* Just another example of how the real America is getting gang raped on a pile of broken glass while the story is kept dull, dull, dull…
* It’s not about her, Vinny. It’s about the risibly flimsy grounds upon which the media, academia, and government launched (and continue to perpetrate) the moral panic of a rape epidemic by straight white males. Yes, Jackie was played like a pawn and is–at least partially–a victim as well, but that also needs to be exposed.
* Any lawsuit against the University of Virginia involving this case will subject UVA’s discovery, including all relevant deposition transcripts (which UVA will, of course, demand), to FOIA. So UVA will have to release them.
* Has Jackie publicly acknowledged perpetrating this hoax and apologized to the many people and institutions damaged by it? If not, I don’t see why she is entitled to a break.
* The usual response to a hoax like this that blows up in the face of the SJWs is to say, “Everyone was a victim in this unfortunate matter. Let us put it behind us and speak no more about it.”
Sorry, the people responsible for things like this are ruining other people’s lives. As long as they suffer no repercussions, there’s no reason for them to stop.
* I hope that Eramo gets her millions and that Rolling Stone, if not driven out of business altogether, is more circumspect in future, together with Gawker (in a similar boat) and other such organs following the globalists’ agenda.
* If the public interest required unsealing Jack and Jeri Ryan’s divorce proceedings, then it certainly ought to extend to unsealing Jackie’s deposition.
* Either the judge ordered that the parties were not to release the deposition transcript, or the plaintiff’s attorneys agreed to do so, at least for the time being, so as to not have given Jackie’s attorneys other grounds to object to the deposition being taken. It’s not that unusual for parties in civil litigation to agree to keep discovery materials confidential, and will often over designate.
A third party might have to intervene in the case to have the transcript released if the parties are unwilling to do so. Otherwise, unless the transcript or portions of it are part of a motion or are used at trial, it’s not really a public record, so there’s not a freedom of information act angle.
* Off topic, but point three of your post is also the reason that businesses like to use arbitration to resolve their disputes. Confidential business data is better protected in arbitration than litigation. A very senior British judicial official complained recently tht too much justice was being conducted behind closed doors and blamed arbitration.
* She didn’t give that fraternity at which the claimed the rape took place much of a break. I agree, however, that Jackie is not the principal villain–the author of the piece, Sabrina Rubin Erdely (I think) is either a psychopath or pure, distilled, from the pit of Hell evil, who should never be allowed near a writing instrument of any kind.
* I think that it’s important to expose the personal sickness and distorted cultural values that underlie this case so that other young females and SJWs don’t get so out of control again.
* Anyone at the law firms representing the parties can release the deposition transcript. Carefully, of course. But doubtless any paralegal, secretary, or interested lawyer can likely view the transcript and make a surreptitious copy. Let’s hope they are civic minded.
* You don’t need a separate lawsuit, you’d file a motion to intervene into the case and then object to confidentiality designations as they are made. That’s easier than a lawsuit, and you also would not have to pay the $450 filing fee for a new lawsuit.
A good lawyer would need maybe 6 hours to do the whole thing. If the judge wanted a hearing on the motion, there could be additional time to go to court. So maybe $3,000 on the low side as the cost of hiring someone to do so. It is prestigious to get media clients and fight for open public records, so finding someone to do it at a discount for a journalist might not be too hard. So maybe $1,200, or $200 an hour, taking this into consideration.
The deposition’s confidentiality would fall into three separate levels of protection.
First, any parts of the deposition that were never submitted to the court would not be a public record of any sort. The parties to the case could agree to do whatever they want with the transcript, but would not usually have any reason to release it. Sometimes the whole transcript just gets submitted by one party or another, in which case the whole thing becomes a public record. Sometimes it is just the relevant pages, or none of it.
Second, any parts of the deposition submitted to the court before trial would have a presumption of public access, but it is fairly easy to keep them under seal.
Third, any parts of the deposition used at a trial are very hard, bordering on but not quite impossible, to keep confidential. This is part of the reason why business disputes that last for years in court are often settled right before trial, neither party wants all of their internal financial data and business e-mails put online for all to see. The lawyers for each side have to get together and agree on a trial exhibit list (no “surprise” exhibits are allowed generally, unlike on TV).
Often third party transcripts are not treated carefully because they don’t have lawyers following the case, or don’t have lawyers at all. It seems like both sides probably blame Jackie for their issues, so might not care to keep them secret, and will just do the minimum required.
If I were Jackie, I’d look for an angry spinster SJW attorney to represent me for free, and she’d argue that since Jackie is crazy the deposition is about mental health issues and subject to medical privacy.
To the extent no mainstream journalist doesn’t want to follow the case too aggressively, Ben Shapiro would be a smart anti-SJW attorney who could represent the public interest in open records on the case.
More practically, you can often get a good sense of what is in a deposition filed under seal by reading the briefs that mention it. Again, neither Rolling Stone nor Jackie’s UVA victims have much reason to try to aggressively conceal the contents of her deposition, and may just do the minimum her lawyer required.
* Everyone at the law firms involved signed a confidentiality agreement when they were hired, and would make themselves unemployable if they leaked a confidential document, especially to serve our unpopular “far right” agenda. For this reason this is very unlikely to happen. Probably over 100 people will have access to it, but they probably all prefer continued employment.
If Jackie has no lawyer or a bad one, she may not have conditioned her agreement to a deposition on a protective order. Or a hardass judge might have refused to provide one. In that case, leaking it would still be discouraged, but not violate any confidences, any more than leaking a transcript of a conversation two people had on a bus.
Also, if this is the case, then the transcript can be filed with the court and would go online right away. To get access all you would need to do is pay the $3.00 download fee from the court website.
* Twisted is a word better used to describe “this young woman”. She’s a really sick puppy who inflicted enormous suffering on a group of innocent young men. Only a fanatical, virtue-seeking SJW would even pretend otherwise.
* “You really want this young woman’s scalp. Kind of twisted.”
Yes, only men should have to conform to the established legal & moral norms of our civilization. To expect that of a woman, let alone a young woman, is quite twisted indeed. Girls, after all, are not merely the lowbrow product of snips, snails, and puppy dog tails, and as such, deserve a plethora of rights and privileges not granted to us (male) commoners.
* Are you aware of what this woman, Jackie Last-name-redacted, is doing? She fabricated a story about herself being raped, accused other actual real people (the members of a particular fraternity) of having committed this non-existent crime, and now says that it would be too traumatic for her to dredge up the fake events that never happened which she used to attack the character of other people.
* Reminder that a judge decided to release Cosby’s court depos because they didn’t like Cosby’s comments about black youth.
* In spite of the misogynist feminism of our age (women cast in the image of ersatz males), it is interesting to see movement in the opposite direction; that is, retro-casting females in the traditional role of the “weaker sex” … the perpetual victims of malicious males, the malicious circumstances of life, and, yes, even victims of themselves. Ergo, they need LOTS of protection.
Consistent with this retro-thinking, “Jackie” is evidently calling on the courts to protect her from her own fantasies to save herself from a fit of, we can presume, hysteria, panic, and fainting. How could a sensitive, delicate woman such as “Jackie” otherwise survive such devastating trauma?
