As readers are aware, Legal Insurrection has reported more extensively on events at Oberlin College over the past several years than almost any other website.
Among other things, Legal Insurrection has engaged in reporting on the following issues related to Oberlin College:
In addition to the issues listed above, Legal Insurrection also has reported on a dispute between Oberlin College and a local bakery, Gibson’s Bakery, in Oberlin, Ohio. Legal Insurrection has reported on the arrest of three African-American Oberlin College students at the bakery for shoplifting, protests by students, faculty and staff of Oberlin College alleging racial profiling, boycotts of Gibson’s by the Oberlin College community including by the college itself, Oberlin town community reaction to the protests, the eventual conviction of the three students, and a lawsuit brought Gibson’s Bakery against Oberlin College and its Dean of Students, Meredith Raimondo.
The following articles, among others, were published at Legal Insurrection regarding the Gibson’s dispute and lawsuit:
Earlier this year, Oberlin College requested that the venue of the trial of the Gibson’s lawsuit be moved out of Lorain County, arguing that Oberlin College could not receive a fair trial in its home county due to alleged prejudicial pre-trial publicity. As detailed in Oberlin College’s motion to transfer venue, the Gibson’s controversy received widespread local and national media coverage.
The court electronic docket in the Gibson’s lawsuit reflects that the motion to transfer venue was denied:
In the Gibson’s lawsuit, Oberlin College served subpoenae upon counsel for Gibson’s Bakery, seeking, among other things, communications between Gibson Bakery’s lawyers and the media:
Produce any and all Documents that refer, relate or pertain to the following:1) All communications between You and the News Media concerning the Lawsuit.2) All documents that You sent to or received from the News Media concerning the Lawsuit.3) All communications between You and the Plaintiffs regarding requests for information or comment from the News Media.4) All communications between You and the Plaintiffs regarding responding to requests for information or comment from the News Media.5) All communications between You and the Plaintiffs regarding releasing any information to the News Media.6) All communications between or among partners, members, shareholders, associates, paralegals, staff, employees, representatives or agents of the Krugliak Law Firm regarding requests for information or comment from the News Media concerning the Lawsuit.7) All communications between or among partners, members, shareholders, associates, paralegals, staff, employees, representatives or agents of the Krugliak Law Firm regarding responding to requests for information or comment from the News Media concerning the Lawsuit.8) All communications between or among partners, members, shareholders, associates, paralegals, staff, employees, representatives or agents of the Krugliak Law Firm regarding releasing any information concerning the Lawsuit to the News Media.9) All communications between You and any Person concerning the Lawsuit.
The Ohio court denied Oberlin College’s motion to compel, and granted plaintiffs’ attorneys’ motion for a protective order:
Having been denied access to the communications by the Ohio court, Oberlin College served a Subpoena Duces Tecum (pdf.) in New York State on WAJ Media LLC (the entity that does business as Legal Insurrection).
The Subpoena purports to seek records to which the Ohio court already has denied Oberlin College access, namely, communications between the attorneys for Gibson’s Bakery and WAJ Media:
Produce any and all Documents that refer, relate or pertain to the following:1) All communications between You and the Tzangas Law Firm concerning the Incident, Demonstrations, or the Lawsuit.2) All documents that You sent to or received from the Tzangas Law Firm concerning the Incident, Demonstrations, or the Lawsuit.3) All communications between You and the Krugliak Law Firm concerning the Incident, Demonstrations. or the Lawsuit.4) All documents that You sent to or received from the Krugliak Law Firm concerning the Incident, Demonstrations, or the Lawsuit.
We have gone to court in New York State Supreme Court, Tompkins County, seeking a protective order and to quash the Subpoena on the grounds, among others, that our communications are protected by the New York State constitution and common law, and the New York Press Shield Law.
See the Affirmation of Wiliam J. Troy, III, Esq. (pdf.) and Memorandum of Law (pdf.)(full embeds at bottom of post).
The Judge assigned to the case has signed an Order to Show Cause (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post) setting a hearing for August 17. This Order to Show Cause is not a ruling on the merits, but a scheduling order.
We will keep you informed as the case progresses.
—————————
WAJ Media v. Oberlin College – Order to Show Cause dated July 5, 2018.pdf by Legal Insurrection on Scribd
—————————
WAJ Media v. Oberlin College – Affirmation in Support of Protective Order.pdf by Legal Insurrection on Scribd
—————————-
WAJ Media v. Oberlin College – Memo of Law in Support of Protective Order by Legal Insurrection on Scribd
[Featured Image: Screenshot Oberlin College Protest]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY
