Opinion ID: 1953777
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Creation of a Settlement Negotiation Privilege

Text: [¶ 10] Citizens asks us to create a new privilege to preclude disclosure of the requested draft settlement documents. [¶ 11] Colas urges us to reject Citizens's request because it runs afoul of M.R. Evid. 501, [2] which eliminated all common law privileges, and because the Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, is not the proper forum for the creation of a new privilege. [¶ 12] We agree with Colas and decline the invitation to create a new privilege that would bar the discoverability of draft settlement documents. We are not persuaded that the public policy underlying a settlement negotiation privilege could be fairly reconciled with the letter and spirit of FOAA. The Legislature denoted its intent to favor public access to documents at the expense of confidentiality of settlement discussions. [¶ 13] Nor do we find compelling Citizens's argument that, without a settlement negotiation privilege, polluters will be less willing to negotiate an environmental clean-up agreement with the State. [T]he alternative to settlement would be a double whammy: the loss of the benefit of the bargain and the more public airing occasioned by a full-blown trial. In re Subpoena Issued to Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 370 F.Supp.2d 201, 212 (D.D.C.2005) (quoting Bennett v. La Pere, 112 F.R.D. 136, 140 (D.R.I.1986)). [¶ 14] Even if we found Citizens's argument for the creation of a settlement negotiation privilege persuasive, we could not grant their request in our capacity as the Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court. We can only create new privileges pursuant to our rule-making powers as the Supreme Judicial Court. M.R. Evid. 501; see 4 M.R.S. § 9-A (2006).