Jump to content

BOMBSHELL: Mater Dei Hazing Scandal

The Stache

By The Stache
in Varsity Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 929
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ATLien12x
ATLien12x
NYHSFAN33
NYHSFAN33

What high school hires “Private Security” for their football teams locker room if there hasn’t been a significant concern or history of incidents in the past?  That alone not only raises red flags, it

maxchoboian
maxchoboian

Don't tell us it's a security role, please.

Posted Images

res ipsa loquitur Collaborator

res ipsa loquitur

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, OldTerrapin said:

Man he just a kid.. Bryce Young fanboy lol.. wet behind the ears researcher.. from now on you are lawyer "Crispy Creme"  🤣  until you make partner that is..

Bryce Young fanboy? I graduated over a decade before he ever played.

But thank you for the creative "Crispy Creme" title. I'll be up for partner in a year and half. So I'm excited to find out what you will promote me to then.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldTerrapin Grand Master

OldTerrapin

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

Bryce Young fanboy? I graduated over a decade before he ever played. And "wet behind the ears researcher"--what are your credentials? Please find a lawyer to refute anything I posted.

just busting your balls fool..no one gives a shit about anything you posted or even bothered to read all that mess..this ain't the court room holmes...  as for BY fan boy .. do you or do you not have a pic of you making goo goo eyes at BY on your facebook?  just saying of course

Link to comment
Share on other sites
res ipsa loquitur Collaborator

res ipsa loquitur

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, OldTerrapin said:

yeah about messing with you... could care less about your deposition that no one asked you to do .. and you did that shit for free no less... c'mon Crispy Creme your batter than that

And you’re getting paid to be on here? Looking at your history, you spend way more time on here than me. Anything to fill the time between your grandkids’ infrequent visits to the nursing home?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
res ipsa loquitur Collaborator

res ipsa loquitur

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, maxchoboian said:

Can we get someone to offer up a Cliff Notes version of what you posted, before we have to pay a lawyer their hourly fee to review and refute or not?

MD was never attempting to prevent the AD from ever being deposed. That’s not what a motion to quash does. 
 

Plaintiff hired new, highly respected and aggressive lawyers. 
 

MD’s lawyers, on paper and so far based on the pleadings, are amateurish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldTerrapin Grand Master

OldTerrapin

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, res ipsa loquitur said:

And you’re getting paid to be on here? Looking at your history, you spend way more time on here than me. Anything to fill the time between your grandkids infrequent visits to the nursing home?

dude.. c'mon.. Law degree from ND and that's the best you got?  See there's street smarts and then there are educated idiots.  This game on here ain't for you Son.. you are not equipped for this here madness. stick with the research for now. Have you even tried a case yet? just curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites
res ipsa loquitur Collaborator

res ipsa loquitur

Posted
Posted
Just now, OldTerrapin said:

dude.. c'mon.. Law degree from ND and that's the best you got?  See there's street smarts and then there are educated idiots.  This game on here ain't for you Son.. you are not equipped for this here madness. stick with the research for now. Have you even tried a case yet? just curious

Yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dan in daytona Proficient

dan in daytona

Posted
Posted
11 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.

Nice synopsis for us bush league layman. Establisted deep pocketed MD taking it slow and relatively inexpensive. Surely, big guns are at the ready if needed down the road. Typical brash, blustering, burn down the house plaintiffs got the irrefutable goods and want big time payback...$$$.  Hopefully this civil case is a 1% - er that goes to trial. Most of us here love chaos and other's dirty laundry. Let the games begin.... :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MD87 Mentor

MD87

Posted
Posted
On 2/15/2022 at 7:03 AM, RedZone said:

You seem highly defensive and emotional.

 

Ah, ad hominem (look it up, along with all the big words in RIL's post, while you're at it), the standard go-to when you don't have the intellect needed to actually engage and challenge one's argument or point.  To no one's surprise, whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedZone Grand Master

RedZone

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, MD87 said:

Ah, ad hominem (look it up, along with all the big words in RIL's post, while you're at it), the standard go-to when you don't have the intellect needed to actually engage and challenge one's argument or point.  To no one's surprise, whatsoever.

Read ALL this again if you can and get back with RedZone!

 Thanks.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...