Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits to Move Forward, Judge Rules; Discovery ahead !!
Topic Started: Mar 31 2011, 04:21 PM (12,252 Views)
~J~ is in Wonderland
Member Avatar
~J~ is in Wonderland


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

EDWARD CARRINGTON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) 1:08CV119

)

DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case involves 32 claims set out in a 225-page Amended Complaint [Doc. #145] by

Plaintiffs Edward Carrington, Casey J. Carroll, Michael P. Catalino, Gale Catalino, Thomas

Clute, Kevin Coleman, Joshua R. Coveleski, Edward J. Crotty, Edward S. Douglas, Kyle Dowd,

Patricia Dowd, Daniel Flannery, Richard Gibbs Fogarty, Zachary Greer, Irene Greer, Erik S.

Henkelman, Steven Henkelman, John E. Jennison, Ben Koesterer, Mark Koesterer, Joyce

Koesterer, Fred Krom, Peter J. Lamade, Adam Langley, Christopher Loftus, Daniel Loftus,

Barbara Loftus, Anthony McDevitt, Glenn Nick, Nicholas O’Hara, Lynnda O’Hara, Daniel

Oppedisano, Sam Payton, John Bradley Ross, Kenneth Sauer, III, Steve Schoeffel, Robert

Schroeder, Devon Sherwood, Daniel Theodoridis, Bret Thompson, Christopher Tkac, Tracy

Tkac, John Walsh, Jr., Michael Ward, Robert Wellington, William Wolcott, and Michael Young

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”), all of whom are former members of the Duke University men’s

lacrosse team or their parents, against Defendants Duke University (“Duke”), Duke University

Health System, Inc. (“Duke Health”), Duke President Richard Brodhead (“Brodhead”), Duke

Provost Peter Lange (“Lange”), Duke Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta

(“Moneta”), Duke Senior Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations John

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JAB -WWD Document 164 Filed 03/31/11 Page 1 of 178

1 Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint also asserted claims against Attorney J. Wesley

Covington (“Covington”). Mr. Covington’s Estate was later substituted as a party in this case,

and by Order dated October 15, 2010, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against

Marsha Covington as executrix of the Estate of John Wesley Covington. Therefore, no claims

remain against Covington or his Estate.

2

Burness (“Burness”), Duke Executive Vice President Tallman Trask (“Trask”), Duke Assistant

Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Suzanne Wasiolek (“Wasiolek”), Head

of the Duke Card Office Matthew Drummond (“Drummond”), Duke University Associate Vice

President for Campus Safety and Security Aaron Graves (“Graves”), Director and Chief of the

Duke Police Department Robert Dean (“Dean”), Duke Health Nurse Tara Levicy (“Levicy”),

Duke Health Nurse Theresa Arico (“Arico”), Duke Deputy General Counsel Kate Hendricks

(“Hendricks”), Duke Chancellor for Health Affairs and President and Chief Executive Officer

of Duke University Health System, Inc. Victor Dzau (“Dzau”), the City of Durham (“the City”),

District Attorney’s Office Investigator Linwood Wilson (“Wilson”), Durham Police Department

Detective Mark Gottlieb (“Gottlieb”), Durham Police Department Investigator Benjamin

Himan (“Himan”), Durham City Manager Patrick Baker (“Baker”), Durham Chief of Police

Steven Chalmers (“Chalmers”), Deputy Chief of Police Ronald Hodge (“Hodge”), Executive

Officer to the Chief of Police Lee Russ (“Russ”), Durham Police Commander of Investigative

Services Stephen Mihaich (“Mihaich”), Durham Police Uniform Patrol Bureau Commander

Beverly Council (“Council”), Durham Police District Two Uniform Patrol Commander Jeff

Lamb (“Lamb”), Durham Police Department Lieutenant Michael Ripberger (“Ripberger”), and

Durham Police Department Spokesman David Addison (“Addison”).1



CONCLUSION

Having undertaken this comprehensive review of the 32 claims asserted in this case by

47 different Plaintiffs against 28 Defendants, the Court concludes that the Motions to Dismiss

will be granted in part and denied in part as set out herein.

In summary, Counts 21 and 25 will go forward under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged

constitutional violations with respect to the claims by the Plaintiff Players.65 The claims asserted

in Count 21 are asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendment for unlawful searches and seizures without probable cause based on

the Non-Testimonial Order that was allegedly obtained through the intentional or reckless use

of false or misleading evidence or material omissions designed to mislead the magistrate judge.

The claims asserted in Count 25 are asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the

Fourteenth Amendment based on alleged false and stigmatizing statements by the government

in connection with the alleged Fourth Amendment violations in Count 21. With respect to these

§ 1983 claims, to the extent that Defendants contend that there was no constitutional violation

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JAB -WWD Document 164 Filed 03/31/11 Page 171 of 178

66 As to Defendant Levicy, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have alleged that she

became a “state actor” by allegedly joining with Nifong, Gottlieb, and Himan to commit the

alleged constitutional violations, knowing that the NTO was not supported by probable cause

and was based on false and misleading assertions and material omissions. As with all of these

claims, it will be Plaintiffs’ burden to present proof of these allegations.

172

because probable cause would still exist to support the search and seizure, even if the allegedly

false and misleading statements are removed and the alleged material omissions are included, the

Court has concluded that this contention cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss in light of

the Plaintiffs’ allegations here. Such an inquiry is fact-intensive in the present case given the

number of and nature of the alleged misrepresentations and omissions. Therefore, the Court

concludes that this issue is more appropriately considered on an evidentiary record after

discovery.

The claims by the Plaintiff Players for the alleged constitutional violations in Count 21

are going forward as to Defendants Gottlieb, Himan, and Levicy based on allegations that they

were directly involved in the alleged Fourth Amendment violations.66 The claims by the Plaintiff

Players in Count 25 are going forward as to Defendants Gottlieb, Himan, Addison, and Wilson.

The claims by the Plaintiff Players in Count 21 and 25 are also going forward as to the City

based on the additional allegations contained in Count 26, setting out claims for municipal

liability. However, to the extent that there are claims proceeding against the City, Plaintiffs may

not recover punitive damages from the City. See City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453

U.S. 247, 271, 101 S. Ct. 2748, 2762, 69 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981). Therefore, the claim for punitive

damages against the City will be dismissed. Finally, the Court will allow the § 1983 claims by the

Plaintiff Players in Counts 21 and 25 to go forward against the Durham Police “supervisors,”

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JAB -WWD Document 164 Filed 03/31/11 Page 172 of 178

67 In addition, special attention should be given during the discovery process to ensure

that these Supervisors are not unduly burdened in light of the potential qualified immunity

defense and the protections it affords.

173

specifically, Baker, Chalmers, Hodge, Russ, Council, Lamb, and Ripberger, based on Plaintiffs’

allegations as discussed with respect to Count 27. However, at summary judgment, it will be

Plaintiffs’ burden to “pinpoint the persons in the decision-making chain whose deliberate

indifference permitted the constitutional abuses to continue unchecked,” and the Court will

scrutinize evidence regarding each Defendant’s direct, individual involvement, and evidence

regarding their individual intent, in order to determine whether any of them is potentially liable

under § 1983 for their own conduct with respect to the alleged constitutional violations that are

proceeding in this case.67 The Court notes that the § 1983 claims are not going forward as to

Defendant Duke, because the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to allege a sufficient basis

to support the contention that Duke was a “state actor.”

The remaining claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including all of the claims in

Counts 20, 22, and 24 do not state plausible, legally viable claims, and will be dismissed.

With respect to the state law claims, the Court concludes that with respect to Count 23,

Plaintiffs have stated a state law claim by the Plaintiff Players for obstruction of justice against

Defendants Gottlieb, Himan, Wilson, and Levicy, with potential respondeat superior liability against

the City, Duke, and Duke Health. As an alternative to respondeat superior under state law,

Plaintiffs have also stated a claim for negligent supervision against both Duke Health and Duke

in Count 3 and against Duke only in Count 19. In addition, Plaintiffs have stated a claim in

Count 8 by the Plaintiff Players against Duke, Drummond, Hendricks, Graves, and Dean for

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JAB -WWD Document 164 Filed 03/31/11 Page 173 of 178

68 The Court notes that as with the § 1983 claims, Plaintiffs may not recover punitive

damages against the City on these state claims. See Efird v. Riley, 342 F. Supp. 2d 413, 430

(M.D.N.C. 2004) (citing Long v. City of Charlotte, 306 N.C. 187, 208, 293 S.E.2d 101, 115

(1982)).

69 The Plaintiff Parents in this case are Gale Catalino, Patricia Dowd, Irene Greer, Steven

Henkelman, Mark Koesterer, Joyce Koesterer, Barbara Loftus, Lynnda O’Hara, and Tracy Tkac.

174

fraud, based on allegations that Defendants Drummond, Hendricks, Graves and Dean sent

letters to Plaintiffs informing them that Duke had received a subpoena relating to Plaintiffs’

Duke Card information, and in doing so fraudulently misrepresented that Plaintiffs’ Duke Card

information had not previously been provided to Durham Police. Plaintiffs have also stated a

claim by the Plaintiff Players in Count 11 for constructive fraud against Defendants Duke,

Wasiolek, Trask and Brodhead, based on claims that Duke administrators created a relationship

of trust and confidence and then abused that relationship for Duke’s benefit.

Finally, with respect to the state law claims against the City in Counts 23, 30 and 31, and

the state constitutional claim asserted in Count 32, the Court concludes that these claims, and

the governmental immunity defense raised in the City’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.

#113], are intertwined claims, that are in some cases pled in the alternative, that must be

resolved at summary judgment after an opportunity for discovery, given the factual issues

raised.68

However, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim with respect to their remaining state law

claims, including all of the claims asserted in Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,

18, 28, and 29. Plaintiffs have also failed to state any claim by the Plaintiff Parents,69 and all of

the claims asserted by the Plaintiff Parents are dismissed.

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JAB -WWD Document 164 Filed 03/31/11 Page 174 of 178

70 The Court does acknowledge that the Amended Complaint in this case is roughly half

the size of the Second Amended Complaint in the related case of McFadyen, et. al v. Duke

University, et. al. While this is certainly better, it is still far too much.

175

Based on this determination, the Court notes that claims are going forward as to

Defendant Gottlieb in Counts 21, 23, and 25; against Defendant Himan in Counts 21, 23, and

25; against Defendant Levicy in Counts 21 and 23; against Defendant Addison in Count 25;

against Defendant Wilson in Counts 23 and 25; against the City in Counts 21 and 25 (based on

the allegations in Count 26), as well as in Counts 23, 30, 31, and 32; against Defendants Hodge,

Baker, Chalmers, Russ, Council, Lamb, and Ripberger in Counts 21, 25, and 27; against

Defendants Brodhead, Wasiolek, and Trask in Count 11; against Defendants Graves, Dean,

Hendricks, and Drummond in Count 8; against Duke Health in Counts 3 and 23; and against

Duke in Counts 3, 8, 11, 19, and 23. All remaining claims are dismissed, including all of the

claims asserted in Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, and 29,

and all of the claims asserted against Defendants Lange, Moneta, Burness, Dzau, Mihaich, and

Arico.

Having undertaken this comprehensive review of the claims asserted in this case, the

Court is compelled to note that while § 1983 cases are often complex and involve multiple

Defendants, Plaintiffs in this case have exceeded all reasonable bounds with respect to the length

of their Complaint and the breadth of claims and assertions contained therein.70 The Western

District of Virginia noted similar concerns recently in a § 1983 case pending there, stating that:

“There is no question but that [the] Complaint is extravagant not only in its length (29 pages and

114 numbered paragraphs), but also in its tone, containing numerous underlinings and italics for

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JAB -WWD Document 164 Filed 03/31/11 Page 175 of 178

176

emphasis and provocative bold headings, such as, “Part of a Larger Conspiracy?” and, “Things

Go From Bad To Worse”. Surely Iqbal does not require such spin and one wonders what

counsel’s aim is in drafting such a pleading. It certainly does not help to persuade the court.”

Jackson v. Brickey, No. 1:10CV00060, 2011 WL 652735, at *12 n.4 (W.D. Va. 2011). These

concerns are substantially greater in the present case, where Plaintiffs have seen fit to file not 29

pages and 114 numbered paragraphs, but 225 pages and 751 numbered paragraphs, most of

which are not relevant to the actual legally-recognized claims that may be available. As in the

other “related cases,” Plaintiffs’ potentially valid claims risk being lost in the sheer volume of the

Amended Complaint, and Plaintiffs’ attempt at “spin” is wholly unnecessary and unpersuasive

in legal pleadings. Plaintiffs’ approach has required the Court to undertake the time-consuming

process of wading through a mass of legally unsupportable claims and extraneous factual

allegations in an attempt to “ferret out the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.” 5 Charles

Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1281 (3d ed. 2004). The Court

has nevertheless undertaken this process and has considered each of Plaintiffs’ claims, resulting

in this rather extensive Memorandum Opinion. The Court trusts that, going forward, all of the

parties will reduce both the volume of filings and the rhetoric contained therein, and will

proceed on the remaining claims in a direct, professional manner, without requiring unnecessary

involvement from the Court.

However, the Court is also compelled to note that the allegations in the Amended

Complaint that are going forward, particularly as to Counts 21 and 25, set out allegations of

significant abuses of government power. Indeed, the intentional or reckless use of false or

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JAB -WWD Document 164 Filed 03/31/11 Page 176 of 178

177

misleading evidence before a magistrate judge to effect a search and seizure without probable

cause is exactly the type of “unreasonable” search and seizure that the Fourth Amendment was

designed to protect against. In this regard, it has been noted that “‘if any concept is fundamental

to our American system of justice, it is that those charged with upholding the law are prohibited

from deliberately fabricating evidence and framing individuals for crimes they did not commit.’”

Washington v. Wilmore, 407 F.3d 274, 285 (Shedd, J., concurring) (quoting Limone v. Condon,

372 F.3d 39, 44-45 (1st Cir. 2004)). In addition, “the Supreme Court has long held that a police

officer violates the Fourth Amendment if, in order to obtain a warrant, he deliberately or ‘with

reckless disregard for the truth’ makes material false statements or omits material facts. . . . No

reasonable police officer . . . could believe that the Fourth Amendment permitted such

conduct.” Miller v. Prince George’s County, 475 F.3d 621, 631-32 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal

citations omitted). Thus, there can be no question that the Constitution is violated when

government officials deliberately fabricate evidence and use that evidence against a citizen, in

this case by allegedly making false and misleading representations and creating false and

misleading evidence in order to obtain an NTO against all of the lacrosse team members. This

case will therefore proceed to discovery on the claims as set out above, and it will ultimately be

Plaintiffs’ burden to present proof in support of these claims.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motions to Dismiss [Doc. # 146, 147, 148,

149, 150, 151, 152, 153, and 154] are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as set out

herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the City of Durham’s Motion for Summary

Judgment [Doc. #113] is DENIED at this time, without prejudice to the City raising the issues

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JAB -WWD Document 164 Filed 03/31/11 Page 177 of 178

178

contained therein as part of a comprehensive Motion for Summary Judgment at the close of

discovery.

A separate Order will be entered contemporaneously herewith.

This, the 31st day of March, 2011.

United States District Judge

Case 1:08-cv-00119-JAB -WWD Document 164 Filed 03/31/11 Page 178 of 178




Edited by ~J~ is in Wonderland, Mar 31 2011, 05:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

So will an appeal take another couple of years?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jmoo

abb
Mar 31 2011, 05:24 PM
jmoo
Mar 31 2011, 05:19 PM
jmoo
Mar 31 2011, 04:59 PM
I believe the three federal filings/cases were combined for the purpose of this ruling. I need to break for dinner....
Actually, this opinion appears to address only the McFadyen (Ekstrand) case.

May I respectfully suggest you edit the thread headline to read that discovery is moving forward.

Something like: "Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits to Move Forward, Judge Rules"

All the better for a google search to pick it up.
Abb - is that something I can do??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

From a friend....

"This is a good day! Let discovery begin!!!!!


Thank you Liestoppers!"

:toast: :toast: :toast:

Edited by Joan Foster, Mar 31 2011, 05:49 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jmoo

jmoo
Mar 31 2011, 05:46 PM
abb
Mar 31 2011, 05:24 PM
jmoo
Mar 31 2011, 05:19 PM
jmoo
Mar 31 2011, 04:59 PM
I believe the three federal filings/cases were combined for the purpose of this ruling. I need to break for dinner....
Actually, this opinion appears to address only the McFadyen (Ekstrand) case.

May I respectfully suggest you edit the thread headline to read that discovery is moving forward.

Something like: "Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits to Move Forward, Judge Rules"

All the better for a google search to pick it up.
Abb - is that something I can do??
DONE !!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

jmoo
Mar 31 2011, 05:46 PM
abb
Mar 31 2011, 05:24 PM
jmoo
Mar 31 2011, 05:19 PM
jmoo
Mar 31 2011, 04:59 PM
I believe the three federal filings/cases were combined for the purpose of this ruling. I need to break for dinner....
Actually, this opinion appears to address only the McFadyen (Ekstrand) case.

May I respectfully suggest you edit the thread headline to read that discovery is moving forward.

Something like: "Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits to Move Forward, Judge Rules"

All the better for a google search to pick it up.
Abb - is that something I can do??
JMOO... it is something only you can do since you started the thread. Look for something like edit thread and click on it.

ETA: beat me to it. lol
Edited by chatham, Mar 31 2011, 05:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Here's a link to the entire document.

http://lincolnparishnewsonline.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/dukelaxruling033111.pdf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

I could not resist adding a comment to one of my posts on my blog:


Hershel Parker said...

On 31 March 2011 the very slow Durham judge has ruled that Count 18 against Richard H. Brodhead goes forward into DISCOVERY phase. We will see how much documentation has survived from 2006. Much may be revealed about how New Critical ignoring of the author leads right to ignoring living people as real. This I will expand upon, but what I said about Brodhead in 1984, that he was blind to human agony, Melville's agony, has proved true several times since then, in different places. Don't be hasty to dismiss my claim here about the longterm effects of the New Criticism.
March 31, 2011 3:43 PM

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

The original post was the ruling on the McFadyen suit submitted by Bob Ekstrand. There is also a second ruling on the Carrington suit which is listed above by J.

The scorecard for the Carrington suit:

Quote:
 
Based on this determination, the Court notes that claims are going forward as to

Defendant Gottlieb in Counts 21, 23, and 25; against Defendant Himan in Counts 21, 23, and

25; against Defendant Levicy in Counts 21 and 23; against Defendant Addison in Count 25;

against Defendant Wilson in Counts 23 and 25; against the City in Counts 21 and 25 (based on

the allegations in Count 26), as well as in Counts 23, 30, 31, and 32; against Defendants Hodge,

Baker, Chalmers, Russ, Council, Lamb, and Ripberger in Counts 21, 25, and 27; against

Defendants Brodhead, Wasiolek, and Trask in Count 11; against Defendants Graves, Dean,

Hendricks, and Drummond in Count 8; against Duke Health in Counts 3 and 23; and against

Duke in Counts 3, 8, 11, 19, and 23. All remaining claims are dismissed, including all of the

claims asserted in Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 28, and 29,

and all of the claims asserted against Defendants Lange, Moneta, Burness, Dzau, Mihaich, and

Arico.

Edited by sceptical, Mar 31 2011, 05:54 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Nothing on google yet. No one has picked it up. Need to contact the press and get it rolling.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Well, I called Bill Anderson, but he didn't answer his home phone. Anyone know how to text him? He's got connections at Fox News.
Edited by abb, Mar 31 2011, 05:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

fact checker has it
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

We need to let the MSM know this a victory.

I am afrain that they will emphasize that some defendants and counts were dropped and that Durham will not have to pay punitive damages. This misses the point-- the main story is that depositions have been ordered and that the major miscreants will need to testify under oath.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Texas Mom

Payback
Mar 31 2011, 05:23 PM
Joan Foster
Mar 31 2011, 04:46 PM
Discovery!!!!

:toast: :toast: :toast:

:party:

:crh: :crh: :crh: :crh: :crh:

OK, I think I get it, or enough of it to join Joan in celebrating.

Baldo, just to be sure, what are you feeling?


:party: ?
Hip, hip, HOORAY! I never thought I'd live long enough to see discovery take place!
:toast: :party: :cher: :cele:
:D Egr93:

(I saw it on FreeRepublic and came "home" right away.
Edited by Texas Mom, Mar 31 2011, 06:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
All remaining claims are dismissed, including all of the claims asserted in Counts 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40, and all of the claims asserted against Defendants Humphries, Cooper, Garber, Schwab, Fleming, Best,
Stotsenberg, Lange, Trask, Moneta, Haltom, Dawkins, Wasiolek, Bryan, Private Diagnostic,
Manly, Arico, Mihaich, Evans, Soukup, Michael, Clayton, and the Duke Police Department.


Having undertaken this comprehensive review of the 41 claims asserted in this case, the
Court is compelled to note that while § 1983 cases are often complex and involve multiple
Defendants, Plaintiffs in this case have exceeded all reasonable bounds with respect to the length of their Complaint and the breadth of claims and assertions contained therein. The Western District of Virginia noted similar concerns recently in a § 1983 case pending there, stating that “There is no question but that [the] Complaint is extravagant not only in its length (29 pages and 114 numbered paragraphs), but also in its tone, containing numerous underlinings and italics for emphasis and provocative bold headings, such as, “Part of a Larger Conspiracy?” and, “Things

(pg 220)

Go From Bad To Worse”. Surely Iqbal does not require such spin and one wonders what
counsel’s aim is in drafting such a pleading. It certainly does not help to persuade the court.”
Jackson v. Brickey, No. 1:10CV00060, 2011 WL 652735, at *12 n.4 (W.D. Va. 2011). These
concerns are substantially greater in the present case, where Plaintiffs have seen fit to file not
29 pages and 114 numbered paragraphs, but 428 pages and 1,388 numbered paragraphs
, with
dramatic rhetoric and sweeping accusations against a “Consortium” of 50 Defendants,
most of which is not relevant to the actual legally-recognized claims that may be available. Indeed,
Plaintiffs’ potentially valid claims risk being lost in the sheer volume of the Second Amended
Complaint,97 and Plaintiffs’ attempt at “spin” is wholly unnecessary and unpersuasive in legal
pleadings.



Plaintiffs approach has required the Court to undertake the time-consuming process of wading through a mass of legally unsupportable claims and extraneous factual allegations in an attempt to “ferret out the relevant material from a mass of verbiage.” 5 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1281 (3d ed. 2004). The Court has nevertheless undertaken this process and has considered each of Plaintiffs’ claims, resulting in this rather extensive Memorandum Opinion. The Court trusts that, going forward, all of the parties will reduce both the volume of filings and the rhetoric contained therein, and will proceed on the remaining claims in a direct, professional manner, without requiring unnecessary involvement from the Court.



I'M SO SORRY YOU HAD TO READ SO MUCH, YOUR HONOR!

MAYBE THAT WAS BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE CASE!



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply