• CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US

  • Home
  • News
    • NewsFlash
  • A&E
    • Movie Times
    • TV Listings
    • A&E Blog
    • Art Galleries
    • Best Bets
  • Opinion
    • Columns
    • Voices
    • Letters
    • In Memoriam
  • Events
    • Today
    • Search
    • Submit
    • Best Bets
  • Living
    • Travel
    • Sports
    • Peeps
  • Food & Drink
    • All Restaurants
    • Delivery
    • All Bars & Clubs
    • Drink Specials
    • Open Now
  • Outdoors
    • Outside Insider
    • Spotlight On
    • Features
  • Classifieds
    • Real Estate
    • Jobs
    • Autos
  • Personals
  • Obits

News-Press's Special Expert Witness Not Special Enough

Starshine Roshell, Travis Armstrong Grace Stand in Last Trial Day for a Week


Friday, September 14, 2007
By Chris Meagher (Contact)
Article Tools
Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us. del.icio.us.
Digg! Digg!
furl furl
google google
newsvine newsvine
reddit reddit
technorati technorati
Facebook Facebook
Yahoo! My Web 2.0 Yahoo!

The first expert witness called by Santa Barbara News-Press attorney Matthew Clarke in the labor law case against the newspaper was extremely qualified, administrative law judge William Kocol determined Friday — just not qualified enough in the subject matter in which he was needed as an expert.

Daniel Sullivan, former deputy police chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, who now works as a private contracting investigator, admitted that the banner hanging on an overpass for which six paper employees were fired was his first “banner on an overpass” case. While he was familiar with Caltrans regulations for highways, freeways and overpasses, and oversaw all aspects of policing in Los Angeles for many years, Kocol said that wasn’t enough. “We have a narrow issue,” he said. “I’m ruling that you have not qualified in this issue.”

The ruling came right before lunch, and News-Press lead counsel Barry Cappello and his team of attorneys tried once more to prove Sullivan was an expert, but to no avail.

The day started began with a conversation about an email thread which hadn’t been provided to News-Press attorneys by Ira Gottlieb, attorney for the Teamsters union, until late the previous evening. Gottlieb explained in the email, and again this morning that he had simply forgotten fired reporter Rob Kuznia had forwarded him the email in response to a subpoena from News-Press attorneys. The email, infamously known as the “peeps email,” has been left out of subpoenaed material multiple times by multiple former employees. “I can’t simply just turn my head to what’s occurred with this series of emails,” Cappello told Kocol. Cappello said he plans to raise the issue when he files a motion for sanctions, he told the court. “I can’t tell you how difficult it is to try a case when documents are being left out,” Cappello said.

Former News-Press and current Independent columnist Starshine Roshell was on the stand for just one question, before Kocol decided Cappello’s line of questioning was irrelevant. He began questioning Roshell about the Summer Solstice Parade during which Roshell walked in front of the Independent’s float, alongside a barbeque with News-Press papers as “kindling” and blonde-haired Barbie dolls on the grill. Cappello said the instance was an example of Roshell’s openly hostile attitude toward the News-Press and toward McCaw.

News-Press Editorial page editor Travis Armstrong ended the day on the stand, as opposed to the front row bench from which he had been observing most of the trial. During a recap of Armstrong’s educational and work history, Cappello asked Armstrong what an editorial was. “They’re argumentative in a good sense where you’re trying to present your opinion.” Armstrong also writes a column, he said, which contains his personal opinion. Armstrong testified that he, along with co-publishers Wendy McCaw and Arthur von Weisenberger compose the paper’s editorial board.

The main focus of his testimony Friday revolved around what has become known as the “Rob Lowe incident.” Before it even began, Gee tried to put an end to the line of questioning — “This sounds like it’s going to be pretty interesting, but I think it’s irrelevant,” he said — but the judge allowed at least some of it. During his examination, Cappello attempted to prove that at the News-Press, as at all newspapers, he said, the publisher has the prerogative to do what he or she wants, and that it wasn’t a breach of journalistic integrity. That prerogative includes, in this case, McCaw reprimanding a reporter and editors for printing the address of Lowe, a celebrity actor, and enacting a policy to not print any addresses in the future without running it by a publisher first. “Mrs. McCaw had the absolute right to do what she did,” Cappello said. In her letters of reprimand, McCaw said the inclusion of the address, which was as part of a Montecito Planning Commission meeting about a house Lowe was building, were “unnecessary details.”

The hearing will continue September 24 at 9 a.m. at the Santa Barbara Bankruptcy Court.

Story Help (Click-ability)
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.

Comments

Discussion Guidelines

Hmmm... the address of a vast new building is an `unnecessary detail.' I suppose neighbors are supposed to deduce the location of the new building by ESP.

sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
September 14, 2007 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seems like the address of the proposed project is a necessary detail, considering that is how the County planning agency files the documents and notices the review on the agency meeting agendas.

Without the address, the whole project cannot be found in their records on the first try. The planning commission meeting had the address as the name of the project in their meeting agenda, and the County government cable TV displayed the address across the TV image the whole time this was happening during the meeting.

Subsequent to Lowe's spat with his neighbors, how the News-Less tried to report news without including addresses was a running joke for months.

Perhaps the actual local Santa Barbara police or Cal-Trans officials might be the true experts about whether affixing a sign or banner to the fence on the freeway overpass bridge was legal or not.

Is this the best attempt at logic and argument that Cappello can do? Apparently so, considering his client and how irrational this all is.

FirstDistrictStreetfighter (anonymous profile)
September 14, 2007 at 11:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Newspapers publish people's addresses for a variety of reasons (possible stalker briefings notwithstanding).

For instance, let's say your name is, oh, Travis Armstrong. And let's say the police arrest a nasty, degenerate pederast who happens to be named Travis Armstrong.

But it's not you they arrest; the lowlife is a different Travis Armstrong. And both men coincidently live in the same general area.

Wouldn't you want the local newspaper to publish the address of the suspect, so as to make clear to your neighbors and co-workers that you are not the alleged bottom-dwelling pervert in question?

This is just one reason for printing the addresses of the people or businesses being discussed. There are many, many more, and all equally important, but none seemed to matter to Publisher McFlaw at the time she issued her no-addresses edict. What a maroon!

niceFLguy (anonymous profile)
September 15, 2007 at 7:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

what I find a riot that not only Mr. Gottlieb "forgot" about the bragging, self righteous emails of Mr. Shultz, but apparently all of the other 25 recipients included forgot to turn it over as well.
"Hearing loss (0xc9) must be due to that sonic boom we created during our blitzkrieg through the newsroom on our way to Wendy's office. Dammit, I must have banged on that sauce pan too close to my head right before jackhammering our demands in to the floor at HR."

hmmm, doesn't sound like a peaceful, quiet protest to me. You may be deluding yourself and the others on your motley crew, but the truth will come out. If you don't have a job by now, you really should start looking.

truthfinder (anonymous profile)
September 15, 2007 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

truthfinder,

take note that the email you reference was sent AFTER the company accused its employees of acting disorderly. It's obviously been written tongue-in-cheek to make light of the unwarranted suspensions issued by the paper against its workers.

h2o (anonymous profile)
September 16, 2007 at 5:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Post a comment

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:

EVENT CALENDAR

Previous Month | Next Month

Today's Events Best Bets Submit an Event

Local Weather

Currently:
Clear Sky
Temperature:
52.0°
Wind:
5 SE

Surf Report
  • Specials
  • InPrint
  • Top Emails
  • Blue Green Guide 2008
  • Summer Camp Guide 2008
  • Wedding Guide 2008
  • SBIFF 2008 All Access
  • 2008 Election Coverage
  • Best of Reader's Poll 2007
  • Calendar of Fundraisers
  • Local Bands
  • Kid's Mother's Day Issue
  • Made in Santa Barbara
  • Zaca Fire 2007
  • Election 2008 Kickoff
  • Esau’s: It’s Not Just for Breakfast Anymore
  • Juarez’s Fate in Jurors’ Hands
  • Our 2008 Endorsements
  • k.d. lang Returns, Wearing Her Heart on Her Sleeve
  • World Series Now?
  1. Watch Her Strut
  2. Barney Buys a House
  3. The Trolley of Terror
  4. Brad Ebner’s Comeback
  5. Cold Springs Trail—East Fork
  6. Yes on Proposition 8: Gay Marriage Deprives Some Children of a Mom or a Dad
  • CREATE AN ACCOUNT
  • LOG.IN
  • CONTENTS
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • ARCHIVE
  • INFO | ADVERTISING | CONTACT US
Google
 
Independent.com Web
Copyright ©2008 Santa Barbara Independent, Inc. Reproduction of material from any Independent.com pages without written permission is strictly prohibited. If you believe an Independent.com user or any material appearing on Independent.com is copyrighted material used without proper permission, please click here.
This is our Privacy Policy.