BAMANEWSBOT
Staff
In a biting critique of the NCAA, a California court denied the association's appeal to seal the investigative case file in the famous USC case from earlier this decade.
More than two years ago a Los Angeles Superior Court judge said documents in the fileātend to show ill will or hatredā toward former USC assistant Todd McNair who had sued the NCAA. That prompted the judge to rule the 700-page plus case file must be released publicly because of an apparent bias against McNair.
The NCAA lost an appeal of that ruling on Friday. The case file remains closed. The NCAA can still petition the appellate court for a rehearing and ask the California Supreme Court to hear its case. The Los Angeles Times and New York Times remain partners in asking the California Second Appellate Court to make the documents public.
McNair filed a defamation lawsuit against the NCAA in 2011 after the association accused him of unethical conduct during the landmark USC case. McNair's appeal to the NCAA regarding his complicity in the case had been rejected.
McNair has not worked in college football since that time. Unsealing the case would shed light on what is one of the most controversial enforcement cases in NCAA history.
The NCAA released a statement Friday: āThe NCAA remains fully committed to its obligation to member schools, student-athletes, and third-parties to protect the confidentiality of the infractions process. As such we are considering our options in light of the court's decision.ā
In denying the appeal, the California court recognized āthe public's First Amendment rightā to access documents used at trial. The NCAA had argued that unsealing the case file would compromise its ability to conduct confidential investigations.
The court cited several points against the NCAA ā¦
ā¢That there is no āoverriding interest supporting sealing of the records ā¦ā
ā¢That confidentiality agreements are signed by participants in an NCAA investigation āuntil [penalties] have been announced.ā
ā¢Unsealing the file might compel NCAA investigators and the infractions committee tomore precise methods in the investigative procedures instead of hampering them.
ā¢NCAA investigations have been subject to public scrutiny in the past. The court specifically cited University of Kentucky vs. Courier-Journal and NCAA vs. Associated Press.
In both those cases, investigative files were released.
Continue reading...
More than two years ago a Los Angeles Superior Court judge said documents in the fileātend to show ill will or hatredā toward former USC assistant Todd McNair who had sued the NCAA. That prompted the judge to rule the 700-page plus case file must be released publicly because of an apparent bias against McNair.
The NCAA lost an appeal of that ruling on Friday. The case file remains closed. The NCAA can still petition the appellate court for a rehearing and ask the California Supreme Court to hear its case. The Los Angeles Times and New York Times remain partners in asking the California Second Appellate Court to make the documents public.
McNair filed a defamation lawsuit against the NCAA in 2011 after the association accused him of unethical conduct during the landmark USC case. McNair's appeal to the NCAA regarding his complicity in the case had been rejected.
McNair has not worked in college football since that time. Unsealing the case would shed light on what is one of the most controversial enforcement cases in NCAA history.
The NCAA released a statement Friday: āThe NCAA remains fully committed to its obligation to member schools, student-athletes, and third-parties to protect the confidentiality of the infractions process. As such we are considering our options in light of the court's decision.ā
In denying the appeal, the California court recognized āthe public's First Amendment rightā to access documents used at trial. The NCAA had argued that unsealing the case file would compromise its ability to conduct confidential investigations.
The court cited several points against the NCAA ā¦
ā¢That there is no āoverriding interest supporting sealing of the records ā¦ā
ā¢That confidentiality agreements are signed by participants in an NCAA investigation āuntil [penalties] have been announced.ā
ā¢Unsealing the file might compel NCAA investigators and the infractions committee tomore precise methods in the investigative procedures instead of hampering them.
ā¢NCAA investigations have been subject to public scrutiny in the past. The court specifically cited University of Kentucky vs. Courier-Journal and NCAA vs. Associated Press.
In both those cases, investigative files were released.
Continue reading...
