Paxton files Reply

James Paxton’s attorneys filed his Reply yesterday to UK’s Response to his Motion for an Injunction. The background of the story is that officials at UK told Paxton he had to interview with the NCAA.  Unfortunately, the officials refused to tell Paxton what the sit down was about. To make it worse, an official from UK told Paxton not to discuss the issue with his parents or his attorney.

Many people would have followed the university’s instructions. Paxton didn’t. He contacted his lawyer who filed suit. UK responded and now we have Paxton’s Reply.

From the Kentucky Kernel:

Paxton’s attorneys believe their client, under the Code, had a right to be informed of the allegations the NCAA had brought against him before asking him to submit to an interview, and that he does not have to submit to an interview if he is not informed of the allegations against him beforehand.

That makes sense to me. If you want a sit down interview to discuss something, tell me in advance. There can’t be any harm in that. For what ever reason UK did not disclose the issue. They did say, however, that Paxton remains on the team. What they did not say, at least initially, was that the university can keep him from playing if he has “unresolved eligibility questions.” I don’t know what that means. He can be on the team but not play? All the more reason to inform him of the nature of the inquiry I would think.

The police do this kind of stuff all the time. Sometimes they call a person up and ask him to come in and talk about something. Sometimes they will even pick the person up and give him a ride. Just to talk. “No, you don’t need a lawyer. We just want to clear something up. We’ll talk about it at the police station.”

Usually nothing good ever happens in those situations.

Still I wondered what all this business was about. Obviously, it had to concern questions about the draft process. Players are allowed to consult with advisors, but the advisors are not allowed to contact the team. Simple enough; it happens every year.

The problem could be with Paxton’s advisor, Scott Boras.

According to an Aug. 18 newspaper article included in UK’s 87-page response, Toronto Blue Jays interim president Paul Beeston said Boras negotiated with the team after Paxton was taken with the 37th overall pick in baseball’s 2009 amateur draft.

Well, now we know at least part of what the NCAA wants to talk about. UK put it in the court pleadings. I wonder if they also put in the reason they simply didn’t tell Paxton before he filed suit.

Usually something good always happens when you have a lawyer.

One of Paxton’s lawyers, Richard G. Johnson, told the Kernel in a phone interview on Dec. 4 that neither Paxton nor Boras can be forced to disclose whether Boras negotiated for Paxton, because it would be a violation of the attorney-client privilege.

We could find out soon. The next court date for the case is set for Jan. 15, 2010.

1 Comment

Filed under Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment

One response to “Paxton files Reply

  1. Pingback: Update on Paxton Lawsuit « Law and Baseball