NCAA insists confidentiality necessary to its work, trial Judge doesnt rule on motion filed in Cottrell suit
TUSCALOOSA | The assurance of confidentiality is the cornerstone" of NCAA investigations, without which witnesses would provide little information and the organizations enforcement efforts would become ineffective, an NCAA attorney said Friday.
Confidentiality must be protected so the process will work," said Robert Rutherford, a Birmingham attorney representing the NCAA in a multi-/smillion dollar lawsuit filed by two former University of Alabama assistant football coaches.
The legal debate over whether some documents should be confidential in the suit filed by Ronnie Cottrell and Ivy Williams entered a Tuscaloosa County circuit courtroom Friday. After 90 minutes, the hearing ended without a ruling from Judge Steve Wilson.
Wilson also made no ruling on whether to allow The Tuscaloosa News to intervene in the case.
The coaches filed the suit after an NCAA investigation into the Crimson Tide football program found UA boosters offered improper inducements to recruit Memphis, Tenn., high school football player Albert Means and other athletes.
It landed the Crimson Tide on probation and limited the number of scholarships the program could offer, while also leading to the dismissal in December 2000 of head football coach Mike DuBose and his staff. Cottrell and Williams, two assistants under DuBose, claim they havent been able to find reliable work since.
The former coaches are requesting, among other information, the entire investigative file in preparation for trial.
But the NCAA says the majority of the file has nothing to do with the suit, and contains information obtained from confidential sources. The NCAA would breach confidentiality agreements if the information became public, and the effectiveness of future investigations would be jeopardized, the organization argued.
That information was given to the NCAA and University of Alabama under assurances from both that it would be confidential," Rutherford said.
The NCAA and enforcement representative Richard A. Johanningmeier asked the judge to order that papers, documents, disks, transcripts of depositions and other records be kept private. They havent specified which documents they want confidential.
Instead, Rutherford proposed that the NCAA label information it wants confidential as the case proceeds. If the coaches attorneys agree that a certain piece of information should be kept confidential, then it will remain so. If not, the court would decide.
Delaine Mountain, an attorney representing the former coaches, argued that the method would place an undue burden on the plaintiffs. He labeled the proposal an effort by the NCAA to slow the court process.
They want to stamp everything confidential and then gag us about it and protect everything theyve done," Mountain argued. We dont operate that way in America. The NCAA operates that way, and they ought to quit."
Freelance sports recruiting analyst Tom Culpepper, another defendant in the suit, has asked the judge to order that testimony and other pre-trial information Culpepper has provided be kept confidential.
The public release of the information could threaten future employment opportunities for Culpepper, his attorney said. It could also violate confidentiality agreements Culpepper has made.
Mountain told the judge that he understood the confidentiality agreement Culpepper was referring to was made with the NCAA.
Its an unusual situation, he said, When two defendants in a lawsuit get together and say, 'Were going to have a confidentiality agreement."
Meanwhile, The Tuscaloosa News asked the judge in a motion filed Wednesday to allow it to intervene and oppose the confidentiality requests by the NCAA, Johanningmeier and Culpepper.
Emphasizing the newspapers objective role in the overall case, attorney Gary Huckaby said The Tuscaloosa News came to assert the rights of the media, and the public, to judicial proceedings and records.
Huckaby argued that the NCAA, Johanningmeier and Culpepper want the right to determine on their own what information, if any, can be released to the public without showing good cause. To obtain good cause, the defendants would need to present evidence that the court believes supports their requests to keep information confidential.
The defendants, Huckaby said, would virtually be delegated complete control over the records in the case.
Absent good cause, we have...an offense to the First Amendment," Huckaby said.
John Scott, Culpeppers attorney, and Rutherford asked that they be given time to respond to The Tuscaloosa News motion to intervene, having received notice two days before the hearing. The judge gave the attorneys 10 days to respond.
Scott said the protective order Culpepper is requesting would only be directed at pre-trial discovery.
It is not directed at what would be a public trial," he said. Its not a gag order. Its not an order that would impinge upon the First Amendment."
In typical civil trials, Scott said, protective orders might not be necessary.
(But) in a typical civil case, the lawyers are not holding press conferences every week," he said. The plaintiffs have chosen to try this case in the media."
Mountain said the NCAA never balked in using the information to defame his clients through the media.
Thats the way the NCAA operates, they convict with secret witnesses," Mountain said.
[...]
How American of them.
ROLL TIDE!!
kurt
______________________________________________________ RollTideFan - The University of Alabama Athletics Discussion List
"Welcome to RollTideFan! Wear a cup!"
To join or leave the list or to make changes to your subscription visit http://listinfo.rolltidefan.net
