News: PFT: Marriott tries to dismiss Michael Irvin's lawsuit, claims he made "harassing and inappropriate comments"

[MarcusRock]

No. The defense might already know who she is. I think you are interpreting it the way you want to. I quoted what had to be turned over already directly from an article. Her identity will come out eventually regardless if the lawsuit has merit.

The defense might and they might not. All I know is they can do more to protect her identity than just redacting her name in reports so I'm not sure what other way there is to interpret that because I clearly read an "AND" in the ruling and didn't see limitations on what they could do to protect her identity. So that might extend to blurring her out of any video. Given the judge legitimizing Marriott's concern, why wouldn't anything that could reveal her identity, like this much sought after video, not come with protections for her? No emotions, just logic.

 

[Merlin]

The defense might and they might not. All I know is they can do more to protect her identity than just redacting her name in reports so I'm not sure what other way there is to interpret that because I clearly read an "AND" in the ruling and didn't see limitations on what they could do to protect her identity. So that might extend to blurring her out of any video. Given the judge legitimizing Marriott's concern, why wouldn't anything that could reveal her identity, like this much sought after video, not come with protections for her? No emotions, just logic.

His concern was for the public learning her identity at this point. But read into it what you will.

 

[kskboys]

I’m not really sure how some aren’t more suspect of an individual with Irvin’s history?

If you want to argue about how these accusations in general in todays society are out of control along with the sensitivity in our current culture then that’s a fair subject.

But we must remember where we have come from with generations past where most of this info wasn’t as readily available or went undetected even swept under the rug or in the closet as minorities, women or children were afraid to speak out and file complaints.

It’s exposed an ugly side of our society that’s always been but not as visible . Unfortunately it has also allowed there to be some falsely accused with possibility of opportunistic plaintiffs.

I’d like to think having the ability for this immediate knowledge and access does present some new challenges but it also requires all of us to become more filtered and aware of the words and actions we converse with these more sensitive aspects.

And if you have history of such action whether it’s false accusations or not then you must take action in order to better protect yourself from future accusations. Someone who continues to place themselves in these more vulnerable situations where their actions can be more questionable based on their history then they can fall victim of their own doing.

Look who fell for the witch hunt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's even more shocking how you're so willing to convict w/o facts.

 

[MarcusRock]

His concern was for the public learning her identity at this point. But read into it what you will.

And that is exactly what I was speaking to. Glad you agree.

 

[Merlin]

Marriott said in it's response to the expedited discovery that the video couldn't be redacted. Unless they made that up. Around page 14.
https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...sne-to-motion-to-dismiss?responsive=1&title=1

 

[MarcusRock]

Marriott said in it's response to the expedited discovery that the video couldn't be redacted. Unless they made that up. Around page 14.
https://www.documentcloud.org/docum...sne-to-motion-to-dismiss?responsive=1&title=1

And Irvin's side also said he's suffered over $100M in damages. Yes, I believe both sides' reality-bending claims to further their own case, lol.

This was filed the day before the judge said Marriott had to turn over the video but also said Marriott's concerns about privacy were "well-founded" and thus could redact the name from reports AND take other measures to protect her identity. Perhaps that can include blurring her in their video. A suggested measure. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm no law guy and all but I do pretty well with logic.

 

[Merlin]

And Irvin's side also said he's suffered over $100M in damages. Yes, I believe both sides' reality-bending claims to further their own case, lol.

This was filed the day before the judge said Marriott had to turn over the video but also said Marriott's concerns about privacy were "well-founded" and thus could redact the name from reports AND take other measures to protect her identity. Perhaps that can include blurring her in their video. A suggested measure. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's what trial lawyers do. Standard practice. Nothing unusual. You totally ignored where Marriott said the video couldn't be redacted. The judge specifically said her name should be redacted, not anything about blurring the video. Her identity will eventually come out if this goes to trial. You think they can hide her forever?

But Marriott might file an objection so it's possible that the video and other records won't be produced. So believe whatever you want.

 

[MarcusRock]

That's what trial lawyers do. Standard practice. Nothing unusual. You totally ignored where Marriott said the video couldn't be redacted.

I didn't ignore it. That was their claim in their "woe is us, we can't give this up" statement. Standard practice, right? The judge has now legitimized at least some of that and gave them means to protect her identity via redacting in reports AND other measures with no limits that I saw. That could extend to several things, video being one of them, I'm guessing. I mean, unless you have a list of what they'll use that leeway for.

 

[Merlin]

I didn't ignore it. That was their claim in their "woe is us, we can't give this up" statement. Standard practice, right? The judge has now legitimized at least some of that and gave them means to protect her identity via redacting in reports AND other measures with no limits that I saw. That could extend to several things, video being one of them, I'm guessing. I mean, unless you have a list of what they'll use that leeway for.

They made a statement to the Court that the video couldn't be redacted. I don't know why they would lie about that. Definitely not standard practice if that's what you are suggesting.

 

[Diehardblues]

That's what trial lawyers do. Standard practice. Nothing unusual. You totally ignored where Marriott said the video couldn't be redacted. The judge specifically said her name should be redacted, not anything about blurring the video. Her identity will eventually come out if this goes to trial. You think they can hide her forever?

Hopefully this never goes to trial and her identity isn’t publicly exposed. Sounds like she was just an employee doing her job. If there’s any pushback it would fall on Marriott for how they handled the complaint.

There’s been no criminal charges against Irvin. His misconduct or inappropriate behavior just got him moved to another hotel.

If it wasn’t a celebrity no one would have needed to know. Besides Irvin throwing a tantrum over this he might could have salvaged his position at NFLN without near as much fanfare as this has brought.

 

[MarcusRock]

They made a statement to the Court that the video couldn't be redacted. I don't know why they would lie about that. Definitely not standard practice if that's what you are suggesting.

Well past that statement they were given redaction AND other means to protect her identity because the judge heard them and agreed. I'm pretty sure they'll be exploring all options, including what might be done to the video especially since they were concerned about Irvin's side releasing it to the public. That'd be a good place to object.

 

[Merlin]

Well past that statement they were given redaction AND other means to protect her identity because the judge heard them and agreed. I'm pretty sure they'll be exploring all options, including what might be done to the video especially since they were concerned about Irvin's side releasing it to the public. That'd be a good place to object.

Her name redacted from written reports means just that. You are speculating on what you suggested.

 

[MarcusRock]

Her name redacted from written reports means just that. You are speculating on what you suggested.

Redaction from written reports is just one of the things they're allowed to do to protect her identity, hence the AND in the judge's statement you seem to not want to acknowledge. And yes, I'm speculating what that "AND" could involve because it was given with no specifics or limits beyond protecting the woman's identity. But you keep doing that "independent law guy" thing and I'll believe you don't have vested interest one way or another. Lol.

 

[Merlin]

Her identity will come out eventually. They are going to despose her. Her allegations are central to the case. She will have to testify. Unless Marriott chooses to settle or the lawsuit is dismissed.

Not even sure it makes sense to alter the video. They need to see her reaction and mouth movements. You alter that and you won't be able to get much insight. Irvin's attorney was pleased with the Court's ruling. He wouldn't be pleased with an altered video IMO.

 

[Merlin]

Redaction from written reports is just one of the things they're allowed to do to protect her identity, hence the AND in the judge's statement you seem to not want to acknowledge. And yes, I'm speculating what that "AND" could involve because it was given with no specifics or limits beyond protecting the woman's identity. But you keep doing that "independent law guy" thing and I'll believe you don't have vested interest one way or another. Lol.

I actually have a legal background. It's obvious you don't so there's that. So keep your speculation up on what you interpreted based your limited legal knowledge.

 

[gtb1943]

Marriot looks to be digging itself a rather deep hole

This whole thing about protecting her identity is so hypocritical. Her identity WILL get out; no matter what. and this sort of thing to be blunt facilitates false accusations.

 

[CouchCoach]

Marriot looks to be digging itself a rather deep hole

This whole thing about protecting her identity is so hypocritical. Her identity WILL get out; no matter what. and this sort of thing to be blunt facilitates false accusations.

They have thousands of employees that are watching this closely. Protecting her for doing her job is crucial for their lawyers.

 

[MarcusRock]

I actually have a legal background. It's obvious you don't so there's that. So keep your speculation up on what you interpreted based your limited legal knowledge.

Did the part where I mentioned in this thread several times that "I'm no.law guy but ..." give that away? Sharp, I tells ya.

And yes I will continue to speculate as many do on a message board. It beats coming in here chiding people for speculating only to join in on it with the best of us. As a guy purporting to be all about the facts one would think you'd be thrilled to learn that there was more allowed to Marriott beyond just redaction of the accuser's name in documents. But you not only got salty because it wasn't 100% favorable to your guy Irvin, but then repeatedly tried to ignore this new fact altogether. Lawyers gonna lawyer I guess. And you're welcome for the source that allowed you to post Marriott's response to the items for discovery. Ungrateful bastid, lol.

 

[MarcusRock]

They have thousands of employees that are watching this closely. Protecting her for doing her job is crucial for their lawyers.

If they represent the workers, I'm sure unions are intently watching this as well. They'd be the first ones on the bullhorn to their members and the public if Marriott doesn't back this employee. So it's an external and internal PR risk for them.

 

[Diehardblues]

Did the part where I mentioned in this thread several times that "I'm no.law guy but ..." give that away? Sharp, I tells ya.

And yes I will continue to speculate as many do on a message board. It beats coming in here chiding people for speculating only to join in on it with the best of us. As a guy purporting to be all about the facts one would think you'd be thrilled to learn that there was more allowed to Marriott beyond just redaction of the accuser's name in documents. But you not only got salty because it wasn't 100% favorable to your guy Irvin, but then repeatedly tried to ignore this new fact altogether. Lawyers gonna lawyer I guess. And you're welcome for the source that allowed you to post Marriott's response to the items for discovery. Ungrateful bastid, lol.

We welcome any legal background or insight he may have but unfortunately on an anonymous forum setting as such he’s just another opinion like ours .