Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 15, 2022 9:34:15 GMT -8
After reading the article, it's pretty clear to me that Ms Waters will be deposed at some point, and there was some confusion about her representation.
Seems MD atty did a poor job communicating that to her, and looks somewhat inept in there process.
As nefarious as a motion to quash sounds, it's just a postponement at the end of the day.
Sondheimer must really believe his followers and readers are ignorant to not see what's real here.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 15, 2022 9:48:02 GMT -8
You can read the entire article on OCConnect in the thread about this subject. In a nutshell, Mater Dei/the Diocese are not trying to prevent Ms. Waters from giving her deposition. Rather, they are attempting to quash because the deposition date was sprung on them with inadequate time to prepare and they are trying to move it to a later date.
Like most people, I think speculating is a lot of fun, especially when we speculate about things we know almost nothing about. It becomes more serious when we know more facts, because with knowledge comes responsibility. Apparently, Reid, Plascke and Sondheimer don't subscribe to that reality. I know more than a few people who have had personal interactions with Sondheimer and perceive him as an egotistical, vindictive little man who doesn't mind using his pen to attack those parties he believes have slighted him.
Finally, anyone who ever met Ms. Waters or Father Jenkins, or spent five minutes talking to them, or is aware of some of the bizarre, incompetent things they did in their short tenures, would know why they are no longer at the school. It certainly has little to do with two athletes duking it out in a locker room.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Feb 15, 2022 9:52:56 GMT -8
Oh.
I can understand requesting a delay. The misleading stuff you read daily in the news pisses me off. Should've known better, especially coming from a sportswriter. ....................Luca
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 15, 2022 11:39:40 GMT -8
For me, the most frustrating thing about this whole case is this: Neither Eric Sondheimer, nor Bill Plascke, nor Mark Whicker have written a single word about this case other than what they'd read in the Scott Reid articles. And Scott Reid has not written a single word about this case that he didn't get from the plaintiff's attorneys or his parents, who are also both attorneys. Is this what now passes as responsible journalism?
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 15, 2022 11:43:49 GMT -8
There is a young attorney who posts on OCConnect as res ipsa loquitur, and I have known his father for many years. He posted the following in response to the latest article. It's a long read, but well worth the time:
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.
|
|
|
|
Post by outofstate on Feb 15, 2022 13:11:19 GMT -8
He makes a good point regarding the misunderstanding of whether Ms Waters was being legally represented by MD attorneys. For MD attorneys to say they are, only to have Ms Waters contradict this, makes MD attorneys look very amateur.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 15, 2022 13:40:44 GMT -8
Having spoken to her multiple times, I'm fairly convinced that any confusion or misunderstanding was on her part. I really don't like to speak negatively about people who aren't public figures, but just think of Alicia Silverstone in "Clueless".
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 19, 2022 9:33:29 GMT -8
I guess Scott Reid must be on his period, because today it was up to Steve Fryer to write the latest front-page O.C. Register article on the Mater Dei "hazing" case. Unfortunately, it took him only ten words to make his first factual error. He wrote, "After being president at Servite High School for 15 years, Mike Brennan..." Mike Brennan was never president at Servite, he was its principal.
A few paragraphs later, Fryer writes, "The lawsuit was filed the week preceding Mater Dei's win over St. John Bosco in the CIF Southern Section Divison I championship game Nov. 26". How odd that a Servite homer would forget that Mater Dei played Servite in that game. Either Fryer is mentally going Joe Biden on us, or this is just plain lazy, sloppy journalism.
The rest of the article is a rehash of the allegations that have already been rehashed a dozen times, and a creampuff interview of Brennan. With all the other little things going on in the world, like Ukraine, crime, homelessness, inflation, the Canada fiasco, a nonexistent Southern border, do-nothing district attorneys, out-of-control school boards, increasing "democratic" authoritarianism, Covid and a hundred other things, it's bizarre that the Register would devote front-page space to this sophomoric effort.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 19, 2022 9:47:16 GMT -8
I think SCNG is using these guys as pawns to keep pushing the agenda that parochial private schools are like cults.
I know Steve, and unless I'm really wrong about him, he wouldn't voluntarily push this, and he certainly doesn't have the stroke to get it on the front page.
I've engaged with him for some 15 years, and he's always been about positive stuff for the kids.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Feb 25, 2022 17:31:56 GMT -8
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 25, 2022 22:38:24 GMT -8
Sorry bud, only parochial schools have cult like hazing rituals.
Public schools need more funding to prevent things like knife fights among students.
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Feb 26, 2022 3:57:17 GMT -8
really, in 2022 kids at Trabuco are carrying knives.....?  |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Feb 26, 2022 6:37:09 GMT -8
Yes. All of them.
Just like all Mater Dei football kids have to go thru a fight club hazing ritual in order to be a member of the team.
|
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Feb 26, 2022 7:54:03 GMT -8
Its like the 70's when we use to go down Tijuana way to get into bars and buy street paraphernalia as shown above.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Feb 26, 2022 19:07:49 GMT -8
Its like the 70's when we use to go down Tijuana way to get into bars and buy street paraphernalia as shown above. Went down there in the late 50s and this is what I came back with. A lever lock switchblade (lever on the other side). I'm not sure if it was the same bullfighting scene, but it was red (lucite?) like this one. I don't know what became of it, but, the last thing I remember, was throwing it at a medium size frog (or toad?). My buddy and I were together (he had purchased a more conventional looking switchblade). We both freaked out, because despite my throw being perfectly on target, the frog continued hopping at us. We ran away, but then went back there about 2 minutes later, only to see the frog was still hopping towards us with the knife sticking out of its back! I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that it is still sticking into a skeleton in some evergreen shrub at my old house.   |
|
