October 5th, 2011 at 6:17 PM ^
How did you do that?
October 5th, 2011 at 6:21 PM ^
So what you're saying is...even ohio is getting sick of ohio dragging its feet. Nice.
October 5th, 2011 at 6:21 PM ^
Just seeing "Ohio State University" and "denied" in the same document made my day.
October 5th, 2011 at 7:38 PM ^
getting used to it now...
October 5th, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^
Suck it OSU?
October 5th, 2011 at 6:32 PM ^
I wonder how long until Ohio hands over the documents, now. Anyone know a timeline for these cases?
October 5th, 2011 at 11:31 PM ^
on how quickly they can destroy hard drives and shred paper...
![](<a href="http://media.photobucket.com/image/kool aid oh yeah gif/thinkbolt/XMen-KoolAidJuggernaut.gif" target="_blank"><img src="http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b271/thinkbolt/XMen-KoolAidJuggernaut.gif" border="0"></a>)
October 5th, 2011 at 6:37 PM ^
Is OSU now forced to either back down or go to litigation? What's the timeline now?
Also (and I won't ask someone to actually do this research) what bearing do other states rulings on the prohibitive nature of FERPA have on Ohio? IIRC there was at least one state that concluded that their FOIA did not have a FERPA exception since FERPA doesn't specifically ban releasing information (just provide the potential for sanctions if not followed). Does the code have to be extremely similar for them to take this into account, or is it enough that it's the same in spirit?
October 5th, 2011 at 7:01 PM ^
The Ohio Supreme Court can totally ignore any other court's opinion on state laws, and it only has to follow the US Supreme Court if it says something about FERPA itself. It is otherwise the boss of its own state's laws, if you will.
Nevertheless, it's likely to look at the other court's ruling and at least consider it, especially if it was that state's supreme court. It may reach the same conclusion if it makes sense and if the state laws at issue are similar. The laws don't have to be identical, but they have to be in the same ballpark. (They likely are, especially if both are modeled on the federal law.)
Please note that absolutely no research was done to draft this answer, and heed it accordingly.
Edit: this answer was ony as to your second point. Next step for OSU lawyers? Suck it. (I haven't followed the litigation closely, sorry, and the answer could vary, but it will be some variation of suck it.)
October 5th, 2011 at 7:10 PM ^
Please note that absolutely no research was done to draft this answer, and heed it accordingly.
Thanks for the answer though, MGoBoard is a great place to go for this stuff.
October 5th, 2011 at 10:04 PM ^
My divorce attorney must have had the same disclaimer, I should have looked closer.
October 5th, 2011 at 7:08 PM ^
The other rulings have no direct impact on the present case. State courts do look to other states' rulings on federal issues, but they are not what is called 'mandatory authority' (i.e. rulings that a court must follow).
That said, the more states that have ruled the same way on a federal issue, the more likely the next court will rule the same way.
October 5th, 2011 at 11:02 PM ^
This is staying before the Ohio Supreme Court. This will be done in a matter of months. Any appeal would have to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they don't have time for this stuff.
The lawyers will submit evidence by next Tuesday. The the lawyers will file legal briefs with their arguments. The lawyers should be done with their part by November 15.
Then you wait for a decision from the Ohio Supreme Court. And wait. And wait.
I can't tell you how long it will take for them to decide. I'm not too familiar with the Ohio Supreme Court and its timing. My instinct tells me one month would be very quick, and six months would be long. My best guess is that we have a decision in February or March 2012 that requires OSU to hand over certain documents by March or April 2012 (assuming ESPN wins).
October 5th, 2011 at 7:17 PM ^
Eventually a bunch of information is going to be released and emails from Tressel to Sarniak and a trail of awareness for Smith and likely E Gordon Gee will be the makings for a really interesting book.
I suspect George Dohrmann is laughing his ass off right now.
October 5th, 2011 at 7:53 PM ^
You don't think some of the records will be deleted? If you are turning over thousands and thousands of emails there's no way of knowing which ones were lost or redacted. The only way to be sure that someone is going to turn over all there documents is to have someone independent check all the servers and computeres; obviously not gong to happens.
You guys keep hoping though.
Also, for those who say it's illegal to delete some of these records don't forget that potentially millions of dollars are at stake here, no one circles the wagons like OSU, and people rarely get jail time (not sure that would even be on the table in this case) for white collar crimes. Also, plausible deniability.
October 5th, 2011 at 8:26 PM ^
Violation of legal remedy and/or a court order is not "white collar crime" with plausible deniability. You are plainly wrong on that . Also, it really isn't that difficult, btw, to check the email servers for Tressel's, Smith's or Gee's accounts via forensic search (and it really doesn't cost much either) if there was suspicion of limited release or violation. Last month the Supreme Court in Ohio have compelled the unredacted release of this information to them within 20 days of September 21, 2011 via alternative writ of mandamus.
I think you are minimizing the real risks for Ohio if they were to violate an order of this nature. This is a publicly funded institution. If you think protecting the emails would benefit Ohio the risks associated with protecting them would be far far worse.
October 5th, 2011 at 8:52 PM ^
If all that weren't enough, I sincerely doubt that ESPN is throwing darts at a board. They know the gist of a few of these and probably know of the existence of more. If they think they're being wronged, they'll file another motion and I wouldn't be surprised if that included a police investigation, with serious outcomes for OSU employees. That's highly illegal stuff.
For anyone who thinks it would be a good idea to willfully violate a court order to "protect" OSU, I believe they are seriously overestimating OSU's power. The SCoO and the Ohio legislature aren't about to let a public entity willfully disobey court orders because they like a football team. Seriously people, think.
October 5th, 2011 at 10:52 PM ^
It's common practice for a news organization to know about an email before they file a record request for it.
OSU doesn't want to delete an email that ESPN knows about (or possibly already has) because then it would be (1) violating a court order; (2) destroying evidence; (3) willfully violating Ohio records laws. That would amount to incredible fines, felonies being handed out to the public officials doing the dirty work, and high profile government lawyers losing their licenses if they're involved.
I would bet against OSU deleting emails.
October 6th, 2011 at 12:28 AM ^
Just my two cents, but it is highly likely that ESPN, through forensic accountants and investigators, will be able to detect that things were deleted if they get their hands on the right stuff, which I assume their legal team will make every attempt to do. Metadata, code, etc; if they find electronic evidence that they reasonably believe indicates tOSU did this, oh my goodness would it be a big deal. I, for one, think that if such things did happen, it was done without tOSU's attorneys' knowledge. And if evidence was intentionally (or negligently, but most likely intentionally) spoliated, yeah, that's going to be a big deal and heads would roll. If that came out, I think you can bet that politicians would make hay by dragging any and all involved parties before the Ohio legislature for some serious verbal pistol-whipping/grandstanding. And that's after everyone remotely involved was fired.
Keep in mind one thing: despite the fact that we all hate tOSU and think it's corrupt, it is a public institution whose entire purpose for existing (despite what its sports fans think) is to educate young men and women. For them to be caught destroying evidence. . . yeah. That would just be ridiculous. Like a minature Watergate cover-up.
October 6th, 2011 at 12:48 AM ^
Defying an order of the state supreme court and destroying evidence--that would make every NCAA violation that school ever committed pale into the realm of jay walking across a dirt road. The mind reels. I cannot imagine any attorney risking literally everything with such a stunt, or anything more likely to get everyone within a million miles of it fired instantly (only faster).
You're so right on the legislature getting involved too.
That said... some people put the crazy in fanatics. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that some deluded fan with access to the emails would try to scrub them in some fatally misguided notion that they were protecting the almightyand ever-true football program. I'm a little cynical and a little willing to believe that sometimes people do phenomenally stupid things. And so are ESPN's lawyers, which is why they WILL check for missing documents.
October 6th, 2011 at 9:02 AM ^
On the metadata issue: That would be true if this were high stakes commercial litigation. However, public bodies have no duty to give you electronic copies of documents, metadata, etc... in response to a public records request. I can almost guarantee you that OSU will turn over paper copies or PDFs of the emails.
October 6th, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^
If hard copies are the official version, then I agree with you. I used to work in county government and I was always told we had to provide information in the format in which it is maintained or archived.
October 5th, 2011 at 9:19 PM ^
don't forget that potentially millions of dollars are at stake hereTrue, but OSU is also a state university. If they go around screwing with information that the state required them to give up, there will be much bigger consequences than the loss of a few million dollars, like, "the entire administration of OSU will be dissolved and criminal charges will be pursued against the responsible parties."
October 5th, 2011 at 9:49 PM ^
October 6th, 2011 at 12:37 AM ^
This is a great little point: I am not in-house, but send these regularly. The last thing I want as a lawyer (err, well, one of the last things) is to have to stand in front of a judge, red-faced, explaining why my clients destroyed emails. That's some disgraceful shit. It's bad enough when documents being lost from years ago is explainable (example: project files kept in storage; storage unit got flooded 5 years ago; client got sued 2 years ago), and you still feel like everyone thinks you're completely full of shit (and you don't necessarily blame them; who the hell trusts the other side in litigation when it's contentious and there's a lot at stake?) Imagine if your clients really did destroy incriminating evidence in contravention of the hold letter (and the message it's trying to get across, i.e. that we'll all be in very deep shit if you don't hold onto everything; the cover-up is worse than the crime itself usually) when a case is already in litigation?
Dammit, I sound naive. I need to figure out a better way to game the system. All in service of one's clients, right? (kidding. Although I wish I knew how people even did get away with stuff like that; I don't even know that- how you can get away with destroying digital evidence like that. Not that I'd use that "skill." And by "skill" I mean "shady violation of rules of professional conduct that would get you disbarred and should get you disbarred and I practice in Chicago and people violate them every day and are seen as the pillars of our legal community. . . I'm looking at you, firms who magically have people show up at the scenes of accidents, non-lawyers, of course, unaffiliated with your firm, of course, and also you, guys who 'front costs' to your client, tax-free, in six figures").
/end soapbox //end tangent ///time to stop posting for the day.
October 5th, 2011 at 7:18 PM ^
Maureen O'Connor: a pimp hand rivaling Dave Brandon's.
October 5th, 2011 at 9:05 PM ^
Dave and Maureen and create a super race of pimp handed offspring, who hate that school in Ohio....
October 5th, 2011 at 7:32 PM ^
Yes --> Oh snap
October 5th, 2011 at 7:54 PM ^
I was actually in the mood for more popcorn anyway!
Doesn't AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" seems like the perfect musical score for this tragic-comedy!
Go Blue!
October 5th, 2011 at 10:03 PM ^
Question for lawyers. You're plugging and chugging away in your fancy law office when you receive a notice like this. What happens next? High fives all around? Pizza party? Jokes are told at the expense of the losing side?
October 6th, 2011 at 12:39 AM ^
Not high fives, but usually just congratulatory emails, maybe some snark back and forth, then you tell the client, and do whatever the next thing is.
You save the Johnny Walker for when you win a case in a jury trial. Or at least I do.
October 5th, 2011 at 11:12 PM ^
The Ohio Supreme Court's one-sentence decision is the equivalent of a legal bitch-slap to OSU. The university's request was so sorry that the court didn't even discuss it.
This single page from the court made me more hopeful about ESPN's chances. Maybe the judges are not scared to make a controversial decision? Maybe the justices aren't afraid to pound OSU?
If you've been schadencruising through Buckeye blogs recently like I have, you realize that average Ohioans are turning on the university. The mob is shifting. And the judges will probably flow with the mob.
October 6th, 2011 at 12:20 AM ^
Before you know it they'll be selling Michigan jerseys in Ohio.
October 5th, 2011 at 11:35 PM ^
October 5th, 2011 at 11:41 PM ^
The Ohio situation has given me sportsgasm after sportsgasm, and its not over. I want MOAR!