Suits and Litigation (Civil)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Soccer

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

      by

      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

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Tennis

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

      by

      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

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in Tennis

      Kylie McKenzie Sues U.S.T.A., Claiming It Failed to Keep Her Safe

      by

      The tennis player claims the organization failed to disclose that her coach may have sexually assaulted one of its employees.Kylie McKenzie, a once-promising tennis player whom an investigation found was “more likely than not” to have been sexually assaulted by a coach at a United States Tennis Association training center, filed a federal lawsuit against the organization on Monday, claiming it had failed to keep her safe from someone with a history of assaulting women.Lawyers for McKenzie, 23, who lives in Arizona, said in the filing in U.S. District Court in Orlando, Fla., that the U.S.T.A. had failed to disclose that the coach, Anibal Aranda, had assaulted one of its employees years before the alleged incident with McKenzie.The employee said that Aranda had groped her and touched her vagina over her clothes at a New York City dance club around 2015, but that she did not disclose the incident to anyone. After the employee learned about McKenzie’s accusations, she regretted not reporting her allegations, she told the investigator for the U.S. Center for SafeSport, the organization tasked with investigating sexual and physical abuse claims in sports.SafeSport suspended Aranda from coaching for two years and placed him on probation for an additional two years after finding it more likely than not that he touched McKenzie’s vagina over her clothes and groped her under the guise of showing her a serving technique in 2018, when she was 19.“As of August of 2018, defendants knew or reasonably should have known of Coach Aranda’s propensity to sexually batter, threaten, harm, assault, and otherwise mentally, physically, and emotionally injure female athletes,” the suit states. Her lawyers say the U.S.T.A. did not live up to its duty of care by failing to engage a chaperone for Aranda’s associations with McKenzie and other female athletes, and allowing him to supervise young women in private “after being provided notice that Coach Aranda was inappropriately touching and inappropriately engaging in sexual communications with athletes.”The lawsuit comes at a time when the national governing bodies for sports are under increasing scrutiny for the people they employ to develop young talent. Female gymnasts who were sexually abused recently reached a $380 million settlement with U.S.A. Gymnastics and the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee.McKenzie’s case also calls attention to what some in tennis have long viewed as systemic problems with the development of young players, who often leave home for training academies, where coaches serve as mentors, surrogate parents and guardians on trips to tournaments.Chris Widmaier, a spokesman for the U.S.T.A., said the organization does not comment on pending litigation. Widmaier previously said that the organization first learned about the 2015 incident after McKenzie filed her complaint because its employee had not told anyone in the organization. After McKenzie filed her complaint over the alleged incident, which she said occurred on a back court at the U.S.T.A.’s Orlando training center, Widmaier said the organization acted immediately to suspend and terminate Aranda.In his testimony during the SafeSport investigation, Aranda denied ever touching McKenzie inappropriately, either during or after training. He also said he did not recall touching another employee inappropriately. He suggested McKenzie had fabricated a story because she had been told that the U.S.T.A. was planning to stop supporting her. Accusing him of abuse, Aranda said, would make it more difficult for the organization to cut her off, an assertion U.S.T.A. coaches and McKenzie rejected.“I want to be clear, I never touched her vagina,” Aranda told a SafeSport investigator, according to those records. “I never touched her inappropriately. All these things she’s saying are twisted.”He has not responded to repeated requests for comment.The SafeSport records are confidential, but The New York Times has reviewed a copy of the final ruling, the investigator’s report and notes from the investigator’s interviews with a dozen witnesses, including Aranda. The Times has also reviewed a copy of the police report by an Orlando detective.In an interview with The Times this month, McKenzie said learning that someone at the U.S.T.A. could have warned her to be wary of Aranda had doubled her trauma.“He told me: ‘You’re a champion. I want to work with you,’” McKenzie said of Aranda. “I had every reason to trust him.”The suit also alleges that McKenzie endured inappropriate treatment from two other coaches earlier in her training with the U.S.T.A., with one coach berating her for consorting with boys and instructing her to remove all male contacts from her phone and another joking with her about undergarments and how people might think they were a couple when they traveled alone to Texas for a tournament.McKenzie says she has suffered physical and mental injuries since the incident. Her lawyers argued in the filing that she was entitled to compensation for her physical and emotional distress because the U.S.T.A. failed to implement and enforce proper policies to protect athletes; fostered a culture of inappropriate coach-athlete relationships; and failed to intervene to prevent the escalation of inappropriate conduct. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Basket

      Pro Athletes Say They Wanted Everyday Financial Advice but Got Cheated

      by

      A Morgan Stanley broker entrusted to make basic long-term investments was barred from the securities industry after his dealings with Jrue and Lauren Holiday, Chandler Parsons and others.Around the time that Lauren Holiday helped the United States soccer team win the 2015 Women’s World Cup, she and her husband, Jrue Holiday, the N.B.A. player, visited the Southern California office of a securities broker who had come highly recommended for making prudent long-term investments.Experienced? The broker had two decades with blue-chip firms like Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo and Merrill Lynch. Connected? He said he specialized in assisting athletes in all sports, with a client list of 70 current and former pros.But instead of pursuing a “conservative to moderate investment strategy,” the Holidays now allege, the broker, Darryl M. Cohen, steered $2.3 million of their money to “dubious individuals and entities” — and now most of the money is gone.Other athletes said they had a similar experience. Chandler Parsons and Courtney Lee, who also played in the N.B.A., said that Cohen and Morgan Stanley improperly diverted $5 million and $2 million of their investments and that most of that money has similarly disappeared. So Parsons, Lee and the Holidays have filed claims against Morgan Stanley with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, a self-regulatory organization known as FINRA which oversees brokerage firms.“I feel violated and taken advantage of,” Parsons said in a statement provided to The New York Times via Phil Aidikoff, a longtime securities lawyer in Beverly Hills, Calif., who represents the athletes as well as another claimant, in separate cases filed last year.Jrue Holiday with his daughter, Jrue Tyler, and wife, Lauren, in 2018.Max Becherer/The Advocate, via Associated PressThe athletes’ cases are still months away from being resolved through a settlement or an arbitration hearing. Yet FINRA, the industry regulators, in a separate but dramatic step last week, barred Cohen from the securities industry. By refusing to cooperate with FINRA’s own inquiry into the “improper use of customer funds,” FINRA said, Cohen had “stymied an investigation into very serious potential misconduct.”Officials at Morgan Stanley declined to comment. But in a regulatory filing, the firm said it had terminated Cohen in March 2021 because of allegations involving “transactions not disclosed to or approved by Morgan Stanley.”When reached on his cellphone, Cohen said, “I’ll get back with you.” He did not respond to a follow-up message, and his lawyer, Brandon S. Reif, said, “No comment.”FINRA cases are typically confidential, and documents are not publicly available. Aidikoff, citing pending litigation, declined to make his clients available for interviews to elaborate on their cases. Still, the fact that the athletes wanted to go public underscores their determination to “ensure it doesn’t happen to someone else,” Parsons said, and to encourage other possible victims to come forward.Lee said in a statement that he believed Morgan Stanley would put his interests first because it had been around for many years. “I was wrong,” he said.The Holidays, who have been active philanthropists, said: “We are all susceptible to being exploited by people like Darryl Cohen. We are disappointed that a company as well known as Morgan Stanley would enable someone like Mr. Cohen to be in a position that allowed him to move money out of our accounts the way that he did.”There is no shortage of stories about prominent athletes being duped or getting entangled in risky financial schemes. An Ernst & Young report last year found that professional athletes reported almost $600 million in fraud-related losses from 2004 to 2019. The “incidence of fraud in sports is trending in the wrong direction,” the report said.But Parsons, Lee and the Holidays are different, Aidikoff said, because they simply did what many ordinary investors often do: They relied on a big-name brokerage to make low-risk, long-term decisions.Jrue Holiday, 31, won an N.B.A. title with the Milwaukee Bucks and an Olympic gold medal with the U.S. basketball team in Tokyo last year. He signed a four-year extension in April 2021 for $134 million. He met his wife, then Lauren Cheney, while they were at U.C.L.A., and her soccer career led to endorsement deals with Under Armour and Chobani.Parsons, 33, a sharpshooter whose best seasons came with the Houston Rockets and Dallas Mavericks, retired in January, two years after he was seriously injured in a car accident caused by a drunken driver. His last contract, signed in 2016, was a four-year deal worth $94 million, and he has been active in Los Angeles real estate.Lee, 36, last played for the Mavericks, his eighth team, in 2020, after signing a four-year, $48 million contract in 2016 with the Knicks. He had a serious calf injury in 2020, but played golf last summer in Thousand Oaks, Calif., with Parsons, Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers and others.Courtney Lee last played in 2020, for the Dallas Mavericks.Ron Jenkins/Associated PressThe athletes apparently heard about Cohen through basketball circles, including a former N.B.A. player who had also been an assistant coach, Aidikoff said.Cohen worked alongside his father, Marc Cohen, in the same Morgan Stanley branch in Westlake Village, Calif. His father has not been accused of wrongdoing, and remains with the firm, records show.The Holidays first met the younger Cohen in mid-2015. For Parsons, it was late 2015, and for Lee, it was sometime in 2017, according to their statements to FINRA.In mid-2020, a business adviser to Parsons noticed oddities about the Morgan Stanley investments. After Parsons contacted Aidikoff’s firm, lawyers discovered that Cohen and Morgan Stanley had apparently sent checks and wire transfers from Parsons’s accounts to questionable entities, including a purported charity which built a basketball court in Cohen’s backyard.All the athletes invested in life insurance policies based on deceptive information provided by Cohen, and used an accountant recommended by Cohen. But the accountant was actually an insurance salesman. And the person who signed the athletes’ tax documents — the insurance salesman’s father — was a lawyer who had never met or spoken with the athletes, Aidikoff said.Nyjer Morgan, center, settled a claim against Cohen in 2020.Mike McGinnis/Getty ImagesCohen has been the subject of a handful of other complaints, according to regulatory records. In March 2021, Nyjer Morgan, an outfielder who played for four Major League Baseball teams, settled a claim for $125,000 over the improper use of a “liquidity access line to loan funds to outside business entities.” One former client of Cohen’s, a retired professional athlete, told The Times that Cohen had won him over through word of mouth and then by a sales pitch over dinner that included laminated reports. But a year later, when the client noticed financial transactions that looked unfamiliar — and lost tens of thousands of dollars in the process — he was alarmed, and told his agent to immediately find another broker.“It’s painful and it doesn’t leave you,” said the athlete, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid reliving a difficult private experience in the public eye.Susan C. Beachy More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Soccer

      Daniel Sturridge Ordered to Pay $30,000 to Man Who Returned His Dog

      by

      Daniel Sturridge lost his Pomeranian in a 2019 break-in. A man who returned the dog sued for breach of contract after Mr. Sturridge reneged on a promised reward, according to court records.Daniel Sturridge, an English soccer star, has been ordered to pay $30,000 to a Los Angeles man who found the player’s missing dog in 2019 and who went to court to recoup a reward he said he had been denied for the Pomeranian’s return.After announcing that his Los Angeles home had been broken into, Mr. Sturridge said in a video at the time that he would “pay whatever” to get his missing dog back, offering “20 Gs, 30 Gs, whatever” as a reward without specifying the currency.Shortly after that video was posted, Foster Washington of Los Angeles found the dog, Lucci, and returned him to Mr. Sturridge, according to court records. But Mr. Washington, 30, said he had never been paid, and in March, he filed a lawsuit for breach of contract.On Tuesday, Judge Curtis A. Kin of the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a default judgment, awarding $30,000 in damages to Mr. Washington.Mr. Sturridge, a former England international star who played for Liverpool and Chelsea and is now a striker for the Australian team Perth Glory, said on Twitter on Saturday that “other people are trying to benefit for their own personal gain” and related a story different from Mr. Washington’s about how the dog had been recovered.“Just to let you know the truth on xmas!” Mr. Sturridge said on Twitter. “I met a young boy who found my dog and paid him a reward, which he was delighted with as was I to get my dog back because he was stolen.”Mr. Sturridge and his representatives did not immediately respond to emails on Saturday. Direct messages sent to an Instagram account for Lucci, which has more than 34,000 followers, were not returned.It all started in July 2019, after Mr. Sturridge’s home was broken into and he discovered that Lucci was missing.“I want my dog back,” he said in a video, adding: “How can you break into a house in L.A. and take somebody’s dog? Are you crazy?”Mr. Washington, who earns $14 an hour as a security guard and has three children, said he had been walking home when he and his best friend’s son saw a dog near 88th Street and South Central Avenue. The boy’s family could not afford to have a pet, so Mr. Washington said he had decided to take the dog home.A few hours later, a friend told Mr. Washington that Mr. Sturridge was searching for a dog that looked similar to the one he had taken in.“He was like, ‘Hey, dude, that dog’s famous,’” Mr. Washington said on Saturday. “And I’m like, ‘What?’” He said he had no idea who Mr. Sturridge was at the time.That day, Mr. Washington posted a photo of the dog on Twitter and asked Mr. Sturridge if it was Lucci.Mr. Washington then contacted Kimberly Cheng from the Los Angeles news station KTLA. Mr. Washington said she had connected him with Mr. Sturridge’s representatives. Ms. Cheng did not respond to a request seeking comment on Saturday.The dog had a small tattoo of numbers on his stomach, Mr. Washington said. Mr. Sturridge asked Mr. Washington over the phone to identify the mark to make sure it was indeed Lucci, Mr. Washington said.They agreed to meet, and when Mr. Sturridge retrieved the dog, he thanked Mr. Washington.“I’m like, ‘Hey, dude, what’s up with the reward?’” Mr. Washington said. “He said, ‘There is no reward.’”Mr. Washington tried to contact Mr. Sturridge, who joined Liverpool in 2013 on a contract reported to be worth about 12 million pounds (nearly $20 million at the time), and his representatives numerous times for weeks but to no avail. Mr. Washington said his phone number and social media accounts were being blocked.It was not immediately clear whether anyone was arrested in connection with the break-in or the theft of Lucci, who was described in court papers as a rare Pomeranian worth an estimated £4,000, or roughly $5,300. The Los Angeles police did not respond to messages on Saturday.Mr. Washington went to the police, who “concluded that he was not one of the thieves, or related to the burglary crime in any way,” the lawsuit said. “Mr. Washington has never been implicated in any wrongdoing.”The lawsuit added that Mr. Washington “did not receive the benefit of his bargain for supplying the dog safely and in good health.”Mr. Washington said he had received direct messages online from people calling him selfish for wanting to get paid, but during the pandemic, as he struggled financially, he decided to file the lawsuit.“I don’t see how I’m a bad guy by expecting him to honor this reward,” he said, adding: “Thirty thousand dollars is a lot of money. For anybody, that’s a life-changing amount of money.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Basket

      New Filings Suggest Kobe Bryant Crash Photos Spread Widely Among Workers

      by

      Lawyers for Bryant’s widow, Vanessa, who is suing Los Angeles County over the photos, charted how emergency workers shared the images on cellphones. The county has denied wrongdoing.A fire department officer flashed the disturbing photos to a group of people during cocktail hour before a gala. A sheriff’s deputy shared the images with a bartender, who grimaced and made a slashing gesture over his neck. Another deputy, who could not believe how gruesome the pictures were, forwarded them to a colleague while playing online video games with his friends.Photos of the bodies of the Lakers star Kobe Bryant, his 13-year-old daughter, Gianna, and seven others who died in a helicopter crash near Los Angeles in January 2020 were shared on at least 28 devices owned by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department personnel and by at least a dozen Los Angeles County firefighters, according to the latest legal filings submitted by the legal team for Vanessa Bryant, Kobe Bryant’s widow.The court papers, based on depositions and the forensic investigation of cellphones, attempt to demonstrate the chain that formed to disseminate the images and how widely they were shared. Bryant is suing the county and some of its agencies and employees, claiming to have experienced emotional distress over the sharing of the photos, while the county has denied any wrongdoing and says it worked to keep the photos out of public hands when officials became aware of them.Several of those who viewed the photos described the remains in crude terms, a point Bryant said in the filings made the situation worse. “I imagine Kobe watching over what occurred at that crash scene, and I am overcome with anger and emotion,” Bryant wrote in a declaration accompanying the filings.She added: “I also feel extreme sadness and anger knowing that photos of my husband’s and daughter’s bodies were laughed about while shown at a bar and an awards banquet.”The filings were submitted in response to Los Angeles County’s motion in November for summary judgment, requesting the lawsuit be dismissed.A hearing is scheduled for Dec. 27.Louis Miller, the lawyer known as Skip whom the county hired for the case, said in a statement that the county sympathized with Bryant’s losses, but that it is not at fault.County emergency workers, he said, “responded to that crash and, at her specific request, set up a no-fly zone, undertook extensive efforts to keep the public and paparazzi away, and made sure none of the investigative photos were ever publicly disseminated. The County did its job and believes there is no merit to this lawsuit.”Bryant’s legal team has disputed the county’s statements, saying the sharing of the photos among workers without any discernible investigative purpose amounted to public dissemination. The lawyers’ submission includes depositions from workers who shared the photos as well as forensic evidence from the phones to chart the sharing of the photos.Vanessa Bryant, Kobe Bryant’s widow, is suing Los Angeles County, some of its agencies and some of its employees.David Butler II/USA Today Sports, via ReutersTony Imbrenda, a Los Angeles County Fire Department public information officer, shared the images with a group of firefighters and a few other people at a gala honoring emergency medical workers, according to the filings.“I just saw Kobe’s body all burnt up before I’m about to eat,” one bystander remarked, according to the filing. Last year, Imbrenda, who has not commented on the case, filed a lawsuit against the county after he was demoted for refusing to turn over his personal cellphone. Imbrenda had received some of the images on his work cellphone from Brian Jordan, a safety officer, who misrepresented himself at the crash scene as a fire chief in charge of media relations, according to Bryant’s legal team. Jordan sent pictures to several others, according to the filings. He faced termination by the department before retiring early. A message left with his lawyer was not returned.The images coursed among sheriff’s department personnel like a chain message.Doug Johnson, a sheriff’s deputy who isn’t named as a defendant in Bryant’s lawsuit, captured pictures of the remains with his personal cellphone, according to the documents, and at least four images focused closely on the body parts of Kobe and Gianna Bryant. He sent the pictures to another deputy, Raul Versales, who testified that “he did not need to have the photographs,” but sent them along to four other members of the department.Deputy Michael Russell, who testified that he had asked for the pictures out of curiosity, shared them with another deputy while playing a video game. Deputy Joey Cruz displayed them to a bartender, which prompted a citizen’s complaint to the sheriff’s department in February 2020.Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva in response instructed his staff members to immediately delete the photos upon learning of the complaint. They did not face discipline, according to the county’s filing, because, in the county’s view, the photos were not publicly disseminated. “I can tell you I did exactly what was needed to be done to ensure there was no further harm to the family,” Villanueva testified, adding, “if I had to do it all over again, I’d probably make the exact same decision.”Vanessa Bryant had asked Villanueva to secure the site the day of the crash and to ensure that no photos of the deceased would leak.Bryant’s legal team maintains that the photos may already be in the public domain and the ones taken by emergency workers were deleted in order to destroy evidence. The county contends that ordering employees to delete the photos was in fact complying with Bryant’s wishes that they not be disseminated any further.But the lawyers representing Bryant said they have been notified by citizens of other instances of the photos spreading. An Orange County law enforcement officer who was not part of the response to the crash showed the photos at a bar, the lawyers said in a filing. An unknown person forwarded Bryant a Twitter post that purported to be a photo of Kobe Bryant’s remains that matched authentic images of the crash site, the lawyers said. The filings are the latest in a highly contested case. In previous rulings, a judge decided that Villanueva and Daryl Osby, the Los Angeles County fire chief, must sit for depositions — Villanueva has done so, and Osby’s is pending — and Bryant and her therapist were compelled to produce documents relating to their sessions.Kevin Draper More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Basket

      Vanessa Bryant Tells of Kobe Bryant's Death in New Deposition

      by

      Bryant was being questioned by a lawyer defending Los Angeles County in her lawsuit about the sharing of photos of human remains from the helicopter crash that killed nine people.The morning started for Vanessa Bryant the way most weekends do for parents with busy children. One of her daughters was at a college prep class. Her husband was taking another daughter to a basketball game. She stayed home with the two youngest girls, a toddler and a newborn.But then a family assistant knocked on the door around 11:30 a.m. that Sunday and told Bryant that her husband, Kobe Bryant, and their daughter Gianna had been in a helicopter accident, according to a transcript of a deposition of Bryant in a lawsuit between her and Los Angeles County.The assistant said that five people had survived the crash that day, Jan. 26, 2020. Bryant said that she figured Kobe and Gianna would be among them and would be helping the other victims. But as she tried to call her husband, notifications began popping up on her phone: R.I.P. Kobe. R.I.P. Kobe.“My life will never be the same without my husband and daughter,” Bryant said during the deposition.Read the Deposition of Vanessa BryantBryant described the day of the helicopter crash that killed her husband, Kobe Bryant, and their daughter Gianna.Read Document 50 pagesIt would be hours before Bryant would learn, officially, that Kobe, 41, and Gianna, 13, had been killed along with seven others in a crash just outside Los Angeles. In her rush to get to the crash site, before she learned of their deaths, Bryant went to an airport in an attempt to secure a helicopter to take her — but was rebuffed because she was told the weather made it unsafe to fly.These and many other details of that day have become public for the first time through questions Bryant answered during a videoconferencing meeting with a lawyer defending Los Angeles County. She is suing the county and some of its agencies and employees for emotional distress she said was caused by emergency medical workers who took and shared photos of the human remains at the helicopter crash site.Kobe Bryant, the retired Los Angeles Lakers superstar, had been on his way to coach Gianna in a series of games at his Mamba Sports Academy in Thousand Oaks, Calif.Vanessa Bryant’s deposition comes at a crucial point in the case and amid an escalating battle between the lawyers over the scope of what Los Angeles County and the other defendants can request of Bryant, other plaintiffs and witnesses.One of the most contentious issues, the subject of numerous court filings in recent days, is whether the county can conduct what are called independent medical examinations, which involve psychiatric evaluations, of each of the plaintiffs.Bryant’s lawyers argue that the examinations are “cruel” and that the county is sending a message by requesting them. “When public servants violate the privacy and constitutional rights of the citizens they swore to protect and serve, the victims must run a gauntlet to seek justice,” Bryant’s lawyers argued in one of the filings.But the county contends that the examinations are “a routine part of the discovery process,” according to filings. Bryant and the other plaintiffs are arguing that they suffered emotional distress because of the actions of county employees, and the county believes a medical professional should be allowed to examine the extent of that suffering.At times, Louis Miller, an attorney representing Los Angeles County, expressed remorse for asking Bryant invasive questions. “It’s not harassment,” Miller said at one point. “It’s just a lawsuit. And I’m so sorry to put you through this, but like I said at the beginning, I’ve got to do my job.”“I shouldn’t have to be going through this,” Bryant responded. “It’s not just a lawsuit.”Bryant said that after she was told that she could not fly to the crash site, she met up with Rob Pelinka, the Lakers general manager who served as Kobe’s agent during part of his N.B.A. career. Pelinka, Bryant said, drove them during the hour-and-forty-five-minute trip to the sheriff’s station in Malibu, near the crash site.At the sheriff’s station, Bryant said “no one would answer” questions about her husband and daughter. She was escorted back and forth between rooms, and after a long wait, she said, a pastor walked in and then Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva came with a publicist. Bryant said she wanted privacy and asked the publicist to leave the room.Villanueva confirmed the deaths, 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,’” 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.’”Villanueva, Bryant said, excused himself from the room. Bryant said that he reassured her the area had been secured when he returned. Bryant said that she exited the back of the office while a news conference was being conducted in the front of the office.Miller asked Bryant if she was seeking a monetary judgment in the lawsuit.Bryant expressed her desire to have the responders who took the pictures held accountable.“The impact of the helicopter crash was so damaging, I just don’t understand how someone can have no regard for life and compassion, and, instead, choose to take that opportunity to photograph lifeless and helpless individuals for their own sick amusement,” Bryant said.Miller asked again: “Ms. Bryant, I understand your testimony about accountability. My question to you is: Are you also seeking monetary recovery, damages, money, in this lawsuit?”Bryant responded that it would be up to the jury.Later in the deposition, Miller repeatedly asked Bryant to look at some graphic images and messages that had been sent to her on social media, some digitally altered, to make the point that others besides sheriff’s deputies were causing her emotional distress. Bryant, according to the deposition, put her hand in front of the camera and monitor instead of looking at the images. She said she interacted with fans less often on social media out of fear that she would be blindsided with pictures of the crash site.Bryant said she recovered the clothes that Kobe and Gianna wore during the crash over concerns that people would take photos of them.“They suffered a lot,” Bryant said during the deposition. “And if their clothes represent the condition of their bodies, I cannot imagine how someone could be so callous and have no regard for them or their friends and just share the images as if they were animals on the street.”The sides are also fighting over whether Villanueva and Daryl Osby, the Los Angeles County fire chief, should sit for depositions.Villanueva has gained public prominence in the last few years in part because his department handled high-profile cases like the helicopter crash, and a car crash in which the golf star Tiger Woods was injured. As he prepares for re-election next year, Villanueva has been accused of targeting political enemies and has fought with city councilors and watchdog groups.The defendants contend that, as department heads, Osby and Villanueva generally are not subject to depositions, and that they do not have any specialized knowledge that other fire and law enforcement officials who have already been deposed do not have. But in an email, lawyers for Bryant listed 14 different reasons they believe Villanueva should have to sit for a deposition, mostly relating to how he handled the possession of photos of the crash site by sheriff’s deputies.After the requests to medically examine all plaintiffs, 10 of them, including all of the young children involved, have recently exited the case. Two families settled with the county last week, the terms of which have not been disclosed. And while Christopher Chester, whose wife, Sarah, and daughter Peyton died in the crash, is continuing his lawsuit, he has dismissed his surviving children as plaintiffs.The sides are also fighting over the scope of witness interviews, and which documents those witnesses must produce.Bryant listed a number of witnesses to the emotional distress she said she has experienced, including Rob and Kristin Pelinka; the pop star Ciara Wilson; the television host and actress La La Anthony; the R&B singer Monica Arnold, known more popularly as Monica; Sharia Washington, Kobe Bryant’s sister; and Catherine Gasol, the wife of the former N.B.A. player Pau Gasol.All of those witnesses are being scheduled for depositions, and they are being asked to produce volumes of documents. The subpoena issued to Wilson, for instance, asked for all documents and communications related to Bryant’s emotional distress between Wilson and Bryant or anybody else since 2010 — 10 years before the crash. It also sought all documents and communications between Wilson and Bryant about any topic since the day of the crash, and all of Wilson’s communications with others about Bryant since the day of the crash.“Defendants’ document requests are grossly overbroad,” a lawyer for the witnesses wrote in an email on Monday that was submitted to the court.“As we have discussed, the document requests are not overbroad,” a lawyer for the county responded, though they did later agree that witnesses wouldn’t have to turn over all of their communications with Bryant since the crash, just the communications about her mental state going back to 2010.Some of these issues and others could be resolved in the coming days. The judge has scheduled hearings for Oct. 29 and Nov. 5 to rule on some motions. More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in Football

      Will Deshaun Watson Play Football This Season?

      by

      Twenty-two women have filed civil lawsuits in Texas accusing the quarterback of a pattern of coercive and lewd behavior.Houston Texans quarterback Deshaun Watson is the subject of 22 civil suits filed in March and April which accuse him of coercive and lewd sexual behavior, with two that allege sexual assault. He has not been charged criminally and his lawyer has denied the accusations. Here’s where the cases stand.Here’s what you need to know:Who is Deshaun Watson?What is Watson being accused of?How has Watson responded?Will Watson face criminal charges?Will the N.F.L. take any action?Will Watson play football this season?How have Watson’s sponsors responded?Who is Deshaun Watson?Deshaun Watson, 25, is a star quarterback for the Houston Texans, one of the best in the N.F.L. at his position.In September 2020, he signed a four-year contract extension worth nearly $111 million guaranteed, tying him to the Texans through 2025. But Watson, disenchanted by the team’s poor personnel moves and failure to uphold a pledge to include him in the search process for a new coach and general manager, requested a trade. Watson has a no-trade clause in his contract that allows him to choose his next destination. The Texans, hopeful of repairing the rift, emphasized in January that they had no intention of trading him.With Watson insistent and the Texans eager to move on, and if another team offers the package of draft picks the front office seeks — whether that happens before Watson’s status is resolved or not — Houston is likely to deal him.Over the last year and a half, Watson grew into a leading voice among Black players who have protested racial injustice and police brutality. During the 2020 off-season, he took part in a player-led video that urged the N.F.L. to support protests by players, and after the police in Minneapolis killed George Floyd, Watson marched with his family — Floyd grew up in Houston — in a downtown protest.What is Watson being accused of?Twenty-two women have accused Watson of assault in civil lawsuits filed in Harris County, Texas. The lawyer representing them, Tony Buzbee, said the women have largely echoed one another’s claims of sexual misconduct and coercive behavior against Watson.Although the 22 suits filed to date share many similarities, only two include claims of sexual assault: Watson was said in both cases to have pressured women to perform oral sex during massages and was accused in one of also having grabbed a woman’s buttocks and vagina. The civil suits claim that Watson engaged in a pattern of lewd behavior with women hired to provide personal services, coercing them to touch him in a sexual manner, exposing himself to women he had hired for massages, or moving his body in ways that forced them to touch his penis. The incidents cited in the suits were said to have occurred from March 2020 to March 2021.Two of Watson’s accusers publicly identified themselves on April 6, giving statements that described their alleged encounters. Ashley Solis, the first of the 22 women to file suit, read from a statement at a news conference held at Buzbee’s office. Another woman, Lauren Baxley, provided a letter she addressed to Watson that was read by one of Buzbee’s associates.Watson’s lawyers filed a motion on April 8 asking the court to compel the plaintiffs to reveal their identities, citing the use of pseudonyms in civil suits as a violation of Texas state law. They condemned Buzbee for “conducting discovery by Facebook and trial by press conference” and for “asking the public to act as judge and jury.”Twenty-one women added their names to the suits, which were consolidated for a judge’s review. One accuser dropped her suit out of privacy and safety concerns, and one new case was added, bringing the total number of active civil suits against Watson to 22.At least one other massage therapist publicly accused Watson of similar behavior but had not hired Buzbee to represent her. She told Sports Illustrated in March that she was considering legal action.Meredith J. Duncan, who teaches tort law and criminal law at the University of Houston Law Center, defined civil assault as intentionally or knowingly touching someone in a way that a reasonable person would regard as offensive.“It just so happens in this case, the civil assault involves his genitals,” Duncan said. “But forcing another person to perform a sexual act, that’s a more aggravated form of sexual assault.”Most of the incidents are said to have taken place in Texas, but according to the complaints, two are said to have occurred in Georgia, where Watson is from, and in California and Arizona, during his visits there. All of the lawsuits were filed in Harris County, Texas, because that is where Watson lives and works.How has Watson responded?Watson hasn’t commented publicly since the night of March 16, when the first complaint was filed. He said on Twitter that he had “never treated any woman with anything other than the utmost respect” and that he had rejected “a baseless six-figure settlement demand” made by Buzbee before the first suit was filed. Watson’s agent, David Mulugheta, publicly defended his client in social media posts on March 19.Rusty Hardin, who represents Watson, issued a statement on March 19 calling the allegations against his client “meritless” and released a more detailed statement on March 23, in which he refuted the veracity of all the claims and described the first of two allegations of sexual assault as a blackmail attempt.In another statement, issued on March 31, Hardin highlighted firsthand testimonials of 18 massage therapists who said they had worked with Watson over the past five years without experiencing any of the behavior described by the plaintiffs in the lawsuits.At a news conference on April 9, Hardin acknowledged that Watson took part in sexual acts with some of the women, but claimed they were all consensual.“Never at any time, under any circumstances, did this young man engage in anything that was not mutually desired,” Hardin said.Buzbee, in a statement released on April 13, denied that argument.“Mr. Watson may now claim he had consent to do what he did to these victims, but let’s be clear — in their minds he didn’t have consent, PERIOD,” the statement said.Will Watson face criminal charges?The Houston Police Department has spoken to at least 10 women, according to records obtained by The New York Times, from April 2 to May 20 of this year. The F.B.I. is investigating the case, according to Hardin and Buzbee. Watson has spoken to the F.B.I., and Hardin has said agents are investigating one of Buzbee’s clients for extortion, while Buzbee has said they are investigating Watson’s conduct.The status of the criminal investigations into Watson’s conduct is unclear.Watson has not talked with police investigators, Hardin told The Times on Sept. 3. “The police have made no attempt to reach out to Deshaun, and we don’t expect law enforcement to do so until they complete an investigation,” Hardin said.He added that he would be surprised if the police investigation concluded before October.Will the N.F.L. take any action?The league opened an investigation into Watson’s conduct on March 18. In a letter addressed to Buzbee, Lisa Friel, a special counsel for investigations at the N.F.L., requested the cooperation of the accusers, and as of mid-August, according to Sports Illustrated, 10 of the 22 accusers had spoken with their investigators. Hardin reiterated in August that the league had not yet spoken with Watson.A league spokesman said the matter was under review in relation to the N.F.L.’s personal conduct policy. That policy governs off-field behavior involving players and coaches.In a statement on April 2, after the Houston Police Department announced its investigation, the league said it was “continuing to monitor all developments in the matter which remains under review of the Personal Conduct Policy.”The N.F.L.’s investigative unit conducts a probe separate from law enforcement’s, and follows a different set of protocols. Since the league does not have subpoena power, witnesses are not required to cooperate with their investigation. The N.F.L. approaches each interview as if it is the league’s only opportunity to glean information, a method accusers told Sports Illustrated did not reflect trauma-informed practices.The N.F.L. hasn’t placed Watson on the commissioner’s exempt list, a paid suspension for players being investigated by the league for conduct violations, in part because he hasn’t been formally charged by prosecutors. But criminal charges are not a prerequisite, and Commissioner Roger Goodell has the latitude to place someone on the exempt list if he believes the personal conduct policy has been breached.The Texans said in a March 18 statement that they would “continue to take this and all matters involving anyone within the Houston Texans organization seriously” and that the team would not comment further until the league’s investigation had ended, a process with no public timeline. In his first public comment on the matter, the Texans’ chief executive, Cal McNair, wrote in an April email to season ticket-holders that the organization took the allegations “very seriously” and would cooperate fully with the Houston Police Department and N.F.L. investigations.“While we await the conclusion of these investigations, we express our strong stance against any form of sexual assault,” McNair said.Will Watson play football this season?With his football and legal status in limbo, the N.F.L. in July permitted Watson to practice during training camp without restriction, and if he had not shown up he would have incurred a $50,000 fine for each missed day. Watson did not play in any of Houston’s three preseason games.The Texans decided to keep him on the 53-man roster, but have addressed Watson’s continued presence in vague terms, saying they will make the best decision for the organization. On Sept. 6, Coach David Culley announced Tyrod Taylor as the team’s starting quarterback.Watson, though, doesn’t want to play again for the Texans, and they don’t want him to play for them. Unless a team demonstrates a willingness to absorb the risk of acquiring Watson, it is all but certain he will not take a snap this season.How have Watson’s sponsors responded?Nike suspended its contract with Watson on April 7, the day after two of the accusers gave public statements describing their allegations. “We are deeply concerned by the disturbing allegations and have suspended Deshaun Watson. We will continue to closely monitor the situation,” the company said in a statement.Watson’s deal with Apple’s Beats by Dre reportedly was not renewed. Many of his other sponsorships, which included Rolex and several Texas-area businesses, were allowed to expire.Who is Tony Buzbee?Tony Buzbee is a Houston plaintiffs lawyer who has worked on personal injury cases for years but is perhaps best known for his involvement in mass tort and class-action cases, including the litigation after Hurricane Ike and the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico a decade ago. He doesn’t appear to have represented many women in cases involving sexual assault.A former marine, Buzbee flaunts his outsize personality and wealth on social media. The first two words on the website for Buzbee’s law firm are “Just Win,” and he has a tattoo of a shark on his right forearm.Although he has said he does not support the Texans, Buzbee, a Texas A&M graduate, in 2014 put up 10 billboards urging the team’s now-deceased owner, Bob McNair, to draft Johnny Manziel, an Aggies quarterback; McNair didn’t take his advice. Buzbee lives on the same tony Houston street as Cal McNair, but said in a news conference that he did not know McNair. Buzbee also unsuccessfully ran for mayor of Houston in 2019.Who is Rusty Hardin?A former Texas state prosecutor who became a defense lawyer, Hardin has represented numerous prominent clients, from star athletes to the accounting firm Arthur Andersen in the Enron scandal. He also worked in the independent counsel’s office in the Whitewater investigation during the Clinton administration.Among the athletes he has defended are the pitcher Roger Clemens, against perjury charges in 2012; the N.F.L. running back Adrian Peterson, who was accused of felony child abuse in 2014; and the N.B.A. star James Harden, who was accused in 2017 of paying four people to attack and rob Moses Malone Jr., the son of the Hall of Fame N.B.A. player. More