Brad Conway to file Motion of Protective Order

[Tom'sGirl]

*** This thread is NOT about "Z" ***​

 

[elementary]

The As should go talk to Baez about the necessity of the countersuit that now has them scrambling. The depositions are not happening because of ZG.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I deleted ALL of my posts on this thread relating to Z. Please remove my quotes from posts, Thanks!! (Just following the rules...)

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Look, it is a very common practice to videotape a deposition--happens every day, all day long, in offices around the country. It is also permissible to have anyone you want present--lawsuits are public matters in this country--although I've never heard of the media being invited--and am not sure if that is the case here. Still don't see any legal grounds for the refusal to allow the videotaping of the depositions. Although an argument could be made to keep the media out so as not to intimidate, harass or embarras the witness.

 

[Hot Dogs]

Topic...

Reports that Brad Conway plans to "file a motion of Protective Order" for CA/GA, in regards to the depositions.

 

[MsBashterd]

I'm still just a scratchin my head as to why the A's and LA would want a PO KC yes absolutely. She has the right to not incriminate herself, but the others what could they possible know. If they never say the imaginary nanny or ect. what really what is going to come out. The only questions they can ask of them is concerning the case at hand correct??? Nothing else?????

 

[Broderick]

It doesn't matter if it is a right to work state. You can't discriminate against any employee because he/she was named in a tangenital investigation in which she was exonerated. Do other employees have records? Have other employees ever been suspects in an investigation. Just because it is a right to work state doesn't exempt them from lawsuits in matters of employment. How did this materially damage Motel 6?

Again, there is no recourse in an at will state. Perhaps a little research would benefit you so you aren't hanging on to what isn't there. There are only a few ways she could sue her employer and being fired as a distraction is not one of them. That is not discrimination, perhaps that is something to research as well. If there were possible recourse she could do so, but trust me there is none. If you work for me, and you are labeled a potential killer and I don't like the exposure, I can fire you any ole time I please.

I have been sued for one EEOC violation and I won without even having to go to mediation. I have fired more people than most businesses have working for them. If I don't like the way you comb your hair I can fire you. As long as I don't violate "discrimination" laws and I don't have a contract with you. You can also quit if you desire with no consequence either, barring you didn't sign a no-compete clause for additional funds that I will ruin your life with.

 

[Bev]

Oh baloney, Broderick.

 

[radio]

*** This thread is NOT about "Z" ***​

.....

 

[Broderick]

Oh baloney, Broderick.

How so? Florida isn't even an implied contract state. There is no recourse.

 

[elementary]

She was also the one who decided to make her identity known by doing media interviews. I don't question her motives but I wonder how viable this lawsuit really is. I would think she would have to prove that Casey was talking about her and not anyone else with the same name, prove there were actual damages and that her own actions in talking with the media didn't help bring about those damages.

Well, that's the point of the suit, I guess, to find out if it is viable, to hear the arguments. Meanwhile, I guess the countersuit is that it is frivolous. Why is BC looking at protection for the A's (and what about LA)?; the idea that the depos will become public doesn't seem a substantial enough argument to me. I also don't see how that would humiliate the A's as someone suggested.

 

[gardenhart]

Oh baloney, Broderick.

No, if Florida is, like Virginia, a Right to Work state he's right.

 

[Broderick]

No, if Florida is, like Virginia, a Right to Work state he's right.

Florida is all three.

At will.
Right to work.
No implied contract.

Good state for employers.


One explicit caveat is that I as an employer I can be sued if I advertise a firing for malicious reason, such as if I fire someone and tell all other potential employers I caught them stealing. If there is no conviction to said offense, it falls into libel and slander statutes.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I'm still just a scratchin my head as to why the A's and LA would want a PO KC yes absolutely. She has the right to not incriminate herself, but the others what could they possible know. If they never say the imaginary nanny or ect. what really what is going to come out. The only questions they can ask of them is concerning the case at hand correct??? Nothing else?????

Me too! The only basis they would have for taking the 5th, I assume, would be to not incriminate themselves. So, I am guessing that they are concerned that their testimony could be used against them for accessory or OJ charges? Or, that they don't have a basis for trying to take the 5th, and are just using it as an excuse to try to get out of giving any evidence that might hurt KC?

 

[Chilly Willy]

Well, that's the point of the suit, I guess, to find out if it is viable, to hear the arguments. Meanwhile, I guess the countersuit is that it is frivolous. Why is BC looking at protection for the A's (and what about LA)?; the idea that the depos will become public doesn't seem a substantial enough argument to me. I also don't see how that would humiliate the A's as someone suggested.

Morgan has said that he intends to invite the media to the depos. To me that cries circus. BC is perfectly correct, IMO, to seek protection. This is not a game.

 

[Broderick]

Me too! The only basis they would have for taking the 5th, I assume, would be to not incriminate themselves. So, I am guessing that they are concerned that their testimony could be used against them for accessory or OJ charges? Or, that they don't have a basis for trying to take the 5th, and are just using it as an excuse to tryg to get out of giving any evidence that might hurt KC?

I love what Morgan is doing. He wants one small exoneration from someone and NONE are willing to give it. Casey could easily say that this particular person is not the person, but they can't even do that. Morgan knows exactly what he is doing and it has them all running for cover.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Again, there is no recourse in an at will state. Perhaps a little research would benefit you so you aren't hanging on to what isn't there. There are only a few ways she could sue her employer and being fired as a distraction is not one of them. That is not discrimination, perhaps that is something to research as well. If there were possible recourse she could do so, but trust me there is none. If you work for me, and you are labeled a potential killer and I don't like the exposure, I can fire you any ole time I please.

I have been sued for one EEOC violation and I won without even having to go to mediation. I have fired more people than most businesses have working for them. If I don't like the way you comb your hair I can fire you. As long as I don't violate "discrimination" laws and I don't have a contract with you. You can also quit if you desire with no consequence either, barring you didn't sign a no-compete clause for additional funds that I will ruin your life with.

Thank you for explaining that for us. I appreciate it.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Morgan has said that he intends to invite the media to the depos. To me that cries circus. BC is perfectly correct, IMO, to seek protection. This is not a game.

What do you think his legal basis is for getting protection? The legislation is quite specific and I don't see how they fall within it.

 

[Chilly Willy]

What do you think his legal basis is for getting protection? The legislation is quite specific and I don't see how they fall within it.

I don't know what the law says about an attorney attempting to turn a deposition into a game show starring himself as the emcee. I just know it's wrong and I hope BC is successful in stopping the circus before it starts.

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

I don't know what the law says about an attorney attempting to turn a deposition into a game show starring himself as the emcee. I just know it's wrong and I hope BC is successful in stopping the circus before it starts.

The thread is about a protection order....he wants their testimony kept private, when ordinarily it would not be. Someone has cut and pasted the applicable law to the thread here somewhere.