Gruden Sues NFL, Goodell (1 Viewer)

[habsfan]

You aren’t getting the wide scope of what’s going on here. Nobody wants Gruden’s case to go forward bc they think he should still be employed or something. What he said was enough to get anyone fired, it was the leaks and the manner of the leaks that has peoples’ attention. People want to know what’s in the rest of the emails and who else is implicated, especially in Washington since that BS investigation was swept under the rug in a corrupt way.

This is true. The problem is, I don't see how this lawsuit will compel the league to release those emails. Even if they can trace the leak back to the league it will only lead (at best) to some sort of financial settlement for Gruden. I'm not even sure (legally) what Gruden was entitled to in terms of privacy / confidentiality where those emails are concerned.

 

[SWC]

so even if the nfl released those emails and gruden is right i dont think that would mean that he would be entitled to all the rest of the emails or a ruling that the nfl has to release them would he i think he would just be entitled to damages i dont think he gets to say jeez they harmed me by releasing these emails so now they need to harm everyone else by releasing the rest of the emails i dont think a court would go for that take that to the bank brohans 

 

[rockaction]

so even if the nfl released those emails and gruden is right i dont think that would mean that he would be entitled to all the rest of the emails or a ruling that the nfl has to release them would he i think he would just be entitled to damages i dont think he gets to say jeez they harmed me by releasing these emails so now they need to harm everyone else by releasing the rest of the emails i dont think a court would go for that take that to the bank brohans 

I think it would be in the court's records as part of discovery requests, SWC.

Let's ask Cletius how that works, though. I went to law school, graduated, passed the bar, not a lawyer. He is.

 

[habsfan]

I think it would be in the court's records as part of discovery requests, SWC.

Let's ask Cletius how that works, though. I went to law school, graduated, passed the bar, not a lawyer. He is.

The specific emails that led to Gruden's resignation, sure. I didn't go to law school but isn't the harm they are alleging that the league willfully / maliciously ensured those emails became public? If so, they need to prove that by establishing the "chain of custody" back to the league. Still not sure what he's entitled to in terms of the security / confidentiality of those emails. You can put boiler plate confidentiality language in your email signature but what is that worth? It's not like someone hacked into a server and stole his tax returns or bank statements. He typed them out and hit "send".

 

[rockaction]

The specific emails that led to Gruden's resignation, sure. I didn't go to law school but isn't the harm they are alleging that the league willfully / maliciously ensured those emails became public? If so, they need to prove that by establishing the "chain of custody" back to the league. Still not sure what he's entitled to in terms of the security / confidentiality of those emails. You can put boiler plate confidentiality language in your email signature but what is that worth? It's not like someone hacked into a server and stole his tax returns or bank statements. He typed them out and hit "send".

Ooh. I dunno. That's why I'm not a lawyer. Heh.

 

[Chaka]

He was not convicted of any crime. "Due process" has no relevance to a private company or trade association.

And he didn't even get fired.

He's not pursuing this lawsuit because he wants to rid the NFL of bad guys. He's pursuing it because he doesn't think he should be subject to consequences for his words. 

He has already paid the consequences for his words. Winning this lawsuit doesn't change that he is never working for the NFL or their broadcast partners again, ever. He's not putting that toothpaste back in the tube. 

If you can demonstrate a private party commits material harm then you are allowed to sue. Right?

I don't care why he is pursuing it, and I wouldn't rule out the desire to force the league to air all it's dirty laundry, I support this lawsuit for all the reasons I am surprised you are not.

Or do you not want to find out how deep the rabbit hole goes.

 

[madshot31]

He has already paid the consequences for his words. Winning this lawsuit doesn't change that he is never working for the NFL or their broadcast partners again, ever. He's not putting that toothpaste back in the tube. 

If you can demonstrate a private party commits material harm then you are allowed to sue. Right?

I don't care why he is pursuing it, and I wouldn't rule out the desire to force the league to air all it's dirty laundry, I support this lawsuit for all the reasons I am surprised you are not.

Or do you not want to find out how deep the rabbit hole goes.

How great would it be if Mark Davis supports the law suit. I could see it as his family has always felt like the NFL is out to get them, well often that is correct. 

 

[CalBear]

He has already paid the consequences for his words. Winning this lawsuit doesn't change that he is never working for the NFL or their broadcast partners again, ever. He's not putting that toothpaste back in the tube. 

If you can demonstrate a private party commits material harm then you are allowed to sue. Right?

I don't care why he is pursuing it, and I wouldn't rule out the desire to force the league to air all it's dirty laundry, I support this lawsuit for all the reasons I am surprised you are not.

Or do you not want to find out how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Oh, I know how deep the rabbit hole goes and I'd love to see it exposed. I just don't think a tantrum from a petulant child is going to help. It's certainly not valorous. 

 

[Chaka]

Oh, I know how deep the rabbit hole goes and I'd love to see it exposed. I just don't think a tantrum from a petulant child is going to help. It's certainly not valorous. 

What debate are you having in here?

Valorous? Where did that come from? Is anyone saying Gruden is valiant? He's an ##$##$#, we all agree. Go to the Raiders thread, most of us are happy he's gone.

And it's not a tantrum, it's actually a pretty reasonable response. He was blackballed for something he said in what he, possibly mistakenly, believed to be a private communication while he was not an employee of the NFL over ten years ago. Documents that were sealed so as not to violate the privacy of some cheerleaders (allegedly). But these specific emails were selectively weaponized and released.

As a result Gruden will not be able to work in the NFL and, likely, their affiliate broadcast partners ever again. That's material harm.

No one wants to see him back in the NFL or on TV but he has a pretty reasonable argument to call #####$3#.

 

[SWC]

I think it would be in the court's records as part of discovery requests, SWC.

Let's ask Cletius how that works, though. I went to law school, graduated, passed the bar, not a lawyer. He is.

see i hope cletius answers this because i dont see why the others emails would be part of discovery in the gruden case his case would be about who leaked his emails that doesnt have anything to do with the other 650000 emails so why would they ever need to be coughed up i imagine the nfl would seek protection from having to do that is all i am saying and i think most judges would probably give it to them because although they are crummy and salashus and i would love to read them they dont really have anything to do with john grudens case about someone leaking his emails i guess that is where im coming from i think the washignton cheerleaeders would have a better chance getting them in a hostile workplace case but that is just one dumb guy in brew town take that to the bank bromigos 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I think it would be in the court's records as part of discovery requests, SWC.

Let's ask Cletius how that works, though. I went to law school, graduated, passed the bar, not a lawyer. He is.

see i hope cletius answers this because i dont see why the others emails would be part of discovery in the gruden case his case would be about who leaked his emails that doesnt have anything to do with the other 650000 emails so why would they ever need to be coughed up i imagine the nfl would seek protection from having to do that is all i am saying and i think most judges would probably give it to them because although they are crummy and salashus and i would love to read them they dont really have anything to do with john grudens case about someone leaking his emails i guess that is where im coming from i think the washignton cheerleaeders would have a better chance getting them in a hostile workplace case but that is just one dumb guy in brew town take that to the bank bromigos 

I think you're correct Broheem - I can't see how Gruden's lawyers could argue the 650k emails from the WFT case are relevant to this lawsuit.  That said, if the case proceeds, they will eventually be able to take depositions and obtain documents that the NFL may not want to produce.  Hard to tell where it might lead.

 

[Chaka]

I think you're correct Broheem - I can't see how Gruden's lawyers could argue the 650k emails from the WFT case are relevant to this lawsuit.  That said, if the case proceeds, they will eventually be able to take depositions and obtain documents that the NFL may not want to produce.  Hard to tell where it might lead.

Can they argue that they need to see the 650k emails to determine if there are any others that could potentially be weaponized in the future?

 

[SWC]

that may be the first time anyone said i was correct around here i feel so happy take that to the bank brochachos 

 

[Chaka]

that may be the first time anyone said i was correct around here i feel so happy take that to the bank brochachos 

You're love of tacos has always felt pretty correct to me.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

that may be the first time anyone said i was correct around here i feel so happy take that to the bank brochachos 

You kinda reminded me of that famous OJ Simpson lawyer Johnnie Brochran Jr. for a minute there. 

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I think you're correct Broheem - I can't see how Gruden's lawyers could argue the 650k emails from the WFT case are relevant to this lawsuit.  That said, if the case proceeds, they will eventually be able to take depositions and obtain documents that the NFL may not want to produce.  Hard to tell where it might lead.

Can they argue that they need to see the 650k emails to determine if there are any others that could potentially be weaponized in the future?

They can always make that argument, but I don't think it will go far.  A plaintiff doesn't have a right to take discovery in lawsuit A to investigate (unfiled) lawsuit B.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

The Nevada Court has denied the NFL's motion to compel arbitration of the lawsuit - a pretty big blow to the defense effort to move the case to a private venue with restricted discovery.  The case will be litigated in a real court.  This one always seemed like a long shot to me because Gruden didn't have a contractual relationship with the NFL.

The parties are now arguing the NFL's motion to dismiss. The live feed is here: https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=404784004676001

One interesting point that seems to be coming out in argument - Gruden's lawyer is alleging that someone with the NFL leaked the Gruden emails to the WSJ and NYT. Maybe I'd missed something along the way - did not know they had identified the source of the leak. Gruden's lawyer says the NFL leaked the emails and pressured the Raiders to fire Gruden.  The NFL threated that additional emails would be leaked if the Raiders didn't act quickly.  Gruden then resigned (with an undisclosed settlement) and sued.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

NFL Motion to Dismiss denied.  Its a good day for Gruden.

“We are going to let the process take care of itself. Good luck to the Raiders. Go Raiders.”