemaking, participants in mediations must be aware of the risk of non-confidentiality.
November 17, 2021 at 11:00 AM
7 minute read
A keystone to the mediation process is the assumption that all that takes place will be held confidential. This means that communications between each party and the mediator, respectively, will not be shared with the other side without permission of the disclosing party. Confidentiality encourages full candor in disclosures to the mediator, including in written submissions. Then if the mediation fails, the parties are assured that none of their disclosures can be used against them in ongoing litigation.
But what about third parties? Does confidentiality in a mediation protect against required disclosures to a third party? No doubt, many participants in a mediation presume that a confidentiality agreement that is entered into before the mediation will protect against all disclosures, to participants and to non-participants alike. Over the last few years, at least one well-reasoned decision by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein in the Southern District of New York, Rocky Aspen Management 204 v. Hanford Holdings, 394 F. Supp. 3d 461 (S.D.N.Y. 2019), has raised questions whether such disclosures will be protected against non-parties if the mediation is other than court-ordered. A subsequent decision in the same district by District Court Judge Jesse Furman, Accent Delight International v. Sotheby's (S.D.N.Y. December 2020), rejected this narrow approach and ruled that the standard set out by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in In re Teligent, 640 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2011), should apply to privately convened mediations as well.
This judicial disagreement, combined with the absence of a standardized mediation provision regarding confidentiality across multiple jurisdictions, raises an important concern for those participating in privately convened mediations. How good are confidentiality protections and what further steps can be taken to assure confidentiality, especially as against third parties? The critical point to underscore is that in the absence of national rulemaking, participants in mediations must be aware of the risk of non-confidentiality.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllArtificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
9 minute readArt of the Settlement: Trump Attorney Reveals Strategy in ABC Lawsuit
Evolving Legal Standards to Combat Disqualification of Arbitrators for Failing to Disclose Conflicts of Interest
8 minute readCourt of Appeals Holds that Arbitration Agreements Can Be Formed Through ‘Clickwrap’ Process
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Bill Would Consolidate Antitrust Enforcement Under DOJ
- 2Cornell Tech Expands Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship Masters of Law Program to Part Time Format
- 3Divided Eighth Circuit Sides With GE's Timely Removal of Indemnification Action to Federal Court
- 4Former U.S. Dept. of Education Attorney Suspended for Failure to Complete CLE Credits
- 5ArentFox Schiff Adds Global Complex Litigation Partner in Los Angeles
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250