These rules, however, do not prohibit the presentation of evidence of statements made in compromise negotiations, if offered for some other purpose. However, the trial court excluded reference to the negotiations before playing the message for the jury. The message was admissible for the purpose of showing the context of the later conversation with Ms. Howard. Defendant contends that Ms. Howard's testimony regarding her December 1997 conversation with Mr. Gellert also violates Rule 408. The trial court excluded portions of the conversation concerning the previous month's mediation conference.
Defendant claims that the entire conversation was a compromise negotiation.
There is no mention of an intent to compromise or negotiate in the admitted portions of the conversation. As admitted, the testimony was not evidence of statements made in compromise negotiations, but an admission of fact during a telephone conversation initiated by a party to the dispute. The trial judge properly determined that the admitted portions of the conversation were not part of settlement negotiations. This testimony was properly admitted into evidence. The first deposition was taken on 8 May 1998.