Responding in part to public concerns about the complexity of |
earlier drafts, the Drafting Committees also elected to leave |
the question of when a mediation ends to the sound judgment of |
the courts to determine according to the facts and |
circumstances presented by individual cases. See Bidwell v. |
Bidwell, 173 Or. App. 288 (2001) (ruling that letters between |
attorneys for the parties that were sent after referral to |
mediation and related to settlement were mediation |
communications and therefore privileged under the Oregon |
statute). In weighing language about when a mediation ends, |
the Drafting Committees considered other more specific |
approaches for answering these questions. One approach in |
particular would have terminated the mediation after a |
specified period of time if the parties failed to reach an |
agreement, such as the 10-day period specified in Cal. Evid. |
Code Section 1125 (West 1997) (general). However, the Drafting |
Committees rejected that approach because it felt that such a |
requirement could be easily circumvented by a routine practice |
of extending mediation in a form mediation agreement. Indeed, |
such an extension in a form agreement could result in the |
coverage of communications unrelated to the dispute for years |
to come, without furthering the purposes of the privilege. |