That particular argument is total BS. Won't fly. The athletic code doesn't trump federal and state privacy statutes and law. It's a silly argument, and makes no logical sense. The code, which athletes sign, warns them that as athletes they may be subject to more media scrutiny. Meloy then argues that JJ waived his rights to privacy under federal and state law. As I lawyer, I would be embarrassed to even make an argument like that.
I have felt all along that federal and state privacy laws should and would prevail, and not allow disclosure. My thought has been that the best argument may be that a good deal of the facts, and early university process, is already public, some of which came from brief's filed to stop the university proceeding. However, I don't think there was official public release of anything after the time right before the university proceeding that got released or made public.
I haven't read the briefs, or followed closely. Just from articles like this. Perhaps will do more if I get time. From the article, Meloy's argument that a normal date rape qualifies for an extremely narrow violent crime exception isn't a credible argument.
The Missoulian's continuing statement that JJ was found to have committed sexual assault in multiple university proceedings is not accurate, is damaging to JJ, and I think could be actionable. There was only one "proceeding", to my knowledge, and various appeals up university/higher education chain. MT higher ed and its counsel eventually found that the original proceeding had been grossly unfair and had not followed proper procedures, and that the dean had made multiple mistakes--or something like that, according to the rumor mill. While someone may have looked at the file again, another "proceeding" was not held, again to my knowledge (really the rumor mill's knowledge).
