DAVIS AND ATTORNEYS FILE FOR TRO – Why UNC loses the 216 battle

UPDATE: Lawyers for Butch Davis have filed an eleventh hour requesting the Court to quash the subpoena or in the alternative to issue a TRO ordering the media to NOT release the contents of any phone records that are deemed public record. Doesn’t that fly in the face of the very essence of “public record?”

Further, this seems to show Butch’s attorneys’ rightful belief that they should lose and that the records are indeed public records, at least to the extent of phone calls made as to his state’s business as a state employee. Therefore, any phone calls made on that personal cell phone about coaching football at UNC, whether proper or improper in nature, are legitimate public records.


Erin Summers appropriately tweeted the following after learning of the newly filed document which clears up some previous questions about the 216 phone records:


UNC outside legal counsel Richard Evrard only person to see Davis’ 216 records & it was in front of Davis & his wife, never seen by UNC/NCAA

The document argues that the records are not public records. Specifically, “Davis contends that the media is seeking to have the information released “simply to know and publish the contents,” which the N.C. Supreme Court has previously ruled against. He further argues that the records are no longer relevant to the lawsuit.”

Davis’ position is wrong on many levels, but ultimately it’s this one that is their downfall when differentiating this situation from, for instance, the Colorado decision mentioned below. In this case the previously released records of his Assistant Head Coach are what revealed the 216 number to the public. From those records, there is direct evidence that Davis used his personal cell phone number to conduct business of his “office” or state job. The media is not on a fishing expedition as mentioned above, but rather there is obvious reason founded in fact that these phone records are public records since Davis clearly used that phone and that phone alone to make all of his phone calls.

Again, this is obviously why Davis and his attorneys are seeking the TRO to confine the use of the information that clearly should be handed over.

As others have pointed out, it couldn’t be more obvious now that these records hold terribly damaging information. Similarly, a statement was made recently about the refusal of the government to release records on a political matter. The statement essential pointed out that the damage of refusing to release the information is obviously known, so it goes to reason that the calculated risk of damage to refuse their release is also known and indeed known to be more damaging than stonewalling the release.

/////////////////PREVIOUS ENTRY//////////////////////

A key issue in the UNC-Chapel Hill academic and athletic fraud scandal is set for new developments this week after we learned that the UNC Board of Governors’ special committee on the UNC academic fraud scandal has not even bothered to meet yet (special link).

A court ruling on the release of Butch Davis’ secret ‘216 phone’ is expected on Thursday and you can get caught up on the topic by clicking here. (By the way, Davis was in the news again yesterday and all I can ask is why does he keep speaking to the media?)

With the 216 ruling on the horizon, it was the perfect time to share the incredible work done last year by our own GAWolf. The following entry originally ran on June 30, 2011 —

If you don’t already know what we’re referring to as the “216 Battle” then you haven’t been paying enough attention in class. Detention it is for you. Essentially, in response to the media’s public information request and Judge Manning’s subsequent court order requiring UNC to comply with the same, UNC released phone records that included a school-issued cell phone that had hardly been used by Butch Davis. Instead, it appears apparent that Coach Davis was using a “personal” cell phone he acquired while still coaching or at least living in the Cleveland area. Cleveland’s area code: 216.

The Daily Tar Heel had this to say about the matter:

When the NCAA first contacted UNC on June 21, 2010, Davis didn’t make any calls from his land line, and has only used his University cellphone twice in the 35-month period the records cover, even though it costs the athletics department about $80 a month.

Here are Davis’ school-issued cell phone records released to the media supposedly in compliance with Judge Manning’s Order.

The community over at Pack Pride has scoured the phone records that were released, and put together “evidence” of what we all certainly expected might be true. In the months, or at least weeks, while Butch’s school-issued phone was locked up in a desk drawer, it appears that Butch used the 216 phone to speak with his bosses and at least some of his staff. Essentially, it’s apparent from the phone records that Davis was using the “personal” phone for state’s business.

If you’re not familiar with the 216 discussion, you can check out our forums for a discussion on the topic but it is also likely that you want to read the discussion of the folks over at Pack Pride who spent what had to be an ungodly amount of time scouring the phone records that actually did get release.

We advise that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions about what John Blake’s phone records indicate regarding the 216 number, who it belongs to, and why it was being used. Here is a link to what was allegedly released to the media as former UNC Associate Head Coach John Blake’s phone records. That would be newly determined Sports Agent John Blake’s phone records.

For argument’s sake, let’s assume the 216 number does indeed belong to Butch Davis. Let’s also assume that Butch Davis did use that phone to speak to John Blake, Dick Baddour, Holden Thorpe, football recruits, or anyone else associated with college football for the purposes of carrying out his job as Head Football Coach at UNC. Let’s also assume, for argument’s sake, that this phone was indeed paid for by Butch Davis with his personal money and he was not reimbursed for that expense by the tax payers of North Carolina. Again, this is giving some benefit of the doubt for argument’s sake.


So let’s take a look at the statute that governs the NC “Public Information Request” law: N.C.G.S. § 132.

§ 132‑1. “Public records” defined.

(a) “Public record” or “public records” shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data‑processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions shall mean and include every public office, public officer or official (State or local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of government of the State or of any county, unit, special district or other political subdivision of government.

(b) The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law. As used herein, “minimal cost” shall mean the actual cost of reproducing the public record or public information. (1935, c. 265, s. 1; 1975, c. 787, s. 1; 1995, c. 388, s. 1.)

UNC-Central acknowledges in their personnel policies that personal cell phone records, if the phone is used to conduct business within the realm of the state employee’s capacity, is possibly subject to disclosure under N.C.G.S. § 132.

6.0 Mobile Communications Device Allowance (MCDA) Program
The MCD allowance program is not intended to pay the full cost of the employee’s monthly service costs with
their provider. It is intended to only cover the reasonable cost that the employee incurs while using the
device/service as part of their job duties and responsibilities. The MCDA guidelines are as follows:
a. The employee is responsible for procuring and paying for all services and equipment.
b. If the employee’s use (from previous history of having a university provided device) is estimated to be
less than 100 minutes a month, the employee may not receive a MCD allowance unless the supervisor
provides sufficient justification.
c. A state agency is only allowed to provide MCD allowances if the agency’s total cost to provide the
allowance is less expensive than providing state‐owned MCDs.
d. The monthly allowance is taxable income. Appropriate taxes will be withheld from the allowance
payment each month.
e. The employee’s personal mobile communications device records could be subject to the North Carolina
public records law (General Statute 132).


This policy from a University of North Carolina System sister school is interesting for two reasons: 1) it acknowledges that work-related calls/texts on a personal cell phone are likely public record subject to having to be turned over pursuant to a request under this statute, and 2) according to the Daily Tar Heel, UNC enacted a similar program in early 2010 to stipend UNC employees for using personal cell phones in lieu of school-issued cell phones in an effort to assist budget cutting measures.

The Daily Tar Heel story on the UNC’s 2010 cell phone stipend policy change also states this little gem:

Under the stipend plan, employees receiving the stipend will have three days to provide phone records if the University’s public records officer requests them. During those three days, employees may redact any information related to personal calls, text messages or e-mails.

It certainly seems that like its sister school UNCC, UNC-CH believes that personal cell phones used to conduct the state’s business are subject to public records requests!


Along those lines, the Governor of NC issued this Executive Order regarding personal email accounts used to conduct the state’s business:

6. Executive Branch employees who conduct State business via personal e-mail accounts shall ensure that all public records are retained in accordance with this Executive Order and are retained pursuant to the Public Records Law and applicable record retention schedules.

This Executive Order has been interpreted by NC Government entities in this manner when referring to internal email policies:

1.5 Use of Personal E-Mail Accounts
Due to the challenging nature of capturing the information in personal e-mail accounts (such as Gmail™ or Yahoo™), the use of these accounts to conduct official government business is strongly discouraged. If a personal e-mail account is used for government business, employees are required to forward all e-mail messages to their government e-mail account. Those employees who do not have a government e-mail account are expected to print those e-mail messages following the terms of a records retention and disposition schedule. Executive Branch employees who conduct State business via personal e-mail accounts shall ensure that all public records are retained in accordance with Executive Order 18 and are retained pursuant to the Public Records Law and applicable record retention schedules.4 Members of governing boards who use personal accounts to conduct business manage their e-mails according to the records retention schedules and forward the message to the board’s official record keeping entity. If someone has not been appointed, we encourage you to identify the appropriate entity.

The UNC School of Government issued this opinion as to what makes a public record: (We highly recommend that you read this blog entry if you have any questions about NC’s public record law. The UNC School of Government is widely accepted as “the” place to go for a typically accurate interpretation of NC law.)

2. The location of an email does not determine whether or not it is a public record. If an email is made or received in connection with the transaction of public business, it is a public record regardless of whether it is created or stored on a public or a private computer or email system. So an email that relates to public business is a public record even if it is sent from a home computer, or made on a personal email account from any computer. This is true whether the email is sent or received by any public employee, or any elected or appointed public official.

There is obviously a great argument to be made that whether a government agent/employee/elected official is using a personal email account, a personal cell phone, or a personal carrier pigeon, any government business conducted occurring through that communication device is absolute public record… belonging to the people (see the statute set out above).


While North Carolina courts have not, that we can find, addressed the issue of personal cell phones being used to conduct the State’s business, the Colorado Supreme Court just addressed this exact issue last month. The Denver Post sued the Mayor of Denver for his “personal” cell phone records under the premises that it may have been used to conduct his government-capacity business. Read more here.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the personal cell phone records of the Denver mayor were NOT subject to the request issued by the Denver Post. Before you scream that such a holding is an injustice to the concept of government transparency because anyone can now go get a personal cell phone, shelf the state-issued cell phone, and conduct shady dealings in his government capacity…. read closer.

One opinion of the holding of the case sets out this:

While the Post argued that if a public official uses his personal phone for official government business, those phone records become public record, the Supreme Court ruled that the Post had to first prove that Ritter, who opted not to seek a second term, had actually used his personal cell phone (in addition to a state-issued Blackberry) for government business, rather than simply conclude that he did. Since they failed to do so, the court said, Ritter was under no obligation to produce records proving that he did not use his personal cell phone for such purposes.

If you’re the legal scholar type you can read the opinion here. Otherwise, SFN would offer that the holding essentially means that a blanket request for personal cell phone records believed to have maybe been used for the state’s business will likely fail, at least pursuant to Colorado law. This case is distinguishable to the facts at hand because there seems to be actual evidence in this instance that the phone at issue, likely Butch Davis’ personal cell phone number with the 216 area code, was used by both his managers and his subordinates to contact him. Therein lies the pretty obvious conclusion, along with the fact that his UNC-issued phone went almost completely unused, that this phone was used extensively in his state employment capacity to carry out the functions of his job. Keep in mind that the civil standard applicable is not a criminal standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that Butch used the phone to conduct his state job’s business. Rather, the question becomes is there evidence, even if circumstantial, that shows that he more likely than not used the phone in that capacity. Given the evidence and the standard, this seems to be a slam dunk for the plaintiff media outlets should they pursue the 216 records.


Given the Governor’s directive, government agencies’ interpretation of the record, the controlling statutes, the fact that UNC schools (including UNC-CH) have deemed personal communication devices to be potentially subject to public information requests if used to conduct state business, this issue is poised to explode any day now.

If you’re looking for more evidence to support this, take a jaunt around the country and have a peak at other Universities and their policies regarding coaches and personal cell phones:

The University of Washington

Each coach must keep a thorough and complete log of all recruiting telephone calls made to prospective student-athletes either on the form provided by the compliance office or on the NCAA Compliance Assistant Internet (CAi). The log must include all recruiting calls placed from any telephone (e.g., phone calls placed from home phones, personal cell phones, department-issued cell phones, office phones, hotel phones, etc.). Each coaching staff must choose one coach or administrative staff member to collect and submit all telephone logs for that sport to the Compliance Office. Logs must be received by the 10th of each month (or the next business day if the 10th falls on a weekend or holiday). Coaches using CAi should notify the compliance office by the 10th day of each month that the database has been fully updated to reflect all recruiting phone calls for the previous month.

The Compliance Office periodically will review these logs for compliance with NCAA rules. If the
Compliance Office finds any violations of NCAA rules, the violation will be reported to the Pac-10 and the NCAA, and appropriate sanctions will be levied.

The Compliance Office periodically will obtain telephone records for coaches’ department-issued cell phones and office phones and compare those records with the information recorded on the coaches’ logs. Note: Coaches may be required to provide the compliance office with copies of phone records from any phone that the coach may have used to make recruiting phone calls (e.g., personal cell phone, home phone, etc.). If the Compliance Office finds any discrepancies between the telephone calls reflected in a coach’s logs and the calls reflected in the phone company records, the discrepancy will be reported to the sport administrator for appropriate action. If the discrepancy results in a violation of NCAA rules, the violation will be reported to the Pac-10 and the NCAA.

Texas Pan America

Any calls made from personal cell phones and home phones are to be documented and these records submitted to the Athletics Compliance Officer on a monthly basis.


Each coach must keep a thorough and complete log of all recruiting telephone calls made to
prospective student-athletes on the NCAA Compliance Assistant Internet (CAi).

• The log must include all recruiting calls placed from any telephone (e.g., phone calls
placed from home phones, personal cell phones, department-issued cell phones, office
phones, hotel phones, etc.). Logs must be updated by the 10th of each month (or the
next business day if the 10th falls on a weekend or holiday). Coaches should notify
the compliance office by the 10th day of each month that the database has been fully
updated to reflect all recruiting phone calls for the previous month.


I affirm I will report all calls made to prospects or prospect’s parents, including those made by a non-university issued phone, personal cell phone, etc.

I affirm I will notify the Compliance Office if I use an additional phone line or if any of the phone numbers listed above have changed.

I affirm I will submit monthly phone logs to the Compliance Office, listing all recruiting calls made to prospects or prospect’s parents.

I affirm I will provide the Compliance Office access to view all records for the phones listed above.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

UNC Scandal

61 Responses to DAVIS AND ATTORNEYS FILE FOR TRO – Why UNC loses the 216 battle

  1. tractor57 07/17/2012 at 6:41 AM #

    And Butchie boy wants to coach another college team?

    No doubt some college will hire him.

    There is a lot to indicate that “216” phone was used to conduct university business. It will be interesting to see what the ruling contains.

  2. ncsu1987 07/17/2012 at 7:40 AM #

    I expect UNX will be ordered to release the records. And when they do, the records will be redacted to the point of ridiculousness, rendering them useless. Do any of the legal guys know if it’s possible to compel them to release unredacted originals?

  3. BureauOfMines 07/17/2012 at 7:40 AM #

    “… the UNC Board of Governors’ special committee on the UNC academic fraud scandal has not even bothered to meet yet.”

    No sense in meeting when they know UNC didn’t do anything wrong.

  4. tuckerdorm1983 07/17/2012 at 7:46 AM #

    I think that it will all end with the firing/stepping down of Thorpe. As you keep peeling the layers of the onion you find more and more. It just keeps getting uglier. The Board of Trustees must just keep wringing their hands. If this cancer gets into the basketball program somehow, then drastic measures will be taken. God I hope so!!!

  5. TruthBKnown Returns 07/17/2012 at 8:27 AM #

    Isn’t the pending ruling just the response to Butch’s appeal of the original ruling (the one that he already lost)? The way I see it, there’s little chance Butch will win this.

    ncsu1987, UNX will not be compelled to release the records because they (brilliantly!) never had them. They were careful to get outside counsel to look them over. If they got their own copy of those records, they would have become public record, and subject to FOIA law. Since they didn’t WANT them released, it was smart of them to never GET those records. And they (conveniently) terminated Butch just as he was set to release those records.

    This is about BUTCH being forced to release these records, not UNX.

    UNX knew exactly what they were doing from the getgo.

  6. PackMan97 07/17/2012 at 8:31 AM #

    It wouldn’t surprise me if his personal cell show less activity than we think. My guess is a burner phone that’s long gone is what we really want.

    That said, I’m quite shocked that UNC never audited Butch’s phone logs while he was coach. What type of compliance office are they running over there?

  7. Mike 07/17/2012 at 8:37 AM #

    As I stated on another site yesterday, if Butch thinks he is so innocent, he should simply release the records. He cant because he is not innocent.

    If they are released, he will have redacted anything that suggests guilt and say it was “personal” in nature. So really, the release, unless all out in the open, is useless. Calls to Blake – personal, not coaching related to tlak about Blake’s sons, who Butch was helping. Calls to the tutor – personal, for Butchie’s son etc.

    When one lies with snakes, at some point you will be bitten.

  8. pack1910 07/17/2012 at 9:56 AM #

    This is great stuff. Hats off to the SFN legal team.

    I agree 100% regarding the Colorado case being distinguishable. Here we’ve got pretty good evidence that this “personal” phone was used for state business.

    @ncsu1987, the answer to that is yes. The way it would typically work (and I don’t practice in NC much any more but I think this is pretty standard across the board) is that the party requesting the unredacted records would ask that they be given to the judge for what’s called “in camera” review; that is, the judge looks at them to see if they should be produced without showing them to the other side. If he determines that they should be provided unredacted (or with fewer redactions), he can then order that it be done.

  9. ryebread 07/17/2012 at 10:28 AM #

    I don’t think the BOG is going to do anything to UNC unless the NCAA starts coming down on them hard (or the SBI makes a huge stink). They just will continue to cover things up.

    Our best hope is if some local media person wants to make a national name for himself by continuing to dig. Whether the long arms of UNC will gag that remains to be seen.

    I’ve accepted that all the punishment that is coming to UNC has come. Basketball is going to slither away yet again.

  10. wolfbuff 07/17/2012 at 10:34 AM #

    I will reiterate my thanks to SFN for the thorough analysis. It paints an interesting scenario indeed. My opinion (and I’m no lawyer) is that we’ll get the records, but that it will be essentially worthless.

    And it will be worthless because UNCheat’s legal games and lack of any kind of compliance policy with teeth have muddied the waters to the point that the truth will never be proven (note I didn’t say “known”). Speaking of compliance, I like Washington’s. They actually goes so far as to compare the coaches’ logs with actual phone records. Had something like that been in place at UNCheat, they would have discovered something amiss with the university issued phone long ago. But, of course, if you don’t want to know, you’re not going to know.

  11. NCSU84 07/17/2012 at 1:17 PM #

    What does a phone record really prove? We will not know what was discussed without other evidence. Am I missing something? Perhaps this is the first step of a lengthy process. But as others have stated, I do not see that happening. SFN legal, please chime in.

  12. Hungwolf 07/17/2012 at 1:46 PM #

    ” I am going to release the phone records” Butch Davis

    UNC moved quickly to fire Davis right after he announced this at ACC media day. UNC has seen the phone records their attorneys have reviewed them, which to me obligates the attorney firm to have copies of all documents. My guess is UNC is ordered to release the documents and claims they do not have them.

  13. TruthBKnown Returns 07/17/2012 at 2:41 PM #

    Hungwolf, my understanding is that they can hide behind “client-attorney privilege”.

    It is amazing how shrewdly Carolina has handled this, from day one.

  14. tdouble 07/17/2012 at 3:11 PM #

    “folks over at Pack Pride who spent what had to be an ungodly amount of time scouring the phone records that actually did get released.”

    A truly sad existence it must be to spend your time doing that.

  15. Wufpacker 07/17/2012 at 3:24 PM #

    ^ Maybe, but it probably beats spending time being a whiny ass and bitching about what others are doing.

    “The Board of Trustees must just keep wringing their hands.” – Yeah, probably because they (some of them anyway) are just as dirty as the rest of the rats in the barrel.

  16. TLeo 07/17/2012 at 4:43 PM #

    I beleive that if the judge follows the law he will deny Davis’ motion and order the records released and hold davis in contempt of court if he does not comply. The cynic in me believes the judge will find some reason to protect his school from further damage, however. I also believe like some other folks here, that Davis has already redacted everything and anything that could be damaging to him or the ‘holes.

  17. ncsu1987 07/17/2012 at 5:26 PM #

    “A truly sad existence it must be to spend your time doing that.”

    I truly appreciate the efforts of the PackPride members. As previously described, UNX has played this exceptionally well and, thus far, has largely escaped just desserts. These maligned Packpride efforts have led to light being shone into dark, hidden corners of the cesspool. Thanks, guys, for doing what I can’t and for keeping the story alive. If Davis truly used that 216 phone as much as we believe, the probability is high that he’ll miss something and someone will find it. If he had a burner, then there’s nothing to find.

  18. rtpack24 07/17/2012 at 5:37 PM #

    Tip of the hat to you guys at Statefansnation. This is excellent work and well researched. These records at some point contained a lot of information that the school and Butchie boy did not want released. I believe the company he had his phone with would still have all the records and could be compelled by court order to turn them over. I think it is funny the ruling is on Thursday instead of Friday. Because as we were all told two years ago this will all be over by Friday. Wonder what Davis has on Baddour for him to come out publicly and still support him.

  19. backnine 07/17/2012 at 5:53 PM #

    I want Butch forced to release the records just because I know they will be heavily redacted to the point of being useless and this will cast more suspision on the game UNC is playing. I have little hope that anything included is going to be a pandaora’s box. But one can hope.

    I’m a bit more interested in what comes from this four-person panel of BOG members. There is new BOG leadership now in place (instead of Bob Winston) and one of the four members on the panel is Ann Goodnight. While I don’t know them, I would like to think the Goodnights are FOR fairness and justice. I don’t expect their NC State connections will lead Ann to be any more harsh than she should. But I do expect she will push for transparancy that IS justified, and to this point has been flimsy at best. That’s all I ask.

    And lastly, there’s always the hope that some hungry jouralist out there, ala Dan Kane, will see the whale of an opportunity to take this story national and lock into it. Don’t know when or if that will happen. I am very appreciative of Dan Kane’s efforts thus far as a “lone wolf” in hunting for the truth. Lord knows no other media outlet in NC has given him any help at all.

  20. TruthBKnown Returns 07/17/2012 at 5:58 PM #

    If he had a burner, then there’s nothing to find.

    If he had a burner, and there was nothing to find, I believe he would have already released his 216 records….. WITH A CHESHIRE CAT, SH!T-EATIN’ GRIN on his face.

  21. Wufpacker 07/17/2012 at 6:13 PM #

    I’m curious about something that maybe GAWolf can clear up.

    I’ve heard a lot of folks say things to the effect that Carolina and their attorney’s have some way to hide the 216 issue behind client-attorney privilege (including earlier in this thread), but I’m not sure why this would be. I understand that their communications regarding the 216 issue would be privileged, but the actual records themselves?

    Maybe I’m missing something here?

  22. bill.onthebeach 07/17/2012 at 6:29 PM #

    Butch says NO….. the CAROLINA WAY !!!!


  23. choppack1 07/17/2012 at 6:31 PM #

    I’ll be surprised if we ever see anything. His recent public request to resume coaching indicates to me he has recd notice of a favorable ruling.

  24. pack1910 07/17/2012 at 7:22 PM #

    @Wufpacker, I know I’m not GAWolf but allow me to put in my two cents. You can’t just give your lawyer a document that already exists and make it privileged; it’s only communications that were made for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice that are privileged. A good example is if you e-mail your lawyer and attach a preexisting document; the transmittal e-mail is generally privileged but the document is not.

    If I understand what UNX did, they had Butch give the records to their lawyers, had the lawyers review them and then report back to the school about what they saw, but UNX officials never actually looked at them themselves. That may work to keep the info from the NCAA (I don’t know how their process works), but that shouldn’t keep the documents from being subject to a subpoena or to discovery in a civil suit because the documents would have been considered to be in UNX’s “possession, custody, or control” as the phrase goes.

    I don’t know all the ins and outs here. Why hasn’t anybody just subpoenaed the records from the phone company?

    Also, anyone know what the style (caption, party names, etc.) of the case is? I tried finding the hearing on the online calendar ( http://www.nccourts.org/ for those so inclined) but couldn’t find it; of course, knowing what I was looking for would probably have helped.

  25. GAWolf 07/17/2012 at 8:08 PM #


    In fact, I would think the the third party lawyers would have to advise Butch that he cannot destroy documents likely subject to litigation.

    It’s pretty clear that UNC did this to be able to turn a blind eye toward whatever incriminating contents were in the records. “Don’t look at us; we never saw them.”

    The hearing is likely to be in Courtroom 10C on the 10th floor of the courthouse as that is where Manning is holding court this week. However, they could always move it.

    I’m not sure what time the hearing is to take place.

Leave a Reply