MORGANTOWN - Rich Rodriguez may present evidence to prove his claim that he was fraudulently induced to sign a contract with West Virginia University that included a $4 million buyout clause he now refuses to pay, a judge ruled Thursday.
MORGANTOWN - Rich Rodriguez may present evidence to prove his claim that he was fraudulently induced to sign a contract with West Virginia University that included a $4 million buyout clause he now refuses to pay, a judge ruled Thursday.
Monongalia County Circuit Judge Robert Stone issued a mixed bag of pretrial rulings during a more than two-hour hearing, granting key victories for both sides.
For WVU, the big win was an order compelling Rodriguez and his attorneys to produce by April 15 any correspondence between the coach, his representatives and the University of Michigan about his hiring and contract talks there.
Rodriguez was not present for Thursday's hearing, but wife Rita was in the courtroom and did not comment on the rulings.
Rodriguez said during a post-practice press conference in Ann Arbor, Mich., that he hadn't yet heard the details of the hearing.
"What happened? My wife called me - Rita was there and the attorneys were there," Rodriguez said. "I didn't delve into the details too much - I will later tonight because I'm focused on spring practice."
Rodriguez resigned in December after seven seasons with the Mountaineers to take the head coaching job at Michigan, where he's also agreed to a $4 million buyout.
The documents could help WVU prove it was Rodriguez who broke the contract and did so because he wanted to - not because WVU forced him to quit by failing to honor verbal promises.
Stone also dismissed the WVU Foundation, the university's private fundraising entity, as a third-party plaintiff from the case.
Rodriguez attorney Marvin Robon had argued the foundation would either benefit or suffer as a result of the resignation, and that it would likely get the $4 million if Rodriguez were ordered to pay the buyout.
Robon intends to argue at trial that the buyout clause is a penalty, not a representation of the actual damages WVU would suffer from his departure. He'd hoped to get the foundation to open its books so he could prove WVU athletics have not been harmed.
Though both sides had hoped to conclude the case by midsummer, when practice for fall football season resumes, the judge warned that was unlikely. He declined to rule on a motion to speed up the trial, instead ordering the two sides to come up with a case management plan.
WVU sued Rodriguez Dec. 27, sparking a bitter public feud marked by accusations of lying, destruction of documents and broken vows. The case was briefly sent to federal court, where a judge decided it should be heard in state court.
WVU claims Rodriguez had a sports agent, lawyer and financial adviser throughout his dealings and knew what he was signing. It argues the August 2007 amendments to his contract, including the buyout clause, are legally binding.
Rodriguez, however, contends he signed under false pretenses, expecting WVU President Mike Garrison to keep a verbal promise that the buyout would be reduced or eliminated.
WVU denies such promises were made.
MORGANTOWN - Rich Rodriguez may present evidence to prove his claim that he was fraudulently induced to sign a contract with West Virginia University that included a $4 million buyout clause he now refuses to pay, a judge ruled Thursday.
Monongalia County Circuit Judge Robert Stone issued a mixed bag of pretrial rulings during a more than two-hour hearing, granting key victories for both sides.
For WVU, the big win was an order compelling Rodriguez and his attorneys to produce by April 15 any correspondence between the coach, his representatives and the University of Michigan about his hiring and contract talks there.
Rodriguez was not present for Thursday's hearing, but wife Rita was in the courtroom and did not comment on the rulings.
Rodriguez said during a post-practice press conference in Ann Arbor, Mich., that he hadn't yet heard the details of the hearing.
"What happened? My wife called me - Rita was there and the attorneys were there," Rodriguez said. "I didn't delve into the details too much - I will later tonight because I'm focused on spring practice."
Rodriguez resigned in December after seven seasons with the Mountaineers to take the head coaching job at Michigan, where he's also agreed to a $4 million buyout.
The documents could help WVU prove it was Rodriguez who broke the contract and did so because he wanted to - not because WVU forced him to quit by failing to honor verbal promises.
Stone also dismissed the WVU Foundation, the university's private fundraising entity, as a third-party plaintiff from the case.
Rodriguez attorney Marvin Robon had argued the foundation would either benefit or suffer as a result of the resignation, and that it would likely get the $4 million if Rodriguez were ordered to pay the buyout.
Robon intends to argue at trial that the buyout clause is a penalty, not a representation of the actual damages WVU would suffer from his departure. He'd hoped to get the foundation to open its books so he could prove WVU athletics have not been harmed.
Though both sides had hoped to conclude the case by midsummer, when practice for fall football season resumes, the judge warned that was unlikely. He declined to rule on a motion to speed up the trial, instead ordering the two sides to come up with a case management plan.
WVU sued Rodriguez Dec. 27, sparking a bitter public feud marked by accusations of lying, destruction of documents and broken vows. The case was briefly sent to federal court, where a judge decided it should be heard in state court.
WVU claims Rodriguez had a sports agent, lawyer and financial adviser throughout his dealings and knew what he was signing. It argues the August 2007 amendments to his contract, including the buyout clause, are legally binding.
Rodriguez, however, contends he signed under false pretenses, expecting WVU President Mike Garrison to keep a verbal promise that the buyout would be reduced or eliminated.
WVU denies such promises were made.
Stone's ruling on the fraudulent inducement claim creates a contest of credibility between Garrison and the former coach and his agent, Mike Brown, who was present when the alleged promise was made.
"We're very pleased with that ruling," Robon said.
WVU attorney Tom Flaherty said it was not a setback, as fraud is a claim West Virginia law allows to be argued in contract disputes.
"There is no fraud," he said. "President Garrison is very anxious to testify on that issue."
Though his resignation shocked both fans and a team headed for the Fiesta Bowl, the gradual disintegration of the relationship between Rodriguez and the WVU Athletic Department was documented in a series of e-mails outlining the coach's failed attempts to gain total control of the football program.
WVU believes the correspondence with Michigan will show Rodriguez left of his own will.
"He wasn't forced. He wanted to go," argued WVU attorney Jeff Wakefield.
The Michigan documents, including a term sheet that WVU obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, also show Rodriguez agreed to similar $4 million buyout at Michigan.
"We want to know, Have they taken the same position with the University of Michigan that it's 'unconscionable' and it violates public policy?" Wakefield said.
When Rodriguez attorney Sean McGinley claimed those communications were irrelevant, the judge disagreed.
"It seems to me nothing can be more relevant," Stone said.
No further hearings have been scheduled, but depositions of Rodriguez and WVU Athletic Director Ed Pastilong are scheduled for later this month - Pastilong on April 18, Rodriguez on April 21.
Wakefield asked the judge to issue an order about those depositions, requiring they be conducted privately, that they be videotaped and transcribed, and that those transcripts be kept private.
The Associated Press has asked both sides for copies of the transcripts as they become available. Wakefield said he feared the video might show up on YouTube or some other Web site.
Robon said that while he agrees the depositions should be conducted in private, he disagrees about whether the transcripts should be released.
The judge asked Robon to submit his position in writing and said he would rule later.
Post a comment