|
Post by stevehorn on Apr 12, 2019 17:45:38 GMT -5
I’d be thrilled if this thread just gave updates. Not a bad idea since everyone interested has probably stated their opinion many times.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 18:21:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by leftcoaster71 on Apr 12, 2019 18:38:49 GMT -5
Both of those links are for 2018
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 18:40:46 GMT -5
Yep -- I'd say ~ 1/6th of the number of teams from ~ 1/9th of registered clubs Is Not "an insignificant" drop-off -- be interested to see if 2020's classic has a similar proportionate decline.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 19:31:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by XAsstCoach on Apr 12, 2019 20:00:57 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. Wolfgang = Odin? (gasp)😳
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Apr 12, 2019 20:02:23 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. Wolfgang = Odin? (gasp)😳 Umm...no.
|
|
|
Post by why on Apr 14, 2019 17:04:27 GMT -5
I am starting this thread in the effort to keep this ongoing matter in the forefront of the volleyball community. This matter has lingered for literally decades, hopefully this lawsuit will provide some resolution, or maybe clarity. This is a highly volatile topic, and as such I am trying to start this out with vetted news articles and court websites (courtlistener.com and the newly created sportsperformancelawsuit.com). I understand many of these articles have been previously, but figure having a master list on page one of the thread would not be a bad idea. And as they are links, easily ignored if you so choose. I have purchased several of the PACER documents from the lawsuit as well, but am struggling with figuring out how to post them here as they are larger pdfs. If anyone has any suggestions, please dm me. Newly posted (at least since last RB thread was locked) items: www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.349777/gov.uscourts.ilnd.349777.116.0.pdfDoes anyone know if it's legal for either party to contact the class members outside of the notice from the courts? I am referring to the information contained in the link above.
|
|
|
Post by knowthetruth on Apr 16, 2019 9:15:14 GMT -5
follow
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2019 13:18:05 GMT -5
Pacer docs - drive.google.com/drive/folders/14rMdkA_qSwcsunwZprdwDQplIOWkzG4dNot all docket items are here as I skipped numerous 1-3 page docs that were either "minute" and "Notice of motion" entries. I did a small sample of these and showed they offered nothing substantial. The "minute" entry is typically captured in entirety on courtlistener, and "Notice of Motion" is doc basically saying, as example, Plaintiff is going to file a motion for confidentiality order, and then couple of days later, they file #121. so waste of time and my money in my opinion...
|
|
|
Post by VT Five-0 on Apr 18, 2019 13:09:35 GMT -5
I'm sure people who want to follow will do so without a prompt.
|
|
|
Post by why on Apr 18, 2019 17:41:39 GMT -5
Pacer docs - drive.google.com/drive/folders/14rMdkA_qSwcsunwZprdwDQplIOWkzG4dNot all docket items are here as I skipped numerous 1-3 page docs that were either "minute" and "Notice of motion" entries. I did a small sample of these and showed they offered nothing substantial. The "minute" entry is typically captured in entirety on courtlistener, and "Notice of Motion" is doc basically saying, as example, Plaintiff is going to file a motion for confidentiality order, and then couple of days later, they file #121. so waste of time and my money in my opinion... Thank you for sharing. Document 123 is worth the read if you have time for 77 pages.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 10:54:12 GMT -5
I am starting this thread in the effort to keep this ongoing matter in the forefront of the volleyball community. This matter has lingered for literally decades, hopefully this lawsuit will provide some resolution, or maybe clarity. This is a highly volatile topic, and as such I am trying to start this out with vetted news articles and court websites (courtlistener.com and the newly created sportsperformancelawsuit.com). I understand many of these articles have been previously, but figure having a master list on page one of the thread would not be a bad idea. And as they are links, easily ignored if you so choose. I have purchased several of the PACER documents from the lawsuit as well, but am struggling with figuring out how to post them here as they are larger pdfs. If anyone has any suggestions, please dm me. Newly posted (at least since last RB thread was locked) items: www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.349777/gov.uscourts.ilnd.349777.116.0.pdfDoes anyone know if it's legal for either party to contact the class members outside of the notice from the courts? I am referring to the information contained in the link above. In reading dockets and Court rulings, it appears communications with class members is a very hot topic and is one that is still being argued/defined. Defendants make a good point that many class members are current clients with daily interaction with defendants. The next couple of weeks should provide more insight. I will comment in thread as i add PACER docs to the google drive. more will definitely be added next week.
|
|
|
Post by why on Apr 22, 2019 17:33:42 GMT -5
Does anyone know if it's legal for either party to contact the class members outside of the notice from the courts? I am referring to the information contained in the link above. In reading dockets and Court rulings, it appears communications with class members is a very hot topic and is one that is still being argued/defined. Defendants make a good point that many class members are current clients with daily interaction with defendants. The next couple of weeks should provide more insight. I will comment in thread as i add PACER docs to the google drive. more will definitely be added next week. I love the response that a SPRI employee said that people were stating that they never received the notice about the case but they wanted to opt out. Lol. I would expect this employee to be fired for sending an unapproved notice on behalf of the company if the owners of the company really knew nothing of the notice being sent out. Defendants acknowledge that the mass email from Mr. Gilb was improper www.courtlistener.com/docket/6318197/130/mullen-v-glv-inc/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2019 8:31:59 GMT -5
docket #127 - NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY - www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.349777/gov.uscourts.ilnd.349777.127.0.pdf Docket #128 - DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED AGREED CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ENTERED ON APRIL 17, 2019 - www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.349777/gov.uscourts.ilnd.349777.128.0.pdfdocket #132 - DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO ALL OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY REQUESTS - www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.349777/gov.uscourts.ilnd.349777.132.0.pdfDocket #135 - (not on courtlistener - pasted in its entirety: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.2.2 Eastern Division Laura Mullen Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 1:18−cv−01465 Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly GLV, Inc, et al. Defendant. NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, April 23, 2019: MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Motion hearing held on 4/23/2019. Motion to clarify [130] is granted; clarification as stated in open court. Motion for extension of time [132] is granted. Deadline for defendants production of certain supplemental documents is extended to 5/3/2019. Motion for reconsideration [128] is terminated as moot. Proposed confidentiality order is modified as stated in open court; revised version to be submitted to Judge Kennellys proposed order email address. The 4/24/2019 status hearing is vacated. Status hearing remains set for 5/8/2019 at 9:30 a.m. (pjg, ) ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.
|
|