Florio is saying the new lawsuit is garbage - New England Patriots Forums

***Rob0729*** · 02-21-2008, 10:49 AM

Based on his review of the new information on the new lawsuit against the Pats, he claims the lawyer in the case doesn't even know the fundamentals of the law and is just looking for a quick settlement. Based on the information, he may think he has a 90% chance of winning, but it seems like it will be 0%.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

Quote:

WALSH TO BE SUBPOENAED?

The lawyer who filed on Friday a $100 million class-action lawsuit against the New England Patriots alleging cheating in connection with Super Bowl XXXVI says that he plans to subpoena former video employee Matt Walsh for a deposition within the next two weeks.

"If Matt Walsh doesn't have the goods, we'd pack our bags and go home," attorney Eric Deters told the Cincinnati Enquirer. "We don't need the tapes, just the testimony."

But other things Deters has said (more on that in a minute) and his apparent lack of knowledge regarding the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure makes us wonder whether he's got the chops to pursue complex and contentious litigation against one of the most successful franchises in the National Football League.

Put simply, Deters isn't allowed to take Walsh's deposition yet.

Rule 26(d)(1) of the Federal Rules plainly states that "[a] party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f)," absent a Court order or a stipulation to the contrary.

The Rule 26(f) conference is a meeting, typically by phone, between the parties for the purposes of coming up with a proposed trial date and other pre-trial matters. It occurs pursuant to a Court order setting the deadline for such a meeting. The Court order typically is entered after all of the defendants have filed an answer to the complaint. An answer is due thirty days after the summons and the complaint are properly served on the defendants.

In this case, we expect the Patriots to file a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit right out of the gates, which likely will delay the Rule 26(f) conference. Indeed, there's no reason to figure out a trial date if there never will be a trial.

And because we can't imagine the Patriots agreeing to a stipulation that would allow Walsh to be deposed within the next two weeks, the only hope in this regard would be for Deters to file a motion with the Court seeking leave to take Walsh's deposition right now. If Deters does so, he'll need to have a reason far more compelling than "I want to try to leverage a quick settlement."

That's precisely what we think Deters is trying to do. In our view, he isn't interested in doing justice; he simply wants to make a fast score.

"We are the NFL and Patriots' worst nightmare," Deters said. "Litigation takes years. It would be a huge distraction to the league and the team. The way to resolve this is to pay some reparation to teams, players and fans affected."

Deters' belief reflects a high degree of hubris, and naivete. Apparently, he thinks that he's a sufficiently intimidating adversary to cause the Pats and the NFL to conclude that it would be better to suffer the crippling P.R. fallout of settling (i.e., implicitly admitting) claims of Super Bowl cheating than it would be to square off against him.

So Deters had better scrap the notion that he's going to get rich quick on this one. Actually, he should welcome the opportunity to go to trial.

"I think the case has great merit," Deters said. "We have a 90 percent chance of winning."

I've been practicing law for 16-plus years now, and one thing I've learned is that anyone who tries to affix with confidence any type of a percentage to the outcome of a piece of litigation is a 100-percent idiot.

The sad part is that the case very well could have merit, if Walsh has the goods and if the Patriots don't have a credible explanation. But it's our opinion after reading Deters' initial comments on the lawsuit that his involvement in it will only increase the likelihood of ultimate failure.

questionman · 02-21-2008, 11:02 AM

I sounds like he is saying the lawyer is garbage more than he is saying the lawsuit it garbage.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 02-21-2008, 11:02 AM

That is essnetially what Harry Manion said last week, even more forcefully, after actually reading the filing before commenting. Florio ought to actually act like a lawyer since he tosses his credentials out there to facilitate his chasing those commentary bucks his Rumor Mill generates...

Part of the problem with all of this spygate crap from day 1 has been the inability or unwillingness of anyone in or associated with the football/sports media to take a step back and consider the actual facts at hand before weighing in with an opinion which almost immediately is embraced by fellow mediots, senators, fans as gospel. Because in this case more often than not startling revelations have turned out in hindsight with perspective to be a crock of ****. But everybody, including Goodell, was in too big a hurry to say or do something about it before really considering WTF it even meant. It was always and remains a media fueled tempest in a teapot. Unfortunately it has already cost us plenty more than it ever should have on it's merits.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 02-21-2008, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by questionman

I sounds like he is saying the lawyer is garbage more than he is saying the lawsuit it garbage.

He has to have a thread to hang onto. Manion said the entire filing is a boatload of crap that won't make it past the motion to dismiss because it doesn't begin to meet the standard for this level of filing. The NY/NJ filing at least had the commissioners ruling to hang it's hat on, and even that one is dead in the water. This one is based on rumor and inuendo, and that just won't fly in the federal courts.

***Rob0729*** · 02-21-2008, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by questionman

I sounds like he is saying the lawyer is garbage more than he is saying the lawsuit it garbage.

He's saying both are. Maybe if a competitant lawyer was doing it, he might think otherwise. But he sees this lawsuit as an attempt to get a quick settlement. The problem for this lawyer is a quick settlement would be taken by the public as an admission of guilt by the Patriots and they would want no part of that.