Bushgate update - the attempted deposition

by bruinhoo on Jun 5, 2008 8:56 PM PDT Comment 22 comments

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

In the ongoing saga of Reggie Bush and his one-time relationship with the aspiring sports agents/marketers of New Era Sports, New Era partner Lloyd Lake had been scheduled to give a deposition today in San Diego. While this meeting was not interrupted by Bush's armed posse, Reggie did find a new way to cut this one short.

Yahoo Sports reports that at the start of Lake's deposition, counsel for Bush filed a motion which would have effectively barred Lake from talking, under a theory that the settlement reached last year between Bush's parents and New Era partner Michael Michaels (regarding allegations that Mr and Mrs Bush received approximately $300,000 in benefits from the firm) prevents Lake from giving testimony regarding Bush's relationship with Lake and New Era

Proceedings halted less than 10 minutes after Lake’s deposition was to begin. Bush’s attorney David Cornwell said the motion was to compel Lake to adhere to the terms of the settlement reached between Michaels and Bush’s parents – LaMar and Denise Griffin.

An irritated Superior Court Judge Joan M. Lewis admonished both sides, but ultimately agreed to postpone all depositions in the case and schedule a hearing for Aug. 1 to discuss the motion.

The motion filed by Bush's counsel is the first confirmation of the previously reported settlement between Michaels and Bush's family; while the general discussion regarding the continuing course of litigation between Bush and Lake has presupposed that Lake is free to testify as to his relationship with Bush (and as rumors of settlement offers between the parties may support), counsel is now asserting that: 1) Lake is bound by the settlement between Michaels and Bush's family, and 2) Bush is covered under the settlement as an "intended beneficiary" of the settlement.

Cornwell [ed. Bush's counsel] said the settlement with Michaels included Bush as an “intended beneficiary” of Michaels, releasing the family of any liabilities. A copy of the settlement filed with the court was heavily edited, removing almost all detail of the transaction.

My own knowledge of Civil Procedure, Depos, and other relevant law covering this sort of settlement in California is limited, so anyone that can shed some light, please feel free.

The big point to come out of this, at least as the agreement is interpreted by Lake and his counsel, is that Bush and/or his family did take money from New Era.

“They’re conceding that they received this money,” Lake’s attorney Brian Watkins said. “But now their argument is that: ‘We got this money, but we paid it back already. We paid it to Michaels and that satisfied Lloyd’s debts.”

Lake was more succinct.

“The key thing is (they said) they never took money before,” Lake said. “Now, they’re saying they did.”

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

6 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I read a brief blurb about this in the LA Times

it is clear to me that Bush’s defense team is akin to many appeals cases for men on death row. they just want to delay delay delay and by the time the courts finally come to the conclusion everybody saw coming twenty years ago, the defendant has lived a long life, essentially making the penalty a moot point.

Also, the LA Times blurb, hidden way in the back in a little paragraph or two mentioned that Watkins, Lake’s attorney, was filing a motion to compel the deposition to move forward as soon as Monday.

Tune in Tomorrow for another edition of “As Reggie’s World turns”

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Jun 5, 2008 9:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't see how they can put a redacted document before

the Court and ask for an interpretation of it. And I don’t see how they can ask the Court to review something like this in chambers. I think an unredacted version is eventually going to have to be attached to a pleading somewhere.

And it will be interesting to see how the “intended beneficiary” business is going to play. That’s thin, given that all of the parties seem to have been aware of the identify of this Reggie bu$h guy and his role in everything. If they wanted him to be a beneficiary of some settlement deal, then they should have included some language about him in the deal. Who knows – maybe they did.

by Fox 71 on Jun 5, 2008 10:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

They are going to have problems seeking a determination on a heavily redacted document. It’s also not clear whether or not they filed a motion to seal, but, even if they did, they will have trouble showing the “overriding interest” required (see 110 Cal. App. 4th 1273, 1283 my lawyer friends). I suspect it won’t get that far, as the motion will fail for other more obvious reasons (e.g. that Lake didn’t sign it), but who knows.

by Menelaus on Jun 6, 2008 10:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read the case

It seems to me that all of the details of the deal with bu$h’s parents are known with maybe one exception – how much bu$h actually knew about it (and by inference how much justsc institutionally knew about it.) I can’t see any overiding interest in keeping the stuff secret. It might cause embarrassment, but the embarrassment to a perp doing “the perp walk” is not something that the law has an overriding interest in protecting.

And re sanctions, I’m confident that the lawyer won’t pay a nickel out of his pocket. He has probably made it clear to bu$h that if he’s sanctioned (as he surely should be), reggie has to pay it. And if it’s a discovery sanction, it’s not reportable to the Bar. bu$h can afford more sanctions than I’ve ever seen a judge impose.

by Fox 71 on Jun 6, 2008 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting

Doesn’t an intended beneficiary usually have to be named in the contract? You’re right, Fox, maybe they did. It does seem problematic to me to try and support this particular argument with a redacted document. (I’m assuming that, if Reggie’s name is in the document, it is one of redacted items.)

Love My Bruins

by Bruingirl83 on Jun 6, 2008 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don't have to be named, just identified somehow

like “this obligations of X to repair the house run to the current owner, Y, and any of his successors in interest.”

But generally, if you know who the people are, you put in their names. It’s supremely poor drafting if you want something to benefit someone, but neglect to put that person’s name in.

by Fox 71 on Jun 6, 2008 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Admittedly, I'm just a corporate lawyer

but can someone please explain to me how Lake is bound by a document that he did not sign? Even if Bush is an intended third party beneficiary, Lake has no obligation to keep any settlement information confidential.

Are they saying that any information Lake has on the subject necessarily came from Michaels, and therefore it is akin to being “fruit of the poisonous tree”? Okay then, let’s treat it as such. But the remedy in that situation is not an injunction to prevent disclosure, the remedy is that it is not admissible at trial.

Moreover, this motion strikes me as premature at best and too speculative to grant at worst. If the settlement truly was confidential, how does Lake even know what the terms of the settlement were (including the NDA provisions)? If he doesn’t know what the terms were, how can he know that what he is saying is somehow breaching the terms of the settlement?

I fail to see how any judge would not severely rebuke a lawyer for bringing this motion (if not sanction them), let alone even entertain the idea of setting this for calendar. Just bizarre.

by Koach Karl I on Jun 6, 2008 9:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

A real disconnect

I had the same impression: who cares if Bush is an “intended beneficiary”?

If Lake gave him gifts separate from Michaels, which I believe is the allegation, and Lake didn’t sign any release or confidentiality agreement, how can Lake possibly be bound?

And, obviously, if it’s a motion to compel arbitration, as it seems, they are playing procedural games, trying to bootstrap the confidentiality through the arbitration provision presumably in the Michaels agreement.

I hope Bush’s lawyer brings his check book to court in August. If I was the judge, he’d need it.

by Menelaus on Jun 6, 2008 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Glad its not just me...

that has no clue with this lawyer is trying to pull. That had me afraid for a moment that I, as Tom Cruise said in “A Few Good Men”, missed the day they taught law in law school.

by bruinhoo on Jun 8, 2008 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember the poisonous tree

That was Wong Sun! How’s that for digging out a memory from to law school in the 70’s!

by Fox 71 on Jun 6, 2008 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

all i did in the 70s

was drop acid and eat mushrooms.

by Koach Karl I on Jun 6, 2008 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And your mind...

Is probably less damaged than the atrophied mind of the abogado.

by Bruins102NCAA on Jun 8, 2008 1:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So, let me get this straight

FOR INFORMATIVE PURPOSES ONLY, I am not a lawyer but merely a law student. The information presented here is not intended to serve as legal advice nor can I provide legal advice.

Michaels and Lake had a partnership; so Michaels signing something with Bush binds Lake? Forgive my immature legal mind but doesn’t that assume a number of factors?

1. That there was an actual partnership and that Michaels and Lake had not limited their relationship by contract or other agreement. That is, I would assume that they would have to have an agreement giving Michaels the ability to enter into an agreement with a third-party (Bush) without Lake’s consent, vote or signature. Every partner must be consulted in partnership decisions (UPA) and every partner has the right to participate in management (RUPA).

2. If there is no such K, all partners have equal rights in the management and conduct of the business of the partnership. Assuming that there are only two partners, Michaels and Lake, and if the two can’t agree, the remedy is dissolution. Again this is assuming that the agreement between Michaels and Bush concerns an “ordinary matter” in connection with the partnership business.

So, if Lake had a vote and wasn’t able to, would the partnership be dissolved at that point? Then would the subsequent settlement agreement not have bound Lake? Also, if Michaels had other partners who agreed with him and who formed a majority, is this an ordinary matter?

3. Assuming that the partnership survived all of this and the settlement bound Lake, Lake would get a share of the money from the agreement. Michaels might not like that idea. Would the court modify the settlement agreement to incorporate Lake’s losses?

4. What about the duty of loyalty and so forth? What about the fiduciary duty owed to Lake by Michaels? Doesn’t Meinhard v. Salmon, with that famous quote from Justice Cardozo state that fiduciaries are bound to act with a "punctilio of an honor."

I must be missing something here because I am completely confused as to what is going on. Sounds like a BS motion to me but like I said, I have an immature legal mind.

by Bruins102NCAA on Jun 8, 2008 2:31 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Iggorant Lawyering Question

I daresay one does not find such dissection of a rival school athletic program’s problems in many sports blogs. And the discomfort it is causing in Condomland is a source of interminable glee for me.

But!

Just one question for an aging business major (whose only law class was business law taken one idyllic summer at UH): How did “K” come to mean contract?

And another: Is it merely a short acronym/abbreviation for contract or is there more to it?

..as the condomites are wont to say these days, “Litigate On!“

by WHP '68 on Jun 8, 2008 3:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'll take a stab at it

K is easy to type.

I suppose, “C” might be confused with “Constitution” or some variation of that as would “con.”

The strangest abbr. is the Greek letter delta for “defendant” and phi for “plaintiff.” Pretty hard with a keyboard, so most of us use D and P respectively.

by Bruins102NCAA on Jun 8, 2008 3:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another Stab

Not sure K started because it was easy to type—most of the law was done long hand at the time it entered the lexicon.

My stab: “C” was used for “consideration” (the concept that there must be something “in the deal” for the parties in the contract).

Best stab: It was an arbitrary designation - just as “C” was arbitrary - a short hand way for those writing long hand to keep up with the lecturer.

Wow. All this on a “sports” blog.

sjh

by Class of 66 on Jun 8, 2008 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

K

There’s all manner of speculation here. I like the phonetic one, with C being pronounced “see” and K “kay.” (I used “C” for Constitution, myself).

by Menelaus on Jun 8, 2008 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can never remember my own abbreviations

So I wrote out “contract” every time, even when a professor wrote K on the board. The only abbreviations that I ever used was when I typed D and P for defendant and plaintiff, but that was only because I always misspelled them in class and I hate that squiggly red line under all my mistakes

by Rhapsode on Jun 8, 2008 11:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

*were

“that I ever used were”

Some days my brain never wakes up.

by Rhapsode on Jun 8, 2008 11:29 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, time

I think I was in one of the last classes or two before everyone went to laptops. It was probably 30% my 1L, 60% 2L and 90% 3L. Then they started doing exams on computer just after I left.

As for my handwritten notes, they are so incomprehensible such as to be a squiggly red line in their entirety.

by Menelaus on Jun 8, 2008 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

It’s Delta for Defendant and PI, not phi, for plaintiff. And my own abbreviations (probably fairly universal) XP for cross-complainant, XD for cross-defendant, XC for cross-complaint, DX for direct examination, XX for cross-examination, DDX for redirect, XXX for re-cross.

There is also an abbreviation which makes sense only in context – POS. “Hey, did you remember to sign the POS” to your secretary is asking her about the Proof Of Service, but “Hey, the idiot on the other side forgot to sign this POS” to your secretary is laughing that the other lawyer actually had the temerety to sign a pleading which is such an utter piece of …..

by Fox 71 on Jun 8, 2008 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs