Testadura Posted December 15, 2021 Report Share Posted December 15, 2021 On 11/25/2021 at 1:34 PM, The Stache said: Gawd. Now this story has gone national. Even NBC, CNN, and ESPN are on it. This looks worse than the Bishop Sycamore thing. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/high-school-football-hazing-led-brain-damage-according-suit-powerhouse-rcna6641 Hey, I'm gonna enjoy my turkey today and the kids will be ready to play ball tomorrow. #GoFox #DillyDilly well, Sammy, I want to read the reports, but apparently BS verbally was cleared by Ohio Education and Justice. And there's no BS video. That's why we try to avoid the rush to judgments. let's read the reports, though, and dig up old posts, too. lol😃 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTerrapin Posted December 15, 2021 Report Share Posted December 15, 2021 1 hour ago, Testadura said: BS verbally was cleared by Ohio Education and Justice. Looks like somebody got ahold of his buddy Testadura's pword.. how cute 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalFball Posted December 23, 2021 Report Share Posted December 23, 2021 Front page news on the LA Times Full Online Story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted December 23, 2021 Report Share Posted December 23, 2021 34 minutes ago, SoCalFball said: Front page news on the LA Times Full Online Story This will obviously take a couple years to sort out.......everyone knows how the system works. Tragic really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodysurf Posted December 23, 2021 Report Share Posted December 23, 2021 Media upset that MD is not talking to them. That is just priceless! So let’s print another story that says nothing new. This has become comical at this point. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTerrapin Posted December 23, 2021 Report Share Posted December 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, Bodysurf said: Media upset that MD is not talking to them. That is just priceless! So let’s print another story that says nothing new. This has become comical at this point. It's not like 90 percent of the people will even bother to ready the story anyway. They will read the headline and roll with that.. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ararar Posted December 23, 2021 Report Share Posted December 23, 2021 Hit job by the Times.MD doing exactly what the Times would do if being sued 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasball Posted December 24, 2021 Report Share Posted December 24, 2021 MD sold themselves to the devil the moment in history when they decided to become the new Bishop Gorman. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneNick Posted December 24, 2021 Report Share Posted December 24, 2021 14 minutes ago, Texasball said: MD sold themselves to the devil the moment in history when they decided to become the new Bishop Gorman. 45-3 *IN* Texas against your highest classification state champion runner up LOL Oh you hate Gorman too because they went to Texas and embarrassed one of your teams at home. Got it. Depth! Historically, MD is a much better program than Gorman. Keep up. 4 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasball Posted December 24, 2021 Report Share Posted December 24, 2021 12 hours ago, HurricaneNick said: 45-3 *IN* Texas against your highest classification state champion runner up LOL Oh you hate Gorman too because they went to Texas and embarrassed one of your teams at home. Got it. Depth! Historically, MD is a much better program than Gorman. Keep up. BG took it to another level and MD did the same More recruiting less academics 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ararar Posted December 24, 2021 Report Share Posted December 24, 2021 28 minutes ago, Texasball said: BG took it to another level and MD did the same More recruiting less academics 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD87 Posted December 26, 2021 Report Share Posted December 26, 2021 On 12/23/2021 at 12:44 PM, Ararar said: Hit job by the Times.MD doing exactly what the Times would do if being sued Exactly. Maybe MD *should* sue the LAT, and Sondy will finally shut the hell up! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ararar Posted December 26, 2021 Report Share Posted December 26, 2021 1 hour ago, MD87 said: Exactly. Maybe MD *should* sue the LAT, and Sondy will finally shut the hell up! Man he dislikes you guys 😂 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneNick Posted December 26, 2021 Report Share Posted December 26, 2021 2 hours ago, MD87 said: Exactly. Maybe MD *should* sue the LAT, and Sondy will finally shut the hell up! It’s tough for him to watch MD win multiple titles while loyola fades with the wind. Merry Christmas brother! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD87 Posted December 26, 2021 Report Share Posted December 26, 2021 8 minutes ago, HurricaneNick said: It’s tough for him to watch MD win multiple titles while loyola fades with the wind. Merry Christmas brother! Thanks! To you, as well! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1901VeniceCub Posted December 28, 2021 Report Share Posted December 28, 2021 On 12/25/2021 at 7:05 PM, HurricaneNick said: It’s tough for him to watch MD win multiple titles while loyola fades with the wind. Loyola is 15-5 in their last 20 games with 2 Angelus League Championships and one 1 Lower Level CIF Championship appearance. Lots of talent returning for the Cubs. Fading might not have been the best choice of words.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneNick Posted December 28, 2021 Report Share Posted December 28, 2021 2 hours ago, 1901VeniceCub said: Loyola is 15-5 in their last 20 games with 2 Angelus League Championships and one 1 Lower Level CIF Championship appearance. Lots of talent returning for the Cubs. Fading might not have been the best choice of words.. 75% of your games! Pretty good. No T.O. pic? You’re slipping. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Las Vegas_JC Posted December 29, 2021 Report Share Posted December 29, 2021 On 12/24/2021 at 11:07 AM, Texasball said: BG took it to another level and MD did the same More recruiting less academics You are still sore because Liberty beat Westlake in 2016. And Gorman beat Cedar Hill also in 2016. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1901VeniceCub Posted January 4, 2022 Report Share Posted January 4, 2022 On 12/28/2021 at 12:50 AM, HurricaneNick said: 75% of your games! Pretty good. No T.O. pic? You’re slipping. You’re pretty good at math! Not so much of a wordsmith, though. Imagine going 15-5 after a streak where you only won one of your previous 10 games...and describing that as “fading”. And, are you really jonesing for a Terrell Owens pic that badly? Must be a slow news day over on Edinger, right? Plenty of other Loyola Cubs doing big things these days. Here’s one: Brayden Utley - Baylor DT (6 tackles/1 sack/1 interception) in the Sugar Bowl and Big 12 Championship Games. Literally, The Best Team in school history. Awesome seeing that to start the year. Brayden ‘18 is one part of a Great Loyola Family. Father, Heath Utley, is Loyola’s Dean of Men and was the Strength and Conditioning Coach under Steve Grady in the late 90s and 2000s. Brayden’s older brother, Noah Utley ‘16, is a West Point Grad and played OL for Army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted February 15, 2022 Report Share Posted February 15, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slotback Right Posted February 15, 2022 Report Share Posted February 15, 2022 This is what the above tweet is about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
res ipsa loquitur Posted February 15, 2022 Report Share Posted February 15, 2022 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
res ipsa loquitur Posted February 15, 2022 Report Share Posted February 15, 2022 13 hours ago, Slotback Right said: This is what the above tweet is about. This might take the cake for the worst reporting regarding this saga so far. I paid the $42 to download all the relevant pleadings and read them myself. Basically, Sondheimer is an ignorant fool excited to jump on something that he doesn't understand but that he thinks serves his narrative. Reid is a shill that essentially works for the plaintiffs' parents--not a disinterested journalist. While they are likely still safe from a defamation suit, they're really starting to play with fire. Sondheimer's tweets are filled with defamatory statements of fact, but, as MD/Diocese/Rollo are public figures, they would need to prove "actual malice" by Sondheimer--i.e., that he knew he was lying or recklessly disregarded the truth. If overreacting to and ignorantly further mischaracterizing legal documents you don't understand was actionable, we'd have no media left aside from maybe Bloomberg and The Daily Journal. Conversely, Reid knows better, but has been more careful to simply quote plaintiff (obviously implying that plaintiff's arguments and characterizations are sacrosanct) and not make separate, standalone false statements of fact. My main takeaways after reading the reporting and the actual pleadings are as follows: 1) Mater Dei is not trying to prevent the former AD from being deposed (nor can it). This is a motion to quash, in layman's terms, a motion asking for an order saying that the subpoena served on the former AD did not follow proper procedure and needs to be re-served using the right procedure. As discussed below, the filing of the motion was a result of gamesmanship by plaintiff, not a desire to actually prevent any deposition per se. 2) Nowhere in Mater Dei's filings does it argue that the AD cannot be deposed per se. The AD will be deposed. Her testimony will come out, and we will see what she says. 3) Plaintiff has added new counsel (beyond the attorneys who filed the lawsuit, provided videos to Plaschke and Reid, and did the initial interviews that were quoted in the original articles)--Greenberg Gross. Greenberg Gross is Orange County's premier powerhouse litigation boutique (total compensation for an entry level lawyer there, fresh out of law school, is ~$220K). Further, they are known to be extremely aggressive if a bit dirty (or at least toeing that line). Based on this hire, Plaintiff has deep pockets (as MD insiders have previously said) and is preparing for Mater Dei and the Diocese to fight. We should not simply assume that this will all go away via a quiet settlement (though that's always possible as it's what happens in over 99% of civil cases). 4) Ironically, Mater Dei and the Diocese have much less prestigious counsel. And, based on the filings so far, they are far less sophisticated/skilled than Greenberg Gross. To be fair, there are relatively few filings at this point. But, so far, I'm unimpressed. (Glass half full, maybe Mater Dei and the Diocese see this as a low risk case with the facts on their side, so they decided to be more frugal when it came to hiring counsel?) Based on the pleadings and docket, here is what has actually happened in this case so far. Plaintiff filed his case in November of 2021 and then filed various procedural motions typical of a case involving a minor (e.g., a request that the court allow him to use a John Doe alias). Mater Dei and the Diocese requested an extension of their deadline to respond to the complaint and apparently have yet to file a responsive pleading. Thus, they could still file a demurrer (a California pleading similar to a motion to dismiss), e.g., arguing that, even if the allegations in the complaint are all treated as true, they do not describe a cause of action for "hazing" as defined under California law. Alternatively, they could simply file a general denial, saying in one page that they deny all material allegations in the complaint and then listing over several pages their affirmative defenses. While Mater Dei and the Diocese have not responded to the complaint, the parties have been engaged in some very preliminary discovery. Mater Dei and the Diocese tried to depose the plaintiff and his parents last month, but they and counsel were all apparently sick--so the depositions will have to be rescheduled. After Plaintiff's deposition was noticed, Plaintiff served a Georgia subpoena on the former Mater Dei AD (who lives there now), asking for her deposition and and requesting some very basic documents (any communications related to the incident or plaintiff; any documents discussing hazing and/or "bodies"; and any documents related to Rollinson). Counsel for Mater Dei and the Diocese served a response/objection to the deposition of the former AD with boilerplate objections. Notably, these objections imply that the deposition will go forward at a mutually agreeable time, under mutually agreeable terms (just like plaintiff's deposition). For example, the objections request that the court reporter's transcript be displayed in real time (a common request). The same day as they served the objections, counsel for Mater Dei and the Diocese represented to plaintiff's counsel that they were acting as counsel for the former AD and to not directly speak with her without counsel present. Just days before the noticed date of the former ADs deposition (which was assumed to not be going forward based on the objections and common practice for lawyers), the former AD directly called plaintiff's counsel (using the phone number on the subpoena) and asked for a zoom link for the deposition. Plaintiff's counsel explained that they could not talk because counsel is not allowed to directly talk to someone who is represented by an attorney. The former AD said she had no attorney and that she is likewise not represented by the same counsel as Mater Dei and the Diocese. Given this significant change in understanding regarding the former AD's counsel, Plaintiff's counsel reached out to Mater Dei and the Diocese's counsel, who said it was their understanding that they are representing the former AD. To clear up this confusion, attorneys for both sides reached out to the former AD, who said she does not want an attorney for now and will do the deposition whenever its convenient for everyone. (Hard to say what this means for her testimony and how she feels about her former employer. But, it also strongly suggests that there is no NDA, shooting down that old conspiracy theory). Seeing an opportunity for some aggressive gamesmanship (again, something Greenberg Gross is known for), Greenberg Gross let counsel and the former AD know at the last minute that it intended to go forward with the deposition--sending the former AD a zoom link and threatening to do a depo, ignoring any possibly legitimate objections re ground rules by Mater Dei/the Diocese and regardless of whether Mater Dei/the Diocese's counsel was able to be there to ask their own questions or object to certain lines of questions. With one day to go, Mater Dei and the Diocese slapped together a motion to quash to prevent the deposition from going forward without any input or participation by Mater Dei and/or the Diocese. 90% chance, the judge issues an order setting a new deposition date, setting new ground rules (or requiring the parties to come to an agreement regarding ground rules by a certain date), and admonishing both sides (Plaintiff's counsel for their gamesmanship and Mater Die/the Diocese's counsel's for their failure to properly get a handle of their role re the former AD). Regardless, this is generally a non-event. The deposition was always going forward. Mater Dei and the Diocese have never purported to argue that it should not/cannot ever go forward. As a penultimate point, the issue of who does or does not represent the AD is a bit disconcerting. Best case for Mater Dei and the Diocese, they will explain in their reply brief that they reached a written agreement with the former AD to represent her during the deposition and she, at the last moment, decided she wanted to have no counsel. If, on the other hand, there was no written agreement, that is some serious malpractice by Mater Dei/the Diocese's counsel. And, no matter how much the the facts may be on their side, they're in for rough days ahead against Greenberg Gross unless their attorneys step it up (or are replaced). Finally, it's notable how broad and basic the document requests to the former AD are. It suggests that plaintiff really has just three pieces of actual evidence: (1) the videos, which have been severely mischaracterized; (2) unreliable testimony from the son/plaintiff; and (3) testimony from the father, which may or may not be credible--I have no opinion one way another re that. For now, they have nothing from Mater Dei insiders or former insiders to corroborate their stories. Though, that could all change based on what the former AD says. The truth will come out. No need for lies and conjecture in the interim. But, with Reid, Sonheimer, Plaschke et al., I'm not going to hold my breath. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZone Posted February 15, 2022 Report Share Posted February 15, 2022 3 hours ago, res ipsa loquitur said: This might take the cake for the worst reporting regarding this saga so far. I paid the $42 to download all the relevant pleadings and read them myself. Basically, Sondheimer is an ignorant fool excited to jump on something that he doesn't understand but that he thinks serves his narrative. Reid is a shill that essentially works for the plaintiffs' parents--not a disinterested journalist. While they are likely still safe from a defamation suit, they're really starting to play with fire. Sondheimer's tweets are filled with defamatory statements of fact, but, as MD/Diocese/Rollo are public figures, they would need to prove "actual malice" by Sondheimer--i.e., that he knew he was lying or recklessly disregarded the truth. If overreacting to and ignorantly further mischaracterizing legal documents you don't understand was actionable, we'd have no media left aside from maybe Bloomberg and The Daily Journal. Conversely, Reid knows better, but has been more careful to simply quote plaintiff (obviously implying that plaintiff's arguments and characterizations are sacrosanct) and not make separate, standalone false statements of fact. My main takeaways after reading the reporting and the actual pleadings are as follows: 1) Mater Dei is not trying to prevent the former AD from being deposed (nor can it). This is a motion to quash, in layman's terms, a motion asking for an order saying that the subpoena served on the former AD did not follow proper procedure and needs to be re-served using the right procedure. As discussed below, the filing of the motion was a result of gamesmanship by plaintiff, not a desire to actually prevent any deposition per se. 2) Nowhere in Mater Dei's filings does it argue that the AD cannot be deposed per se. The AD will be deposed. Her testimony will come out, and we will see what she says. 3) Plaintiff has added new counsel (beyond the attorneys who filed the lawsuit, provided videos to Plaschke and Reid, and did the initial interviews that were quoted in the original articles)--Greenberg Gross. Greenberg Gross is Orange County's premier powerhouse litigation boutique (total compensation for an entry level lawyer there, fresh out of law school, is ~$220K). Further, they are known to be extremely aggressive if a bit dirty (or at least toeing that line). Based on this hire, Plaintiff has deep pockets (as MD insiders have previously said) and is preparing for Mater Dei and the Diocese to fight. We should not simply assume that this will all go away via a quiet settlement (though that's always possible as it's what happens in over 99% of civil cases). 4) Ironically, Mater Dei and the Diocese have much less prestigious counsel. And, based on the filings so far, they are far less sophisticated/skilled than Greenberg Gross. To be fair, there are relatively few filings at this point. But, so far, I'm unimpressed. (Glass half full, maybe Mater Dei and the Diocese see this as a low risk case with the facts on their side, so they decided to be more frugal when it came to hiring counsel?) Based on the pleadings and docket, here is what has actually happened in this case so far. Plaintiff filed his case in November of 2021 and then filed various procedural motions typical of a case involving a minor (e.g., a request that the court allow him to use a John Doe alias). Mater Dei and the Diocese requested an extension of their deadline to respond to the complaint and apparently have yet to file a responsive pleading. Thus, they could still file a demurrer (a California pleading similar to a motion to dismiss), e.g., arguing that, even if the allegations in the complaint are all treated as true, they do not describe a cause of action for "hazing" as defined under California law. Alternatively, they could simply file a general denial, saying in one page that they deny all material allegations in the complaint and then listing over several pages their affirmative defenses. While Mater Dei and the Diocese have not responded to the complaint, the parties have been engaged in some very preliminary discovery. Mater Dei and the Diocese tried to depose the plaintiff and his parents last month, but they and counsel were all apparently sick--so the depositions will have to be rescheduled. After Plaintiff's deposition was noticed, Plaintiff served a Georgia subpoena on the former Mater Dei AD (who lives there now), asking for her deposition and and requesting some very basic documents (any communications related to the incident or plaintiff; any documents discussing hazing and/or "bodies"; and any documents related to Rollinson). Counsel for Mater Dei and the Diocese served a response/objection to the deposition of the former AD with boilerplate objections. Notably, these objections imply that the deposition will go forward at a mutually agreeable time, under mutually agreeable terms (just like plaintiff's deposition). For example, the objections request that the court reporter's transcript be displayed in real time (a common request). The same day as they served the objections, counsel for Mater Dei and the Diocese represented to plaintiff's counsel that they were acting as counsel for the former AD and to not directly speak with her without counsel present. Just days before the noticed date of the former ADs deposition (which was assumed to not be going forward based on the objections and common practice for lawyers), the former AD directly called plaintiff's counsel (using the phone number on the subpoena) and asked for a zoom link for the deposition. Plaintiff's counsel explained that they could not talk because counsel is not allowed to directly talk to someone who is represented by an attorney. The former AD said she had no attorney and that she is likewise not represented by the same counsel as Mater Dei and the Diocese. Given this significant change in understanding regarding the former AD's counsel, Plaintiff's counsel reached out to Mater Dei and the Diocese's counsel, who said it was their understanding that they are representing the former AD. To clear up this confusion, attorneys for both sides reached out to the former AD, who said she does not want an attorney for now and will do the deposition whenever its convenient for everyone. (Hard to say what this means for her testimony and how she feels about her former employer. But, it also strongly suggests that there is no NDA, shooting down that old conspiracy theory). Seeing an opportunity for some aggressive gamesmanship (again, something Greenberg Gross is known for), Greenberg Gross let counsel and the former AD know at the last minute that it intended to go forward with the deposition--sending the former AD a zoom link and threatening to do a depo, ignoring any possibly legitimate objections re ground rules by Mater Dei/the Diocese and regardless of whether Mater Dei/the Diocese's counsel was able to be there to ask their own questions or object to certain lines of questions. With one day to go, Mater Dei and the Diocese slapped together a motion to quash to prevent the deposition from going forward without any input or participation by Mater Dei and/or the Diocese. 90% chance, the judge issues an order setting a new deposition date, setting new ground rules (or requiring the parties to come to an agreement regarding ground rules by a certain date), and admonishing both sides (Plaintiff's counsel for their gamesmanship and Mater Die/the Diocese's counsel's failure properly get a handle of its role re the former AD). Regardless, this is generally a non-event. The deposition was always going forward. Mater Dei and the Diocese have never purported to argue that it should not/cannot ever go forward. As a penultimate point, the issue of who does or does not represent the AD is a bit disconcerting. Best case for Mater Dei and the Diocese, they will explain in their reply brief that they reached a written agreement with the former AD to represent her during the deposition and she, at the last moment, decided she wanted to have no counsel. If, on the other hand, there was no written agreement, that is some serious malpractice by Mater Dei/the Diocese's counsel. And, no matter how much the the facts may be on their side, they're in for rough days ahead against Greenberg Gross unless their attorneys step it up (or are replaced). Finally, it's notable how broad and basic the document requests to the former AD are. It suggests that plaintiff really has just three pieces of actual evidence: (1) the videos, which have been severely mischaracterized; (2) unreliable testimony from the son; and (3) testimony from the son, which may be credible--I have no opinion one way another re that. For now, they have nothing from Mater Dei insiders or former insiders to corroborate their stories. Though, that could all change based on what the former AD says. The truth will come out. No need for lies and conjecture in the interim. But, with Reid, Sonheimer, Plaschke et al., I'm not going to hold my breath. You seem highly defensive and emotional. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTerrapin Posted February 15, 2022 Report Share Posted February 15, 2022 46 minutes ago, RedZone said: You seem highly defensive and emotional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.