FC: Latest NCAA filings for motion to compel production of documents
- Thread starter LundyPSU
- Start date
no idea, I haven't seen it. I don't recall seeing anything on the dockets since April
Some of the requests by the defendants seem rather absurd --- namely requests 4-7. How can the defendants be asking for documents as regards the Paterno Report, when they won't give up documents as regards the Freeh Report. Huh???
But requests 13, 14 and 18 aren't absurd, as it does get to the heart of the matter as regards Jay's claims (where has Jay applied for jobs, and how were his performance reviews while at Penn State).
But requests 13, 14 and 18 aren't absurd, as it does get to the heart of the matter as regards Jay's claims (where has Jay applied for jobs, and how were his performance reviews while at Penn State).
Last edited:
Agree but these aren't issue pertaining to the notion that damage was caused. These are issues pertaining to "how much" damage was caused (mitigation). The point being the NCAA's attorneys are hoping to mitigate damages. One would hope that Jay had these records on hand as any two-bit attorney would know that they'd be asked for. Having said that, I would suspect that releasing them may cause damage to the school and Jay (for example, Pitt may have reached out to Jay but didn't want it to be made public, Jay releasing is is a cautionary tale for anyone who may engage with Jay moving forward; in other words secrecy with him is not guaranteed).
You can look up the Superior Court Docket sheets here:
http://www.pacourts.us/courts/superior-court/docket-sheets
With these docket sheet numbers
Curley: 299 MDA 2015
Schultz: 280 MDA 2015
Spanier: 304 MDA 2015
All three have oral arguments scheduled for August 11, 2015.
I think Jay bears more potential embarrassment than any school would, but he had to know when the suit was brought that any of this correspondence would be brought to light.....and really looking at some of the letters I don't see anything out of the ordinary. In essence, the guy wants to coach, was out of a job, and reached out to schools/contacts he knew. This happens pretty much every day in every industry.
I notice in today's filing that a specific list of schools is mentioned (Illinois, Wisconsin, Purdue, Va Tech, Florida State, Massachusetts, NC State, Boston College, Arizona, Delaware, Syracuse, Western Michigan) --- see the footnote on pages 15 & 16.
Besides the majority of those schools being eastern schools, that's a rather hodge-podge, random list of schools --- sort of make me suspect that someone knows something.
Ultimately, the sentence "Before the consent decree was executed, Jay Paterno was a top candidate for open head coaching positions at comparable universities" is a part of Jay's lawsuit. If you say that, be prepared to prove it.
sighhh...so tom when do you think this thing (if ever) finally sees a courtroom...ready for the whole thing to be over
Tom, would C/S/S be out of appeals now that this is at the state supreme court level or would they be able to take it to the federal level? I get the sense that once the PA supreme court decides on the Aug 11 hearing that the Baldwin merry-go-round will finally be over and we can finally get to either trial or dismissal. Is that correct?
Edit: wait a second; where exactly are we, superior court or supreme court?
The oral arguments scheduled for Aug. 11 are before PA Superior Court. Assuming the arguments take place that day (which is not a certainty), there will be some time before a decision is rendered. At that point, things could go in a few directions, including 1) appeals to the PA Supreme Court, 2) the Superior Court could instruct the Commonwealth Court to reconsider 1 or more issue upon which it previously decided. Even if the Superior Court "resolves" all issues, it's not as though the case necessarily proceeds from them to a trial. Almost any decision has the potential to open up additional grounds for appeals.
If I could answer that with certainty, I should be able to hit the PowerBall whenever I wanted to.
I would be shocked if these cases were resolved, or in a courtroom, by this time next year.
Please correct me if im wrong but I also believe there are other motions by the defense that have still (after years of waiting) not been ruled on such as statue of limitations (2002 vs 2001) and ex post facto. I would expect there to be appeals after these rulings as well. Wouldn't these need to be resolved before a trial date can be set?
This whole case is a dumpster fire for the state. They dont have crap and they know it...smh.
Latest posts
-
-
Football Penn State Edge Rusher Abdul Carter Declares for NFL Draft
- Latest: GregInPitt
