Dawn suing Mizzou AD

[Orangutan]

Probably enough to file the suit which will require him to show the basis for is accusation that 1) the described events occured and 2) Staley intentionally created the atmosphere for them. It's not enough to say "well I have not proof of my statements but I believe them."

The burden of proof is on Staley to prove that his statements were false, not on the defendant to prove that his statements were true.

"Lawyers were involved weeks ago": the latest on Dawn Staley's feud with Missouri - ABC Columbia

 

[Orangutan]

Also, I don't see how Staley could prove injury. It hasn't affected her job status with SCar or USAB and her own complaint speaks to the fact that public opinion is on her side.

 

[CL82]

The burden of proof is on Staley to prove that his statements were false, not on the defendant to prove that his statements were true.

True, but remember she is entitled to discovery. He will have to list his basis for his statement. She needs to prove that 1) the statement was made, 2) that wasn't true, 3) that the AD knew that, and 4)that she was damaged.

1) is a given, 2) and 3) are where discovery comes into play. If Steck's answers show he had no basis for making the statement, and especially no proof that it occurred, he's in trouble. I think you are alluding to the fact that defamation has a higher standard for public officials, and it does, but if "I have no proof, but I actually believe the statements I made" was a defense no public official would ever win a defamation case.

 

[Orangutan]

1) is a given, 2) and 3) are where discovery comes into play. If Steck's answers show he had no basis for making the statement, and especially no proof that it occurred, he's in trouble. I think you are alluding to the fact that defamation has a higher standard for public officials, and it does, but if "I have no proof, but I actually believe the statements I made" was a defense no public official would ever win a defamation case.

So they depose him and he says "yeah, I heard someone say the n-word at one of our players". Wouldn't that just sink her case? Honest question.

 

[CL82]

So they depose him and he says "yeah, I heard someone say the n-word at one of our players". Her whole case is over, right? How can you prove it didn't happen? These are honest questions, not rhetorical, by the way.

Nope, because that doesn't show that Dawn actively promoted/created the atmosphere. If that was formulated out of thin air, he has a problem. Not a huge one, though, because it will be tough for her to quantify damages.

 

[Orangutan]

Nope, because that doesn't show that Dawn actively promoted/created the atmosphere. If that was formulated out of thin air, he has a problem. Not a huge one, though, because it will be tough for her to quantify damages.

Oh, yes, I momentarily forgot about that part of his comments.

 

[cbraarj]

Both teams should just shut up and play the game. It is childish from both sides.

 

[Vowelguy]

Well this thread seems to have run its course.

Now everyone needs to root for Florida to beat Georgia and Mizzou over Texas A&M so we end up SC gets the #2 seed and Mizzou the #3.

Though I suppose if TAMU wins, Mo could fall to #6 or 7, which would also put them on the Gamecocks side of the bracket.

 

[Orangutan]

Well this thread seems to have run its course.

I mean, I was having what I felt like was an enlightening discussion not more than 30 minutes ago. But if you say so.

 

[Centerstream]

I also think that the amount she is seeking in this frivolous lawsuit just seems like a weird amount. Is there a cap on this type of (frivolous) lawsuit in SC?
Cause like my pappy use to say, "go big or go home!".

 

[Crossover]

True, but remember she is entitled to discovery. He will have to list his basis for his statement. She needs to prove that 1) the statement was made, 2) that wasn't true, 3) that the AD knew that, and 4)that she was damaged.

1) is a given, 2) and 3) are where discovery comes into play. If Steck's answers show he had no basis for making the statement, and especially no proof that it occurred, he's in trouble. I think you are alluding to the fact that defamation has a higher standard for public officials, and it does, but if "I have no proof, but I actually believe the statements I made" was a defense no public official would ever win a defamation case.

Excellent legal analysis .

 

[meyers7]

In a related story ...

Former UConn Player Sues Geno
"He erroneously claimed I couldn't guard a chair."​

But technically, since other than in Indiana, chairs are not allowed on the court during games, he was correct.

 

[DefenseBB]

I don't think so because I really like C Viv...!

Actually, I was going to do the exact opposite with:

I don't think so because I really like Dawn...

Dawn has a chip on her shoulder that appears every now and then and is what drives her to be great while also creating detractors. This would be better to be "let go of" and moved on from but hey, it's in her DNA to fight.

As far as CVS goes, hey, she's had a great career, congrats, now please exit stage left and take Sylvia with you...instead, she's pulling a Bobby Bowdoin...doesn't know when to leave.

 

[winlots]

But technically, since other than in Indiana, chairs are not allowed on the court during games, he was correct.

MEYERS: You know doggone well that Bobby was just tossing that chair across the court to an old lady who needed a seat. Setting yourself up for another lawsuit?

 

[Crossover]

She’s suing because she wants an apology. If it were anyone else, you’d agree it’s frivolous

In addition to being part of common parlance, "frivolous" is a legal term of art. If you are using it as the latter , I'm afraid you are mistaken. A frivolous lawsuit is one filed with no factual basis for the allegations. Filing a frivolous action can lead to sanctions being imposed on both the plaintiff and her attorney (which is why the attorney's reputation for probity matters. A lawyer who values his/her reputation is not inclined to file a frivolous suit). In this case, if Dawn did not intentionally create the atmosphere described by the AD, she has a factual basis for the second element of her claim. With respect to her allegation that the AD knew that his statement was false, or acted in reckless disregard for the truth, the court will of necessity require little by way of factual basis at the outset of the litigation . That is because the third element turns on the defendant's mindset, something that is virtually impossible for a plaintiff to know or show directly. Discovery may turn up damning comments by the AD, or facts from which the requisite mindset can be inferred. Or maybe not. I think that the complaint alleges enough to get in the door under the circumstances, hence is not frivolous. Dawn's motivations for bringing the lawsuit are legally irrelevant. That said, it strikes me that seeking an apology is morally a better reason than seeking revenge. As is seeking to reform a broken system. Finally, one of the social functions of injury to reputation cases is that they provide a public mechanism for assessing and deciding how members of a society ought to treat one another. That is something to be valued, not sneered at.

 

[meyers7]

MEYERS: You know doggone well that Bobby was just tossing that chair across the court to an old lady who needed a seat. Setting yourself up for another lawsuit?

True dat.

 

[Plebe]

I know nothing about this area of the law, but I just don't see how you can prove he knowingly made false statements. Doesn't that require you to prove a negative? That is, you would have to prove that the behavior he claims occurred did not occur and that he knew it didn't occur.

Not quite. The standard for a libel claim is “actual malice,” which means the defendant either knew his statement was false or he exercised “reckless disregard” for whether it was true.

 

[winlots]

True dat.

Terrific. You are one fancy man. 'Course that's rather widely known in these parts.

 

[Orangutan]

Not quite. The standard for a libel claim is “actual malice,” which means the defendant either knew his statement was false or he exercised “reckless disregard” for whether it was true.

Yes, this is what I have now learned. I'm heartened that I wasn't totally off the mark, though, as the article I posted above agrees that it would be hard for Dawn to win the case.

I'm a paralegal but we do commercial litigation and white collar criminal defense. Everything I know about defamation law I've learned today through google or this thread!

 

[Charliebball]

 

[Charliebball]

 

[Wbbfan1]

KC Star Column: Double Standard SEC betrays double standard in dealing with Mizzou and South Carolina

 

[01Neaggrad02]

The attorney that Dawn retained is very prominent and does not file things for frivolous nature. Saying the fans were rude is one thing. Saying that an African American women promoted an atmosphere to have people spew racism and spitting on people is out of bounds. Especially when no one viewed it on tape, no players on the actual team would say that it happened to them, nor would the coach verify those specific actions when pressed. That defames her character and since the commissioner did not act, she did what she had to do. Strange that given the suit, the commissioner finally levied the fine, because what the Mizz, AD did was in violation of a league rule and he refused to retract the statement. I get it if you are a UConn fan and do not like Dawn but look at it this way. If a the Tenn AD, not a fanbase, goes publicly on air and accused Geno of cheating to get Maya Moore with no proof than sour grapes, he would be expected to be reprimanded because it would be baseless and serve to taint something Geno has built fair and square. Heck Geno even stated that he felt the Mizz AD should be held accountable for irresponsible statements of that nature.

Drop your attitude with me. I am a UCONN fan and if I like Dawn or do not like Dawn has nothing to do with this. What does are the facts. And the fact that you bring up, "Saying that an African American women promoted an atmosphere to have people spew racism and spitting on people is out of bounds" is also completely inappropriate in of it self because regardless of the gender or race of the individual I would hope no one would promote that atmosphere. Why do you need to mention her race and gender on this? You are entitled to your opinions as are we all. I stand by my statements and again question if it can be proved that the comments were made in an attempt to impugn her character or if the comments were made in reaction to what was occurring at the time. I think there is more to this story than the average fan knows.

 

[01Neaggrad02]

Did we sue Tennessee over their comments about Maya or were we unable to because they did it behind closed doors like cowards. Have to give the Mizz AD credit for doing it in public....
That being said... Anyone have the game on the internet for us to watch? I would love to see the crowd again. From what I remember seeing the crowd was very loud and non to pleasant. I will not say I agree with the assessment but I will not say it is without merit either.

 

[Sifaka]

There has been some fine legal discussion here. I suspect, however, that Dawn's suit was not brought with great concern about winning or losing the legal battles.
Why do I say that? FIrst, the monetary damages sought are nominal. Smart move. It forecloses rants about her presumably doing this for money. Next, her lawyers will have opportunities to force the AD to state in court that his "facts", if any, were hearsay.

As I see it—you folks will be quick to correct me if I'm wrong—she is seeking to put a spotlight on the issuer of unfounded insults. If she does that, she will have won this round.

As to whether or not the SC fans behaved badly, I don't know. I wasn't there.
But that is not the subject of the suit. Remember, it hinges on whether or not
Dawn Staley promoted ugly behavior by the fans.