Skip to content

New Manning lawsuit documents underscore one-sided nature of Daily News document

Zz04OWNiOTdkNDdhMTU3MTNmZDA2ZDhjODdmN2Y0ZmNmMw== AP

Folks who wanted to presume guilt based on a 74-page document filed 13 years ago in court and published in full on Saturday by the New York Daily News don’t want to hear that the paperwork isn’t a court order or a decision or anything other than a lawyer presenting the facts in a one-sided way aimed at helping the lawyer’s client win the case. (The person who doesn’t want to hear that the most seems to be Shaun King of the Daily News, who either accidentally or intentionally had concluded that he had been given 74 pages not of advocacy but of accuracy.)

Now, Sports Illustrated has separately tracked down multiple other documents from the defamation lawsuit filed against Peyton Manning by Jamie Naughright, along with documents from a separate lawsuit filed later regarding whether the parties complied with a provision in the settlement agreement requiring secrecy and confidentiality.

As explained by Michael McCann of SI.com, the defamation lawsuit filed in 2002 by Naughright does not expressly refer to the allegation that Manning placed his “gluteus maximus, the rectum, the testicles, and the area in between the testicles” of Naughright’s face, instead referring generally to the incident as “not merely mooning” and alleging that he had engaged in an additional act “of such an egregious nature as to be beyond the pale.” McCann seems to suggest that the contents of the complaint and the specifics of the allegation provided through testimony are inconsistent. The better explanation is that they’re not inconsistent, especially since most states don’t require details to be provided in the first document outlining a plaintiff’s claims against a defendant.

Here, if what Naughright later described under oath is accurate, it’s fair to say that the conduct was “of such an egregious nature as to be beyond the pale.”

That said, an affidavit signed by Naughright in 1996, the year of the alleged incident, does seem to be inconsistent with the claims made while testifying several years later: He pulled his pants down and exposed himself to me, as I was bent over examining his foot after asking me personal questions. I reported this to my supervisor, who referred to it as ‘merely a prank,’ and no action was taken in regard to this until after I formally complained.”

There’s no allegation in the 1996 affidavit of contact with Naughright’s face or any other part of her body. While that doesn’t excuse Manning if he “exposed himself” to Naughright, it creates the kind of inconsistency that Manning’s lawyers would have highlighted aggressively in response to the document released Saturday by the Daily News.

The documents obtained by Sports Illustrated don’t change the fact that the next question in this ordeal is whether details regarding a 1994 incident involving Manning and Naughright will be released, and whether Naughright will speak on the record. Shaun King of the Daily News seems to believe both will occur.

Meanwhile, it’s almost time for PFT Live on NBC Sports Radio. We’ll be spending more than a few minutes explaining this one over the next three hours.

Permalink 53 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Denver Broncos, Home, Indianapolis Colts, Rumor Mill
53 Responses to “New Manning lawsuit documents underscore one-sided nature of Daily News document”
  1. florioisnuts says: Feb 15, 2016 6:36 AM

    why is it that every article Florio writes about the Colts or the Mannings is negative. Could it be his New England bias ??

  2. streetyson says: Feb 15, 2016 6:45 AM

    Is this the perfect time to get some free exposure for Papa John’s tasteless sausage & meatball topping with added stale cheese? Go on, put some in your face today!

  3. insider7 says: Feb 15, 2016 6:58 AM

    First, we know that Manning initially lied about the incident. One of his own teammates saw the incident and backed up the trainer’s version of events.

    And something that we now know, objectively, is the sworn deposition testimony of the Mannings’ ghost writer.

    He testified that Archie Manning planted the outlandish suggestion that the trainer was spending a lot of time in the dorms having sex with African American athletes. Pure slime being spread by Manning, Incorporated.

  4. dansardo says: Feb 15, 2016 7:01 AM

    Sounds like Ted Wells was involved in this too.

  5. joetoronto says: Feb 15, 2016 7:18 AM

    The NFL fooled the masses with PHGHton Manning, making him out to be a “good guy” even though he’s anything but.

    They fooled the masses, but not all of us.

  6. tothehouse101 says: Feb 15, 2016 7:47 AM

    Shaun King has so much credibility

  7. Unchained81 says: Feb 15, 2016 7:54 AM

    Come on, of course he did it!! He’s a perverted, HGH using, pizza eating, fraud.

  8. watters7 says: Feb 15, 2016 7:54 AM

    Looks like Goober got caught with his pants down

  9. rjpats says: Feb 15, 2016 7:55 AM

    I don’t care what manning did 20 years ago since it isn’t like he hurt anyone, but it is fun to watch various media outlets circle the wagons around him. Wonder how long until ESPN comes out with a story saying she actually mooned him

  10. bmacwillconn says: Feb 15, 2016 7:58 AM

    As soon as I saw what newspaper had broken this story, I knew something about the “facts” were not right.

    The Daily News – a once great NY institution – has morphed into a liberal rag that regularly espouses anti-american, anti capitalism, anti religion, anti cop rhetoric. The paper is staffed by writers and editors who are left wing fanatics with a journalistic standard below that of a weekly ad circular. Who knows what Manning did. If he violated any woman’s rights he should be held accountable and punished accordingly.

    However, for future reference, please find a reliable and ethical source to follow this story from. The Daily News is not that source.

  11. TB12RALLYCRY says: Feb 15, 2016 7:59 AM

    The Daily News one sided!!?? Never ….they fully support Tom Brady and are very partial and fair………..smh

  12. edelmanfanclub says: Feb 15, 2016 8:15 AM

    New England bias? This article has nothing to do with the Patriots! This info has been on Manning’s wikipedia page for years. Its insane that its being brought up now. Not saying what he did wasnt wrong, just saying its unfortunate this guy is getting crapped on while hes heading out.

  13. truthfactory says: Feb 15, 2016 8:18 AM

    The reason this story is not getting much attention is probably because either:

    A. It sounds like he “flashed” someone in 1996 when he was 19 or 20 years old and his family and him didn’t want it to get out.

    Or

    B. He didn’t.

    So either a 19 year old kid made a crude gesture or joke in college 20 years ago, or he didn’t. Either way, most adults understand the humor of a college aged male… Not saying it’s right but most males have made some crude gestures at that age and it would be very strange to have to defend those as your approaching 40 years old.

  14. whyshouldshaili says: Feb 15, 2016 8:22 AM

    Floriousnuts, what are you talking about, this article supports Manning against King, saying that Kings article was unfairly biased toward Naughright because it was written by her defense lawyer.

  15. REDSKINSFOREVER says: Feb 15, 2016 8:22 AM

    This guy from the daily news is pretty much everything I dislike about the media all rolled into one. He found this information in the new ut law suit and is portraying the one sided information as new information and fact. I remember when this happened and Florio is correct her story did change from just exposure to contact. However this guy from the daily isn’t quite smart enough, despite reading the documents 3 times, to understand the story changed and this is only one side trying to win a multimillion dollar lawsuit.

    If manning did this he was punished 20 years ago and its unfortunate he would have committed such an act. Although I’ve never understood her explanation. How does a guy laying on a bed get his pants down and then sit on your face without you knowing he is taking his pants off? Why would you be on your knees to examine for a stress fracture?

    However, it wasn’t hidden from the media. The documents were just sealed and that is fairly common in all lawsuits.

    This daily news guys article is filled with assumptions and then tries to say how much he likes manning to distract you from his assumptions. Your 20 years late sunshine.

  16. cardinalsfan20 says: Feb 15, 2016 8:25 AM

    Shaun King is a useless slug. He’s already been outed for posing as an African-American. While he may or may not know the slant of court filings, it’s certain he doesn’t care.

  17. j0esixpack says: Feb 15, 2016 8:27 AM

    There is a very simple solution to all of these scandals involving Peyton Manning. Like Brady, Manning can INSIST on making statements sworn under oath, for which he will be prosecuted for perjury if proven to be lying.

    Manning can also quickly end the HGH scandal simply by releasing his and his wife’s medical records from when he was being treated by the Guyton Institute (Peyton admits he was there and doesn’t deny his then pregnant wife received HGH deliveries)

    Seeing as neither Goodell, Blandino, Kensil, nor anyone else who may be framing Brady will follow Brady’s lead and testify under oath – and that EVERYONE now realizes that the same phenomenon that causes tires to “deflate” in the cold can’t rationally exempt thin pig skin footballs, most rational people know FrameGate was at best Goodell’s ignorance or at worst, proof the NFL is inherently unfair, Brady has at least done what any innocent man would or should

    Until Peyton comes clean about his past sexual assault and HGH issues by testing under oath, the rational logical conclusion has to be that he is a cheater and potentially dangerous sociopath.

    But while Peyton can end all of this debate TODAY – my guess is that Peyton is guilty and, like Goodell, will refuse to follow Brady’s lead

  18. cinzano08 says: Feb 15, 2016 8:30 AM

    pedton and his old man got caught lying through their teeth and paid to sweep it under rug, twice! That’s all you need to know.

  19. thedoctlc says: Feb 15, 2016 8:35 AM

    Why all of a sudden is the sports media is worried about one-sided reporting?

    Is it because you can’t handle the long-overdue iconoclasm of your binky, Peyton Manning?

    It doesn’t take a pair of Arabian Goggles to see what’s going on here.

  20. blakeden says: Feb 15, 2016 8:44 AM

    This off season deflategate….More drama move on

  21. thirdand43 says: Feb 15, 2016 8:47 AM

    streetyson, your comment may be one of the funniest comments in the history of this website, if not the internet itself. Humbly, however, I suggest that extra sharp provolone, instead of extra stale cheese, might be even more appropriate. The ads would be hysterical.

  22. gimmeabruschi says: Feb 15, 2016 9:01 AM

    The real crux of all this is what the eyewitness has to say. The letter he wrote heavily leans in Naughright’s favor. He wouldn’t say own up to what you did or that Manning was going to lose in court and he should pay her if Manning was innocent.

  23. ddogdaddy says: Feb 15, 2016 9:06 AM

    Those darn kids.

  24. peytonwantsaflag says: Feb 15, 2016 9:08 AM

    King is an irresponsible journalist who writes like a 17 year old high school student. He’s got one agenda right now- defending Cam Newton by bringing down Peyton Manning. He bizarrely thinks by tarnishing Manning’s rep that people will look more favorably on Cam’s post Superbowl idiocy.

    fight the power Shaun!

  25. whatjusthapped says: Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM

    All I know is that I would hate to have the entire US population sit in judgement of my actions as a 19 years old college student. Immaturity was at its height back in those days.

  26. tajuara says: Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM

    What I find intriguing is the 1994 incident. If that incident was worst than the 1996 incident (I can only thing a couple of things worst than someone sitting in your face naked), why was this Doctor allowed to examine Manning again?

  27. sonhoodoo says: Feb 15, 2016 9:16 AM

    Love the pic. Someone told Peyton that squeezing his ear would make his fivehead shrink.

  28. Florio Believer says: Feb 15, 2016 9:17 AM

    Manning has already talked more than he should have under terms of the agreement, zip it dummy.

  29. tonebones says: Feb 15, 2016 9:27 AM

    Maybe women shouldn’t be in men’s locker rooms if they’re offended by what they see. Why would this woman want to be in a men’s locker room in the first place? Hmm? Has anybody done any background checks on this woman? Seems to me like she might have a history of naughty behavior. I mean what kind of respectable woman is hanging out in men’s locker rooms? Geez we’re talking about Peyton manning here. He’s royalty. Beyond reproach.

  30. ricko1112 says: Feb 15, 2016 9:31 AM

    Look, King is well known as a race-baiter, who always takes the most ludicrous sides of arguments. However, we’ve known about this Manning incident for years. In his career, Manning has played for the 2 most classless, cheating organizations in the NFL. Why is so hard to believe he did what he did? We already know he took HGH and lied. Sent goons to the house of that poor guy’s parents to threaten them.

    Denver: millions of $$$ payed secretly to Elway and Davis to circumvent the salary cap and directly led to Elway’s 2 fraudulent SB wins. Leading the NFL in PED use. Vaseline slathered all over the o-line. Chop blocks taught specifically to injure opponents. HGH. This SB was orchestrated by Goodell. His placements of Hochuli and Blakeman assured this. Denver is 8-0 with Hochuli and 6-0 with Blakeman. Planting a rabid Broncos fan as the replay assistant and having Blandino in Blakeman’s ear all night. The whole game turned on that single blown call on Crochety’s catch that was incorrectly called a drop.

    Indy: Caught piping in phony crowd noise several times. Once on live TV. Tanking an entire season during the infamous and blatantly obvious “Suck for Luck” campaign. Injury reports that went way above and beyond. Broken ribs and lacerated kidney not listed. Caught tampering with other teams’ footballs. Initiating the laughably flawed lie that was deflategate with the help of the NYJ Gang in the NFL office. Forcing numerous rule changes down the throat of the Competition Committee year after year. Why can’t a d-back look cross-eyed at a receiver? Yup! The Colts.

  31. briandorry55 says: Feb 15, 2016 9:33 AM

    Damn, I must have missed all of the PFT articles pointing out aspects of Jameis Winston’s situation that strongly implied innocence…oh wait? I didn’t miss them? They never existed?…Convenient.

  32. tajuara says: Feb 15, 2016 9:50 AM

    Sent goons to the house of that poor guy’s parents to threaten them.

    ———————————————–

    LOL that’s why this poor guy’s parents claimed that the private investigators were nice and they sit in the couch to drink coffee and talk while trying to get his son on the phone.

  33. awdlmd says: Feb 15, 2016 9:51 AM

    Anyone who gives Manning a free pass but gets self righteous about Newton looks pretty ridiculous.

  34. joko12blog says: Feb 15, 2016 9:57 AM

    I hope this story doesn’t go away – manning has always had the media on his side – time for him to face reality

  35. THX 138 says: Feb 15, 2016 9:59 AM

    Just a Witch Hunt.

  36. gints1017 says: Feb 15, 2016 10:02 AM

    The daily news is just TMZ hiding in the form of real journalism

  37. randomguy9999 says: Feb 15, 2016 10:16 AM

    so the guys career is most probably over and were debating an allegation made 20 years ago that never gained any traction? why is it getting somewhere now when the courts examined it and did nothing back then?

    the whole thing sounds ridiculous to me

  38. imodan says: Feb 15, 2016 10:25 AM

    tajuara says:
    Feb 15, 2016 9:50 AM

    Sent goons to the house of that poor guy’s parents to threaten them.

    ———————————————–

    LOL that’s why this poor guy’s parents claimed that the private investigators were nice and they sit in the couch to drink coffee and talk while trying to get his son on the phone.
    ———————————————————-
    Ever listen to the 911 call they made? They were scared. Of course the goons changed their tone after the PD showed up. How do you explain Manning’s lawyers showing up at Guyer’s days before the documentary broke and rifling thru their files? Do you seriously believe nothing incriminating didn’t leave there with them? There’s enough reasons to question, not condemn, but question.

  39. med515 says: Feb 15, 2016 10:34 AM

    Bet Manning never imagined he’d be used as a pawn for race baiters at the end of his career.

    This isn’t a new or even hidden story. It was over and done with decades ago.

  40. silverhornet says: Feb 15, 2016 11:30 AM

    Naughrighty then.

  41. switchwitch59 says: Feb 15, 2016 11:36 AM

    tajuara says:
    Feb 15, 2016 9:50 AM

    Sent goons to the house of that poor guy’s parents to threaten them.

    ———————————————–

    LOL that’s why this poor guy’s parents claimed that the private investigators were nice and they sit in the couch to drink coffee and talk while trying to get his son on the phone.
    ——————————————–
    Who are these guys you’re talking about? Did Pay-a-ton send more than 2 PIs? Because they don’t sound like the 2 guys the sister called 911 about. Try sticking to the facts, even though facts are few and far between, we do know the 911 call is a fact, there’s a recording. Either stop making stuff up or stop parrotting stuff made up by other Manning boot-lickers.

  42. danfromindy says: Feb 15, 2016 11:53 AM

    He did it… It’s obvious. He “exposed himself” to her when he was 19. Who cares. It’s old news. He paid a “fine” of 300K to make it go away. That is the admission. Just like the Pats admitted to deflategate with a million dollar “fine” and draft picks. Who cares. Move on, they paid their price.

    I am more amazed that King thinks this somehow justifies Newton walking out of a Press Conference. Don’t get be wrong, I could care less if he walked out. In honesty, he lasted longer than I would. I wouldn’t even have gone, you can ask me why we lost in 48 hours, it’s not like we have another game to prepare for. I also am amazed at how some many people defend Newton. I hear day in an day out how people are on his “side”. I’ve never heard anyone “attack” him. You don’t like his dancing when he scores? Every one celebrates. Matter of fact, if I score a TD in the NFL, you can guarantee a 15 yard unsportsmanlike penalty is coming every time, because I’m doing the running man until I get the flag.

  43. nhpats says: Feb 15, 2016 12:44 PM

    rjpats says:
    Feb 15, 2016 7:55 AM
    I don’t care what manning did 20 years ago since it isn’t like he hurt anyone, but it is fun to watch various media outlets circle the wagons around him. Wonder how long until ESPN comes out with a story saying she actually mooned him

    —————

    Would you hold this same position if it were your daughter or sister?

    What he did may have been a prank…..but it was classless to drag her through the mud when the claim came out. He should have merely admitted it and apologized.

  44. nflhatesraiders says: Feb 15, 2016 1:13 PM

    Manning may be a pervert but you have to wonder about timing of story.Gotta take the heat off of other super bowl stories.I HATE THE SLIME BALL MEDIA .

  45. danfromindy says: Feb 15, 2016 1:24 PM

    nhpats says

    Would you hold this same position if it were your daughter or sister?

    What he did may have been a prank…..but it was classless to drag her through the mud when the claim came out. He should have merely admitted it and apologized.

    ———————

    I think I probably would have got over it after 20 years.

    I agree he should have admitted it and apologized. I just feel he did “admit” it with a check and he was stupid not to apologize. But this was so long ago. And everyone should have already known about it. Why is it a big deal now?

  46. izzysydbas says: Feb 15, 2016 1:25 PM

    ricko1112 says:

    In his career, Manning has played for the 2 most classless, cheating organizations in the NFL.

    I must have missed those years he played for the Patriots.

  47. snarkk says: Feb 15, 2016 2:14 PM

    The DNews article says that virtually every time Peyton Manning made claims of bad behavior against the lady, he was totally shot down by witnesses that were there. In other words, he was lying to cover up. When multiple people on multiple occasions agree that somebody was lying, that’s pretty good evidence that he was…

  48. boltsfan31 says: Feb 15, 2016 3:52 PM

    danfromindy | Feb 15, 2016, 11:53 AM EST
    He did it… It’s obvious. He “exposed himself” to her when he was 19. Who cares. It’s old news. He paid a “fine” of 300K to make it go away. That is the admission. Just like the Pats admitted to deflategate with a million dollar “fine” and draft picks. Who cares. Move on, they paid their price.

    ____________________

    Uh, no he didn’t pay a $300K fine, the University of Tennessee did. And the Dr. lost her dream job at her ala mater as part of the settlement.

    She was then minding her own business for several years, working at a different school in a different State, when Manning raked the coals and defamed her. He was an adult at the time of the defamation, and had money to burn so did whatever the hell he wanted, to make himself feel good. The Dr. lost her new job as well, once that came up, when she was receiving overly positive performance evaluations and pay raises up until that point.

  49. stuckonwords says: Feb 15, 2016 4:19 PM

    tajuara says:
    Feb 15, 2016 9:11 AM

    What I find intriguing is the 1994 incident. If that incident was worst than the 1996 incident (I can only thing a couple of things worst than someone sitting in your face naked), why was this Doctor allowed to examine Manning again?

    I don’t think it’s been stated that the ’94 incident necessarily involved this woman. There is redacted info from ’04, but it could very well be from an entirely different incident.

  50. stuckonwords says: Feb 15, 2016 4:23 PM

    Man. Can’t type today.

    I don’t think it’s been stated that the ’94 incident necessarily involved this woman. There is redacted info from ’04 ’94, but it could very well be from an entirely different incident.

    Sorry.

  51. boltsfan31 says: Feb 15, 2016 5:54 PM

    The 1994 incident was described as a “serious violation” by Manning, which Naughright uncovered.

    Chances are slim that it involves a sexual assault. Sounds like it may be more related to cheating.

  52. paytonscamming says: Feb 15, 2016 11:19 PM

    One could chalk up Payton’s original act as a college boy mistake. It’s been the handling of the issue ever since that’s been absolutely sickening. What is also sickening is the attempt to add lawyer talk in order to cloud the situation. Manning settled because he knew one thing. He’s been wrong every time HE brought it up.
    As for Cam, poor losers don’t stay on the field to congratulate the other QB. Someone should have told that to Payton when he lost to Drew a few years back.

  53. kjdoyle58 says: Feb 16, 2016 5:32 PM

    ahhh…the old “Roman Helmet”…..classic.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!