| Uniformity of the law helps bring order and understanding |
| across state lines, and encourages effective use of mediation |
| in a number of ways. First, uniformity is a necessary |
| predicate to predictability if there is any potential that a |
| statement made in mediation in one State may be sought in |
| litigation or other legal processes in another State. For this |
| reason, the UMA will benefit those States with clearly |
| established law or traditions, such as Texas, California, and |
| Florida, ensuring that the privilege for mediation |
| communications made within those States is respected in other |
| States in which those mediation communications may be sought. |
| The law of privilege does not fit neatly into a category of |
| either substance or procedure, making it difficult to predict |
| what law will apply. See, e.g., U.S. v. Gullo, 672 F.Supp. 99 |
| (W.D.N.Y. 1987) (holding that New York mediation-arbitration |
| privilege applies in federal court grand jury proceeding); |
| Royal Caribbean Corp. v. Modesto, 614 So.2d 517 (Fla. App. |
| 1992) (holding that Florida mediation privilege law applies in |
| federal Jones Act claim brought in Florida court). Moreover, |
| parties to a mediation cannot always know where the later |
| litigation or administrative process may occur. Without |
| uniformity, there can be no firm assurance in any State that a |
| mediation is privileged. Ellen E. Deason, The Quest for |
| Uniformity in Mediation Confidentiality: Foolish Consistency |
| or Crucial Predictability?, 85 Marquette L.Rev.79 (2001). |