From the newspaper article:Wilson [the federal district court judge to whom the Richardson case is assigned] said he takes a "liberal view of discovery" and allowed the inquiry, although he could rule later that the information Richardson’s lawyers turn up is irrelevant.
Wilson also granted a motion by UA attorneys to place depositions from Nutt and others under seal until he can screen them for potentially embarrassing information.
I wouldn’t bet on the deposition seeing the light of day. Here’s why…
Richardson’s claim is one of discrimination on the basis of race; i.e., that he was treated differently than white coaches. Trouble is, the events concerning Nutt and NU occurred over a year
after Richardson’s firing. In addition, Richardson was terminated as the result of statements he made at a news conference in which he went ballistic over a question, then went on a rant about how he wasn’t being given the amount of “respect” he deserved - both by fans and the University - and that if the University wanted to buy out his contract he’d walk away. Nutt, meanwhile, did not engage in actions at all similar to Richardson’s. In short, Nutt is not “similarly situated”, which will be required to initially prove discrimination. Put another way…even assuming the claims that Broyles manipulated the press or others to get Nutt more pay or other benefits, how does that prove that the University discriminated against Richardson? Richardson’s attorneys would have an argument if they could show that Nutt had engaged in substantially the same behavior as Richardson,
but was not then terminated. This would be evidence of disparate treatment on the basis of race.
As the trial judge noted, he’s very liberal regarding discovery. If you want to use money and resources to go and gather information, fine. But before he will allow it to be introduced into evidence, U of A attorneys will request, and the judge will demand, some proof that the evidence can be used to support the claim of disparate treatment. And there isn’t any.
I’m guessing that even if Richardson’s attorneys can get SP’s deposition:
- It won’t be allowed into evidence for the reasons above; and,
- It will be sealed - both during and after the trial.
Of course, it could always be leaked…but given that only three entities would have the deposition - the court and court reporter, the attorneys for the parties, and the parties themselves - any leak could be fairly easily traced, and the entity leaking the material could be in a world of hurt.
So, while it would be fun to read, I have a feeling we won’t see it. Pity…
