prrriiide
6/10/2010, 09:42 PM
Dial-up warning, for those of you still in the stone age...170-page .pdf. Some law firms in LA just made some serious OT coin in the last few days...
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/usc/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/USCs2009ResponsetoNCAA.pdf
EDIT: looks like they might have a significant argument under California law:
Additionally, USC was excluded from the interviews of several key witnesses, most significantly, agency partner A. California has long recognized a common-law right to fair process that protects members of a private, voluntary organization from arbitrary disciplinary action by the organization when such actions affect a substantial economic interest. Fair process "includes the right to notice of the charges, to confront and crossexamine the accusers, and to examine and refute the evidence." Cason v. Glass Bottle Blowers ***'nof U.S. and Canada,37 Cal.2dl34,143-144 (1951) (emphasis added). The requirements of fair process will be imposed even when the rules of the association fail to provide for them. Id. at 143.
Here, USC has been deprived of a significant component of its right to fair process - the right to confront and cross-examine its primary accuser in football, agency partner A. Because USC was excluded from the NCAA's interview of agency partner A, we have no knowledge of what transpired during that meeting apart from what the NCAA's Enforcement Staff chose to record. We could not observe agency partner A's body language and mannerisms, critical components in assessing a witness's credibility. More importantly, we could not probe the answers provided by agency partner A, a convicted felon, at the time he gave them. This interview was USC's only meaningful opportunity under the NCAA's procedures to confront and cross-examine agency partner A. Given that USC was not present for agency partner A's interview, USC cannot know or recite in detail the extent of the prejudice it suffered. What is clear is that any disciplinary action by the NCAA based in whole or part on the unsworn, unchallenged statements of agency partner A, will constitute a violation of USC's fair process rights.t
But other than that (and I'm not going to waste all night reading the whole thing) it appears to be 170 pages of "Lake said it but there's no other evidence so you can't prove a violation."
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/usc/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/USCs2009ResponsetoNCAA.pdf
EDIT: looks like they might have a significant argument under California law:
Additionally, USC was excluded from the interviews of several key witnesses, most significantly, agency partner A. California has long recognized a common-law right to fair process that protects members of a private, voluntary organization from arbitrary disciplinary action by the organization when such actions affect a substantial economic interest. Fair process "includes the right to notice of the charges, to confront and crossexamine the accusers, and to examine and refute the evidence." Cason v. Glass Bottle Blowers ***'nof U.S. and Canada,37 Cal.2dl34,143-144 (1951) (emphasis added). The requirements of fair process will be imposed even when the rules of the association fail to provide for them. Id. at 143.
Here, USC has been deprived of a significant component of its right to fair process - the right to confront and cross-examine its primary accuser in football, agency partner A. Because USC was excluded from the NCAA's interview of agency partner A, we have no knowledge of what transpired during that meeting apart from what the NCAA's Enforcement Staff chose to record. We could not observe agency partner A's body language and mannerisms, critical components in assessing a witness's credibility. More importantly, we could not probe the answers provided by agency partner A, a convicted felon, at the time he gave them. This interview was USC's only meaningful opportunity under the NCAA's procedures to confront and cross-examine agency partner A. Given that USC was not present for agency partner A's interview, USC cannot know or recite in detail the extent of the prejudice it suffered. What is clear is that any disciplinary action by the NCAA based in whole or part on the unsworn, unchallenged statements of agency partner A, will constitute a violation of USC's fair process rights.t
But other than that (and I'm not going to waste all night reading the whole thing) it appears to be 170 pages of "Lake said it but there's no other evidence so you can't prove a violation."