Court Rules B1G Must Provide More Documents

[IowaHawkeyeFBnBB4Life]

In regards to fall postponements.

 

[RomanHawk]

10 days is way too much time. In this situation, it should have been 48 hours.

 

[DogBoyRy]

10 days is way too much time. In this situation, it should have been 48 hours.

Warrens doing a good job except getting his ass kicked on the PR stage and the courtroom.

 

[nu2u]

Warrens doing a good job except getting his ass kicked on the PR stage and the courtroom.

I don't understand how you reached this conclusion as to the legal contest. The league's decision is still in effect. The court is requiring the conference to provide more information pertaining to the vote as well as conference documents and regulations governing this type of decision. Unless there is more to the ruling than publically disclosed per the article, its definitely not an "ass kicking" at all.

Yeah, I guess Warren will still be ridiculed but Warren is out of the picture at this point. the court wants league confirmation of the vote tally -- Warren didn't vote.

IMO there is a very good chance that the B10 now asserts privilege regarding the by-law documents ordered by the court. Their most recent submission redacted almost all of the by-law language which governed their decision. That may have been a signal that they consider those documents confidential and privileged.

 

[hawkedoff]

I don't understand how you reached this conclusion as to the legal contest. The league's decision is still in effect. The court is requiring the conference to provide more information pertaining to the vote as well as conference documents and regulations governing this type of decision. Unless there is more to the ruling than publically disclosed per the article, its definitely not an "ass kicking" at all.

Yeah, I guess Warren will still be ridiculed but Warren is out of the picture at this point. the court wants league confirmation of the vote tally -- Warren didn't vote.

IMO there is a very good chance that the B10 now asserts privilege regarding the by-law documents ordered by the court. Their most recent submission redacted almost all of the by-law language which governed their decision. That may have been a signal that they consider those documents confidential and privileged.

And they will lose that argument under foia. You don't get to protect the decisions of the president's most of whom lead public institutions. The Big Ten can delay but in the end they will lose and if they drag this out nine of them should have a job when this is over.

 

[hawkedoff]

OK so I guess you concede that Kevin Warren didn't get an ass-kicking by the court, as you stated.

"they don't get to protect the decisions of the president's most of whom lead public institutions."

Among other things, the federal FOIA law expressly exempts government internal and intra-agency documents, memoranda, and correspondence that are protected by legal privilege. Most state FOIA laws model the federal law. Furthermore, the courts have generally upheld a privilege assertion under FOIA for executive level deliberative communications - this is certainly one of those cases. What leads you to believe that a legal privilege claim would fail under a FOIA demand in this instance? You seem pretty confident the presidents would not be protected by a privilege claim. Why?

In any event, the Big Ten Conference is a private non-profit organization and as such, the league itself is not subject to the same laws as their member public institutions, including FOIA. Under federal rules of civil procedure, the conference has a legal right to assert privileges in the Nebraska case, a civil suit. If they do so, it is my opinion that they will likely prevail.

And you think a smart reporter won't simply foia each of the president's communications and papers related to anything and everything related to this decision? You really believe that? You can play a shell game for a while but when you do that you are running a scam and a good investigative reporter will follow through. So will a good attorney by the way.

You are making a stupid argument of an attorney that cannot see beyond the finer points if law while missing the gaping hole in the argument. At the end of this these are public institutions and are answerable to the public. The information will come out. The PR from hiding will only make things worse once things eventually do come out.

 

[nu2u]

And you think a smart reporter won't simply foia each of the president's communications and papers related to anything and everything related to this decision? You really believe that? You can play a shell game for a while but when you do that you are running a scam and a good investigative reporter will follow through. So will a good attorney by the way.

Do believe that an army of reporters will file FOIA requests for all the information? Yes

Do I believe they will get all the information requested? No. the FOIA responses will reveal little substantive info. Expect to be disappointed.

Do I believe that more information will be made public eventually? Yes. A couple years from now a sports reporter will right a book entitled "Cancelled: Behind The Big Ten's Decision to Sit Out a Football Season" or something similar. In it, he or she will piece together bits of information gathered from inside sources familiar with what happened and how it was decided.

 

[AuroraHawk]

OK so I guess you concede that Kevin Warren didn't get an ass-kicking by the court, as you stated.

"they don't get to protect the decisions of the president's most of whom lead public institutions."

Among other things, the federal FOIA law expressly exempts government internal and intra-agency documents, memoranda, and correspondence that are protected by legal privilege. Most state FOIA laws model the federal law. Furthermore, the courts have generally upheld a privilege assertion under FOIA for executive level deliberative communications - this is certainly one of those cases. What leads you to believe that a legal privilege claim would fail under a FOIA demand in this instance? You seem pretty confident the presidents would not be protected by a privilege claim. Why?

In any event, the Big Ten Conference is a private non-profit organization and as such, the league itself is not subject to the same laws as their member public institutions, including FOIA. Under federal rules of civil procedure, the conference has a legal right to assert privileges in the Nebraska case, a civil suit. If they do so, it is my opinion that they will likely prevail.

Let's play a game:
1. Name the poster who actually understands how federal FOIA and state FOIA requests are made and administered.
2. Name the poster who doesn't have a clue as to how it works.

There's a reason why the lawsuit was filed in Nebraska state court. First, the Nebraska lawyer didn't issue an Illinois FOIA to the B1G. Despite his grandiose letter in which he demanded production of documents or he would file suit in Nebraska federal court, he likely "figured it out" that the B1G was not subject to the Illinois FOIA and his sole recourse was to try to state a claim in Nebraska state court and seek the documents that he requested in his initial letter through expedited discovery. He also likely filed in state court because it is far more forgiving to "fishing expeditions" than federal court.

Go back and look at the documents that he demanded in the original letter. Compare that to the documents produced thus far by the B1G and the documents that the Court ordered to be produced. The "Lincoln Lawyer" didn't get anything close to what he was seeking. And, if you look at his press release, it is quite evident that he knows that he didn't get what he was looking for.

When all is said and done, the Court required the B1G to produce documentation relating to the vote that was taken and the by-laws which relate to that vote. I'd expect the B1G to seek the entry of a Protective Order which would preclude public disclosure of the by-laws (if the B1G didn't care about disclosure, it wouldn't have redacted portions previously produced). Finally, when all is said and done, I'm anticipating that the only thing that will be examined by the Court is whether the B1G met what is required by its by-laws. Anyone hoping that the Court would intervene and substitute its opinion and make a decision about football is . . . as I wrote before . . . chasing windmills and not operating in reality.

Anyone concluding that the B1G got an ass kicking doesn't have even a rudimentary understanding of what is going on in the court case.

 

[Hawkeye079]

If only the courts could force the president of the United States to reveal what he's hiding in his tax returns. Now THAT would be pretty damn cool. This loser "president" (he did lose the election by about 3 million votes, ya know) is the only one for more than 50 years to hide his financial facts. Of course, he said he would make them public once he took office. Ooops. Another lie. BTW: How much has Mexico paid on that awesome wall? LOL

If you people cared as much about the fate of this country as you do about the frivolity of college football, this election would be on its way to a 50 states to none rout in favor of the Democrats.

I'll tell ya one more time: the Big Ten made the right decision. But the Big Ten did a deplorably terrible job of everything surrounding that decision. That doesn't make the decision wrong. After all, 91% of college football teams ARE NOT PLAYING this fall! NINE percent are trying. Will you ever get that through your thick skulls?

Almost nobody is playing college football. It's not just the Big Ten. Harvard and Yale aren't playing. Northwestern and Michigan aren't playing. Stanford and UCLA aren't playing. Northern Illinois and Western Michigan aren't playing. And on and on and on and on.

SIX conferences are trying to play. SIXTY-ONE are NOT. See, I even did the math for you. Most experts continue to say it's too risky to play football. Too many unknowns in terms of long-term impact from the virus. But you're willing to send kids out there anyway for your own entertainment. What a bunch of losers. With that kind of attitude, no wonder this country is going to hell.

You straight up suck, take your anti President Trump stuff to the off topic board.

 

[onionman1]

You straight up suck, take your anti President Trump stuff to the off topic board.

Agreed! And I love the ignore feature.. used it quickly on that clown lol.

 

[nu2u]

Finally, when all is said and done, I'm anticipating that the only thing that will be examined by the Court is whether the B1G met what is required by its by-laws. Anyone hoping that the Court would intervene and substitute its opinion and make a decision about football is . . . as I wrote before . . . chasing windmills and not operating in reality.

I think so.

The Big Ten members either had the right to postpone the season or they didn't - that is the ultimate issue. They clearly did under the by-law disclosed in their responsive filing.

Next, If they B10 had that right, did they follow the requirements of the by-law in so deciding. The B10 claims that it met the by-law's 60% threshold by a 11-3 vote.

If you accept that members had authority to postpone under the B10 by-laws and, further, that the by-law requirements were satisfied, then its hard to see how any federal judge could in effect nullify the league's decision and legally order the conference to play football. The Husker lawsuit was an extreme long shot to begin with. its even worse now.

 

[AuroraHawk]

I think so.

The Big Ten members either had the right to postpone the season or they didn't - that is the ultimate issue. They clearly did under the by-law disclosed in their responsive filing.

Next, If they B10 had that right, did they follow the requirements of the by-law in so deciding. The B10 claims that it met the by-law's 60% threshold by a 11-3 vote.

If you accept that members had authority to postpone under the B10 by-laws and, further, that the by-law requirements were satisfied, then its hard to see how any federal judge could in effect nullify the league's decision and legally order the conference to play football. The Husker lawsuit was an extreme long shot to begin with. its even worse now.

Suit was filed in state court - Lancaster County. Even so, I wholly agree with your post. Judge Strong's ruling strongly suggests that she is not inclined to try to serve as a substitute for the B1G Presidents and Chancellors.

 

[WeRIowa]

If only the courts could force the president of the United States to reveal what he's hiding in his tax returns. Now THAT would be pretty damn cool. This loser "president" (he did lose the election by about 3 million votes, ya know) is the only one for more than 50 years to hide his financial facts. Of course, he said he would make them public once he took office. Ooops. Another lie. BTW: How much has Mexico paid on that awesome wall? LOL

If you people cared as much about the fate of this country as you do about the frivolity of college football, this election would be on its way to a 50 states to none rout in favor of the Democrats.

I'll tell ya one more time: the Big Ten made the right decision. But the Big Ten did a deplorably terrible job of everything surrounding that decision. That doesn't make the decision wrong. After all, 91% of college football teams ARE NOT PLAYING this fall! NINE percent are trying. Will you ever get that through your thick skulls?

Almost nobody is playing college football. It's not just the Big Ten. Harvard and Yale aren't playing. Northwestern and Michigan aren't playing. Stanford and UCLA aren't playing. Northern Illinois and Western Michigan aren't playing. And on and on and on and on.

SIX conferences are trying to play. SIXTY-ONE are NOT. See, I even did the math for you. Most experts continue to say it's too risky to play football. Too many unknowns in terms of long-term impact from the virus. But you're willing to send kids out there anyway for your own entertainment. What a bunch of losers. With that kind of attitude, no wonder this country is going to hell.

Ignorance is bliss.