Latest filings in Safety Dance feature the College’s attempt to unmask John Doe, justified, in part, by citing EphBlog. Should we be horrified or proud?
The Memo in Support of Motion for Reconsideration provides the College’s argument.
1) What do readers think of the College’s attempt to unmask John Doe? Seems sleazy to me!
2) What do attorneys (especially MRL ’91 and WW) think? Is this a negotiating ploy?
Here is part of what Doe’s attorney Stacey Elin Rossi wrote in that e-mail:
Harsh but fair? Susan Smith has not come off looking good so far . . .
By the way, why was Rossi sending Smith e-mails like this last summer? John Doe’s complaint is with Williams refusal to grant him his degree. How was Smith still a part of the conversation in August?
The other (unnamed) blog is Academic Wonderland, maintained by former Williams faculty member KC Johnson. Should we be proud or embarrassed to be called out by Williams’s counsel in this context? Should we be upset not to be mentioned by name? Also, any lawyers care to chime on about our use of a photo from the Internet Archive? Do we really need anyone’s “permission?”
The Attachment 2 to Memo Reconsideration is a screenshot of EphBlog. I believe that this is the second time that EphBlog has appeared in a court document. Who among our loyal readers remembers the first?
John Doe’s attorney argues against in the Reply Memo in Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration.
Did College attorneys Daryl Lapp and Elizabeth Kelly really violate an (important?) rule of civil procedure? I have my doubts. They seem like serious players, as one would expect of the attorneys hired by Williams. (Harvard hires few idiots.) Comments welcome!
Seems to be that Rossi has the better argument here. Am I missing something?