Do federal courts apply federal or state privilege law in cases involving federal and supplemental state-law claims? The 9th Circuit ruled that federal privilege law governs even where the privileged matter relates to both federal and state claims. Wilcox v. Arpaio, 2014 WL 2442531 (CTA9 June 2, 2014). You may read the opinion here.
But the Court sidestepped two important issues. Does the 9th Circuit recognize a federal common law mediation privilege? And does federal privilege law apply in federal-question cases where the privileged evidence relates solely to the state-law claim?
America’s Toughest Sheriff Settles
The plaintiffs, Maricopa County (Arizona) supervisors, brought federal (42 U.S.C. § 1983) and state-law claims against “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” Joe Arpaio, and the County. As the plaintiffs were two of several plaintiffs with similar claims, the County established an alternative dispute resolution program and appointed retired judge Christopher Skelly to help resolve the claims.
Following mediation, Judge Skelly sent an email to plaintiffs’ counsel confirming a $975,000 settlement “subject to any further approvals deemed necessary by the parties.” You may read the confirming email here. When the County argued there was no settlement, the plaintiffs moved to enforce and the district court, following an evidentiary hearing, granted the motion.
9th Circuit Rules
On appeal, the County argued that the district court erred by admitting Judge Skelly’s email, claiming that Arizona’s mediation privilege precluded the email’s admissibility. The 9th Circuit noted that state contract law governs the issue whether the parties reached a settlement, but that, where the privilege question relates both to federal and state claims, federal rather than state privilege law applies.
This decision comports with the almost universal treatment of this conflict-of-privilege-law issue. Federal privilege law applies where a court entertains a case under federal-question jurisdiction, even with the presence of supplemental state-law claims.
The Court expressly refused to answer “whether, in federal question cases, state or federal privilege law governs the admissibility of evidence that relates exclusively to state law claims.” The answer is likely that federal common law applies, and you can read more about this conflict-of-privilege-law issue in my article The Application of Conflict of Laws to Evidentiary Privileges.
The Court also ruled that the County waived the mediation privilege by not asserting it at the lower-court level, and therefore declined to “determine whether a mediation privilege should be recognized under federal common law and, if so, the scope of such a privilege.” See my posts Court Takes Broad View of Mediation Privilege and Is Mediation Privilege Absolute or Qualified? for a discussion of some of these issues. The Court’s ruling is unfortunate, as the federal common law mediation privilege, prevalent in some but not nearly all federal district courts, needs circuit-court attention and refinement.
Alas, we must await another day for these answers.