Is Your Dispute Resolution Process Truly Confidential?
Alternative dispute resolution has many advantages over traditional litigation, including reduced costs, expedited timelines and streamlined processes.…
August 07, 2023 at 09:52 AM
9 minute read
Special SectionsAlternative dispute resolution has many advantages over traditional litigation, including reduced costs, expedited timelines and streamlined processes. However, one of the oft-touted reasons parties choose a form of alternative dispute resolution is to prevent the underlying dispute, negotiations, and potential the settlement from being exposed to the public eye. While it is reasonable to assume that mediation and arbitration are in large part confidential, it would be wholly unreasonable to expect unfettered confidentiality across the board. Rather, it is incumbent upon the participants to take appropriate steps to create and enhance available protections, as well as to be aware of existing limitations or potential risks associated with these processes. Absent precautions, a misguided presumption of confidentiality may result in missed opportunities to provide some additional protections along the way. Moreover, failure to understand the true limitations of confidentiality can lead to misunderstandings between counselors and their clients, as well as set unreasonable client expectations.
Between the two traditional forums of dispute resolution, i.e., arbitration and mediation, there are some variations in what is automatically accepted or recognized as confidential and which form of dispute resolution may have a better chance of being maintained as confidential throughout the entirety of the process. Each of these processes will be addressed separately herein.
Mediation is a consensual process generally entered into by agreement of the parties, either based upon the provisions of the underlying contract, or in light of a party agreement reached at the outset of a dispute. At times, mediation may be a path chosen subsequent to the commencement of litigation or as a result of court order or directives. Thus, other than a referring order or a docket entry denoting a matter has gone to mediation, there is often nothing in the public forum reflecting that a dispute exists and/or that the parties are mediating that dispute. Moreover, even if a matter has gone to mediation subsequent to litigation, nothing exchanged during the mediation process will ever be filed on the public docket. Therefore, other than a "bare bones" report filed by the mediator as to the general outcome of the mediation, often times nothing else is ever filed with a court. At most, the parties may choose to conclude the litigation with court approval of a settlement agreement reached during mediation, which the parties can control the content of minimizing what will be on the public docket. As a result, only limited pieces of the dispute will be available for public viewing.
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
© 2024 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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