Alticor upset about "Quixtar-hating Internet zealots" and "Internet rumormongers"

On November 5, 2004 the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Stewart/Hart/Schmitz law suit filed a motion to file a supplemental exhibit , now the infamous and sealed "document 153", implying some improprieties in the relationship between JAMS, Quixtar, and IBOA board member Jody Victor.   The motion was first reported on LawBlawg and subsequently reported on the websites QuixtarBlog, and amquix.info.

On November 24, 2004 the attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion (document 162) for sanctions against the plaintiff's attorneys for violating the protective order on the case.  The defendants claim the plaintiffs leaked confidential information about the case. Attorney Timothy Q. Delaney wrote in his motion:

II. PLAINTIFFS’ VIOLATION DAMAGED DEFENDANTS

Plaintiffs’ violation of the Protective Order has damaged defendants. Defendants designated the videotape as "CONFIDENTIAL" to preclude the very conduct which has now occurred—distortions and disinformation by Quixtar-hating Internet zealots. Unfortunately, because of plaintiffs’ misconduct, some people are going to be misled by what they read on the Internet. Quixtar is likely to lose existing and potential distributors of its products because of the inaccurate Internet charges. Defendants have spent, and will continue to, spend time, money and effort trying to mitigate the damage.

Plaintiffs and their counsel are fully aware of the Internet’s destructive role. They have long known that this case and the prior Florida and Missouri cases have played a prominent role on many anti-Quixtar websites. The Court needs to order the plaintiffs to provide a full account of their actions, which they have passed off as mere "inadvertence." As plaintiffs fully appreciate the damaging consequences of carelessness with confidentiality, they need to explain why they should not be sanctioned and how defendants and the Court can be assured of no further breaches.

The motion also containted the following:

"Moreover, it is notable that the Internet postings blindly accept plaintiffs’ contentions. The website owners obviously made zero effort to investigate or to consider the other side of the story. It is probable that plaintiffs and their counsel have allied themselves with these Internet rumormongers."

Needless to say after reading Mr. Delany's comment, he did speak the truth.  I had never attempted to contact Quixtar about getting their side of the story before I had copied the story from the LawBlawg site to mine.  Frankly I did not think I would be successful in obtaining information that would tell the other side.  However after reading Mr. Delany's comment I felt it necessary to seek the truth so I wrote him on the same day I discovered his client's concerns about having the other side of the story. 

---

July 2, 2005

Dear Mr. Delaney, Ms. Miller, Mr. Sobieraj,

I operate the website http://www.amquix.info.  Your "Exhibit A" in your 11/26/2004 court filing about this matter came from my website.  I feel slightly insulted being termed an "Quixtar-hating Internet zealot" and "Internet rumormonger", but I have been called worse and will let it slide for now.  There is more important work to be done with this mail, and that is to report the unbiased truth.

I read the following in your  "DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE", Case 6:03-cv-03290-RED Document 162-1 Filed 11/26/2004, which I pulled off of Pacer yesterday:

"The website owners obviously made zero effort to investigate or to consider the other side of the story."

Frankly, I had expected that any effort to investigate the issue and obtain "the other side of the story" would have been impossible. I had improperly assumed that it would have been impossible to properly research this issue without some cooperation from Alticor, Quixtar, JAMS personnel, your law firm, or Jody Victor.  Given the shroud of secrecy and all of the protective orders in this case, I had assumed I would never find someone who would be allowed to comment about the subject.  Therefore your comments are correct that "zero effort to investigate" was expended to consider the other side of the story.  However knowing that your firm and your client are upset that the complete story was not told, I am willing to help rectify the situation. 

I would be more than willing to perform the due diligence and obtain and publish both sides of the story.  I welcome such open communication from both sides, when they are willing to cooperate. 

Given that you and your client are disappointed that the issue was not properly investigated and reported upon, I was wondering if you would help me get a copy of the Jody Victor video tape in question for a through review to show both sides of the story?   I am more than willing to help stop any "distortions and disinformation" due to missing content, but I in order to do so, there needs to be cooperation from the people who supposedly have the "other side of the story".  We could post a complete unbiased transcript of the video so the supposed out of context issues can be seen in their whole light.  It might be even possible to put the video into digital format so that it could be posted on the Internet in a completely unadulterated from, so that no one could mistake the contents.  This can be a very simple and costless way to mitigate the damages implied by your client.

I await your reply so that the implied falsehoods and misconceptions can be corrected once and for all for the public record.

With Best Regards,

Scott Larsen

---

I hope that Mr. Delany will write me back with the needed inforamtion so that the public has the whole story, and not just one side from a few Quixtar-hating Internet zealots" and "Internet rumormongers".

On June 28, 2005 Judge Dorr issued an order (document 186) , which denies the defendant's request for sanctions for the inadvertent release of "confidential information" in document 153.  Basically the defendant's did not demonstrate how they were damaged by having the information available on the Internet.  Dudge Dorr wrote:

"Additionally, Defendants have not demonstrated how they were harmed by the availability of the information for such a limited time. Defendants mention the publication on a few internet sites, however they have not shown how this publication was damaging to them."

Mr. Delany had his work cut out for him when writing his motion for sanctions.   On one hand Dr. Delany had to convince the judge that there were in fact tangible damages to Quixtar to justify the sanctions.   On the other hand, Mr. Delany could not reveal that the reason Quixtar would suffer a potential loss of business was because prospective distributors might think the whole Quixtar arbitration process was rigged in someone else's favor, which is the gist of the current 22 month legal ordeal in this case.   Mr. Delany could have wrote, but he did not:

"Quixtar is likely to lose existing and potential distributors of its products because of the inaccurate Internet charges that the Quixtar Arbitration process is rigged in favor of Quixtar and their favored kinpin distributors.  Defendants have spent, and will continue to, spend time, money and effort trying to convince the public that the Quixtar arbitration arrangement is indeed a fair and neutral setting despite cases such as the Gouch v. Anderson, and Morrison v. Amway".  

It is interesting to note that when one reads the case docket it becomes painfully obvious that there is a lot effort by Alticor and the defendants on issuing "protective orders" and keeping information out of the hands of the public. A brief review of the purpose of protective orders shows that the purpose of a protective order is to prevent dissemination or disclosure of "trade secrets or other confidential commercial information", or embarrassment to witnesses. Certainly in this case the video of Jody Victor coaching the supposed "neutral" arbitrators for potential arbitration cases is not a trade secret to Alticor, nor is it confidential business information.      It seems in this case, Alticor and the defendants are abusing the protective order arraignment in order to protect itself against the publication of embarrassing discovery that would allow the public to form its own opinion of whether the Quixtar arbitration agreement is a game rigged in Quixtar's and the BSM kingpin's favor.

Logically, if the Jody Victor video and subsequent depositions did not imply orhint that he Quixtar arbitration process was rigged in favor of the corporation and the favored king-pin distributors, why then would they put up such a fuss to seal this information?   Let's face it, they could exonerate themselves of all possible suspicion by laying out the information, why wouldn't they do it. Why does Quixtar need a protective order on the video tape?  Will Quixtar give out the secret formula of SA-8 soap or their XS energy drink by making the information about the video open and public? 

Obviously if the evidence at hand does show that there is indeed a collusion and non-neutrality they would want to do their best to cover everything up and not let any of it see the light of day using protective orders.  Or, is my logic wrong here?

back to the home page