Been away for a few days but I see that the drama around Rodriguez hasn’t let up a bit. Some pretty interesting comments from readers on my two posts on the #1 jersey deal, and now I see that Rodriguez’s full deposition is out there. Links:
Part I Part II Part III

I’m looking through it but the first thing that stuck out, being a novice of depositions (and disguises), I found the glossary and index of every word uttered pretty wild:

I spotted “Boubacar” in the transcript and shot over to this section. Curious as the court reporter couldn’t get “Terrelle” or “Pryor” consistently correct but nailed “Boubacar Cissoko”. Anyway, here’s Rich Rod getting grilled on the timing of calling the recruits with his West Virginia phone:

I don’t know exactly how this went down in the court, but it seems Rodriguez ignores the frequent objections by his lawyer, the same guy who likened Rodriguez’s situation to slavery not too long ago. Not sure that if in these cases there was an objection, a huddle, then an answer, although there are other instances when it is clear Robon objects then says it is ok to answer. Don’t know, but there are countless occasions where Robon objects but it appears Rodriguez blows him off and answers anyway:

[Update: Got an excellent comment from “Mike” who can talk him some law and it’s worthy to post here:

Objections made at depositions are made for the purpose of preserving the objection in the event a judge needs to rule on it at some point. There is no judge at a deposition. An objections is made, and the answer is still given, because a deposition is not a “hearing” where the rules of evidence apply. Generally, any question that does not invade a privelege is permissible. Hearsay, for instance, while objectionalble in court, is not an objection at a deposition. So if a question calls for a hearsay answer, the lawyer objects, and the client still answers the question. Then, if a party attempts to offer the deposition into evidence, the judge rules on the objection. If the objection were not made, the answer would be admissible, even if it violated the rules of evidence.]

Speaking of the slavery comment, the lawyers for West Virginia jumped on that, and the back and forth included two more instances where Rodriguez appears to blow through a Robon objection:

My favorite is Rodriguez saying “Mr. Robon speaks for himself.” Ehhh, Coach? He’s your lawyer, man!

Finally there’s a lot of talk about a website that Rodriguez wanted WVU to launch: a subscriber-based deal that would provide “insider” info and clips to fans for around $90/year, RR hoped to use this additional revenue to “get money for, in particular, assistant coaches.” He was unhappy with the existing site and really got pissed with a certain headline after a Pitt hoops game:

“Including injury reports?????” If I were Rodriguez I would have said, “What, are you a cop or something?” Gosh, are they trying to nail RR for NCAA violations on this as well? Sheesh. Why didn’t the guy just ask him, “Is there any other fishy stuff we should know about?”

4 Comments

  1. Like your site. Mostly like the content. However, your lack of knowlege of legal proceedings help perpetuate myths about lawyers, judges and the legal system (It never ceases to amaze me how people who are the most vocal ((I am not referring to you)) critics of lawyers and the legal system are the first to run to a lawyer when they need help – when their kids get rousted by the cops, when their neighbors trespass on their back 40, etc.)

    Objections made at depositions are made for the purpose of preserving the objection in the event a judge needs to rule on it at some point. There is no judge at a deposition. An objections is made, and the answer is still given, because a deposition is not a “hearing” where the rules of evidence apply. Generally, any question that does not invade a privelege is permissible. Hearsay, for instance, while objectionalble in court, is not an objection at a deposition. So if a question calls for a hearsay answer, the lawyer objects, and the client still answers the question. Then, if a party attempts to offer the deposition into evidence, the judge rules on the objection. If the objection were not made, the answer would be admissible, even if it violated the rules of evidence.

  2. Webmaster

    Mike,
    Thanks for the context on the deposition process and the lukewarm endorsement of this site.

    I tried to stress that I’m not clear on how this stuff works; I was just making an observation on what I’m reading. This certainly wasn’t an attempt to dismiss the roles of lawyers, judges and the legal system- I was trying to extend my reaction in reviewing the deposition.

    That said, I’ll laugh right along with everyone else when a lawyer joke comes my way.

  3. Wow is this story getting old. This dude should pay the 4 large and put this behind him. It is clear that wvu is going to drag this thing out as long as they can….they r pissed.

  4. Mike – I understand that objections during deps are purely for preservation sake, but to me it’s still weird. Wouldn’t it be easier if the lawyer could just object as necessary during a court proceeding if the other party seeks to introduce portions of the dep into evidence, and not even have to bother with it during the dep (which isn’t subject to the normal evidentiary rules anyway)?