|
Post by azvb on Apr 12, 2019 12:39:24 GMT -5
I missed somehow that the thread had been locked. There should be no letting up until the Butlers quit, retire, whatever from coaching underage girls.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 12:39:55 GMT -5
A note, sincere request, plus a predictor for the mod and administration of VT: a VERY few posters -- those who have succeeded in locking All of the previous RB-themed threads -- will soon commence attacking those who are in favor of the Butlers' VICTIMS (former players who were raped as minors; the parents in this class-action suit): count on it! The same posters will Also begin their common, threadbare and disingenuous urination contest between SPVB & any competing clubs/leagues. PLEASE monitor this repetitive sham!
Thank you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:01:05 GMT -5
I want to avoid doing this in the future as it is massively space consuming, but felt this Motion to Compel Docket#119 was important enough to post in its entirety:
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT RICKY BUTLER’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’ S INTERROGATORY NUMBER 1
Plaintiff Laura Mullen, by and through her counsel, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 37.2, respectfully moves this Court to compel Defendant Ricky Butler (“Butler”) to fully respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1, which directs Butler to identify and describe any instances of sexual contact or advances made towards players or any person under the age of 18. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff states as follows: 1. On May 7, 2018, Class Counsel served Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Ricky Butler. (See Exhibit 1.) Interrogatory No. 1 requests Butler “Identify and Describe all instances of Sexual Contact, Romantic Relationship, and/or sexual advances You have made with/to any players, and to Person under the age of 18 during the Relevant Time Period.”1 (Exh. 1 at 8.) 2. Butler objected to Interrogatory No. 1, and did not provide a substantive response. Plaintiff sought to compel Butler’s response (dkt. 59), and the Court expressed skepticism about much of Defendants’ objections, but ultimately reserved ruling on the objections until after a ruling on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (See Transcript of Proceedings, June 26, 2018, attached as Exhibit 2 at 3-4, 9-11.) 3. After denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint (dkt. 68), the Court directed the Parties to engage in discovery specifically related to Plaintiff’s anticipated motion for class certification, and to hold off on discovery related to the underlying allegations of Butler’s sexual abuse (like the issues addressed in Interrogatory No. 1) until after a ruling on class certification. (Dkt. 78.) 4. On January 23, 2019, after the Court certified the Class (dkts. 100, 101), Class Counsel emailed defense counsel asking when Defendants would provide complete answers to Plaintiff’s prior discovery requests, which include Butler’s Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. Class Counsel did not receive a response. Class Counsel followed up with defense counsel again on January 31, 2019 and February 19, 2019, at which point Class Counsel requested a meet and confer. 5. On February 25, 2019, counsel for both Parties conducted a meet and confer, wherein Defendants’ counsel advised that substantive responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding written discovery would be provided on or before March 12, 2019. footnote - 1 Capitalized terms are defined in the Definitions section of Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Ricky Butler (see Exh. 1, at 1-5), and retain their defined meaning when used in this Motion.
6. On March 14, 2019, defense counsel provided Class Counsel with Butler’s Supplemental Answers to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories. (See Exhibit 3.)2 Butler’s response to Interrogatory No. 1 provided some description of sexual encounters and relationships involving the witnesses identified in the Complaint, but continued to include boilerplate objections such as vagueness and overbreadth, as well as the objection that “Plaintiff has not appropriately confined Interrogatory No. 1 to any alleged behavior which could be considered illegal, immoral, or prohibited by any rule or regulation.” (Exh. 3 at 1.) 7. On March 19, 2019, the Parties met and conferred regarding Defendants’ discovery responses, including Rick Butler’s objection to Interrogatory No. 1.3 The Parties were unable to reach an agreement regarding the scope of Interrogatory No. 1 directed to Butler. Plaintiff’s position is that Butler must answer the Interrogatory as it relates to any Sexual Contact, Romantic Relationship, and/or sexual advance he has had with any player or person under the age of 18 since he began coaching. Defense counsel’s position during the Parties’ meet and confer was that the scope of the Interrogatory should not require a response related to Butler’s self-designated “consensual legal relationships” or relationships with any individuals who were not specifically named in the Complaint. 8. The Court should overrule Butler’s objections and compel him to respond in full to Interrogatory No. 1. Plaintiff is, of course, entitled to “obtain discovery regarding any non-
Footnote - 2 Exhibit 3 contains only Butler’s objections to Interrogatory No. 1. Butler’s answer to Interrogatory No. 1 is not included with this filing due to the sensitive topics addressed therein, including references to personal medical histories. Plaintiff will make the full answer to Interrogatory No. 1 available to the Court should it be deemed necessary, and will have copies of the same available for inspection at the motion hearing. Footnote - 3 The Parties are continuing to work through additional discovery disputes regarding the remainder of Defendants’ responses to Plaintiff’s written discovery requests. Defendants have agreed to produce additional documents by April 12, 2019, at which point Plaintiff will be in a position to evaluate the need for additional meet and confers or discovery motions.
privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. Courts “consistently adopt[] a liberal interpretation of the discovery rules,” Wilstein v. San Tropai Condo. Master Ass’n, 189 F.R.D. 371, 375 (N.D. Ill. 1999), and “a broad range of potentially useful information should be allowed when it pertains to issues raised by the parties’ claims.” Harris Davis Rebar, LLC v. Structural Iron Workers Local Union No. 1, Pension Tr. Fund, No. 17-cv-6473, 2019 WL 454324, at *1 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2019) (quotation omitted). The burden falls on the objecting party to show why a discovery request is improper. Osada v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 290 F.R.D. 485, 494 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (quotation omitted).
9. Butler has not, and cannot, show that the information sought in Interrogatory No. 1 is improper. As an initial matter, the majority of Butler’s objections are of the “meaningless boilerplate that are tantamount to not making any objection at all” variety that courts routinely overrule. See Harris, 2019 WL 454324, at *4 (quotation omitted). Interrogatory No. 1 is reasonably tailored to individuals with whom Butler had sexual contact, romantic relationships, or otherwise arguably inappropriate involvement who played on Butler’s team or who were high school age or younger—all of which goes to uncovering information germane to the allegations and defenses in the case (for Plaintiff, that Butler sexually abused teenage girls, and for Defendants, that Butler did not sexually abuse teenage girls). This is central to proving the fraud alleged in the Complaint. (See Corrected Class Certification Order, dkt. 101, at 5 (“Proving deceit in this case necessarily requires Mullen to show that the underlying sexual-abuse allegations against Rick Butler are true[.]”); Transcript of Proceedings, May 24, 2018, attached as Exhibit 4, at 3-4 (“Why would that not be relevant? . . . if the underlying claims from whatever happened in whatever decade it was are not true, then you’re going to kind of win on the non-disclosure issue because you’re not required to disclose stuff that didn’t happen.”).) 10. The scope of Interrogatory No. 1 properly includes individuals identified in the Complaint, as well as any others who would be known to Rick Butler—and only Rick Butler. Whether Butler subjectively thought his interactions with individuals specifically referenced in the Complaint or others not named in the Complaint were consensual or legal is inapposite, and he cannot unilaterally narrow his response to Interrogatory No. 1 accordingly. For instance, Butler has previously taken the position that, at least with respect to some of the sexual abuse alleged in the Complaint, those relationships were consensual and legal relationships. (See dkt. 1 ¶ 155.) Clearly, the sexual abuse allegations in the Complaint indicate that those women disagree with Butler’s assessment. But even if there are additional instances of sexual contact or relationships between Butler and players or other individuals under the age of 18 that were consensual and legal, that information is discoverable too because it may, at a minimum, lead to the discovery of admissible evidence such as indication of a pattern of behavior or habit of engaging in the type of conduct alleged in the Complaint. See, e.g., Fed. R. Evid. 406; E.E.O.C. v. Konica Minolta Bus. Sols. U.S.A., Inc., 639 F.3d 366, 369 (7th Cir. 2011) (noting “[r]elevant information [for civil discovery purposes] need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”). Accordingly, Rick Butler should be compelled to answer Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1 in full. 11. Pursuant to Local Rule 37.2, the undersigned counsel states that after consultation via a telephonic meet and confer to resolve differences, counsel for the Parties were unable to reach accord on the issues contained in this motion. * * *
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Laura Mullen respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order: (i) overruling Defendant Rick Butler’s objections to Interrogatory No. 1; (ii) compelling Defendant Rick Butler to provide a substantive response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 1; and (iii) providing such other and further relief that the Court deems reasonable and just.
Respectfully submitted,
LAURA MULLEN, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals,
Dated: April 11, 2019 By: /s/Sydney M. Janzen One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Apr 12, 2019 13:16:44 GMT -5
A note, sincere request, plus a predictor for the mod and administration of VT: a VERY few posters -- those who have succeeded in locking All of the previous RB-themed threads -- will soon commence attacking those who are in favor of the Butlers' VICTIMS (former players who were raped as minors; the parents in this class-action suit): count on it! The same posters (magnolia, deohge, jds, volleypsq et al) will Also begin their common, threadbare and disingenuous urination contest between SPVB and any competing clubs/leagues. PLEASE monitor this repetitive sham! Thank You Maybe the mods get sick and tired of one individual reporting other accounts every time they disagree with him and hurt his feelings. Maybe YOU'RE part of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Apr 12, 2019 13:20:16 GMT -5
Wait, is his legal name really "Ricky"?
Really?
Wow.
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Apr 12, 2019 13:26:39 GMT -5
Anyone with more legal knowledge or experience care to explain what Docket #119 means if rick keeps refusing to answer the questions?
Is there anything that he could say during depositions or discovery that could land him in more or different legal trouble?
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Apr 12, 2019 13:33:07 GMT -5
IIRC, if a party continues to defy a motion to compel, the judge can find them in contempt.
|
|
|
Post by deohge on Apr 12, 2019 15:49:24 GMT -5
Why do you think the threads keep getting locked? As you said people have known for years about the allegations, seems most just don't care. The onslaught from both sides will surely get this thread locked too.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 12, 2019 16:13:28 GMT -5
I don't think there's really any solid policy from the VT mods about Butler. I think what happens is that if enough people complain, the mods get sick and tired of playing the peacekeeper (especially if they know peace is not possible), so they do the easy thing, which is shut down the thread. That's what I would do.
We're all human. We don't want to be bothered.
|
|
|
Post by ineedajob on Apr 12, 2019 16:20:25 GMT -5
I don't think there's really any solid policy from the VT mods about Butler. I think what happens is that if enough people complain, the mods get sick and tired of playing the peacekeeper (especially if they know peace is not possible), so they do the easy thing, which is shut down the thread. That's what I would do. We're all human. We don't want to be bothered. That's kinda what I tried saying, but... Dirt disagrees. "What is WITH you, troll-master? As a "sophomore" who does Not know his head from his ass, can you at least ACT like a coach (which I do believe you have stated you are - or were (THAT why you need a job: your ineptitude?) - which seems disingenuous at best). I WILL delete ANY reply from you w/out reading it; count on it: I win, you lose: PL. stop lurking and stalking my postings. PS: IF YOU added ANYTHING of content to the various threads, I have yet to see it. You Are NOT "King of VT"; court jester! " Seems a tad immature, but I'm inept and I don't even know my head from my ass. I'm sorry I don't get my self-worth from all my VT posts I have or how many 'likes' my posts get.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 12, 2019 16:30:23 GMT -5
I don't think there's really any solid policy from the VT mods about Butler. I think what happens is that if enough people complain, the mods get sick and tired of playing the peacekeeper (especially if they know peace is not possible), so they do the easy thing, which is shut down the thread. That's what I would do. We're all human. We don't want to be bothered. That's kinda what I tried saying, but... Dirt disagrees. "What is WITH you, troll-master? As a "sophomore" who does Not know his head from his ass, can you at least ACT like a coach (which I do believe you have stated you are - or were (THAT why you need a job: your ineptitude?) - which seems disingenuous at best). I WILL delete ANY reply from you w/out reading it; count on it: I win, you lose: PL. stop lurking and stalking my postings. PS: IF YOU added ANYTHING of content to the various threads, I have yet to see it. You Are NOT "King of VT"; court jester! " Seems a tad immature, but I'm inept and I don't even know my head from my ass. I'm sorry I don't get my self-worth from all my VT posts I have or how many 'likes' my posts get. Totally. If I were a VT mod and I'm here sitting at my computer and watching an entertaining youtube video and suddenly, I get a notification that I received a PM in my Inbox. I read it and it's a complaint about something or other. My first reaction is not, "Oh, goody, oh boy! I'm so powerful! My kingdom needs me!" Rather, my first reaction would be, "Oh, f**k! I gotta stop what I'm doing now and put out this g**d*** fire! F**k!!!"
|
|
|
Post by maɡˈnōlēə on Apr 12, 2019 16:48:18 GMT -5
I don't think there's really any solid policy from the VT mods about Butler. I think what happens is that if enough people complain, the mods get sick and tired of playing the peacekeeper (especially if they know peace is not possible), so they do the easy thing, which is shut down the thread. That's what I would do. We're all human. We don't want to be bothered. That's kinda what I tried saying, but... Dirt disagrees. "What is WITH you, troll-master? As a "sophomore" who does Not know his head from his ass, can you at least ACT like a coach (which I do believe you have stated you are - or were (THAT why you need a job: your ineptitude?) - which seems disingenuous at best). I WILL delete ANY reply from you w/out reading it; count on it: I win, you lose: PL. stop lurking and stalking my postings. PS: IF YOU added ANYTHING of content to the various threads, I have yet to see it. You Are NOT "King of VT"; court jester! " Seems a tad immature, but I'm inept and I don't even know my head from my ass. I'm sorry I don't get my self-worth from all my VT posts I have or how many 'likes' my posts get. Oh I am reporting you for your deflections.
|
|
|
Post by azvb on Apr 12, 2019 16:50:27 GMT -5
I’d be thrilled if this thread just gave updates.
|
|
|
Post by stevehorn on Apr 12, 2019 17:36:56 GMT -5
A note, sincere request, plus a predictor for the mod and administration of VT: a VERY few posters -- those who have succeeded in locking All of the previous RB-themed threads -- will soon commence attacking those who are in favor of the Butlers' VICTIMS (former players who were raped as minors; the parents in this class-action suit): count on it! The same posters will Also begin their common, threadbare and disingenuous urination contest between SPVB & any competing clubs/leagues. PLEASE monitor this repetitive sham! Thank you. Yourself and some others are just as guilty by engaging in the same repetitive arguments with those posters.
|
|