AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In the underlying lawsuit, the Appellee and Crossclaimant-Appellee each claim entitlement to money damages and stock in Defendant corporations, alleging they loaned funds to a Crossdefendant-Appellee for building and operating a new franchise, secured with interest in his stock and membership interest. The parties agreed to hire an expert to perform a valuation of one of the corporations to evaluate a settlement offer. The expert's report was intended for mediation purposes only (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants: Argued that the expert witness could not serve due to her participation in the mediation and that her valuation report was a confidential mediation communication and inadmissible at trial (para 1).
• Appellee Warner: Contended that the issue of the expert witness's testimony was not ripe for interlocutory review and implied that the expert's report did not qualify as a confidential mediation communication (paras 10, 22).
• Crossdefendant-Appellee Phillips: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the expert witness could serve given her role in the mediation (para 1).
• Whether the expert's valuation report is a confidential mediation communication and inadmissible at trial (para 1).

Disposition

• The district court's ruling appointing the expert witness under Rule 11-706 was affirmed.
• The decision that the expert's 2009 Valuation Report may be used or admitted at trial was reversed (para 33).

Reasons

• The Court found that the expert was a nonparty participant in the mediation as she was retained to assist in evaluating a settlement offer, making her a nonparty participant under the Mediation Procedures Act (MPA). However, the MPA does not prohibit her from testifying at trial but may limit the scope of her testimony to prevent the disclosure of mediation communications. The Court concluded that the expert's 2009 Valuation Report is a mediation communication as defined by the MPA and, except for certain exceptions, is confidential and not admissible as evidence in any proceeding. The Court determined that no exception applied to permit the disclosure of the 2009 Valuation Report at trial. The Court also noted that the parties' agreements did not prevent the expert from testifying but limited the use of the 2009 Valuation Report at trial. The Court affirmed the appointment of the expert under Rule 11-706, subject to limitations imposed by the MPA and the parties' agreements regarding the use of the 2009 Valuation Report (paras 12-33).