More stories

  • in

    Spurs Psychologist Sues Joshua Primo, Saying He Exposed Himself to Her

    A sports psychologist for the San Antonio Spurs sued Joshua Primo and the team, saying the Spurs did not protect her after she complained to senior executives.A sports psychologist who worked for the San Antonio Spurs said in a lawsuit filed Thursday that Joshua Primo, a former lottery draft pick of the Spurs, repeatedly exposed himself to her during treatment sessions and that the team did not protect her and others after she reported his conduct.Dr. Hillary Cauthen, a licensed clinical psychologist who was contracted by the team in September 2021, said Primo first exposed his penis to her in December 2021. She asked for a meeting with Spurs General Manager Brian Wright, according to her complaint, but didn’t get one until March 2022. She was then asked to continue working with Primo, who again exposed himself to her in another session, according to a copy of her lawsuit, which was provided by her lawyer, Tony Buzbee.The filing was not immediately available from the court, but the clerk’s office in Bexar County, Texas, where San Antonio is located, confirmed that Dr. Cauthen filed a lawsuit against Primo and the Spurs on Thursday.Primo’s lawyer, William J. Briggs II, said in a statement that Primo “never intentionally exposed himself” to Dr. Cauthen or any other person. Primo was not aware his genitals were visible outside of his workout shorts, Briggs said, and Dr. Cauthen did not tell him they were.“Dr. Cauthen’s allegations are either a complete fabrication, a gross embellishment or utter fantasy,” Briggs said.The Spurs said in a statement: “We disagree with the accuracy of facts, details and timeline presented today. While we would like to share more information, we will allow the legal process to play out.”An N.B.A. spokesman said, “We are aware of the allegations and are monitoring the situation.”The Spurs cut Primo, the No. 12 pick in the 2021 N.B.A. draft, last Friday. The team did not explain the reasons behind the sudden move, which came five games into the season and two weeks after the team exercised the third-year option in Primo’s contract, guaranteeing his $4.3 million salary for the 2023-24 season.Buzbee, who represented two dozen women who accused N.F.L. quarterback Deshaun Watson of harassment and lewd conduct in massage appointments, said in a news conference Thursday that he and Dr. Cauthen were trying to resolve the issue privately and wanted the Spurs to put in place formal protocols for handling complaints like Dr. Cauthen’s. They filed a lawsuit against Primo and the Spurs after anonymously sourced news reports said that Primo was released because he exposed himself to multiple women.Dr. Hillary Cauthen at a news conference on Thursday.via KSAT PlusAccording to the copy of her lawsuit, Dr. Cauthen had multiple meetings with members of the Spurs organization, including Wright, the deputy general counsel and the head of human resources, after she complained about Primo’s conduct. The team promised to conduct an investigation but did not take immediate steps to discipline Primo or ensure she did not have to interact with him, Dr. Cauthen said.The team suggested she work from home and later told her to “sit out” traveling with the Spurs during the 2022 Summer League in Las Vegas after she said she was frustrated with the team’s inaction, her lawsuit said. Dr. Cauthen, who co-owns an Austin-based performance and psychological services company, said she was not retained by the Spurs when her contract came up for renewal in August.“The organization I worked for has failed me,” Dr. Cauthen said at the news conference. “I spoke up. I asked for help.”Buzbee said Dr. Cauthen will also file a criminal complaint in Bexar County, accusing Primo of multiple counts of indecent exposure.Primo was placed on waivers last weekend, which gave other teams the chance to claim him. No team did, and Primo became an unrestricted free agent.In a statement announcing that the team was waiving Primo, R.C. Buford, the chief executive of Spurs Sports & Entertainment, said, “It is our hope that, in the long run, this decision will serve the best interest of both the organization and Joshua.” Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich declined to comment to reporters at the time.Until Dr. Cauthen’s lawsuit was filed, neither Primo nor the Spurs had directly addressed the reasons for his release. In a statement to ESPN last Friday, Primo said he had been seeking help to deal with “previous trauma” and would be focusing on his mental health treatment after his release.Buzbee called the public statements made by Primo and the Spurs “complete farces” and said they did not reflect what happened. Dr. Cauthen said she was “disheartened” by the situation.“It took the Spurs 10 months to do the right thing,” Dr. Cauthen said of the decision to waive Primo. “That’s too long.” More

  • in

    PGA Tour Accuses LIV Golf of Interfering With Its Contracts

    The PGA Tour filed a counterclaim against the breakaway, Saudi-backed LIV Golf series, which has accused the tour of antitrust violations.The PGA Tour filed a countersuit against LIV Golf on Wednesday, the latest turn in a winding legal battle between the tour and the Saudi-backed circuit that has drawn a number of top players.In its counterclaim, the PGA Tour, which LIV is suing for antitrust violations, said the upstart series had “tortiously interfered” with the tour’s contracts with golfers who had left to join LIV. It added that LIV had “falsely informed” its players that they could break their contracts with the tour “for the benefit of LIV and to the detriment of all tour members.”“Indeed, a key component of LIV’s strategy has been to intentionally induce tour members to breach their tour agreements and play in LIV events while seeking to maintain their tour memberships and play in marquee tour events like The Players Championship and the FedEx Cup Playoffs, so LIV can free ride off the tour and its platform,” the PGA Tour said in its counterclaim.The PGA Tour, which declined to comment on Thursday, asked for a trial by jury, which was set for January 2024. The tour also seeks damages for any lost profits, “damages to reputational and brand harm” and other legal costs.In a statement on Thursday, LIV said the PGA Tour “has made these counterclaims in a transparent effort to divert attention from their anti-competitive conduct, which LIV and the players detail in their 104-page complaint.”A Quick Guide to the LIV Golf SeriesCard 1 of 6A new series. More

  • in

    Read Los Angeles County’s Trial Brief in the Bryant Case

    Case 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E Document 367 Filed 08/03/22 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:31186

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

    such as “high speed police chases”—the more demanding “purpose to harm” standard applies. Id. at 1137. When the officer’s conduct is more akin to negligence, courts have found such conduct insufficient to “shock the conscience.” For example, in Jones v. Jinparn, No. C 19-02817 SBA, 2020 WL 999806, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2020), the plaintiffs alleged that a police officer failed to make reasonable efforts to contact the decedent’s heirs before releasing the body for cremation. The court there reasoned that the officer’s conduct “sounds, at most, in negligence.” Id. at *5. “The Due Process Clause serves to protect the individual from the abuse of governmental power” and thus is not implicated by a negligent act. Id. By contrast, in Shelley v. County of San Joaquin, 996 F. Supp. 2d 921 (E.D. Cal. 2014), plaintiffs, who were the decedent’s family members, alleged that defendants violated their right to privacy by engaging in large-scale digging to exhume the decedent’s remains, which caused the remains to be “chewed up, pulverized, destroyed, crushed and commingled with other unknown murder victims” in the presence of the decedent’s mother and before news media. Id. at 931. The court concluded such conduct was likely to cause the family “profound grief” and therefore shocks the conscience. Id. (citation omitted). Here, the officers’ conduct at issue is more akin to that in Jones than in Shelley. First, with respect to the taking and internal sharing of photos among County personnel, the evidence will show that site photography at an incident is both appropriate and common practice in both the Fire and Sheriff’s Departments. Such photos are used, among other things, to provide intel, to assess the progress of an incident response, and to facilitate training post-incident. Indeed, some of the photos taken by County personnel here were shared with the NTSB to assist them in their investigation of the crash. With respect to Plaintiffs’ allegations that photos were shared with people outside the County or outside the confines of County business, Plaintiffs’ case is

    570887.2 11 DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF More

  • in

    Vanessa Bryant Is Suing L.A. County Over Kobe Bryant Crash Photos: What to Know

    Bryant, whose husband and daughter died in a 2020 helicopter crash, said county employees shared photos of human remains from the crash, causing her emotional distress.Vanessa Bryant, the wife of the late basketball star Kobe Bryant, is expected to testify at a trial this week after she sued Los Angeles County and some of its agencies and employees for sharing photos of human remains from the helicopter crash that killed her husband and daughter.The January 2020 crash killed Mr. Bryant, his 13-year-old daughter Gianna and seven others as they traveled to a youth basketball tournament at Mr. Bryant’s academy in Thousand Oaks, Calif., northwest of Los Angeles.Mr. Bryant, 41, joined the N.B.A. out of high school, spending his entire 20-year professional career with the Los Angeles Lakers. He won five championships and retired in 2016 as one of the N.B.A.’s top career scorers and one of the world’s most popular sports figures.In her lawsuit, Mrs. Bryant accused Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies and fire department employees of negligence and invading her privacy by sharing crash photos “without any legitimate purpose.”From left to right, Kobe Bryant, Gianna Bryant, Vanessa Bryant and Natalia Bryant in November 2017. Kobe and Gianna were killed in a helicopter crash in 2020.Reed Saxon/Associated PressMrs. Bryant said she “has suffered (and continues to suffer) severe emotional distress” and that she feared that the photographs would appear online.“I do not want my little girls or I to ever have to see their remains in that matter,” Mrs. Bryant said during a deposition in October 2021. “Nor do I think it’s right that the photographs were taken in the first place because it’s already tough enough that I have to experience this heartache and this loss.”Mrs. Bryant has three other daughters with Mr. Bryant: Capri, 3; Bianka, 5; and Natalia, 19.Officials with Los Angeles County and the sheriff’s and fire departments have acknowledged that photos were shared, but said they were deleted.The trial began Aug. 10. Here is what else to know about Mrs. Bryant’s lawsuit.What caused the crash?More than a year after the crash, the National Transportation Safety Board determined that the pilot’s “poor decision” to fly at excessive speeds in foggy weather was the probable cause of the accident. The pilot, Ara Zobayan, was among those killed in the crash.[Read the 86-page final investigation report from the N.T.S.B., which includes a six-page executive summary.]The safety board found that Mr. Zobayan had become so disoriented in the clouds that he thought he was ascending when he was turning left just before the helicopter crashed into a hill near Calabasas, Calif.The board also faulted the charter company, Island Express Helicopters, for “inadequate review and oversight of its safety management processes.”Read Vanessa Bryant’s LawsuitBryant accused Los Angeles County and some of its agencies and employees of negligence and invasion of privacy for sharing photos of human remains at the helicopter crash that killed her husband and daughter.Read Document 41 pagesWho saw the photos? Where are the photos now?In a January court filing, Mrs. Bryant’s lawyers said close-up pictures of Mr. Bryant’s and Gianna Bryant’s remains “were passed around on at least 28 Sheriff’s Department devices and by at least a dozen firefighters,” including at a bar and an awards gala. In her lawsuit, Mrs. Bryant claimed that social media users had said they had seen the photos.Mrs. Bryant named four sheriff’s deputies in her lawsuit and accused them of sharing the photos with each other, other deputies or family members. The Los Angeles Times reported in February 2020 that one of the deputies — identified as Joey Cruz in Mrs. Bryant’s lawsuit — showed the photos at a bar, prompting a bar patron to file a complaint with the sheriff’s department.Emily Tauscher, a captain at the Los Angeles County coroner’s office, testified at trial that after the crash Mr. Bryant was identified by his skin tone and arm tattoos.Los Angeles County and law enforcement officials have said that the photos were deleted and never “made it into the public arena.”What has been the county’s response to the lawsuit?Lawyers representing Los Angeles County said that taking photographs of fatal crime and accident scenes was a common practice for investigative and information-sharing purposes.“The County continues to express its deepest sympathies for the families that suffered this terrible loss,” Mira Hashmall, the lead outside counsel for the county, said in a statement. “The County has also worked tirelessly for two and half years to make sure its site photos of the crash were never publicly disseminated. The evidence shows they never were. And that is fact, not speculation.”The county has not called any witnesses yet, but in a court filing its lawyers are pushing to include some of Mrs. Bryant’s Instagram posts at trial to counter her claims of severe emotional distress caused by the shared photos. Mrs. Bryant’s lawyers have said her posts on Instagram, where she has 15.5 million followers, are not relevant to this case.The disputed posts include Mrs. Bryant and her family on vacations. Mrs. Bryant also shared images of herself dressed as the Disney character Cruella de Vil from the “101 Dalmatians” movie franchise.“Plaintiff’s emotional state is at the center of this case, and there is little more revealing of Plaintiff’s emotional state than her own words about her life, sadness, the targets of her anger, her activities, and other stressors that could contribute to any emotional distress,” the county said in a court filing this month about trial exhibits.The Bryant family at Kobe Bryant’s jersey retirement ceremony in December 2017. Kobe Bryant spent 20 seasons with the Los Angeles Lakers.Allen Berezovsky/Getty ImagesWhat has happened so far during the trial?The trial, as anticipated, has been emotional.Mrs. Bryant wept during the opening statements made by her lawyer, Luis Li.The accounts provided by emergency medical workers who took graphic photographs are conflicting. Brian Jordan, a retired fired captain who said he was ordered to take photos of the crash scene, left the witness stand three times because he needed breaks to finish his testimony.“I do not remember what I took pictures of,” Jordan testified. “The way the whole scene looked, it’s going to haunt me forever.”Deputy Rafael Mejia, who is named in the lawsuit, testified he received 15 to 20 photographs from another deputy the day of the crash. He said he sent about 10 of the pictures to two deputies, including Joey Cruz, who later would share them in public with a bartender. Mejia expressed regret over sharing the photos, saying, “Curiosity got the best of us.”Cruz testified that he made a “misjudgment” when he shared the photos.Lakers General Manager Rob Pelinka, who was Gianna Bryant’s godfather and had been Mr. Bryant’s agent before becoming a team executive, detailed his relationship with Mrs. Bryant and testified about the anxiety she had experienced because of the shared photos.“She wants an air of love and joy and peace and she does everything she can do to preserve that,” Mr. Pelinka said. “You experience the grief from loss, but there’s also the anxiety from these deplorable actions.”What else did Mrs. Bryant say during her deposition?Mrs. Bryant said she learned of the accident when a family assistant knocked on her door in the late morning of Jan. 26, 2020. As she tried calling Mr. Bryant, notifications of people mourning Mr. Bryant popped up on her phone.Mrs. Bryant said she went to an airport in an attempt to secure a helicopter to take her to the crash site but was told the weather conditions were not safe. Mr. Pelinka drove Mrs. Bryant to the sheriff’s station in Malibu, near the crash site, she said.At the station, “no one would answer” questions about her husband and daughter, Mrs. Bryant said. She was escorted back and forth between rooms, and after a long wait, a pastor walked in and Sheriff Alex Villanueva entered with a publicist. Mrs. Bryant said she wanted privacy and asked the publicist to leave the room.Villanueva confirmed the deaths, Mrs. Bryant said, and asked if he could do anything for her.“And I said: ‘If you can’t bring my husband and baby back, please make sure that no one takes photographs of them. Please secure the area,’” Mrs. Bryant said during the deposition. “And he said, ‘I will.’ And I said, ‘No, I need you to get on the phone right now and I need you to make sure you secure the area.’”How much is Mrs. Bryant suing for?Mrs. Bryant is suing for compensatory and punitive damages.“That would be up to the jury,” Mrs. Bryant responded when asked during her deposition how much money she sought. “I don’t — I’m not asking for a dollar amount.”Are the families of other crash victims involved in Mrs. Bryant’s case?Christopher Chester, whose wife, Sarah, 45, and daughter, Payton, 13, died in the crash, is joining the lawsuit. Two other victims’ families settled for $1.25 million each last year.Has any other litigation involving the crash been settled?Mrs. Bryant and the family members of the other victims reached a settlement in June 2021 with Island Express Helicopters, its owner, Island Express Holding Corporation and the estate of Mr. Zobayan.Terms of the settlement were confidential.Vik Jolly and More

  • in

    Read Vanessa Bryant’s Lawsuit

    Case 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E Document 54 Filed 03/17/21 Page 2 of 41 Page ID #:1137

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

    Plaintiff Vanessa Bryant (“Plaintiff”), through her undersigned counsel, hereby brings this action against defendants County of Los Angeles (the “County”), the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (the “Sheriff’s Department”), the Los Angeles County Fire Department (the “Fire Department,” and, collectively with the County and the Sheriff’s Department, the “Entity Defendants”), Joey Cruz, Rafael Mejia, Michael Russell, and Raul Versales (collectively, the “Deputy Defendants,” and, collectively with the County, the Sheriff’s Department, and the Fire Department, the “Defendants”) seeking damages to remedy violations of rights under the United States Constitution and for negligence and invasion of privacy pursuant to California law. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1343. Plaintiff alleges, on personal knowledge as to herself and information and belief as to others, as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. On the morning of Sunday, January 26, 2020, three eighth-grade girls, joined by parents and coaches, left their homes in Orange County to play in a youth basketball tournament in Thousand Oaks. Making their way by helicopter, they encountered dense fog. Rather than land or turn around, the pilot pushed into the fog and became disoriented. The helicopter descended rapidly and crashed into the foothills of the Santa Monica Mountains, killing everyone onboard. Vanessa Bryant’s thirteen year-old daughter, Gianna Bryant, and husband of nearly twenty years, Kobe Bryant, were among those who died. 2. In the aftermath of the crash, several of the victims’ family members gathered at the L.A. County Sheriff’s station in Lost Hills, devastated and distraught. Sheriff Alex Villanueva met with them and assured Mrs. Bryant that his deputies were securing the crash site. Based on a leak by law enforcement, the gossip and celebrity news site TMZ had reported that Kobe, a singular figure in

    Case No. 2:20-cv-09582-JFW-E FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT More

  • in

    Mickelson and Other LIV Golfers File Antitrust Suit Against PGA Tour

    A complaint filed on behalf of 11 players pushed back against the punishments imposed by the PGA Tour for players who participate in events sponsored by the upstart LIV series.Eleven golfers affiliated with the breakaway LIV Golf series have filed an antitrust lawsuit against the PGA Tour, challenging its suspensions and other restrictive measures used to punish those who signed on to play in the Saudi-backed LIV events.The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that the PGA Tour is unfairly controlling players with anticompetitive restraints to protect its longstanding monopoly on professional golf.The complaint — filed on behalf of Phil Mickelson and others — alleges that the tour had “ventured to harm” their careers and livelihoods. “The Tour’s unlawful strategy has been both harmful to the players and successful in threatening LIV Golf’s otherwise-promising launch,” it said.The players Talor Gooch, Hudson Swafford and Matt Jones also sought an order to allow them to participate in the FedEx Cup playoffs, the PGA Tour’s season-ending championship events. “The punishment that would accrue to these players from not being able to play in the FedEx Cup Playoffs is substantial and irreparable, and a temporary restraining order is needed to prevent the irreparable harm that would ensue were they not to be able to participate,” the complaint said.A Quick Guide to the LIV Golf SeriesCard 1 of 6A new series. More

  • in

    ‘Wagatha Christie’ Trial, a British Spectacle, Ends: There Was No Libel, Judge Finds

    The High Court in London ruled against the plaintiff, Rebekah Vardy, putting an end to a legal feud that turned into a reality-show-style event.LONDON — It began as an Instagram-related quarrel between the spouses of two British soccer stars and grew into a libel trial that provided a welcome distraction for a nation in turmoil.The High Court on Friday brought an end to the long-running legal feud by ruling against the plaintiff, Rebekah Vardy, saying that she had not been defamed by her former friend Coleen Rooney.In the verdict, Justice Karen Steyn ruled that the reputational damage suffered by Ms. Vardy did not meet what she described as “the sting of libel.” For that reason, she stated in a written decision published on Friday, “the case is dismissed.”With its combination of low stakes and high melodrama, the dispute between Ms. Vardy and Ms. Rooney did not amount to the trial of the century. But the case attracted months of overheated tabloid coverage at a time when Britain was navigating a stubborn pandemic and a struggling economy while its prime minister was on the ropes.The legal dispute was between Ms. Vardy, the wife of the Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, and Ms. Rooney, who is married to the former Manchester United star Wayne Rooney. The women belong to a group known as WAGs, a common, if sexist, tabloid acronym for the “wives and girlfriends” of professional athletes, particularly Premier League footballers.In 2019, Ms. Rooney suspected that a follower of her private Instagram account was selling information about her, gleaned from her posts, to The Sun, a Rupert Murdoch-owned London tabloid known for its pungent celebrity coverage. To suss out the supposed leaker, Ms. Rooney set a trap: She made her Instagram Stories visible only to Ms. Vardy and used the account to plant false information about herself. Then she waited to see if it ended up in the press.At the end of her monthslong sting operation, Ms. Rooney claimed that Ms. Vardy was the culprit. She leveled that accusation in a social media statement in the fall of 2019 that was widely shared. Because of her sleuthing tactics, Ms. Rooney became known as “Wagatha Christie,” a mash-up of WAG and Agatha Christie, the 20th-century mystery writer.Rebekah Vardy left the Royal Courts of Justice in London in May.Toby Melville/ReutersMs. Vardy issued a swift denial that she was the leaker. She then said that she had hired forensic computer experts to determine whether anyone else had access to her Instagram account. In June 2020, after failed mediation, Ms. Vardy filed a defamation lawsuit against Ms. Rooney in High Court, which oversees high-profile civil cases in Britain.This May, it went to court. The proceeding, formally called Vardy v. Rooney, became known as the Wagatha Christie Trial. The term was so common that it appeared in crawls on Sky News right next to “War in Ukraine.”Tabloid photographers and cable news correspondents flocked to the steps outside London’s Royal Courts of Justice for the nine-day event, which proved to be a fashion spectacle as much as whodunit.Ms. Vardy, 40, arrived in an assortment of finery, including a buttery yellow tweed suit by Alessandra Rich and an Alexander McQueen blazer. On her left foot, Ms. Rooney, 36, wore a medical boot, an ungainly plastic device that she paired with a Chanel loafer, a Gucci loafer and a Gucci mule. She had sustained a fracture in a fall at her house.Ms. Vardy testified for three days. “I didn’t give any information to a newspaper,” she said under questioning early in her testimony. “I’ve been called a leak, and it’s not nice.”The trial had plenty of TV-worthy plot twists. It was revealed in court that laptops were lost and that WhatsApp messages between Ms. Vardy and her agent, Caroline Watt — which apparently disparaged Ms. Rooney — had mysteriously disappeared. Ms. Vardy’s lawyer added that Ms. Watt had “regrettably” dropped an iPhone containing WhatsApp messages into the North Sea. Ms. Rooney’s lawyer, David Sherborne, replied that the mishap seemed to have resulted in the concealment of evidence.“The story is fishy indeed, no pun intended,” he said.Ms. Vardy told the court she could “neither confirm nor deny” what exactly had happened to her missing digital data. At another moment, she began a response with the phrase “if I’m honest,” causing Ms. Rooney’s barrister to snap: “I would hope you’re honest, because you’re sitting in a witness box.”The case drew so much media attention because WAGs — like the players on the “Real Housewives” franchise in the United States — loom large in the British cultural imagination. They are photographed constantly. They star in reality shows and have their own fast-fashion lines and false-eyelash businesses. A TV series inspired by their shopping habits, feuds and love lives, “Footballers Wives,” was a hit in the early 2000s.WAGs had a breakthrough moment in 2006, when a group of them enlivened the staid resort town Baden-Baden during that year’s World Cup, which took place in stadiums across Germany. The ringleader was Victoria Beckham, who had risen to fame as Posh Spice in the Spice Girls before marrying the great midfielder David Beckham. Also on the trip: the 20-year-old Coleen McLoughlin, who was dating Mr. Beckham’s teammate, Mr. Rooney, and would later marry him.The tabloids ate it up. Reports from Baden-Baden told of WAGs singing “We Are the Champions” from a hotel balcony, dancing on tabletops and chugging Champagne, vodka and Red Bull into the wee hours. In the daytime, the women went on epic shopping sprees and sunbathed as the paparazzi snapped away.When England lost in the quarterfinals to Portugal, some sports pundits unfairly blamed the WAGs for the defeat. Predictably, the tabloids that had made them into celebrities tried to tear them down. “The Empty World of the WAGs” was the headline of a finger-wagging piece in The Daily Mail.Years later, Wayne Rooney and Jamie Vardy played together for England, which added to the delicious awkwardness of the recent court proceedings.The trial fit snugly into a culture that sometimes revels in images of how foolish it can be — see also the popular TV show “Love Island.” It also touched on betrayal and lies, which were defining themes in Britain as Prime Minister Boris Johnson incurred fines for breaking lockdown rules, then announced that he would step down after his party pushed him out over other deceptions.The trial also presented the complexities of the British class system. Online jokes from those following the case homed in on Oxford-educated lawyers reading aloud text messages filled with profane terms from women who are often dismissed as shallow or “chavvy,” to borrow a word Ms. Vardy used in reference to a cousin of Mr. Rooney’s.Unlike this year’s other high-profile celebrity court battle, Depp v. Heard, these proceedings were not streamed live, which added to the appeal. Old-school courtroom sketches made the parties look like a potato, the moon and, according to one commentator, “Norman Bates’s mother.” More

  • in

    Her Tennis Coach Abused Her. Could the Sport Have Prevented It?

    Adrienne Jensen does not know Pam Shriver, the 22-time Grand Slam doubles champion, but both believe tennis needs to change its approach toward predatory coaches.The grooming of Adrienne Jensen began with an invitation to train with a top junior tennis coach at a well-regarded tennis academy in suburban Kansas City in 2009.To Jensen, then a promising teenage player from Iowa City who had struggled to find elite training, the offer felt like the ultimate good fortune, even if accepting it meant upending her family’s life.Early on that fall, Jensen’s gamble seemed to be paying off as she trained with the coach, Rex Haultain, and played deeper into increasingly competitive tournaments.“I felt like he was my ticket,” Jensen, now 27 and about to begin a career as a psychiatric nurse practitioner, said in a recent interview.Soon, though, the praise and attention turned into demands for nude pictures and secrecy, and eventually sexual assault. Haultain, a New Zealand citizen, took a plea deal in 2013 for soliciting child pornography from Jensen, who was 15. He was sent to federal prison without the need for Jensen to face him at trial. The F.B.I. said in announcing Haultain’s deal that the coach eventually molested Jensen. She detailed the abuse to prosecutors, supported the plea agreement and publicly shared extensive details of her experience in a series of interviews with The New York Times and in a 2020 federal lawsuit against the United States Tennis Association and the club that hosted Haultain’s business.Haultain was released in 2019 and deported. Matthew Hoppock, a lawyer for Haultain, declined to comment on his behalf.In the lawsuit, Jensen claimed the U.S.T.A. and KC Racquet Club in Merriam, Kan., did not live up to their duty to protect her from Haultain. The U.S. District Court Judge John W. Lungstrum dismissed the complaint this month on a technicality related to the statute of limitations without resolving the central issue, and Jensen and her lawyers are considering their next move.Still, the filing of the lawsuit revealed the U.S.T.A.’s longstanding resistance to taking more direct ownership of what many people involved at every major level of tennis said was a big problem: a poorly run system of certifying coaches and educating players about inappropriate and criminal behavior.Professional success in tennis often starts in a player’s teenage years. Unsupervised travel is common. Inappropriately close, sexual and, in some cases, abusive relationships between coaches and players have long been an accepted part of the sport. The U.S.T.A. lists 81 people involved with tennis who have been suspended or are ineligible because they have been convicted or accused of abuse. The list, which dates back many years, is widely viewed as the tip of the iceberg.“We are not doing enough as a sport,” said Pam Shriver, the 22-time Grand Slam doubles champion and a lead commentator for the Tennis Channel at the French Open, now underway in Paris.Shriver, 59, rocked the tennis world last month with her revelation that she had been involved in a sexual relationship with her longtime coach, Don Candy, that began when she was 17 and he was 50. Candy died in 2020. Shriver never told her mother, who died last year.Shriver long viewed her affair with Candy as a relationship between consenting adults. But with the help of therapy, she now says her experience was a form of abuse that is far too prevalent in the sport.“I should have, by 13, had some training,” Shriver said. “The coaches should all have to have training. There should not be meetings between coaches and young players in private settings or giving of gifts. No going out to dinner with just the coach and the player. Certain things have to be put into place.”Pam Shriver, the multiple Grand Slam champion, is working as a commentator at the French Open.James Hill for The New York TimesShriver’s disclosure has prompted the women’s professional tour, the WTA, to review its policies on relationships between players and members of their support staff, including coaches, trainers, physiotherapists, mental health professionals, coaches and managers. The tour will also augment its training in “safeguarding” athletes. “It is an ever growing area of concern,” Steve Simon, the chief executive of the WTA, said. “There is a lot more to be done.”The U.S.T.A., the national governing body for the sport, declined to comment on Jensen’s lawsuit because the recent ruling remains subject to appeal. It did not make any of its executives available to discuss its approach to coaching.The organization, unlike some other national governing bodies, has for decades eschewed the responsibility of certifying and educating coaches, even those participating at U.S.T.A.-sanctioned events. (Coaches who work directly for the organization are required to complete safeguarding training.) The strategy has allowed it to claim it is not responsible for the behavior of most tennis coaches.In court filings responding to Jensen’s lawsuit, the U.S.T.A. has claimed it is “wholly unrelated” to the two organizations that do certify professional tennis coaches in the United States, the United States Professional Tennis Association and the Professional Tennis Registry. However, the U.S.T.A. does accredit the organizations and mandate training requirements, such as a two-hour course on harassment and abuse and spotting warning signs of them that was added in 2021.Nothing stops someone who has not been certified from teaching and coaching tennis. With roughly five million new players in the past two years in the United States, tennis facilities have been scrambling to find capable coaches and instructors.“This is the most fundamental question we have as an industry,” said John Embree, the chief executive of the U.S.P.T.A. “In golf, would you ever be at a course where the pro is not certified? No. In tennis, there has been no requirement or mandate that says you have to be certified and also Safe Play trained, and that is not right.”Lauren Tracy, the director of strategic initiatives for the U.S.T.A., said in sworn testimony during the Jensen litigation that the U.S.T.A. had no notice of sexual abuse of any minor member before 2011. She also stated that, despite news coverage of Haultain’s conviction, the U.S.T.A. had no knowledge of his crime until 2019, six years after his arrest and sentencing and two years after his deportation order.In a sworn statement, Tracy said that in 2013, the U.S.T.A. terminated Haultain’s membership for nonpayment of dues, four years after Jensen’s ill-fated experience with him began.Jensen grew up as the third and youngest daughter of a physician and a stay-at-home mother who loved tennis and introduced it to their children. Jensen played a variety of team sports growing up, including soccer and basketball, but nothing made her happier than the independence and responsibility that came with an individual sport like tennis and the feel of the ball hitting the sweet spot on her strings.She also liked winning and did plenty of it, becoming one of the top players her age in the U.S.T.A.’s Missouri Valley section and earning entry into national competitions.Haultain initially befriended Jensen’s father, Fred, telling him how impressed he was with her play and establishing a rapport. Then, at a tournament at the Plaza Tennis Center in Kansas City, Mo., in July 2009, Haultain approached Jensen’s mother to offer a spot in his academy.“In a sense, he was grooming us, her parents,” Fred Jensen said in a recent interview. “He became my buddy, then moved on to my wife.”The training and travel to tournaments would cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. In addition, Jensen and her mother would have to rent an apartment in the area and live there during the week. Jensen, a top student who loved school and had a close-knit group of friends, would have to switch to online schooling so she could begin her five to six hours of daily training early in the afternoons.It was a lot to take on and give up, but Jensen craved the chance to become a top player.Her parents asked the parents of other children who played for Haultain what he was like. Everyone raved and told them how supportive, talented and trustworthy he was, Fred Jensen said. They told the Jensens they regularly let their children travel alone to tournaments with him. Hearing that, the Jensens agreed to let their daughter pursue her dream.Jensen in downtown Nashville.Diana King for The New York TimesIn August 2009, Jensen and her mother moved to Overland Park, Kan. She was on the court every day with top players and received so much private attention from Haultain that other parents began to comment on it to her and her mother, she said.Haultain asked for Jensen’s phone number so he could communicate with her directly and give her tips and encouragement when they were not on the court, she said. The night before a match at a tournament in Palm Springs, Calif., in 2009, a note from Haultain flashed on her phone telling her she would dismantle her opponent and enjoy doing it.Then the gifts started. Often they were trinkets from New Zealand. Then Haultain began whispering to Jensen on the side of the court that she was arousing him sexually. He followed his comments with demands for secrecy. If she told anyone about what he was saying, she might blow this singular chance for tennis success, he told her. He showed her pictures of his penis on his phone. He demanded that she send him nude pictures and allow their relationship to become physical.When she resisted his advances, he lashed out at her for her lack of commitment to him and to tennis.“I told him I just wanted him to be my tennis coach,” Jensen said. “I pleaded with him.”He banished her to outer courts at the academy and ignored her, only to lure her back with praise and the promise of what she could achieve if only she would do as he said and never tell. Jensen kept all of this secret, she said, fearing the shame and guilt she would feel if she told her mother what was happening and the whole life she had built for her came crashing down.She traveled to San Diego with her family for Christmas in 2010 and sat by the pool in silence, she said, her eyes locked on her phone as Haultain bombarded her all day with text messages filled with threats and demands.She could sense what was going to happen when she left her family to travel to Arizona alone to meet him at the U.S.T.A. National Winter Championships.Standing in her pajamas in front of the door of her hotel room, she was terrified as Haultain entered. She had been watching her favorite movie, “The Sound of Music.” She knew what he was going to do and felt powerless to stop it. Then, she detailed to prosecutors and in her lawsuit, he penetrated her with his hands.The next day, she could barely get a ball over the net during the tournament. He berated her and told her to move on from what had happened.She returned to San Diego broken. Days later, back in Kansas City, unable to sleep or eat or do schoolwork and dreading an upcoming trip with Haultain to a tournament in Portugal, Jensen answered yes when her oldest sister asked if her coach had abused her. Her sister then told her parents.Jensen immediately stopped training with Haultain. Her parents encouraged her to keep playing, to not let Haultain steal her love for the game. They were not aware of the full extent of the abuse because they had not pressed her for details. So they tried to minimize the trauma by dealing with it privately, she said.Fred Jensen now realizes what a terrible mistake that was, for his daughter and for the safety of other children. His instinct told him to protect his daughter’s anonymity, to try to, in his words, “coach her through it,” “engineer her return to normalcy” and save her from the blame and victimization that so many survivors of sexual assault experience. That was the exact opposite of what his daughter needed, which was disclosure, the involvement of the police and, ultimately, justice.“Predators count on that you are not going to pursue something like this,” he said.In the summer of 2010, however, Jensen told a teacher what Haultain had done to her. The teacher was obligated to inform the police, and he did.Jensen understands now that Haultain essentially brainwashed her, that he was very good at getting what he wanted, as so many predators are.“He used my qualities as a player, and as a person, against me,” she wrote in a recent email. She added: “I was an incredibly obedient, naïve, perfectionist, hard-driving and respectful young girl, and was so motivated to do well, especially given all that was on the line.”She would play again, including in college, which was always one of her dreams, but she wonders if some kind of intervention might have made things different. Could Haultain have done this to her if she had been taught about boundaries or if another coach had been trained to spot the warning signs?The one thing she knows is that no one ever tried. More