Under Rule 408(a)(2), which is a permissible purpose for admitting evidence related to settlement negotiations?

Under Rule 408(a)(2), which is a permissible purpose for admitting evidence related to settlement negotiations?

• A. Proving liability
• B. Proving the value of a claim
• C. Proving undue delay occurred
• D. Proving bias or prejudice, negating delay, or obstructing investigation

Answer: (D)

Rule 408(a)(2) allows evidence from settlement negotiations to be admitted for purposes other than proving the amount or existence of liability. The key permissible uses are to show a witness’s bias or prejudice, to negate a claim of undue delay, or to prove obstruction of a criminal investigation or prosecution. The correct choice reflects all of these permissible purposes in one statement. If you tried to use settlement talks to prove liability or to establish the value of a claim, that would fall outside the allowed exceptions. The nuance with naming “undue delay occurred” is that the permitted use is to negate a claim of undue delay, not merely to prove that delay happened.

Rule 408(a)(2) allows evidence from settlement negotiations to be admitted for purposes other than proving the amount or existence of liability. The key permissible uses are to show a witness’s bias or prejudice, to negate a claim of undue delay, or to prove obstruction of a criminal investigation or prosecution. The correct choice reflects all of these permissible purposes in one statement. If you tried to use settlement talks to prove liability or to establish the value of a claim, that would fall outside the allowed exceptions. The nuance with naming “undue delay occurred” is that the permitted use is to negate a claim of undue delay, not merely to prove that delay happened.