A lawsuit brought forward by eight University of Nebraska football players may yield some answers on what brought about a vote last month to postpone fall sports.
Lancaster County (Nebraska) Judge Susan Strong shortened the discovery period in the lawsuit against the Big Ten Conference to 10 days and limited the documentation the league will be required to hand over.
According to a published article in the Journal Star newspaper by Justin Wan Wednesday, Sept. 2, the Big Ten must provide a copy of its handbook and the results of a vote on Aug. 11 to postpone fall sports. The vote was 11-3 that day.
However, the Big Ten will not have to release items such as medical studies, transcripts, videos, meeting notes or other data related to the vote.
In rendering her decision, Strong noted the requests were too broad for a shortened timeline.
"The Court is also somewhat uneasy about the potential for harassment if the individual votes of Council members are publicly revealed," Strong wrote according to Wan's article. "Indeed, considering that the purpose of the motion is not to prepare for a temporary injunction hearing, the Court wonders if the Plaintiffs are motivated, at least in part, by the hope that Council members will be pressured to change their mind.
"Finally, the plaintiffs moved for expedited discovery far in an advance of the typical discovery process, which is also a factor often considered by federal courts."
The lawsuit was brought forward by Nebraska players Garrett Snodgrass, Garrett Nelson, Ethan Piper, Noa Pola Gates, Alante Brown, Brant Banks, Brig Banks and Jackson Hannah. The players are seeking damages of less that $75,000 and for their fall season to be restored.
A major point of contention in the lawsuit is whether or not there was overwhelming support for postponing the fall sports season. Big Ten Commissioner Kevin Warren has previously said the vote by the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors was "overwhelmingly in support of postponing fall sports and will not be revisited." However, the lawsuit alleges that the council did not vote on whether to cancel football and references University of Minnesota President Joan Gabel and Michigan State University President Samuel Stanley, Jr. as being quoted that the council did not vote on the decision to cancel or postpone the 2020 fall football season, according to Wan's article.
On Aug. 11, less than a week after it released its football schedule, the Big Ten announced it was postponing the 2020-21 fall sports season due to Covid-19 concerns. Eight days later, Commissioner Warren issued an open letter and stated the Big Ten had created a Return to Competition Task Force.
."In evaluating winter/spring models, we will explore many factors including the number of football games that can reasonably be played from a health perspective in a full calendar year while maintaining a premier competitive experience for our student-athletes culminating in a Big Ten Championship," Warren said in the letter.
On Wednesday, Strong wrote that the plaintiffs are not "completely unjustified, and the defendant has already voluntarily provided some information to the plaintiffs on an informal basis. Thus, requiring the defendant to formally produce a limited amount of information is not unduly burdensome and may expedite the resolution of some of the issues in this time-sensitive lawsuit."
The players' lead attorney, Mike Flood, said in a statement,
"The Court's Order recognizes the time-sensitive nature of the lawsuit and imposes a Sept. 12 deadline for the Big Ten to produce responsive documents. The Plaintiffs retain the right to use traditional discovery methods, including depositions, as the case moves forward."
----
• Talk about it inside The Hoops Forum or The Football Forum
• Subscribe to our podcast on iTunes
• Follow us on Twitter: @IndianaRivals
• Like us on Facebook.
