1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY JONES, No. 1:16-cv-01212 KES GSA (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE 13 v. (ECF No. 170) 14 ARNETTE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil 18 rights action seeking relief under

. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 Before this Court is Defendants’ motion to strike confidential settlement information filed 21 by Plaintiff. ECF No. 170. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion. ECF No. 22 171. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion will be granted. 23 I. DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE 24 Defendants’ pleading requests that the letter Plaintiff filed with the Court, which was 25 docketed on May 27, 2025 (see ECF No. 169) be stricken from the record (see ECF No. 170 at 3). 26 In support of the motion, Defendants state that Plaintiff’s letter contains confidential settlement 27 information that was stated at a settlement conference.

The information, Defendants argue, 28 was improperly disclosed in direct violation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998, 1 supporting case law and Local Rules.

In addition, Defendants argue, Plaintiff’s letter contains 2 communications that were allegedly made by the settlement judge; it divulges the dollar amount 3 of an offer that was made to him, and it improperly provides Plaintiff’s opinion that Defendants 4 were not willing to enter into meaningful negotiations with him. See ECF No. 170 at 3-4. For 5 these reasons, they contend, Plaintiff’s filing should be stricken from the record.

6 In response to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff apologizes to the Court and states that he was 7 unaware that discussion within a settlement conference was to be kept from the presiding court. 8 ECF No. 171 at 1. He further states that he only provided the information so that he could notify 9 the Court that he had done his due diligence.

At the same time, however, Plaintiff states that 10 he objects to Defendants’ motion to strike because “the facts are the facts,” and that had 11 Defendants had any intention to enter into meaningful negotiations, this matter would have been 12 settled and there would have been no need to notify the Court. ECF No. 171 at 1-2. For these 13 reasons, Plaintiff states, he “stand[s] firm” on his notification to the Court.

. 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 “Federal Policy favoring a mediation privilege is evidenced in the Alternative Dispute 16 Resolution Act of 1998.” Hodges v. Akeena Solar, Inc., No. C 09-2147 JW (PVT),

11484120, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2010). “Maintaining confidentiality is an important 18 component of any successful [ADR] program.” Samadi v. Quality Furniture, No. CV 12-593 19 PHX SRB,

, at *3 (D. Ariz. July 23, 2012) (brackets added). Confidentiality 20 “enables parties to be forthcoming and candid, without fear that frank statements may later be 21 used against them.”

22 The ADR Act states that “each district court shall, by local rule, provide for 23 confidentiality of the alternative dispute resolution processes and to prohibit disclosure dispute 24 resolution communications.”

(d). Consistent with this directive, Local Rule 25 271(m)(1) also states that “all communications made in connection with any [Voluntary Dispute 26 Resolution Program] proceeding . . . shall be privileged and confidential to the fullest extent 27 provided by applicable law.”

(brackets added). 28 1 In light of the above, it was improper for Plaintiff to file the letter and put the information 2 in it related to settlement amounts and statements made by the Court, et cetera, in it. For this 3 reason, Defendants’ motion to strike will be granted. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Defendants’ motion to strike confidential settlement information (ECF No. 170) is 6 GRANTED, and 7 2. The Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Plaintiff’s letter to the Court, docketed May 27, 8 2025 (ECF No. 169), from the record. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

11 Dated: July 8, 2025 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

13

14

15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28