« Skype Me | Main | - Getting a vibe that this guy was an Amway pest »
July 15, 2005
Jody Victor And Missouri
By QBlog in Arbitration
Last November I posted about a videotape that surfaced as evidence in the now infamous "Hart Lawsuit" from Missouri. A description of that videotape made its way onto PACER (a public court records database) and explained that, among other things, Quixtar Diamond Jody Victor could be seen "woodshedding a JAMS facilitator" about a Plaintiff in a Florida arbitration case.
Of course the videotape was entered as evidence by the Plaintiffs (former tool distributors suing Quixtar et al.) to demonstrate that the Quixtar arbitration process is rigged. Watching Jody Victor "woodshed" a supposedly neutral arbitrator couldn't have helped the Defense.
And obviously Quixtar was upset that a description of the videotape was released to PACER and that websites like this one picked it up and published it for the rest of the world to read. So Quixtar filed a Motion to sanction the Plaintiffs and claimed that they were "harmed" by the publication of the videotape description.
The Order from Judge Richard Dorr (pdf), United States District Court, concedes that the Plaintiffs erred by not placing the videotape description under a Protective Order but says that the Defendants did not show how the publication was damaging to them.
The Court finds that Defendants Motion is due to be denied. While it may have been improper for the Plaintiffs to file these materials without the proper protection to Defendants of placing them "under seal," Plaintiffs corrected the mistake as soon as it was apparent to them. Additionally, Defendants have not demonstrated how they were harmed by the availability of the information for such a limited time. Defendants mention the publication on a few internet sites, however they have not shown how this publication was damaging to them.
This particular case is important to Quixtar because it may very well decide the fate of its Business Support Materials Arbitration Agreement. Scott Larsen has done an excellent job of detailing the important events in this case.
- Mandatory Arbitration Question goes to Missouri Supreme Court
- Alticor upset about "Quixtar-hating Internet zealots" and "Internet rumormongers"
Comments
I think Qblog should add "Internet Zealot" and "Internet Rumormonger" merchandise to his store. Or maybe those should become "levels" in the forums...
D'oh bystander, I was gonna say that. Where are the 'defenders' on this one? This business is supposed to make you "free". Where is the freedom? Being slave to some ass*hole who can cut you off any time?
No comments from the pro's? Like how the arbitration agreement shouldn't matter anyway, as honest and ethical as "the business" is? Or how the kingpins walk on water because they've figured out how to milk some profit from this thing? Or how being "on system" is the key to "success"?
Hint: YOU being "on system" is the key to the KINGPINS' "success"
Posted by: Bystander | July 16, 2005 6:20 PM