St. Louis settlement agreement requires the destruction of documents regarding the case

NFL: FEB 05 Super Bowl 50 - Walter Payton Man of the Year Press Conference
Getty Images

By agreeing to pay $790 million to settle the Rams relocation litigation, the NFL avoided a Seinfeld finale-style parade of owners onto the witness stand at a trial that was due to begin in January. The league also hopes to avoid the publication of certain documents generated during the litigation.

The settlement agreement signed by the parties on Wednesday requires the destruction of certain documents regarding the case within seven days after the eventual “stipulation of dismissal.” The dismissal is required within seven days after the payment of the $790 million settlement, which is required within 30 days after Wednesday, November 24.

To keep the materials from being destroyed, someone will need to move quickly, seeking production of the documents from the three plaintiffs — all public entities — and then filing a lawsuit along with a request for a court order blocking the destruction. Ben Frederickson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has made it clear that his publication intends to proceed accordingly.

Hopefully, it will. The NFL has agreed to pay hundreds of millions in order to prevent a public trial in open court. It’s possible that it’s too late to expunge the information that already was generated during the litigation process, especially since that litigation involved public bodies who can’t make things secret.

Whatever went down, it was enough to get the NFL to pay nearly $800 million. It’s only fair that everyone get a chance to explore those materials in an effort to discover what could be a very inconvenient truth about the NFL.

21 responses to “St. Louis settlement agreement requires the destruction of documents regarding the case

  1. Nope Florio that isn’t how it works. An agreement to not disclose information means just that. Sure they(both sides) could risk endangering the agreement bu disclosiñg the information and accept the consequences in doing so, but they can NEVER be obligated to disclose the information ever(and this includes not disclosing the information to media types who think they are entitled to information that isn’t available to them).

  2. I wonder how many rich people have integrity and character cuz they all seem to want to hide as much about their dealings as they can.

  3. naturallawandselfownership says:
    November 26, 2021 at 7:43 pm
    Nope Florio that isn’t how it works. An agreement to not disclose information means just that. Sure they(both sides) could risk endangering the agreement bu disclosiñg the information and accept the consequences in doing so, but they can NEVER be obligated to disclose the information ever(and this includes not disclosing the information to media types who think they are entitled to information that isn’t available to them).
    ——————————-

    You’re wrong on that as Florio pointed out they are public entities subject to the FOI law and this does not fit any of the exceptions.

  4. By taking the NFL to court, STL sealed its fate with ever getting another NFL team. Twice now the fans have stopped supporting the home team during a rough patch and when Kronke moved the team to a larger market with a modern stadium, the city threw their toys and turned to the courts for their pound of flesh. STL is and will always be a baseball town with a strong hockey contingent. But football not so much. And by the way, it doesn’t matter that the Rams once won one super bowl. That doesn’t take away from not selling out games between the Rams and other NFC West doormats during the early part of the 2010 decade.

  5. Stuff was found worse than what they ran Gruden out of the NFL for, destroying this is worth over $700 million to the people it was about

  6. Congress should just fold the shenanigans that are surely there with the email craziness and make it a full blown kerfuffle…

  7. After this fiasco, don’t expect St Louis to get a franchise. Too much bad blood, it would take the Busch family to buy back Budweiser from IMBEV and threaten the beer supply of the other stadiums for St Louis to get a franchise.

  8. In consent agreements, the parties have all the initiative and it is between just them. Standing beyond them to get involved is almost always blocked. Res judicata keeps adjudicated material of merit from being reopened for contested review. Getting a protective document shred is smart, and a judge would have to approve. Outsiders have little chance of intervening.

    The NFL has played this quite well, I would say. Expensive, but buried!

  9. bmmerrill1 says:
    November 26, 2021 at 8:50 pm
    Give STL a franchise and move on. NFL is getting too dirty to watch.
    ————————-
    GettING too dirty? Have you missed the first 100 years of NFL action?

  10. I wonder if there is a ritual were they draw blood and swear omerta to enter the inner circle of the NFL…

  11. footballpat says:
    November 26, 2021 at 8:35 pm

    naturallawandselfownership says:
    November 26, 2021 at 7:43 pm
    Nope Florio that isn’t how it works. An agreement to not disclose information means just that. Sure they(both sides) could risk endangering the agreement bu disclosiñg the information and accept the consequences in doing so, but they can NEVER be obligated to disclose the information ever(and this includes not disclosing the information to media types who think they are entitled to information that isn’t available to them).
    ——————————-

    You’re wrong on that as Florio pointed out they are public entities subject to the FOI law and this does not fit any of the exceptions.

    *************

    Actually you are wrong. There is nothing in the FOI that states any particular type of information has to be maintained.

    Whether or not information has to be maintained is governed by the laws covering that specific type of information not the FOI.

    The Municipality may be required to maintain certain records that THEY generated (based on the appropriate laws) but any information the NFL generated or produced is NOT governed by those laws or the FOI.

    I used to do this for a living and was many times in court testifying as an expert witness those NFL documents in the possession of the suing parties are history. And any judge that tries to stop it will be overruled at the next level.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.