🚨🚨 FSU COMPLAINT DISMISSED!!! Must be refiled with more specificity. 🚨🚨 Judge Cooper grants the motion to dismiss with leave to amend on this issue of personal jurisdiction. He takes the time to make VERY clear, that neither side is "winning" here. He needs a more clear…

— RohanLaw (@RohanLawPC) April 22, 2024

womp womp

From a FSU flair:

Quote:

---

So the question presented to FSU now is do you re-file or focus all your efforts in NC? If you re-file, I think they run the risk of being stayed for the NC case because the priority analysis flips in my opinion (the ACC without a doubt approved the litigation by January 12, which is earlier than any future filing date). But I think FSU still has a desire to have these public policy arguments evaluated under Florida law for a state entity. FSU is also appealing the sovereignty argument in NC, so there's going to be some delay in NC unless the court doesn't stay pending appeal.

I know Judge Cooper says nobody is winning, which I think on the merits is true, but this is procedurally a pretty solid win for the ACC.

---

https://old.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1cahg6r/rohanlaw_fsu_complaint_dismissed_must_be_refiled/

FSU filed a complaint in Florida. The ACC filed a motion to dismiss it. This was a hearing on the ACC's motion to dismiss FSU's complaint. The ACC's motion was denied in part and granted based on FSU's lack of adequate showing of personal jurisdiction. The FSU complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.

WalterSobchak said:

---

FSU filed a complaint in Florida. The ACC filed a motion to dismiss it. This was a hearing on the ACC's motion to dismiss FSU's complaint. The ACC's motion was denied in part and granted based on FSU's lack of adequate showing of personal jurisdiction. The FSU complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.

---

out of curiosity, is fsu complaining that the contract they signed was flawed and, therefore, null or that some part of it didn't pertain to them? They must have read it. They signed it. If it's now not in their best interest to have signed it, too bad. Seems to this untrained eye.

Rushinbear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

FSU filed a complaint in Florida. The ACC filed a motion to dismiss it. This was a hearing on the ACC's motion to dismiss FSU's complaint. The ACC's motion was denied in part and granted based on FSU's lack of adequate showing of personal jurisdiction. The FSU complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.

---

out of curiosity, is fsu complaining that the contract they signed was flawed and, therefore, null or that some part of it didn't pertain to them? They must have read it. They signed it. If it's now not in their best interest to have signed it, too bad. Seems to this untrained eye.

---

Yes, but this hearing and ruling didn't have anything to do with that.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Rushinbear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

FSU filed a complaint in Florida. The ACC filed a motion to dismiss it. This was a hearing on the ACC's motion to dismiss FSU's complaint. The ACC's motion was denied in part and granted based on FSU's lack of adequate showing of personal jurisdiction. The FSU complaint was dismissed with leave to amend.

---

out of curiosity, is fsu complaining that the contract they signed was flawed and, therefore, null or that some part of it didn't pertain to them? They must have read it. They signed it. If it's now not in their best interest to have signed it, too bad. Seems to this untrained eye.

---

Yes, but this hearing and ruling didn't have anything to do with that.

---

Aha. Thank you.

Florida AG has filed an action in an attempt to compel further PRA responses from the ACC. This comes on the heels of a letter she sent to the AGs of all states where ACC public schools reside, including CA AG Rob Bonta, begging them to join in her outrage.

https://old.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1ccr9gb/floridas_attorney_general_files_lawsuit_against/
https://old.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1cb7mrb/acc_vs_fsu_florida_ag_ashley_moody_brings_up/

Doesn't matter if the ACC is a public entity or not. The public entity is Florida State University. The Florida AG is citing a 2009 records request to the NCAA. The NCAA kept records about FSU's cheating scandal on a secure website. Florida court ruled the NCAA was subject to public disclosure because they were viewed by lawyers for a public agency and received as part of its general business.

wifeisafurd said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

Florida AG has filed an action in an attempt to compel further PRA responses from the ACC. This comes on the heels of a letter she sent to the AGs of all states where ACC public schools reside, including CA AG Rob Bonta, begging them to join in her outrage.

https://old.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1ccr9gb/floridas_attorney_general_files_lawsuit_against/
https://old.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/1cb7mrb/acc_vs_fsu_florida_ag_ashley_moody_brings_up/

---

ACC is not a pubic entity and not subject to the Florida Public Records Act. - strike one

Can Florida State disclose the contract? Probably not. Florida Statue Section 688.002. (2) PUBLIC RECORD EXEMPTION. A trade secret and similar confidential information held by an agency is confidential and exempt from the public record act - strike two

Will the contract get leaked anyway to the media who will disclose it? Yes, home run.

I'm not sure why for purposes of this case anyone cares? The case will turn on jurisdiction and legal interpretation of the contract provisions, whether the public knows about the contract or not.

---

FSU partisans seem to have this idea that public discovery of the contract will immediately get the ACC to settle. I don't think I've ever seen a good explanation for why.

philly1121 said:

---

Doesn't matter if the ACC is a public entity or not. The public entity is Florida State University. The Florida AG is citing a 2009 records request to the NCAA. The NCAA kept records about FSU's cheating scandal on a secure website. Florida court ruled the NCAA was subject to public disclosure because they were viewed by lawyers for a public agency and received as part of its general business.

---

This is the contract that FSU signed and has a copy of?

philly1121 said:

---

Doesn't matter if the ACC is a public entity or not. The public entity is Florida State University. The Florida AG is citing a 2009 records request to the NCAA. The NCAA kept records about FSU's cheating scandal on a secure website. Florida court ruled the NCAA was subject to public disclosure because they were viewed by lawyers for a public agency and received as part of its general business.

---

Oh, good luck on that.

Let's back-up, ESPN filed a motion in the Florida case saying FSU violated trade secrets by disclosing portions of the ESPN contact in it's complaint against the ACC. In response the Florida court directed FSU to sanitize its filings, and FSU attorney's eliminated the provisions.. Now go luck at my number 2 again. Courts across the country have protected these types of agreements, including the present agreements between the Conference and ESPN, in a variety of lawsuits. Trying to back door this by the AG acting is going nowhere fast.

But before you get there, 2009 court case against the NCAA involved the "official business" of a state entity (FSU) and were "examined by state lawyers" for a public purpose at a record base only maintined only by the NCAA. Numerous FSU sites and the AG claim that the contract is FSU's counsel has reviewed the records, "but the ACC doesn't let schools get copies of them." The ESPN contract is "kept at the conference's North Carolina headquarters and can only be viewed under strict conditions." Confidentiality is mandatory, the ACC argues, to protect trade secrets. The problem is one of facts, because ESPN says that FSU has a contract copy and violated its trade secrets, which led to the sanitizing of the FSU pleadings. Moving past there factual discrepancy between the case with the NCAA, the other problem is that the North Carolina court has issued order restraining the ACC from releasing any portion of the contract over Florida State's objections. in that regard, the Florida AG is considering suing in North Carolina courts and has asked other State AG's to join her.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Doesn't matter if the ACC is a public entity or not. The public entity is Florida State University. The Florida AG is citing a 2009 records request to the NCAA. The NCAA kept records about FSU's cheating scandal on a secure website. Florida court ruled the NCAA was subject to public disclosure because they were viewed by lawyers for a public agency and received as part of its general business.

---

This is the contract that FSU signed and has a copy of?

---

They signed the GOR and have a copy of that according to ESPN, so the NCAA case likely doesn't apply. It doesn't matter probably because of the trade secret exclsigin in the PRA statutes. Fox and ESPN and been successful in blocking release of the contract and GOR on trade secret grounds in every other attempt to have the documents released.

I'm sure the operative terms will get leaked anyway.

wifeisafurd said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Doesn't matter if the ACC is a public entity or not. The public entity is Florida State University. The Florida AG is citing a 2009 records request to the NCAA. The NCAA kept records about FSU's cheating scandal on a secure website. Florida court ruled the NCAA was subject to public disclosure because they were viewed by lawyers for a public agency and received as part of its general business.

---

Oh, good luck on that.

Let's back-up, ESPN filed a motion in the Florida case saying FSU violated trade secrets by disclosing portions of the ESPN contact in it's complaint against the ACC. In response the Florida court directed FSU to sanitize its filings, and FSU attorney's eliminated the provisions.. Now go luck at my number 2 again. Courts across the country have protected these types of agreements, including the present agreements between the Conference and ESPN, in a variety of lawsuits. Trying to back door this by the AG acting is going nowhere fast.

But before you get there, 2009 court case against the NCAA involved the "official business" of a state entity (FSU) and were "examined by state lawyers" for a public purpose at a record base only maintined only by the NCAA. Numerous FSU sites and the AG claim that the contract is FSU's counsel has reviewed the records, "but the ACC doesn't let schools get copies of them." The ESPN contract is "kept at the conference's North Carolina headquarters and can only be viewed under strict conditions." Confidentiality is mandatory, the ACC argues, to protect trade secrets. The problem is one of facts, because ESPN says that FSU has a contract copy and violated its trade secrets, which led to the sanitizing of the FSU pleadings. Moving past there factual discrepancy between the case with the NCAA, the other problem is that the North Carolina court has issued order restraining the ACC from releasing any portion of the contract over Florida State's objections. in that regard, the Florida AG is considering suing in North Carolina courts and has asked other State AG's to join her.

---

You have reiterated the facts quite eloquently. I have not offered an opinion as to whether FSU would be successful, only that they are relying on the 2009 case as a basis for their complaint in not being able to "view" and copy the document. I would assume that FSU will likely get no help from any AG outside Florida or the Carolinas as far as joining their appeal.

philly1121 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Doesn't matter if the ACC is a public entity or not. The public entity is Florida State University. The Florida AG is citing a 2009 records request to the NCAA. The NCAA kept records about FSU's cheating scandal on a secure website. Florida court ruled the NCAA was subject to public disclosure because they were viewed by lawyers for a public agency and received as part of its general business.

---

Oh, good luck on that.

Let's back-up, ESPN filed a motion in the Florida case saying FSU violated trade secrets by disclosing portions of the ESPN contact in it's complaint against the ACC. In response the Florida court directed FSU to sanitize its filings, and FSU attorney's eliminated the provisions.. Now go luck at my number 2 again. Courts across the country have protected these types of agreements, including the present agreements between the Conference and ESPN, in a variety of lawsuits. Trying to back door this by the AG acting is going nowhere fast.

But before you get there, 2009 court case against the NCAA involved the "official business" of a state entity (FSU) and were "examined by state lawyers" for a public purpose at a record base only maintined only by the NCAA. Numerous FSU sites and the AG claim that the contract is FSU's counsel has reviewed the records, "but the ACC doesn't let schools get copies of them." The ESPN contract is "kept at the conference's North Carolina headquarters and can only be viewed under strict conditions." Confidentiality is mandatory, the ACC argues, to protect trade secrets. The problem is one of facts, because ESPN says that FSU has a contract copy and violated its trade secrets, which led to the sanitizing of the FSU pleadings. Moving past there factual discrepancy between the case with the NCAA, the other problem is that the North Carolina court has issued order restraining the ACC from releasing any portion of the contract over Florida State's objections. in that regard, the Florida AG is considering suing in North Carolina courts and has asked other State AG's to join her.

---

You have reiterated the facts quite eloquently. I have not offered an opinion as to whether FSU would be successful, only that they are relying on the 2009 case as a basis for their complaint in not being able to "view" and copy the document. I would assume that FSU will likely get no help from any AG outside Florida or the Carolinas as far as joining their appeal.

---

Fair enough. After observing the Disney don't say gay litigation (and hoping to avoid this moved to the wasteland that is "off topic"), I'm cognizant that the Florida AG aggressively pursues issues that matter to her constituents. (In fact, to my surprise, her office seemed to better Disney at the trail court level when the Judge found Disney did not have standing to sue, thereby forcing a settlement).

Well for her part I'm sure she would consider this "grassroots" constituent work. Trying to get more money for a public university in her state. More jobs, people in stands, tv viewers seeing the state. Retail politics my friend.

philly1121 said:

---

Well for her part I'm sure she would consider this "grassroots" constituent work. Trying to get more money for a public university in her state. More jobs, people in stands, tv viewers seeing the state. Retail politics my friend.

---

It is an elected position. She is doing what she thinks is popular with a majority of Florida voters, not what makes legal sense.

It's just more evidence IMO that FSU must have or think they have a B1G invite from FOX.

Does that make any difference? From a legal perspective you're going to push. Why? For more money. To get out of a bad deal. I mean, it's more money for FSU. Why wouldn't it make legal sense to sue?

WalterSobchak said:

---

It's just more evidence IMO that FSU must have or think they have a B1G invite from FOX.

---

They need a B1G invite from the B1G. In the case of UW and Oregon there were many reports of Oregon and UW officials in Chicago meeting with B1G officials.

I am sure Fox is willing to pay full B1G share for FSU. The question is how the other schools view adding FSU.

Oregon was an equivalent academic stretch, but UW needed a parter. I'd think the B1G presidents would prefer Florida or Miami for the Florida market.

However, the big issue is still the GORs.

I don't disagree, but further antagonizing and alienating Disney isn't going to provide more opportunities for them. If Cal seeking recourse for Ucla leaving indirectly angered FOX, imagine what relentlessly pursuing litigation to force public disclosure of trade secrets Disney wants held inviolate will do to that relationship.

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Doesn't matter if the ACC is a public entity or not. The public entity is Florida State University. The Florida AG is citing a 2009 records request to the NCAA. The NCAA kept records about FSU's cheating scandal on a secure website. Florida court ruled the NCAA was subject to public disclosure because they were viewed by lawyers for a public agency and received as part of its general business.

---

This is the contract that FSU signed and has a copy of?

---

Yes, but she's also asking for media rights data and agreements too. I think this is probably happening now as a collateral attack to get around (or help get around) the standing roadblock they've encountered in the main lawsuit. She sent her PRA to the ACC on January 4th. The ACC says they received in on January 10th and they responded on January 19th. So nothing new. I think they're probably hoping to take a second swing at standing here and then use that in their amended complaint.

Aside from everything else it's really odd to PRA a NC entity in FL under FL law rather than in NC under NC law, but apparently FL has very broad public disclosure policies. We know the NC court has already denied the FSU motion to disclose these documents in their case. The 2009 Associated Press case wiaf referenced purports to establish a bright-line rule that any document "received" by any Florida government entity (or agent, such as an attorney) in any manner, including (in that case) mere viewing from FL of an electronic version stored on a secure remote server, and "used in the course of the state's business" is a public record subject to disclosure. I assume this is why the ACC only allows viewing of the trade secret documents in person on site in NC. They're probably trying to tee up an argument that the documents have never been "received" outside their jurisdiction and thus are not subject to any foreign disclosure law. We'll see.

Here's the case for anyone interested: https://casetext.com/case/ncaa-v-associated-press

WalterSobchak said:

---

calumnus said:

---

philly1121 said:

---

Doesn't matter if the ACC is a public entity or not. The public entity is Florida State University. The Florida AG is citing a 2009 records request to the NCAA. The NCAA kept records about FSU's cheating scandal on a secure website. Florida court ruled the NCAA was subject to public disclosure because they were viewed by lawyers for a public agency and received as part of its general business.

---

This is the contract that FSU signed and has a copy of?

---

Yes, but she's also asking for media rights data and agreements too. I think this is probably happening now as a collateral attack to get around (or help get around) the standing roadblock they've encountered in the main lawsuit. She sent her PRA to the ACC on January 4th. The ACC says they received in on January 10th and they responded on January 19th. So nothing new. I think they're probably hoping to take a second swing at standing here and then use that in their amended complaint.

Aside from everything else it's really odd to PRA a NC entity in FL under FL law rather than in NC under NC law, but apparently FL has very broad public disclosure policies. We know the NC court has already denied the FSU motion to disclose these documents in their case. The 2009 Associated Press case waif referenced purports to establish a bright-line rule that any document "received" by any Florida government entity (or agent, such as an attorney) in any manner, including (in that case) mere viewing from FL of an electronic version stored on a secure remote server, and "used in the course of the state's business" is a public record subject to disclosure. I assume this is why the ACC only allows viewing of the trade secret documents in person on site in NC. They're probably trying to tee up an argument that the documents have never been "received" outside their jurisdiction and thus are not subject to any foreign disclosure law. We'll see.

Here's the case for anyone interested: https://casetext.com/case/ncaa-v-associated-press

---

Thanks! Very informative.

WalterSobchak said:

---

I don't disagree, but further antagonizing and alienating Disney isn't going to provide more opportunities for them. If Cal seeking recourse for Ucla leaving indirectly angered FOX, imagine what relentlessly pursuing litigation to force public disclosure of trade secrets Disney wants held inviolate will do to that relationship.

---

Agreed.

Wars are rarely make sense from an economic perspective, but politicians still like wars for political reasons.