[Mick]

Many plausible scenarios here.  Taylor has it in the bag because he or his lawyer already knows what's in the reports and it's different from the summary in the ESPN articles.  Taylor doesn't know what findings the report made against him and is fishing for evidence of malice in discovery (which is permitted, but of course might not pan out).  Taylor knows he's screwed, and he is just fishing for names of accusers in discovery with the intent to smear them.  Taylor knows he's screwed, and he is just fishing for the person who leaked the report to ESPN, which, if disclosed to Stanford, might result in negative consequences for that person.  I'm sure other alternatives are possible also.  If we knew the nature of the attorney fee arrangement, that might help us narrow down the true reason for the lawsuit.

Four interesting scenarios, and let me add two more: First, that Taylor is borderline hallucinatory and is paying for the lawsuit on a full T&E basis with no contingent or incentive payments at all. Angry, aggressive supervisors often operate under illusions as to their behavior and how it affects others. And second, that he wants a jury trial -- his attorneys have strong litigator reputations -- so either the verdict or the settlement will allow him to reclaim enough of his reputation that he can get another coaching job. Because right now, he can't.

Taylor's public comments about the articles (and in the complaint) are diametrically opposite that of the ESPN articles. This leads me to believe that he's either hallucinatory or he and his lawyers have evidence that ESPN got it wrong. They may also have evidence that the reporter had it in for Taylor and/or took creative liberties.

Your last three scenarios are interesting. Seems like a lot of money to spend for not much return. Damage has already been done, is it really necessary to identify people. It doesn't help ESPN, incidentally, that they took a victory lap celebrating Taylor's firing after their article appeared, and Luck himself indirectly credited that exterior attention in causing Taylor's firing, perhaps responding to this section from an ESPN article:

"It's somewhat of a mystery exactly why he remained on the job -- this is Stanford,
after all, or at least is supposed to be. The NCAA violations were fairly minor, but
that's all the more reason not to fight them. The attitude displayed to compliance is a
red flag of its ovm. Again, Stanford. "

One little thing causes me concern: I've run public relations and dealt with reporters at all levels for over 40 years. From the claim: "Defendants intentionally twisted the facts to advance a narrative..." Well, yeah. That's what reporters do. They start with a narrative and use and sometimes misinterpret information to advance that narrative and avoid information that conflicts with the narrative. I can't tell you how many times I've run across that phenomenon over the years, but it was far more common that some attorney or accountant told me that a reporter got some, most or all of a topic wrong than that they got it right. Usually, it doesn't have legal consequences. Sometimes, it does.

The complaint: Taylor v ESPN Complaint

[Mick]

Many plausible scenarios here.  Taylor has it in the bag because he or his lawyer already knows what's in the reports and it's different from the summary in the ESPN articles.  Taylor doesn't know what findings the report made against him and is fishing for evidence of malice in discovery (which is permitted, but of course might not pan out).  Taylor knows he's screwed, and he is just fishing for names of accusers in discovery with the intent to smear them.  Taylor knows he's screwed, and he is just fishing for the person who leaked the report to ESPN, which, if disclosed to Stanford, might result in negative consequences for that person.  I'm sure other alternatives are possible also.  If we knew the nature of the attorney fee arrangement, that might help us narrow down the true reason for the lawsuit.

Four interesting scenarios, and let me add two more: First, that Taylor is borderline hallucinatory and is paying for the lawsuit on a full T&E basis with no contingent or incentive payments at all. Angry, aggressive supervisors often operate under illusions as to their behavior and how it affects others. And second, that he wants a jury trial -- his attorneys have strong litigator reputations -- so either the verdict or the settlement will allow him to reclaim enough of his reputation that he can get another coaching job. Because right now, he can't.

Taylor's public comments about the articles (and in the complaint) are diametrically opposite that of the ESPN articles. This leads me to believe that he's either hallucinatory or he and his lawyers have evidence that ESPN got it wrong. They may also have evidence that the reporter had it in for Taylor and/or took creative liberties.

Your last three scenarios are interesting. Seems like a lot of money to spend for not much return. Damage has already been done, is it really necessary to identify people. It doesn't help ESPN, incidentally, that they took a victory lap celebrating Taylor's firing after their article appeared, and Luck himself indirectly credited that exterior attention in causing Taylor's firing, perhaps responding to this section from an ESPN article:

"It's somewhat of a mystery exactly why he remained on the job -- this is Stanford,
after all, or at least is supposed to be. The NCAA violations were fairly minor, but
that's all the more reason not to fight them. The attitude displayed to compliance is a
red flag of its ovm. Again, Stanford. "

One little thing causes me concern: I've run public relations and dealt with reporters at all levels for over 40 years. From the claim: "Defendants intentionally twisted the facts to advance a narrative..." Well, yeah. That's what reporters do. They start with a narrative and use and sometimes misinterpret information to advance that narrative and avoid information that conflicts with the narrative. I can't tell you how many times I've run across that phenomenon over the years, but it was far more common that some attorney or accountant told me that a reporter got some, most or all of a topic wrong than that they got it right. Usually, it doesn't have legal consequences. Sometimes, it does.

The complaint: Taylor v ESPN Complaint