| Responding in part to public concerns about the complexity of |
| earlier drafts, the Drafting Committees also elected to leave |
| the question of when a mediation ends to the sound judgment of |
| the courts to determine according to the facts and |
| circumstances presented by individual cases. See Bidwell v. |
| Bidwell, 173 Or. App. 288 (2001) (ruling that letters between |
| attorneys for the parties that were sent after referral to |
| mediation and related to settlement were mediation |
| communications and therefore privileged under the Oregon |
| statute). In weighing language about when a mediation ends, |
| the Drafting Committees considered other more specific |
| approaches for answering these questions. One approach in |
| particular would have terminated the mediation after a |
| specified period of time if the parties failed to reach an |
| agreement, such as the 10-day period specified in Cal. Evid. |
| Code Section 1125 (West 1997) (general). However, the Drafting |
| Committees rejected that approach because it felt that such a |
| requirement could be easily circumvented by a routine practice |
| of extending mediation in a form mediation agreement. Indeed, |
| such an extension in a form agreement could result in the |
| coverage of communications unrelated to the dispute for years |
| to come, without furthering the purposes of the privilege. |