Last Friday Craig James assessed the status of Mike Leach’s termination lawsuit against the ESPN announcer and Texas Tech.
“I feel very confident about our position. Most people in Lubbock support my position. We did what any responsible parent would do. We did the right thing.”
For all I know, James may be right about the overall support he enjoys in Lubbock, but from their public actions, I do know at least one group of people who do not share James’ optimism.
The lawyers representing Texas Tech.
One year and four days ago, reporter Matthew McGowan of the LUBBOCK AVALANCHE-JOURNAL noted that as part of an appeal to thwart the newspaper’s request for records involving the Leach investigation, Tech attorneys stated:
“Craig James threatened on Dec. 20 to sue the university if it did not investigate the actions of then-head football coach Mike Leach.
“The threat did not appear to be an idle threat as the parent expressed genuine concern for the health and well-being of his injured child, as well as other student-athletes.”
Tech lawyers went on to argue to the Texas Attorney General that a potential Craig James lawsuit against the school forced Texas Tech to fire Leach, which justified the institution keeping all documents pertaining to Leach’s ouster secret.
But if Tech was, as James claims, “confident in its position” against Leach in the pending court case, why did the school furiously object to being forced to release any documents pertaining to Leach’s ouster?
And why for the past year has Tech refused to go to trial, instead invoking an obscure Texas law that originated in medieval England in an attempt to block Leach’s due process?
In the past year, Tech lawyers have forced Leach’s legal counsel to take his case to the Texas Supreme Court just to get a trial.
Does that sound like Tech lawyers support James in his “confident” view of the strength of their case against Leach?
Follow Brooks on Twitter for real-time updates.