Michael Mccann on reddit now

https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3jnbyr/im_michael_mccann_a_sports_illustrated_legal/

You can ask him anything Deflategate related.

An interesting mini-thread:

kjnumbers 1 point 57 minutes ago
Can you provide some more insight on Berman's notice reasoning? As I understand it, FAA§10 is the exclusive grounds for vacatur in arbitration agreements. Lack of notice might fall under §10(a)(3) or (4), but it seems kind of tenuous, and Berman definitely didn't make it clear what section of the FAA applied to notice (the evidence, cross-examination stuff seems more clear; in those sections Berman says lack of access to files/Pash "prejudiced" Brady, which is grounds for vacatur in §10). Do you have any insights on this? Thanks

McCannSportsLaw[S] 2 points 22 minutes ago
That is true, and I suspect we'll see the NFL in its appeal argue that the judge's opinion didn't (in the NFL's view) sufficiently track the requirements of vacating an award under federal arbitration law. Among possible responses could be that the arbitration award here is unique and not equivalent to traditional ones in that the arbitrator was not neutral; another could be that the lack of notice was so egregious that it warrants vacating the award. But I think you've hit on an area that the NFL will stress in the appeal. I also the NFL will raise questions about the apparent fact-finding by the judge and the judge speaking with Jay Feely. We'll see.
kjnumbers 1 point 12 minutes ago
OK, thanks. I've been thinking about this since Berman's opinion yesterday. I can't figure out why he strained with the notice requirement and decided to say the court "does not reach" the claim of evident partiality against Goodell when that argument seems like a clear winner.

wyattdonnelly -1 points 3 hours ago

The New Yorker reported Link that Judge Berman admitted that he has Tom Brady on His Fantasy Football team. Any chance this is brought up in the appeal?
It seems like an enormous lapse in judgement on his part. I don't believe that it would impact his decision, but trial had to be ongoing when he picked his team.

• permalink

grudger 3 points 3 hours ago

Do you now what the word satire means?

• permalink
• parent

sunstersun 2 points 3 hours ago

that was a joke lmao.

• permalink
• parent

wyattdonnelly 3 points 3 hours ago

****, I'm such an idiot. I checked to make sure it wasn't "The Onion" then just didn't read the rest of it closely. Whatever, I'm leaving my stupidity rather than deleting it.

• permalink
• parent

I give that guy props for admitting he made a mistake though.

QuantumMechanic said:

An interesting mini-thread:

kjnumbers 1 point 57 minutes ago
Can you provide some more insight on Berman's notice reasoning? As I understand it, FAA§10 is the exclusive grounds for vacatur in arbitration agreements. Lack of notice might fall under §10(a)(3) or (4), but it seems kind of tenuous, and Berman definitely didn't make it clear what section of the FAA applied to notice (the evidence, cross-examination stuff seems more clear; in those sections Berman says lack of access to files/Pash "prejudiced" Brady, which is grounds for vacatur in §10). Do you have any insights on this? Thanks

McCannSportsLaw[S] 2 points 22 minutes ago
That is true, and I suspect we'll see the NFL in its appeal argue that the judge's opinion didn't (in the NFL's view) sufficiently track the requirements of vacating an award under federal arbitration law. Among possible responses could be that the arbitration award here is unique and not equivalent to traditional ones in that the arbitrator was not neutral; another could be that the lack of notice was so egregious that it warrants vacating the award. But I think you've hit on an area that the NFL will stress in the appeal. I also the NFL will raise questions about the apparent fact-finding by the judge and the judge speaking with Jay Feely. We'll see.
kjnumbers 1 point 12 minutes ago
OK, thanks. I've been thinking about this since Berman's opinion yesterday. I can't figure out why he strained with the notice requirement and decided to say the court "does not reach" the claim of evident partiality against Goodell when that argument seems like a clear winner.

Click to expand...

It's not in the FAA. It's a law of the shop. You get advance notice, like with the steroids policy. Brady had no advance notice of punishment. Jones and Doty ruled similarly n the Rice and Peterson cases. Not exactly a new argument. It's been part of labor arbitration law for at least sixty years.