Supplements the (A) case.

Legal policy has a long history of protecting confidentiality of negotiations that are designed to produce settlement. However, within the past several decades there has been a significant push toward openness. Compelling arguments support confidentiality: It helps promote candid discussion when sensitive material is involved and may make settlements possible. On the other hand, ethical concern where public health and safety are involved has prompted some states to pass laws requiring the disclosure of settlement agreements or to revise their procedures governing confidentiality of discovery, protective orders, and sealing of litigation records. This case summarizes the legal and ethical debate. It identifies the major issues surrounding confidentiality in settlement negotiations and illustrates them with several examples.

This case distills the practical implications of current research on nonverbal communication. The first section sketches different kinds of nonverbal behavior: facial expressions, eye movements, physical gestures, paraverbal cues, posture, and "personal space." The next section looks more deeply at the interactive nature of nonverbal communication--specifically, how one person's behavior both influences and reflects what others do. The final section suggests how negotiators can make better use of nonverbal communication. Five themes run throughout the case: 1) we communicate far more information to other people than is conveyed by our words alone, 2) our nonverbal signals sometimes contradict the words we use, 3) much of this communication is less than fully conscious, 4) reading nonverbal communication is an art, not a science, and 5) nonverbal communication must be understood in the context of the broader set of interactions among all parties.