Micheal Deshazo v. Federal Express Corporation and Jayhill Trucking, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied Defendants’ motion to strike and exclude Plaintiff’s experts based on the disclosure of a draft accident-reconstruction report used in voluntary mediation. The Court held that Local Rule 16.2 did not automatically apply to the voluntary mediation and declined to decide whether Federal Rule of Evidence 408 or the Sixth Circuit’s settlement privilege applied. The Court found that disclosure breached the parties’ mediation agreement but imposed a tailored remedy allowing Defendants to offer a rebuttal expert rather than striking Plaintiff’s experts.

Holdings

1. Local Rule 16.2 does not automatically apply to a voluntary mediation where neither party moved for court-ordered mediation, the court did not require mediation, and the parties did not agree to be bound by the local rules.
2. The court declined to decide whether Federal Rule of Evidence 408 applies to the disclosure of the draft accident-reconstruction report to Plaintiff's experts.
3. The court declined to decide whether the settlement privilege recognized in Goodyear applies to the requested exclusion of expert reports or testimony under the circumstances presented.
4. Plaintiff violated the parties' mediation agreement by disclosing the draft accident-reconstruction report, which was used for mediation and therefore constituted a mediation document covered by the agreement's confidentiality provision.
5. Striking Plaintiff's expert reports, excluding his experts, and precluding additional witnesses were unwarranted; the appropriate remedy was to permit Defendants to disclose a rebuttal expert within thirty days.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Eastern District of Kentucky Local Rule 16.2 automatically applies to a voluntary mediation that was neither court-ordered nor conducted pursuant to an agreement to follow the local rule.
2. Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 408 required exclusion or sanctions based on Plaintiff's disclosure of Defendants' draft accident-reconstruction report to Plaintiff's experts.
3. Whether the Sixth Circuit's settlement privilege recognized in Goodyear permitted sanctions for disclosure of the draft report to Plaintiff's experts.
4. Whether the parties' mediation agreement prohibited Plaintiff from disclosing the draft accident-reconstruction report to his trial experts and, if so, what remedy was appropriate.
5. Whether striking Plaintiff's expert reports, excluding his experts, or barring additional witnesses was warranted under the circumstances.

Disposition

other