after Wisconsin adopted § 904.085 in 1993, for example, contains an express exception allowing a party to admit evidence of mediation communications for the purpose of “prov[ing] a claim to rescind or reform or a defense to avoid liability on a contract arising out of the mediation.” See Uniform Mediation Act, The National Conference of Commis sioners on Uniform State Laws, § 6(b)(2), available at http://www.uniformlaws.org/ Act.aspx?title=Mediation Act (last visited Oct. 30, 2014)'. Although one might contend it is unjust that a person like Doe cannot recover if he was in fact fraudulently induced into signing a settlement agreement, our task is to apply the Wisconsin statute as it is written. Cf. Rojas v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.4th 407, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 643, 93 P.3d 260, 265 (2004) (<HOLDING>); Princeton Ins. Co. v. Vergano, 883 A.2d 44,
recognizing the validity of a rule 26c confidentiality order entered on good cause recognizing a corporations legal rights to confidentiality and privilege recognizing a federal mediation privilege holding california mediation privilege was not subject to good cause exception because only exceptions to mediation confidentiality were those expressly provided in statute recognizing an exception to a california announcement and entry statute