Labels

NCAA's contempt of court hearing delayed

The NCAA's contempt of court hearing did not occur on Wednesday as scheduled because the NCAA filed an appeal with the Ohio Court of Appeals requesting the contempt hearing be stayed (see this week's earlier post for more details) .

The NCAA's rationale for the stay is buried in the supporting case history, legal jargon and interesting Latin phrases (such as "sua sponte") of the latest filings. The NCAA indicates that disclosure of information at the hearing would violate attorney client privilege, stating "... the trial court, at [Oliver's attorney Rick Johnson's] instigation, has determined to parse through the privileged files of the NCAA in order to search for some evidence that might bolster an anemic claim of contempt...".

Johnson in his response to the NCAA's motion to the appeals court calls the filing by the NCAA "contemptuous behavior" and a "frivolous foray". Johnson also views the filing as an attempt to have the hearing drift past the baseball draft in mid-June.

Its not clear how long this detour from the previously scheduled path will last, but its quite clear that these two parties really don't like each other and a lot of down in the weeds legal maneuvering will be occurring as the proceedings move forward. ESPN won't have any interest, but Court TV might want to pick up the television rights.
Email Post
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
I would really, REALLY like to hear you ring in on whatever the heck happened at kansas state. What a hoot.
--KZ
May 29, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Michael Cross said…
My quick take is that it appears pretty clear there was one individual who was presumably vested with significant power and contractual authority and he used it to create some questionable large and long term payment arrangements. What isn't clear is the rationale and motivation to make such decision. One can only hope the decisions were made on their merits, but that doesn't appear to be the case at this point considering the Univeristy's lawsuit. Unless the people who signed the contracts weren't authorized to do so, I'm not sure what recourse they'll have. Pardon the pun, but checks and balances are never a bad idea.
May 30, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Post a Comment