A Lacrosse Story? Updates

A Lacrosse Story?

UPDATES

update

On October 21, 2014 a hearing was held on the defendant’s Motion for Sufficiency challenging Requests for Admission submitted by Swanenburg through his attorney to the defendant’s requests for admission. Essentially, Requests for Admission are a part of the discovery process leading up to trial whereby one party serves upon the other a list of questions effectively forcing the other party to either admit or deny the questions presented.   If the party requesting the admissions determines that the answers are not sufficient they can move the court to force the other party to answer or present objections, in essence filing a motion to compel answers to the questions in the form of admit or deny. Apparently, Swanenburg through his Rockstar Rated Bartender / Attorney, D. Hayden Fisher, had either objected to some of the questions or entered admissions denying elements that he could not deny since he had already admitted some of the questions through prior testimony, pleadings, or depositions.

In common terms, Boward through his attorney effectively asked the court to compel Swanenburg to answer the questions sufficiently. Boward’s attorney, Frank A. Edgar, Jr. delivered a very succinct argument related to his motion for sufficiency focused on the legal issues as defined by the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Pertinent to this case would be to compel Swanenburg to admit or deny that he used the n-word and if he denied it having already admitted it in previous testimony or pleadings the defense could file a motion for sufficiency. The party who has requested the admissions may move to determine the sufficiency of the answers or objections. Unless the court determines that an objection is justified, it shall order that an answer be served. If the court determines that an answer does not comply with the requirements of this Rule, it may order either that the matter is admitted or that an amended answer be served. 

The Hon. Timothy S. Fisher then heard from Swanenburg’s attorney D. Hayden Fisher. Fisher did not seem to argue any objections or legal issues but instead seemingly focused all of his time complaining about this blog and it’s author suggesting that facts related to these public proceedings would end up online. At one point in the hearing Fisher waved around what appeared to be a printed copy of the blog. Understanding that blogs are not always easy to print, we have now included a download button that will make that process easier for anyone wishing to download and print this article.

Effectively, Fisher attempted to persuade the court that Swanenburg had a valid objection preventing him from answering the requests for admissions because his answers would end up on this blog. The judge appeared to have little or no interest in Fisher’s internet objection and essentially left the courtroom allowing Swanenburg and Fisher to amend their answers with Boward’s attorneys. Essentially, it appears that Swanenburg’s attorney attempted to use this blog as an objection not to answer the Requests for Admission conceivably because his answers could or would be detrimental to his case.

During the hearing Fisher did not appear to argue that anything published here was untrue but appeared to be alleging that the blog was published for improper purpose although he never seemed to state what Swanenburg’s issue was with it’s publication or what it had to do with the requests for admission. He did complain that the facts of this case were publicized on this website including opinion letters written by the judge.  Judge Fisher was seemingly not interested in hearing Fisher’s complaining about this blog and effectively ordered Fisher and his client to answer the requests for admission.

Ironically, this is not the first time that Fisher has included some element of the media into this case and others. In Swanenburg’s complaint against Thomas Elliot, the CNU player’s father that he sued, numerous references to prominent local sportscaster, John Castleberry, were plead in the complaint. Swanenburg’s complaint against Elliott seems to include Castleberry to allege that Elliot published known falsities to Castleberry who in turn published those falsities to CJ Woollum, the legendary CNU Athletic Director who passed away in February of 2013. That case was Dismissed with Prejudice. Earlier that same year, Fisher filed a $10,000,000 lawsuit on behalf of Newport News City Councilwoman Sharon Scott and Fisher allegedly made numerous representations about the case to the Daily Press. Ultimately that case was also Dismissed with Prejudice but all of the publicity probably helped gain him at least one new client on the peninsula.

In legal proceedings the documents entered into the court record are filed at the court clerks office and anyone can access those documents freely and print them for a fee per page. The facts are that everything that happens in a public courtroom is completely public unless a judge orders otherwise. Recently a federal judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania offered this opinion with respect to a request to have certain documents sealed from public view, “Like a feline with escapist tendencies, this dispute has inspired many metaphors,” Pratter wrote in her opinion. “Bells have rung, dogs barked, horses bolted from barns and cats scurried out bags and up trees. Toothpaste has been irreversibly evicted from its tubular abode and the egg scrambled. A document supposed to have been seen by just a few has now been blasted into cyberspace where, we know, nothing ever dies.” excerpt from a decision by U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Swanenburg made an elective choice when he commenced public proceedings so as a matter of advice we offer the following:

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
Harry S. Truman
UPDATED November 13, 2014

An Order issued by the Honorable Timothy S. Fisher on the October 21, 2014 hearing has been entered which effectively states that Boward’s motion had been decreed moot as the Plaintiff, Swanenburg through is attorney has amended most of the contested answers from denied to admitted. Moot essentially means that since Swanenburg has amended his answers to Requests for Admission that there is no need for the court to rule on each of the requests individually. Arguably, potentially, conceivably, upon knowledge and belief as a matter of opinion by a lay person who is not a lawyer, the significance of this order is that Swanenburg has now admitted under oath most of, if not all, of the disputed facts of this case. Essentially, Swanenburg amended his answers to admitted on (10) of the requests.

  • Swanenburg has now admitted that he uttered the n-word on March 3, 2010;
  • and admitted that he uttered the word in front of members of the team, Boward, and a female athletic trainer on March 3, 2010;
  • and admitted, at least in part, that he was fired for uttering the word in front of the team;
  • and admitted that Boward is in no way responsible for his utterance of the word on March 3, 2010;
  • and admitted that he did not suffer any damages from the alleged statement made to Goeller on June 24, 2010.

A Motion for Summary Judgment is a motion that asks the court to rule as a matter of law that the moving party (Boward) is entitled to judgment without the necessity of a trial.  The motion hinges on a showing that there are no material facts in dispute so the judge should rule on the case since it involves only matters of law.  The typical way for a party to show that there are no facts in dispute is to provide evidence that has been obtained under oath. In this case, Swanenburg’s admissions on the Requests for Admissions to the material facts seem to have effectively set the stage for a Summary Judgment that can effectively end this case by a ruling from the judge.

Boward’s attorney, Frank A. Edgar, Jr. has now filed a very comprehensive Motion for Summary Judgment. The brief as written is comprehensive to that degree that it resembles a opening brief to the Supreme Court of Virginia complete with numerous citations of cases and effectively is a study of defamation. One of the most notable cases cited in the brief is a case of local interest WEBB v. VIRGINIAN–PILOT MEDIA COMPANIES, LLC,  Record No. 122024, Decided: January 10, 2014 by the Supreme Court of Virginia. Essentially, in nonlegal parlance the significance of that case and the Supreme Court decision essentially states that defamation based on implications drawn from a true statement cannot prevail. In the case the court struck a $3,000,000 award and the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed that ruling.

A hearing has been scheduled for December 3, 2014, 1:30 pm in Courtroom 2 of the Newport News Circuit Court.

In summary, Boward through his attorney, moves that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Swanenburg’s sole remaining claim in his complaint because:

  1. Swanenburg has admitted that the implications he alleges arise from three literally true Statements are also true;
  2. Swanenburg has not claimed and indeed, has admitted he cannot claim, that the Statements and the implications allegedly arising therefrom have damaged his reputation;
  3. Swanenburg has admitted that he sustained no special damages, or any damages at all, as the direct and proximate result or the implications he alleges arise therefrom;
  4. Swanenburg’s claim in the case that he was not fired for using the word “#@*%^” contradict his pleadings of fact in his lawsuit against Elliott filed in this Court in 2012; and
  5. the implications that Swanenburg alleges arise from the three literally true Statements are not defamatory as either not provably false, constitutionally protected opinion, or rhetorical hyperbole.

Boward is moving the Court for summary judgment in his favor on Swanenburg’s Complaint, and respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order granting summary judgment in his favor and against plaintiff Swanenburg, dismissing this case with prejudice, and awarding Boward his costs and any and all such further relief to which he may be entitled.

Swanenburg through his attorney will now have the opportunity to file a brief in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgement and that will more than likely be followed by a brief in reply from Boward. Based on recent filings at the court, it appears as though there will a lot of “paper flying” between now and December 3, 2014 when the summary judgement hearing will be conducted in Newport News. Latest filings in this case include what appears to be a Motion in Limine,  Motion for Protective Order, and a Motion for Sanctions so stayed tuned.

In the event that Summary Judgment is not granted, a trial date has been set for March 30, 2015. Ironically that date would mark the five year anniversary of Swanenburg’s termination from CNU.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s