Michael Irvin’s lawyer is “mad as hell” that Marriott refuses to produce surveillance video

NFL Combine
Getty Images

As Hall of Fame receiver Michael Irvin’s lawsuit against Marriott proceeds through its early phases, Marriott continues to refuse to provide to Irvin’s lawyer the surveillance video that supposedly reveals the interaction between Irvin and a hotel employee who complained about his behavior. Irvin’s lawyer isn’t pleased with Marriott’s recalcitrance.

I’m mad as hell that they’re hiding this stuff that is so relevant to my client’s livelihood,” attorney Levi McCarthern told Michael Gehlken of the Dallas Morning News. “I think it is terrible they’re doing that. I don’t know what’s on the video. None of us have gotten to see it. But I sure think that, at a minimum, Michael has got a right to see the video.”

Irvin absolutely has a right to see the video. He’ll eventually get it. It’s highly relevant evidence on the question of whether Irvin did what he was accused of doing.

The accusation has had significant consequences to Irvin. NFL Network pulled him from its Super Bowl coverage. ESPN removed him from his scheduled appearance on First Take. Irvin’s reputation has taken a massive public blow. His media career potentially hangs in the balance.

And so, yes, it’s appropriate and necessary for the video to be seen and scrutinized.

A state-court judge previously ordered that the video be provided. Marriott has since removed the case to federal court. It’s just a matter of time before the presiding judge issues the same ruling.

Which means it’s just a matter of time before Irvin gets the video.

The video shows what it shows. It may show clear evidence of misconduct. It may bolster Irvin’s position, allegedly supported by eyewitnesses, that nothing happened. It may be inconclusive. Regardless, Irvin has a right to see it.

And the longer Marriott resists producing it, the more some will possibly begin to think that the video hurts the company’s position. Really, if it confirms the allegation, why not let Irvin and the rest of the world see what’s there?

90 responses to “Michael Irvin’s lawyer is “mad as hell” that Marriott refuses to produce surveillance video

  1. I can’t imagine why someone being sued for 100 million dollars isn’t going out of their way to accommodate the person suing them. lol

  2. The reason they’d not want Irvin to see it before trial is, as a defendant, you don’t want to give the plaintiff anything what-so-ever that may aid them in prosecuting you. If Irvin was honest in what he said, that he was nigh falling down drunk and couldn’t hardly recall a thing, why help him do so now that he’s suing you!!! That’ll help him and his lawyers craft better attacks on you and mitigate your counter-attacks on defense.
    Even if the tape clearly shows Irvin doing something reprehensible, anything can happen in front of a jury. From Marriott’s perspective, why give him anything to help him prepare his case if they can possibly avoid it?

  3. Sure Irvin and his lawyer are mad but I think Marriott has the goods and are sweating them before being forced to hand it over. I believe Irvin is unsure what he did or how bad actions look and they want a private screening to strategize their next move and can’t do that until the new judge orders it. Let’s all remember Irvin sued them and it’s their right to hold onto the video. We should all be prepared for the day we realize we will never see it, be it by Irvin side or Marriott’s.

  4. As someone who has worked for the Marriott I will be surprised if the video hasn’t already been deleted!

  5. Irvin was there! He should already know what is there… Lol, sounds like his mind wasn’t right, smart to suspend him

  6. The video is clearly discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mike needs a new attorney.

  7. It will be furnished through the discovery process. Personally, this does incident does not reduce my low opinion of Michael Irvin as a broadcaster or person.

  8. i bet the NFL more of a fan of the Marriott than of Irvin . keep digging that hole Michael!!!

  9. It does small bad any time someone is swearing to something but insists they cant show you the evidence fir some reason. This is like the NFL who is fond for saying things while saying they can’t show you the evidence they imply they have. That seems to be a trend in sports and politics both. Substantiating anything has become a lost art.

  10. I work at a Marriott property, anytime there is an incident that involves law enforcement at all they only provide the video footage to members of law enforcement. This is at least the policy at the location where I work. I think Michael Irvin and his team want the tape so they can prepare their defense of what happened. I think they want to get ahead of it but without knowing how damning the video is and only going off Michael’s side of the story they are kind of just sitting and waiting for the other shoe to drop. I think this is all in an effort for Irvin’s team to spin this in a way he doesn’t look bad but they don’t know what exactly they’re dealing with yet.

  11. Of course Irvin’s attorney has a right to see any video, at the appropriate time. Relevant information is exchanged during the discovery process of litigation. That does not occur until after an Answer has been filed to a Complaint. Now that the case has been removed to Federal Court this exchange occurs without the need to send Interrogatories or Requests for Production of Documents.

    Attorney McCarthern knows all of this. He knows that he will receive any video in due time. McCarthern also knows that Marriott has no obligation to turn over any information before then. His early demand to have the video is nothing more than grandstanding.

  12. Irvin has always been a loud-mouthed, arrogant idiot. Not the first time this clown acted out of line. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

  13. Well they just filed a 100 million dollar law suit against Marriott. So there’s that. Why would Marriott do anything but drag out the process?

  14. The only reason things are ever hidden is because those hidden things would hurt the hider. Just ask the feds. They hide so much stuff.

  15. The strongest evidence thus far is Irvin’s public statement that he’d been drinking and doesn’t remember specifics of what he said to the woman.

  16. I guess the problem is with “the rest of the world“. They probably don‘t want to throw a person who is working for them to the wolves. Protection of one‘s rights to his/her image is probably behind it and rightfully so. This will be handled by a judge and inside a courtroom and not in public.

  17. I’m no Michael Irvin fan. But the longer it takes for Marriott to substantiate the claims…..I’m inclined to believe Irvin. If the video showed what they purported, they’d release it. I’m guessing it’s inconclusive at best.

  18. So much for the state court ruling that they must name the person involved and release the video.

  19. If the video were damming, it would be on TMZ already. Marriott knows they are in the wrong here.

  20. Not allegedly eyewitnesses. There are numerous eyewitnesses that were in that lobby volunteering to come forward tos gate that this was a complete nothing burger. The whole thing STINKS. Michael Irvin getting taken off air over a 30 second convo, and the accuser going back to work like it was nothing. This is the world we’re living in

  21. Maybe Marriott is protecting their employee. Once it gets out, her reputation also takes a hit. That would expose her to any Cowboy or Irvin fan wanting to attack her in person or on social media.

    I’m not saying he is guilty of anything but how would a hotel camera identify what he said to her?

  22. So Marriott is supposed to simply give in to whatever Irvin’s lawyer wants? No, that’s not the way this works. Irvin started this fight himself while his lawyer sees a big payday if Irvin wins. Surely TMZ already has the video so Irvin’s lawyer should go to TMZ to get it.

  23. If the video proves the Marriott employees case, then why wouldn’t they release it to the police or the courts? Its an injustice that Irvin was accused, lost his job covering the biggest sports media event of the year, and three weeks later… most people are not even sure of what he is accused of.

    If I have video evidence of someone committing a crime against me, I go to the police and show them the evidence. Why would an accuser want to hide video evidence that supports their claim?

  24. Patience counselor. it takes time to PhotoShop a photo.
    With video, you need a CGI pro out of Hollywood.

  25. This case isn’t about video. It’s about what was said … and Irvin already admitted he’d been drinking band doesn’t remember what he said. In a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff had the burden of proof and must testify under oath… and Irvin can’t prove anything… so it’s a matter of time before this case quietly goes away.

  26. The video is everything. Don’t they have to produce all evidence to the defense?

    ———————-

    uh, Marriot IS the defense.

  27. midj says:
    February 22, 2023 at 7:37 am
    I guess the problem is with “the rest of the world“. They probably don‘t want to throw a person who is working for them to the wolves. Protection of one‘s rights to his/her image is probably behind it and rightfully so. This will be handled by a judge and inside a courtroom and not in public.

    ————

    Marriot and any of company for the most part, won’t think twice about canning someone. They won’t suffer a $100 million suit just to protect an employee. They’d throw her under the bus immediately if Irvin promised to drop the suit. Marriot is only doing this because they already took a hit on their own image with these accusations and jumping the gun.

    The end story will be Marriot apologizes for jumping to conclusions. The “victim” gave misleading statements and blew things out of proportion. Marriot will dedicate $xxx dollars to employee training and some non-profit org.

  28. If the video showed clear evidence that Irvin did something reprehensible, Marriott would gladly release the video. If Marriott has noting to hide, then releasing the video can help Marriott’s reputation.

  29. kenmasters34 says:
    February 22, 2023 at 8:59 am
    If the video proves the Marriott employees case, then why wouldn’t they release it to the police or the courts? Its an injustice that Irvin was accused, lost his job covering the biggest sports media event of the year, and three weeks later… most people are not even sure of what he is accused
    ______________

    For the umpteenth time, Irvin has not lost his job. He continues to be employed by the NFL Network to this day.

  30. If the video showed wrong-doing on Irvin’s part, it would have been out over a week ago. The Marriott is not looking so good by withholding it. Might be much ado about nothing…

  31. Irvin may not have lost his job, but he was removed from the biggest event in the NFL year….the Super Bowl. He lost a ton of money and likely sponsors. He also has not been on hardly any NFL shows since.
    If Marriott can’t prove the allegations, Irvin will win his lawsuit.

  32. Possible scenario
    Drunk guy walking through a hotel lobby sees a woman who happens to be an employee of the hotel.
    Drunk guy hits on her, brags about who he is while doing so. Maybe he doesn’t accept the first no; maybe he gets too close; maybe he touches her. (All of which are inappropriate actions) The lobby recording would speak to some of that.
    Woman rejects the drunk guy’s advances. Drunk guy thinks, Ok. It was worth a shot. She said no. I’m moving on out of here.
    Each go about their separate ways with no escalation or altercation or further interaction.
    Woman immediately informs her supervisor of the incident, as is her right. (She is not obligated in any way to justify or defend why she reported the incident.) Supervisor is obligated to follow corporate HR policies for protecting its employees in such matters.
    HR policies are required to protect the victim/accuser from potential future alleged harasser. Quite often when practical and possible, the victim/accuser remains, the alleged harasser is removed from the workplace area.
    Employer follows it policies by directing the accused drunk guy to leave its premises.
    The NFL is informed of the matter (by the employer? The drunk guy? The drunk guy’s agent?). The NFL decides to bench the alleged harasser from its coverage team, thus avoiding the negative PR fall-out during Super Bowl week if it were to permit the alleged harasser to continue as a member of its coverage team.
    The lobby recording will come to light during the discovery process if the matter formally moves forward; however, it is feasible that Marriott might first agree to a private viewing by Irvin and his legal team in an attempt to measure each party’s willingness to keep the matter private.
    (If the recording indicates a nothing burger, then Marriott benefits from resolving the matter. Quietly and discreetly. If the recording indicates smoke and fire, then Irvin benefits from resolving the matter quietly and discreetly.)
    My sense is that both sides will work diligently behind the scenes to attempt to reach a mutually palatable settlement. The financial terms of which will not be disclosed; all parties will agree to sign non-disclosure agreements.
    There will be no admission of guilt and no statements acknowledging possible over-reaction by Marriott or any of its employees. There might be some types of innocuous statements about misunderstandings, generally observing HR employee protection policies, and similar word salad comments.

  33. I’m not saying he is guilty of anything but how would a hotel camera identify what he said to her?

    ————–

    You’ve never seen the Seinfeld with Marlee Matlin?

  34. I guarantee that Irvin will go after the beer/liquor companies and blame them for him being drunk.

  35. Having been intimately associated with this sort of thing for the last 10 years of my career let me point out:

    1) It’s called DISCOVERY (and MF knows this) where the plaintiff asks for the moon and the defendant tries to turn over a bucket of inoffensive dirt. They argue about it and eventually settle somewhere in the middle. Since this case involves a highly visible public person OF COURSE the plaintiff’s is going to complain about it in public. Been there done that.

    2) If the parties can not come to an agreement a judge will decide what is reasonable to be turned over and what isn’t.

    3) Marriot put a hold on all potential evidence as soon as they became aware that either (A) a lawsuit had been filed or (B) a there was the potential for a lawsuit to be filed.

    4) If any “evidence” the judge deems to be inside the scope of discovery wasn’t preserved Marriot will have to prove that (1) the alleged evidence never existed or (2) it was disposed of according to documented procedures prior to any reasonable knowledge that it needed to be preserved. And they could face massive penalties.

    In any case if the evidence proves Irvings’ case (and video evidence is among the most difficult in what it proves or disproves depending on the type and quality of the evidence) Marriot’s lawyers are working on a settlement offer. If it doesn’t prove his case they’ll be more than happy to turn it over.

    This is a long arduous process with big money on the line and a lawyer whining about his side being denied what it needs is all part of the game.

  36. Under the federal rules of civil procedure the defendant only has to answer interrogatories and produce documents roughly 30 days after they are served with documents requesting that information. In the meantime the plaintiff provides notice to retain (and not spoil or destroy) the video evidence. There is no legal obligation to provide the video earlier, although some defendants do for publicity purposes if it benefits them. As noted above, the longer the delay, the less favorable it appears for the hotel.

  37. If I am correct, didn’t Marriott first claim they had a video of the incident that got Irvin kicked off TV for the Super Bowl? Now of course they want to slow walk it because they realized it doesn’t show what they claimed in the initial report. Right now, Marriott is stalling in hope that it goes away. They will have to turn it over to defend themselves. They have no choice. They made an accusation, claimed they had video evidence now want to bury the evidence they claim they had while leaving the charges standing. No judge will allow that. Damage control by Marriott.

  38. Still trying to figure out how Irvin claims the accusations are false despite admitting he was too drunk to remember what was said. On what basis is he claiming the accusations are false?

  39. Honestly, at least to me it seems like Marriott has put themselves in a very bad position here.

    By “complaining” to the NFL the hotel chain has implied that Irvin did something totally reprehensible.

    If the video comes out and it shows Irvin having a short conversation with the lady in question, shaking hands, taking a photo, and then walking away it is not going to be a good look for Marriott.

    Quite frankly, at least to me it seems like the whole thing “went down” really quick for a massive company to be involved. By that, I mean the issue would gone from a local employee complaint to her manager to GM and then up the chain from there almost certainly to the lawyers. Isn’t Marriott also a corporate NFL sponsor? Would make sense that the CEO or someone very, very high up would have been brought in before any complaint was actually sent to the NFL. Each person along the line kinda putting their butts on the line if this turned out to be not as it initially appeared.

    From there, the process would have been repeated at the NFL and NFL network.

    For all that to happen in the middle of the night in 12 hours or less considering time zone differences?

    Sorry, it just seems kinda off to me where any action may not come for a week or two later.

  40. The whole security footage will show he was drunk. It won’t show what he said to her.

    The Marriott employee reported an incident that made her feel uncomfortable. The hotel GM reported the incident, probably to their NFL liaison. The NFL liason reported it to NFLN who made the decision to suspend Irvin. I suspect all Marriott wanted was Irwin to leave their hotel. The hotel management behaved exactly as they were supposed to. The question Irvin will have to answer in court and probably won’t want to, is why was the NFLN so quick to suspend him based on. It was single he said she said non violent encounter. What made NFLN believe the word of the hotel GM and employee and not Michael Irvin.

  41. I’m guessing the tape shows nothing happened, and honestly given his celebrity status I’m surprised there isn’t a cell phone video from a fan that’s surfaced yet.

    Either way, take note: if you gave any sort of high profile status, it’s critical you don’t put yourself in a situation like this. Even worse, if all he did was truly just a hand shake and/or autograph, it has to give you pause for even doing that anymore.

  42. I wandered into a hallway at this year’s Hall of Fame ceremonies where Michael Irvin was holding court. As a Cowboy fan, I was initially happy to see him. Then he belted out some outburst at the top of his lungs that was long, incoherent and disruptive. My take was that he has very little control (or willingness to control) over his behavior in such settings. He made Terrell Owens look like a choir boy. I don’t know if he is guilty of the behavior the Marriott alleges, but I am not surprised at all to hear the allegations with his name attached.

  43. AS I said before. Marriott has bigger and more lawyers than MI can even dream about. I’m just glad the big mouth is of the air. Next Steven O and then Shamou. I can’t stand these guys who love to yell over everybody.

  44. If the video confirms the interaction was as witnesses indicated and Irvin indicated it doesn’t mean that Irvin didn’t do anything, but it definitely starts to look like the offense was very minor if there was any wrongdoing at all. I don’t know if there is more to the story beyond that one interaction or not. Maybe Irvin and the woman spoke again elsewhere. Maybe that is why such major actions were taken.

    If it was just this one interaction it’s starting to look like the Marriott overstepped.

  45. andyreidsmustache says:
    February 22, 2023 at 12:47 pm
    I’m guessing the tape shows nothing happened, and honestly given his celebrity status I’m surprised there isn’t a cell phone video from a fan that’s surfaced yet.

    Either way, take note: if you gave any sort of high profile status, it’s critical you don’t put yourself in a situation like this. Even worse, if all he did was truly just a hand shake and/or autograph, it has to give you pause for even doing that anymore.

    ———–

    if all he did was a handshake introduction and a photo in a public space I don’t think there’s an easy way for high profile people to avoid that. The Marriott should not have jumped into this if that were the case and they will end up paying.

    I’m thinking there’s more to this and the video doesn’t confirm it beyond what Irvin said happened. Like maybe the accusation is that he propositioned the woman and the video can’t confirm that.

  46. It could have been something that he said or suggested to this woman. Without audio, how will either of them prove their case?

  47. imaglaser says:
    February 22, 2023 at 12:19 pm
    Still trying to figure out how Irvin claims the accusations are false despite admitting he was too drunk to remember what was said. On what basis is he claiming the accusations are false?

    ————

    He said he went to dinner and drinks with friends. He also refused drinks that were offered to him back at the hotel because he had to get up early per the witnesses that offered him the drink. So, while he was drinking, I don’t think we can conclude he was too drunk to remember what happened.

  48. I hate Irvin. With that said no video, no physical eveidence, no text, no email, no proof.

    She said, He said case closed, no charges can or will be filed.

  49. Looking at this from afar it seems that United States law has very little to do with justice and is all about cash. The land of the free to sue.

  50. bradygirl12 says:
    It could have been something that he said or suggested to this woman. Without audio, how will either of them prove their case?
    ——————–
    Does saying something(non threatening) or suggesting something, qualify as assault?

  51. catchanotherpassadams says:
    February 22, 2023 at 9:07 am
    Taking a cue from our own government, hide the video.

    2925Rate This

    ——

    I think you mean Roger Goodell.

  52. trentdilfer08 says:
    February 22, 2023 at 1:59 pm
    I hate Irvin. With that said no video, no physical eveidence, no text, no email, no proof.

    She said, He said case closed, no charges can or will be filed.

    ————-

    That’s the thing. It seems like it was already determined this was not a criminal situation and no one has pursued a criminal charge.

    That won’t clear Irvin.

  53. gibson45 says:
    February 22, 2023 at 10:29 am
    kenmasters34 says:
    February 22, 2023 at 8:59 am
    If the video proves the Marriott employees case, then why wouldn’t they release it to the police or the courts? Its an injustice that Irvin was accused, lost his job covering the biggest sports media event of the year, and three weeks later… most people are not even sure of what he is accused
    ______________

    For the umpteenth time, Irvin has not lost his job. He continues to be employed by the NFL Network to this day.
    ———————-
    Irvin is still employed, but he DID lose his job covering the Super bowl.

  54. They didnt produce it because the court the case was removed to did not order it yet. If you know absolutely anything about civil litigation you know Irvin is absolutely entitled to this through discovery and will get it. He also already knows what he did (unless he was too pissy to recall). Either way this is formality. The real question is whether Marriot is liable for the actions the NFL took. They did not have to remove him. Marriot can report what was ‘told’ to them. No law says they can’t unless they did so knowingly false and with intent to harm him. I suspect he is going to get nothing…and Marriot has much bigger pockets.

  55. Marriott will provide the video during discovery. The fact that it has not somehow been “leaked” probably means it’s inconclusive or exculpatory.

    Irvin’s attorney is representing him in a Civil case. There is no claimed criminal liability here, so the attorney is using the media to make it appear as though Marriott is hiding the video from the claimant AND THE PUBLIC. The fact is the public has no right to view the video at all, the claimant will get the video in the normal course of discovery. Not a bad strategy.

  56. radar773 says:
    February 22, 2023 at 12:31 pm
    Irvin didn’t say that he was drunk. He said that he had been drinking. There’s a difference.
    ————————————-
    Irvin didn’t even admit to talking to the woman until he was told about the video. Then he can’t remember what was said, “but it wasn’t about sex.” Yeah, just drinking, not drunk.

  57. gibson45 says:

    February 22, 2023 at 10:29 am

    kenmasters34 says:
    February 22, 2023 at 8:59 am
    If the video proves the Marriott employees case, then why wouldn’t they release it to the police or the courts? Its an injustice that Irvin was accused, lost his job covering the biggest sports media event of the year, and three weeks later… most people are not even sure of what he is accused
    ______________

    For the umpteenth time, Irvin has not lost his job. He continues to be employed by the NFL Network to this day.
    ———-
    For the umpteenth time, reading is key. The OP said “he lost his job covering the biggest sports media event of the year” not that he lost his job. He did lose his chance to cover the super bowl.

  58. kenmasters34 says:
    February 22, 2023 at 2:28 pm
    bradygirl12 says:
    It could have been something that he said or suggested to this woman. Without audio, how will either of them prove their case?
    ——————–
    Does saying something(non threatening) or suggesting something, qualify as assault?
    _____________

    Interesting that you assume that it was non-threatening since you have no idea what he said. But of course you automatically believe Irvin over the woman. You would not believe that a woman was assaulted if it happened right in front of you, because you believe that a man has the right to do whatever he wants to with a woman, regardless of whether she consents.

  59. gibson45 says:
    February 22, 2023 at 5:17 pm
    kenmasters34 says:
    February 22, 2023 at 2:28 pm
    bradygirl12 says:
    It could have been something that he said or suggested to this woman. Without audio, how will either of them prove their case?
    ——————–
    Does saying something(non threatening) or suggesting something, qualify as assault?
    _____________

    Interesting that you assume that it was non-threatening since you have no idea what he said. But of course you automatically believe Irvin over the woman. You would not believe that a woman was assaulted if it happened right in front of you, because you believe that a man has the right to do whatever he wants to with a woman, regardless of whether she consents.
    ————————————

    The reason I said non threatening, is because of the type of assault thats being alleged. Apparently you care enough to convict someone, but dont care what the accusation is.

  60. So, while Marriott’s team is carefully reviewing the case, doing their own investigation, getting the case moved a more appropriate forum, searching for all electronic records, reviewing the issues involved in releasing a tape that may have privacy issues relating to all the other people in that hotel lobby, and planning their formal response to the complaint which is a long way from being due, Irvin’s lawyer is doing a masterful job of reminding the world his client was too drunk in public to remember what he was saying and doing in that hotel lobby. Yeah, I want that guy on my team.

  61. Sunday Swami says:
    February 22, 2023 at 4:48 pm
    gibson45 says:

    February 22, 2023 at 10:29 am

    kenmasters34 says:
    February 22, 2023 at 8:59 am
    If the video proves the Marriott employees case, then why wouldn’t they release it to the police or the courts? Its an injustice that Irvin was accused, lost his job covering the biggest sports media event of the year, and three weeks later… most people are not even sure of what he is accused
    ______________

    For the umpteenth time, Irvin has not lost his job. He continues to be employed by the NFL Network to this day.
    ———-
    For the umpteenth time, reading is key. The OP said “he lost his job covering the biggest sports media event of the year” not that he lost his job. He did lose his chance to cover the super bowl.
    ______________

    Irvin was removed from a one hour appearance on Friday before the game. He continued his all expenses paid weekend, staying in a five star hotel, eating at the finest restaurants, and attending the game, all covered by his NFL Network on his expense account. He did not lose a thing, he gained a free vacation.

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.