However, Section 1152 only protects compromise proposals to prove liability for the receivable that is the subject of the offer. It cannot prevent the use of compromise offers for other purposes and these offers may be unloaded, even if they are not admissible. Covell v. Superior Court (Drasin) (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 39, 42;Ca. Practice Guide Civil Trials and Evidence, Rutter Group, 8:2813, citing Truestone, Inc. v. Simi West Industrial Park (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 715, 725. While Section 1152 is based on a strong policy, proving that compromise proposals and negotiations on these offers must be concluded, the scope of their privacy protection is somewhat limited. The defendants also have an interest in maintaining a private transaction when several plaintiffs sue the same defendant under similar theories or for the same remedy. For example, we assume that complainant Y is a passenger on a bus who was injured, such as a defendant X, a drunk truck driver, negligently hit the bus in a head-on collision and even Defendant X, the other plaintiffs may learn that defendant X paid plaintiff Y 500,000.00 to settle the matter in court, if there is no confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement. Such a transaction may prompt other plaintiffs to continue their case against Defendant X in the hope that they too will receive a substantial payment for their injuries. Confidentiality clauses in transaction agreements may have a number of restrictions.
Many confidentiality provisions prohibit parties from disclosing the terms of the transaction. Others may go further to exclude disclosure of the nature of the dispute, the facts underlying the claims and any exchanged discovery. While many states have obtained confidential comparisons that exclude Eskrate from disclosing certain settlement conditions, several state bars have issued ethics notices prohibiting settlers from agreeing to keep confidential information already published in the public. The confidentiality provisions of these sections of the code of evidence raise questions of exclusion from the evidence. The statutes and cases in which it is being investigated indicate whether evidence is admissible or excluded because of its confidentiality. The rule was not characterized as a privilege, but as a rule of exclusion. Simmons v. Ghaderi, supraat 588.
Although the principle of confidentiality is very broad and absolutely worded, the legislation does not define any other avenues of redress than the exclusion of evidence. It can reasonably be concluded that the creation of a rule of total confidentiality, combined with other remedies, would create remedies such as omission and compensation, but this is not in the statutes and support jurisprudence is limited. Correspondence agreements are usually confidential. As a result, practical instructions on when and how to use them are lacking. Porter Wright Morris – Arthur LLP helps fill this void. Because proof of damages for breach of confidentiality tends to be difficult, transaction agreements may include remedial measures such as cash damages, claims of omission, costs and/or legal fees. There is generally an exception to confidentiality where disclosure is required by law or by subpoena in another court proceeding. Many transaction agreements will specifically consider what should happen if confidential transaction information is required by subpoena or imposed by law, including by providing the un convened party with the opportunity to object to the disclosure of information.