Deflate-Gate

[mmack66]

Of destruction of evidence that was directed for an investigation. Brady could have said no to the request but preserved the cell phone. But destroying the cell phone raises the presumption that something there was against his interests. From uslegal:

If a person negligently or intentionally withholds or destroys relevant information that will be required in an action is liable for spoliation of evidence.When a crucial document is lost by spoliation, the courts may try to infer the original information by applying spoliation inference rule. Spoliation inference rule is a negative evidentiary inference. When applying the rule, courts will review the altered document with inference against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party. The theory behind spoliation inference is that when a party has destroyed evidence, it shows that the party had consciousness of guilt or other reasons to avoid evidence. Hence, the court will conclude that the evidence was not in spoliator’s favor.- See more at: http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/discovery/spoliation-of-evidence/#sthash.6pk7GGAR.dpuf


​

Tom Brady was under no legal obligation to provide his phone, or its contents, to the investigators.

The NFL wants people to believe that the phone was deliberately destroyed, and Tom Brady says the phone was broken. I tend to side with the party that hasn't continually lied, and leaked false information throughout this whole debacle, and that side isn't the NFL.

Regardless, he provided the information from the phone that they requested. They knew at the time of the investigation that he was not going to hand over his phone, nor did they want him to. Whether the phone was destroyed or broken was immaterial to his suspension, since they didn't know it was broken until the appeal hearing.

Since physically possessing the phone was immaterial to his suspension, the condition of the phone at his appeal hearing should have had no bearing on the decision to uphold the suspension.

The NFL has announced that they are going to start being diligent about the air pressure of footballs. As others have suggested, they should have tabled everything until the end of the season, when they would have a better idea of what really happens to the pressure inside of a football during games of varying weather conditions.

 

[Rockminer]

Did the NFL say that the suspension was upheld simply because the phone broke?

 

[ackvil]

Did the NFL say that the suspension was upheld simply because the phone broke?

According to NBC, Brady admitted he destroyed the cell phone. "Although characterized as Brady’s habit when purchasing a new cell phone, Goodell’s ruling explains that Brady knew that Ted Wells and company wanted to examine the phone that was coincidentally destroyed and replaced on March 6, the same day that Brady met with Wells. Brady, per Goodell, never suggested that the cell phone had been (or would be) destroyed during that meeting.
It’s a very bad look for Brady, and it’s a highly questionable tactic to affirmatively admit that the phone was destroyed in materials submitted to Goodell in connection with the appeal. As a result, Brady’s receipt of bad advice or his deliberate decision to ignore good advice has now extended from the decision not to accept the invitation to allow lawyer/agent Don Yee to personally review the text messages from the phone to the decision to admit that the cell phone was destroyed."

Again, Brady should have preserved the cell phone whether or not it was broken and allow Yee to review the text messages or to ask for a ruling concerning its admissibility. By doing what he did Brady took unilateral action and as a result an adverse adverse presumption can be drawn despite the protestations of Brady, the Players Assn., or his fans.

 

[Rockminer]

Completely agree Jim

 

[sub vet]

So I guess I'm to believe a pro quarterback that has likely handled several thousand, maybe tens of thousands, of footballs over his career can't detect a soft ball? And when was that Easter Bunny coming back?

 

[mmack66]

So I guess I'm to believe a pro quarterback that has likely handled several thousand, maybe tens of thousands, of footballs over his career can't detect a soft ball? And when was that Easter Bunny coming back?

I don't know, but what does that have to do with anything? The referees, you know, the guys responsible for enforcing the rules, handle the footballs all of the time as well, but they didn't seem to notice anything either.

The Easter Bunny will be back some time next Spring.

 

[mmack66]

Did the NFL say that the suspension was upheld simply because the phone broke?

Roger Goodell did, though the way he characterizes it the phone was deliberately destroyed to hide evidence.

 

[ackvil]

I really wonder who counseled Tom Brady.

When I represented companies I always told them to preserve all evidence and documents - even if they may be harmful - as soon as you think a civil, criminal, or administrative case would be brought. If the documents or evidence existed at least you could offer an explanation. But if you destroyed them your hands are tied since there is a duty to preserve documents or evidence when one party has knowledge of litigation or possible litigation and the documents or evidence are relevant.

For example, in Blinzler v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 81 F.3d 1148 (1st Cir. 1996) a Marriott guest suffered heart attack and died. The Estate brought suit alleging Marriott staff was too slow in summoning medical care. Outgoing telephone logs from the night of the incident were destroyed before suit was brought in accord with the Company’s record retention policy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “When the evidence indicates that a party is aware of circumstances that are likely to give rise to future litigation and yet destroys potentially relevant records without particularized inquiry, a fact-finder may reasonably infer that the party probably did so because the records would harm its case.”

In another case, Southeastern Medical Services, Inc., v. Brody, 657 F. Supp. 2d 1293, the court imposed sanctions when individuals deleted texts and emails from Blackberry devices at a time when they knew or should have known of litigation. The individuals claimed there was nothing incriminating on the texts and emails and that they did not do any wiping of the devices. The Court ruled: “…SMS is entitled to an appropriate adverse inference jury instruction regarding Individual Defendants' failure to preserve data on their BlackBerries that would have been advantageous to SMS and disadvantageous to Individual Defendants.” In other words, the jury would be instructed that they could assume the evidence that was cleaned from the Blackberries was harmful to them.

 

[mmack66]

I really wonder who counseled Tom Brady.

When I represented companies I always told them to preserve all evidence and documents - even if they may be harmful - as soon as you think a civil, criminal, or administrative case would be brought. If the documents or evidence existed at least you could offer an explanation. But if you destroyed them your hands are tied since there is a duty to preserve documents or evidence when one party has knowledge of litigation or possible litigation and the documents or evidence are relevant.

For example, in Blinzler v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 81 F.3d 1148 (1st Cir. 1996) a Marriott guest suffered heart attack and died. The Estate brought suit alleging Marriott staff was too slow in summoning medical care. Outgoing telephone logs from the night of the incident were destroyed before suit was brought in accord with the Company’s record retention policy. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “When the evidence indicates that a party is aware of circumstances that are likely to give rise to future litigation and yet destroys potentially relevant records without particularized inquiry, a fact-finder may reasonably infer that the party probably did so because the records would harm its case.”

In another case, Southeastern Medical Services, Inc., v. Brody, 657 F. Supp. 2d 1293, the court imposed sanctions when individuals deleted texts and emails from Blackberry devices at a time when they knew or should have known of litigation. The individuals claimed there was nothing incriminating on the texts and emails and that they did not do any wiping of the devices. The Court ruled: “…SMS is entitled to an appropriate adverse inference jury instruction regarding Individual Defendants' failure to preserve data on their BlackBerries that would have been advantageous to SMS and disadvantageous to Individual Defendants.” In other words, the jury would be instructed that they could assume the evidence that was cleaned from the Blackberries was harmful to them.

You keep talking about court and litigation. Tom Brady and/or his attorney stated to Ted Wells during the initial investigation that he wasn't going to turn over his phone or the electronic contents of the phone. They had no power to compel him to turn it over then, or at any time in the future, so there is no reason for him to have preserved the phone.

At this point, the phone is no longer an issue, as any further litigation will deal with how the NFL inappropriately disciplined Tom Brady, according to the rules of the CBA.

 

[ackvil]

You keep talking about court and litigation. Tom Brady and/or his attorney stated to Ted Wells during the initial investigation that he wasn't going to turn over his phone or the electronic contents of the phone. They had no power to compel him to turn it over then, or at any time in the future, so there is no reason for him to have preserved the phone.

At this point, the phone is no longer an issue, as any further litigation will deal with how the NFL inappropriately disciplined Tom Brady, according to the rules of the CBA.

If they were unwilling to turn over the phone and then destroyed it, it then follows IMHO that the Commissioner could reasonably assume that there was evidence on it that was harmful to Brady and the Patriots. It will then be up to a court to decide if the penalties were out of line. The NFLPA's court filing appears to claim Goodell was not impartial and that Brady did not have notice of the rule in question.

 

[StillShaving]

You keep talking about court and litigation. Tom Brady and/or his attorney stated to Ted Wells during the initial investigation that he wasn't going to turn over his phone or the electronic contents of the phone. They had no power to compel him to turn it over then, or at any time in the future, so there is no reason for him to have preserved the phone.

At this point, the phone is no longer an issue, as any further litigation will deal with how the NFL inappropriately disciplined Tom Brady, according to the rules of the CBA.

Since this is not a criminal court, why should the standard for punishment be proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Especially when the central person involved is not cooperating with the investigation.

This is not the point you are making but I read other sources saying the 4 game suspension should not stand because punishment for tampering with balls was not spelled out to players beforehand. As if every potential misdeed should be spelled out.

 

[Jaybeez]

The NFLPA traded away their right to argue with Goodell, and are now trying to re-negotiate via the court of public opinion.

Personally, I'm done with the NFL. With all the corruption in the NCAA I'm done with college sports as well.

Time to go watch me some High School sporting events. Likely soon to be completely ruined under the weight of corrupt officials, coaches and league officials ...

 

[mmack66]

Since this is not a criminal court, why should the standard for punishment be proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Especially when the central person involved is not cooperating with the investigation.

This is not the point you are making but I read other sources saying the 4 game suspension should not stand because punishment for tampering with balls was not spelled out to players beforehand. As if every potential misdeed should be spelled out.

Brady is saying that he was not informed that by not turning over his personal phone, or the relevant contents of the phone, something that he was not required to do, he would face suspension. Since there has never been a suspension of a player for refusing to cooperate with an NFL investigation, I guess he thought he was good.

Basically, the NFL turned the whole affair into a debacle from the start, and have only worsened the situation by their overwhelming incompetence. There is absolutely no credible evidence that anyone was told by Tom Brady to let air out of the footballs, to a level below the league minimum, or that the footballs used in the AFCCG had air deliberately let out of them.

The 54 page petition filed by the NFLPA details all of the actions performed by Roger Goodell and the league office that went directly against what he was allowed to do according to the CBA.

 

[mmack66]

The NFLPA traded away their right to argue with Goodell, and are now trying to re-negotiate via the court of public opinion.

They didn't trade anything away, but they do have a reasonable expectation that the commissioner of the league is going to follow the rules spelled out in the CBA.

 

[Jaybeez]

They didn't trade anything away, but they do have a reasonable expectation that the commissioner of the league is going to follow the rules spelled out in the CBA.

As a fan, my bias is that the commish is going to take whatever steps necessary to keep the sport clean. If I want to watch manipulated "sports" I'll tune in to WWE

 

[mmack66]

Well, that's all well and good, but the commissioner doesn't have the authority to turn into a Roman Emperor, and dispense justice as he sees fit.

They have actual footage of footballs being heated, on the sidelines, during a game. Heating footballs is against the rules. Gives a competitive edge. Did that result in a huge controversy, sparking a high-priced investigation? Nope. Both teams just got a warning, and a memo was sent out to the teams telling them not to warm footballs. And that was a situation that had actual evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[Seraphim]

OVERTURNED!!!


Bite it, Goodell and your cronies!


What a sham.

 

[jpakstis]

A truly great day! Its like winning the Super Bowl all over again. Today almost makes the last seven ridiculous months worth it. Its going to be great to watch all the mediots like Lester Munsion, Bart Hubboch, et al, have to eat their words and squirm their way out of it. I'm reading Judge Berman's decision right now and he couldn't be any more contemptuous of the NFL.

 

[garyg]

The sham is that federal dollars were spent on this. The NFL owners should be required to pay the cost of this, rather than the US taxpayer. In skimming the opinion I see that although the Judge threw out the penalty on legal technicalities, he seems to accept that Brady cheated.

 

[Seraphim]

May have cheated.