The case was posted in a way that blocked downloading but yours truly managed to get around the block. You can find it at:
This is a case that is messy for both sides. Creating the encampment violated campus rules. You can't block public access, control public access, block doorways, vandalize walls, etc., without violating university rules and laws. The UCLA police chief at the time - later made a scapegoat - apparently advised immediately dismantling the encampment. Had that occurred, the subsequent events described in the lawsuit would not have occurred. UCLA apparently told its police to stay away. And when vigilantes arrived in the void of safety thus created, there was no police response for an extended period. So UCLA has culpability, but some of that culpability is for not preventing the plaintiffs from doing what they did.
Were the case to proceed to trial, a lot of information would come out about what the university did (and didn't) do, but also about what the plaintiffs did. There would be a process of discovery. Documents would be obtained. Testimony would be taken. Many of the plaintiffs are anonymous, although how they would remain so in an actual discovery process and trial is unclear. Presumably, they could be asked to testify and be questioned by opposing counsel. This is a be-careful-what-you-wish-for case for the plaintiffs.
One suspects there would be a lot of dirty laundry from both sides hanging in Royce Quad before the case ended, if it ever really went to trial. So yours truly guesses it won't. But how that occurs is unclear.
====
No comments:
Post a Comment