ed to obtain those materials in discovery in the first instance. That question must be answered by reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges." Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 132

naed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court finds this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special rela

naed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court fords this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special rela

and trust," and because their confidentiality serves significant public and private ends, they are properly subject to a common law privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. Similar privileges, which are "rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust" and which serve significant public and private ends, have b

ications, either written or oral, made during the course of a mediation. Our decision whether to apply this mediation privilege .. . is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 501 [and] Jaffee'. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) . . . Recognizing that only those documents prepared for purposes of the confidential mediation are prote

(1) Federal Rule of Evidence 410 or (2) a purported "common law privilege" for "plea negotiations" that the attorneys ask the Court to create under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The defense arguments are meritless for multiple, independent reasons. With regard to Rule 410, the defense attorneys' efforts to invoke Rule 410

cts un- derlying the communication. Upjohn Co. 12. The court below erroneously applied the Ten- nessee law of attorney-client privilege. Al- though Federal Rule of Evidence 501 does not apply in the instant case, we follow it by analo- I United States, 449 U.S. 383, 395, 101 S.Ct. 677, 685, 66 LEd.2d 584 (1981). In genera

naed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court finds this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special rela

—and because their continued confidentiality serves significant public and private ends, they are properly subject to a common law privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. Similar privileges, which are rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust and which serve significant public and private ends, have bee

ed to obtain those materials in discovery in the first instance. That question must be answered by reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 132

naed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court finds this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special rela

naed materials are privileged. Specifically, the District Attorney argues that the state grand jury secrecy law creates a federal privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The Court finds this argument without merit. [8] Evidentiary privileges protect confidential communications between persons in special rela