Editions
Los 40 USA
Scores
Follow us on
Hello

NFL

Why is Deshaun Watson’s attorney trying to sanction his latest accuser’s law firm?

While this latest twist in the plot is sure to divide opinion, Watson’s communication with his latest accuser seems to cast doubt on her case.

Why is Deshaun Watson’s attorney trying to sanction his latest accuser’s law firm?
Nick CammettAFP

As debate continues, about the handling of the Browns QB’s case and whether he should face even more severe punishment, there has been yet another twist in the Deshaun Watson story.

Deshaun Watson’s attorneys want accuser’s law firm sanctioned

According to reports, an attorney representing Cleveland Browns quarterback Deshaun Watson, has filed for monetary sanctions to be imposed against the law firm representing Watson’s latest accuser. If you’ve been following, a 25th woman came forward to file a civil lawsuit against the quarterback on October 13th. To that end, Houston attorney Rusty Hardin filed his motion on Monday with the Harris County courts. In the filing, Hardin requests that sanctions be brought against Universal Law Group in the amount of $5,000 for its lawsuit which was filed two weeks ago. Additionally, the motion states that the group’s lawsuit was “filed with an improper purpose or that lack[s] legal or factual support.”

Interestingly, Hardin also affirmed that Watson did not assault the plaintiff as she contested. Indeed, the attorney provided several pages of alleged communication and interviews with the accuser where she previously stated “it wasn’t criminal” and that “we were in there playing around and that was it.” Hardin’s motion concludes by saying, “ULG knew what it was doing was wrong, but it did it anyway. The type of misconduct ULG engaged in here completely foreclosed Mr. Watson from responsibly defending himself in the face of national media coverage. ...Because good cause exists, Mr. Watson respectfully requests that the Court impose monetary sanctions necessary to punish and deter ULG’s conduct.”

How did Deshaun Watson get here?

As mentioned above, it was only two weeks ago that yet another woman filed a civil suit against Watson. Represented by Houston attorney Anissah Nguyen, the female plaintiff - a licensed massage therapist — alleged Watson “was able to pressure her into oral sex.” It was the 25th lawsuit filed against Watson and the first to be filed, since his August settlement with the NFL. Watson was eventually suspended for 11 games by the league and fined $5 million. Additionally, he was required to attend mandatory behavioral treatment. To date, Watson has faced no criminal charges.

What was the communication between Deshaun Watson and his accuser?

In terms of when the alleged assault took place, records show it was on December 18th, 2020. Hardin countered that point by providing communications that show Watson and the accuser exchanging messages through December 26th of that year. After that, it appears that Watson no longer responded to text messages or private messages on Instagram as per Hardin’s documents. Further to that, Hardin also stated that the accuser actually met with Watson’s legal team in November of 2021. According to Hardin, she advised Watson’s counsel that she “wasn’t scared” and “wasn’t intimidated” and that she “didn’t do anything where I didn’t feel like I was safe.” It’s worth noting, that up to this point Watson has settled 23 of the 24 civil suits which were filed against him, in which he is accused of similar behavior.

“And as you may or may not know,” Hardin said in court on Monday, “I think all of the cases in your court and 21 of the 22 that were filed that you administered and then more were settled, all in an attempt for Mr. Watson to go on with his life, the plaintiffs go on with their life and get this behind them. Those were the decisions we made even though we insisted in all of the settlements that we were not liable, there was no admission of responsibility or so, but the plaintiffs and Mr. Watson agreed to settlements so this could be put behind Mr. Watson and the plaintiffs could move on.”