How big of a concern is the threat of discovery to the NFL in a Brady lawsuit?

[JMC00]

You just need to prove an attempt.

Doesn't the fact that the dolts cried to the league the day before the game and the league did nothing to warn the Patriots of their complaint but then the complaint was circulated around the league office only for them to just remind Anderson to go through the protocols (which he didn't). Then you have a dolts employee illegally gauge a football and run to kensil, who then told a Patriots employee "You're in f*cking trouble".

There is also the fact that SB week blandino on record said that the issue didn't come up until the first half. Literally proof that he knew of the dolts complaint as he made a point to tell Anderson based on the dolts complaint.

Then there is the kicker of it all that the is according to wells whose word is as good as God's the NFL didn't take the complaint seriously yet gardi and kensil saw the complaint and then kensil passed it along to blandino and other other people such as alberto riveron (senior director of officiating) and james daniel (director of game day operations). Which daniel forwarded the complaint to other game operations personnel who would be at the game.

So if they didn't take it seriously why the hell was every NFL official that was going to be at the game made aware of the complaint? Why weren't the Patriots alerted to the dolts complaint? Why have the dolts gone unpunished for illegally gauging a football on the sidelines?

Convenient that dolts balls weren't checked in stereo with the Pats balls and only 4 of them got checked "because of time", they had 10 minutes, according to them someone can deflate 12 footballs in under 90 seconds but they can't check 24 in 10 minutes. And of those 4, 3 of them measured under inflated by one official .

 

[rochrist]

I am not sure what may happen in the court of law, but I very much agree that there is some sort of negotiation happening right now. The league clearly does not want to go to court, so they are trying to find some acceptable middle ground, hence, the NFLPA recently stating that complete exoneration was the only acceptable decision.

Goodell is trying to save face, but it isn't going to happen....Therefore, we see the huge delay in the decision.

Eh. I disagree. I think the real reason is much more sinister. The closer they run this up to the start of the season the more pressure there is on Brady to just say '**** it'. I think it's all about (in their minds) trying to narrow Brady's options.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Will discovery also include who and how the information was leaked to select mouthpieces of the NFL??

IMO the NFL has more concerns about discovery and more to lose than does Brady, if he really has some.... all kids of stuff can be asked: Did Goodell consult or discuss this case with Vincent??

Yup, they will try to depose everyone involved and you never know what somebody will say..
Remember Watergate was broken open when somebody asked Alexander Butterfield, "was there a recording device?" and all h*ll broke lose.
One question they will all be asked is whether they discussed the case with anyone. If they lie, it is a crime and they will all have lawyered up and the lawyers will be representing them, not the NFL.....
"Mr. Goodell, you said Wells was independent. What contact did you have with him when he started investigating?" This will be after they ask for all emails and phone records....not to mention his phone, ah the irony...

 

[DarrylS]

Yup, they will try to depose everyone involved and you never know what somebody will say..
Remember Watergate was broken open when somebody asked Alexander Butterfield, "was there a recording device?" and all h*ll broke lose.
One question they will all be asked is whether they discussed the case with anyone. If they lie, it is a crime and they will all have lawyered up and the lawyers will be representing them, not the NFL.....
"Mr. Goodell, you said Wells was independent. What contact did you have with him when he started investigating?" This will be after they ask for all emails and phone records....not to mention his phone, ah the irony...

Your "lawyering" is certainly better than my "lawyering", and you succinctly state why Goodell might be trying to get out of the mess he has created..

This is a very expensive, lengthy process.. but in the end we will know all the sordid details. Many lawyers will make beaucoup cash, but the defendant has it.

 

[JMC00]

I disagree. I feel like the two parties have pushed most of their chips into the center of the table and are holding their cards close to the vest waiting for the other to fold or call by going to court. Neither will capitulate.

I don't know if I would say the nfl is holding cards close to vest.

They've been the annoying card player who cheats and gloats about his hand. Brady and the nflpa are the cold, calculated player that checks all game and then finally goads the idiot, cheat, loud mouth to go all in and takes him.

 

[5thRing-Hunt]

I am not sure what may happen in the court of law, but I very much agree that there is some sort of negotiation happening right now. The league clearly does not want to go to court, so they are trying to find some acceptable middle ground, hence, the NFLPA recently stating that complete exoneration was the only acceptable decision.

I keep hearing this theory that there are negotiations going on. First I haven't seen any evidence at all the NFL has once tried to seek any middle ground. And also what is there to negotiate? The truth is if Brady accepts a 1 hour suspension or a $1 fine people will say he is admitting guilt. It will immediately be said across the entire media the moment it happens. The only negotiating that would be acceptable is if Brady agreed not to sue for defamation if his suspension was taken down to zero games and the NFL said the report was flawed and they apologize for the entire mess

 

[RunAmok]

Doesn't the fact that the dolts cried to the league the day before the game and the league did nothing to warn the Patriots of their complaint but then the complaint was circulated around the league office only for them to just remind Anderson to go through the protocols (which he didn't). Then you have a dolts employee illegally gauge a football and run to kensil, who then told a Patriots employee "You're in f*cking trouble".

There is also the fact that SB week blandino on record said that the issue didn't come up until the first half. Literally proof that he knew of the dolts complaint as made a point to tell Anderson based on the dolts complaint.

Then there is the kicker of it all that the is according to wells whose word is as good as God's the NFL didn't take the complaint seriously yet gardi and kensil saw the complaint and then kensil passed it along to blandino and other other people such as alberto riveron (senior director of officiating) and james daniel (director of game day operations). Which daniel forwarded the complaint to other game operations personnel who would be at the game.

So if they didn't take it seriously why the hell was every NFL official that was going to be at the game made aware of the complaint? Why weren't the Patriots alerted to the dolts complaint? Why have the dolts gone unpunished for illegally gauging a football on the sidelines?

Convenient that dolts balls weren't checked in stereo with the Pats balls and only 4 of them got checked "because of time", they had 10 minutes, according to them someone can deflate 12 footballs in under 90 seconds but they can't check 24 in 10 minutes. And of those 4, 3 of them measured under inflated by one official .

I am not sure that those issues will come into play in a trial. They 100% point to how dirty the NFL house is and why we all hoped that Kraft would stand up to the NFL and force Goodell to resign and/or clean house. The trial will be about how fair the process was and was it in line with the CBA. If you follow the reasons why the NFLPA and TB appealed the case in the first place. When you look at what Judge Doty ruled in the Peterson case:

The union took its case to federal court. On Thursday, Doty ruled for Peterson and the players' association, throwing out the arbitration decision and sending the case back to the NFL and players' association.

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge David Doty wrote that the personal conduct policy in place when Peterson disciplined his son stipulated that a first-time domestic violence offender faced a likely maximum suspension of two games. But NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and then-arbitrator Harold Henderson applied a new policy to Peterson, even though the league enacted it after he used the switch on his son.

Because the league retroactively applied the new policy to Peterson's case, the judge wrote, the arbitrator disregarded applicable law and in doing so failed to meet his duty under the league's collective bargaining agreement with players.

If you take that to the TB case, the NFL established a precedent of a $50K fine for refusing to turn over a cell phone. Arbitrary changes in the way fines/punishments are dished out is a big No-No when dealing with unions and labor practices. This alone could cause the whole suspension to be tossed out.

 

[Nunchucks]

I keep hearing this theory that there are negotiations going on. First I haven't seen any evidence at all the NFL has once tried to seek any middle ground. And also what is there to negotiate? The truth is if Brady accepts a 1 hour suspension or a $1 fine people will say he is admitting guilt. It will immediately be said across the entire media the moment it happens. The only negotiating that would be acceptable is if Brady agreed not to sue for defamation if his suspension was taken down to zero games and the NFL said the report was flawed and they apologize for the entire mess

Why else would the NFLPA come out with a statement about only accepting zero games?

 

[primetime]

Yes, that also.

Once again, I am no lawyer and the law could be a vastly different language than common sense, but this seems to be a FAR more solid and objective defamation case than so many of the "they hurt my feelings" cases that are brought.

You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was malicious intent to malign someone's character in order to receive damages for defamation. You also have to be able to prove that the statement was false. And you have to prove that there were material damages to you as a result of the defamatory comments. This is a very, very high legal bar, and Brady would very likely be pissing away legal fees several times greater than the damages he could ever hope to obtain just to bring a suit to the courts.

Finally, even if he won the suit, what Patriots fans are hoping for, and what they think Brady really wants -- a complete and instant repair of Brady's reputation -- won't happen because it's sports entertainment and public opinion will always dislike Brady due to success.

 

[RunAmok]

You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was malicious intent to malign someone's character in order to receive damages for defamation. You also have to be able to prove that the statement was false. And you have to prove that there were material damages to you as a result of the defamatory comments. This is a very, very high legal bar, and Brady would very likely be pissing away legal fees several times greater than the damages he could ever hope to obtain just to bring a suit to the courts.

Finally, even if he won the suit, what Patriots fans are hoping for, and what they think Brady really wants -- a complete and instant repair of Brady's reputation -- won't happen because it's sports entertainment and public opinion will always dislike Brady due to success.

I think (again not a lawyer) that the defamation bar might be a little different because of the employee/employer nature of the relationship be tween a player and the NFL.

 

[MagicMarker]

I really don't know what to think about the probability of discovery under any circumstance, including a Defamation Suit, which might or might not be viable. I've seen enough situations where a court takes a completely different view of things that I think are "obvious" that I'm not about to say much of anything on those topics, other than to say, "maybe, maybe not."

This seems to be the telling comment. If it goes to court, it is unpredictable what could happen. And, if it does, Goodell loses control of the situation. He still might win, but there is some risk involved now.

 

[primetime]

I think (again not a lawyer) that the defamation bar might be a little different because of the employee/employer nature of the relationship be tween a player and the NFL.

It's not. You have to prove intent, falsehood, and damage. The loss of pay due to suspension is from a collectively-bargained disciplinary procedure and not from harm to Brady's reputation, it's all but immaterial to a defamation case.

I understand that fans want Brady to bring such a case for catharsis, but it's not going to happen.

 

[patsfan13]

It's not. You have to prove intent, falsehood, and damage. The loss of pay due to suspension is from a collectively-bargained disciplinary procedure and not from harm to Brady's reputation, it's all but immaterial to a defamation case.

I understand that fans want Brady to bring such a case for catharsis, but it's not going to happen.

Well there has been objective damage beyond loss of salary. Brady had a very positive name recognition among celebrities tracked by the advertising industry. This brand image establishes desirability to have a person endorsing the product as well as the value of their endorsments to the client. Brady was in the top 5% of celebrities tracked, after the deflategate accusations he is in the bottom 2%.

For someone of Brady's stature the damage to his brand could cost him more than all his salary from playing football so it is a BFD. His wife is VERY brand conscious.

If the NFL ran a sting and leaked false information damaging to Brady, then covered up the targeting of Brady by NFL execs using the Well's report?

If that is defamation of a persons character I don't know what is.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

This seems to be the telling comment. If it goes to court, it is unpredictable what could happen. And, if it does, Goodell loses control of the situation. He still might win, but there is some risk involved now.

Yes, there is risk for both sides, which is why this has probably devolved to a game of "chicken" behind closed doors at this point. Brady has been very wise to keep his mouth shut.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

It's not. You have to prove intent, falsehood, and damage. The loss of pay due to suspension is from a collectively-bargained disciplinary procedure and not from harm to Brady's reputation, it's all but immaterial to a defamation case.

I understand that fans want Brady to bring such a case for catharsis, but it's not going to happen.

The standard of proof required is different because Brady is a "public figure" so the bar is higher, what is referred to as "New York Times" malice from a court case back in 1964
As a public figure ( versus you or I) you have to show that they knew it was false or acted in reckless disregard for the truth...

 

[XLIX]

You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was malicious intent to malign someone's character in order to receive damages for defamation.

Not true. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard that applies in criminal law, not a civil suit.

You also have to be able to prove that the statement was false.

I think it has been proven that the "11 of 12" statement is false. I would consider that good start to any defamation lawsuit.

If the NFL ran a sting and leaked false information damaging to Brady, then covered up the targeting of Brady by NFL execs using the Well's report?

If that is defamation of a persons character I don't know what is.

I agree 100%. Findlaw.com says the following. If these are your textbook examples of defamation, then Brady clearly fits in #'s 2 and 3 and maybe also 4

Examples of defamatory statements are virtually limitless and may include any of the following:

• A communication that suggests the plaintiff was involved in a serious crime involving moral turpitude or a felony

• A communication that exposes a plaintiff to ridicule

• A communication that reflects negatively on the plaintiff's character, morality, or integrity

• A communication that impairs the plaintiff's financial well-being

• A communication that suggests that the plaintiff suffers from a physical or mental defect that would cause others to refrain from associating with the plaintiff

 

[primetime]

Not true. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard that applies in criminal law, not a civil suit.

You're right, my apologies. You would need a preponderance of evidence. Such a bar is very difficult to surmount in a defamation case. Basically, Brady would be bringing a costly suit and fishing in discovery for clear evidence of intent, which I don't think will be found. I think the cost of a defamation suit is not worth the potential to win or the reward for winning.

 

[XLIX]

You're right, my apologies. You would need a preponderance of evidence. Such a bar is very difficult to surmount in a defamation case. Basically, Brady would be bringing a costly suit and fishing in discovery for clear evidence of intent, which I don't think will be found. I think the cost of a defamation suit is not worth the potential to win or the reward for winning.

I agree with that statement if you look at it purely from a financial risk/reward perspective. If Brady was simply trying to better his financial status, it's not worth it.

However, Brady (and wife) are extremely wealthy people who can comfortably afford the finest lawyers, win or lose. I could see a lawsuit like this being much more about reputation. He might even be happy with an outcome where the league (or a specific individual working for the league) is found to have engaged in defamation but there were no financial damages so he gets one of those awards of $1. I know I would sure enjoy seeing a court find that Brady was defamed.

IMHO, the biggest problem comes in finding out who leaked the false report to Mortensen. Is that even possible if everyone goes into full denial mode? Can they force the league to release communications and e-mails?

 

[MagicMarker]

You're right, my apologies. You would need a preponderance of evidence. Such a bar is very difficult to surmount in a defamation case. Basically, Brady would be bringing a costly suit and fishing in discovery for clear evidence of intent, which I don't think will be found. I think the cost of a defamation suit is not worth the potential to win or the reward for winning.

Or, maybe he thinks it is.

What does Brady have to lose at this point, except the money? He can afford it if he chooses to go that way.

 

[patfanken]

1. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was malicious intent to malign someone's character in order to receive damages for defamation.

2, You also have to be able to prove that the statement was false.

3. And you have to prove that there were material damages to you as a result of the defamatory comments.

This is a very, very high legal bar, and Brady would very likely be pissing away legal fees several times greater than the damages he could ever hope to obtain just to bring a suit to the courts.

You are right PT, defamation is a hard claim to succeed....and it should be hard. You also pointed out the 3 hurdles the Brady would have to convince a jury. But rather than being off put by the challenge, you have clearly marked a doable game plan for Brady's lawyers.

1. There was malicious intent by individuals representing the league. Just look at all the league related leaks that occurred that were not only wrong, but came after the league publicly promised there would be no more links. We all know what they were, and there are too many for me to itemize. Even more damaging that what the actively did it's want the League DIDN'T to publically acknowledge the falsehoods when they were uncovered, Maliciousness would be easy to prove.

2. Science is science. The Welles report is littered with bad science and unfounded innuendo.

3. Financial and materiel damages will be the easiest to prove. Just show the jury the Mr Robot clip. And the financial damages should be easy to establish as well.

Based on the hurdles you pointed out PT, this is a winnable case