Rodriguez Deposition: Digging into it

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?”