US judge dismisses Ronaldo rape lawsuit in Las Vegas
The unlicensed and continued use of documents that were privileged resulted in the civil suit for the defendant being dismissed from the court
A suit was brought on behalf of Cristiano Ronaldo, by an individual who claimed him of sexual assault. Manchester United star of sexual assault was dismissed by a US District Judge in Las Vegas.
A federal judge Jennifer Dorsey ruled that the suit brought by Kathryn Mayorga was based on “purloined” confidential documents obtained by her attorney that were “tainted” her case.
The year before, another Las Vegas judge had suggested dismissal because of the conduct by Mayorga’s legal counsel.
Was Judge Dorsey on the case of Ronaldo?
In the written decision, “Mayorga loses her opportunity to pursue the case and try to undo this settlement which could be a source of grave allegations of a personal nature.
“But given the breadth and depth which the false information has infected her claims as well as other filings, as well as her likely memory and understanding of the most important facts, any alternative sanction is not a sufficient remedy.
“Nothing less than a with-prejudice dismissal will purge the taint that has permeated this case from its very inception and preserve the integrity of the litigation process.”
What documents were in the query?
The lawyer for Mayorga’s client, Leslie Stovall, had obtained information about the sexual assault incident by Football Leaks creator Rui Pinto The judge decided that the documents were private and confidential and therefore not admissible as evidence.
“Stovall’s repeated use of stolen, privileged documents to prosecute this case has every indication of bad-faith conduct,” the judge stated.“And since the evidence shows that Stovall, as well as Mayorga, have thoroughly reviewed the documents and used them to create the basis for Mayorga’s allegations, eliminating Stovall does not erase the prejudice resulting from their use.
“Stovall was consciously looking for his adversaries’ hacked, confidential, internal communications.When he got these documents, he didn’t ask for ethics-based advice regarding what to do with these sensitive documents.
“Instead he gave the documents to his client to ensure that they wouldn’t contaminate her memories and perceptions of events. He made her complaint based on the basis of their contents, which is evident by the plaintiff’s sworn confirmation.
“With that adulterated die-cast, he then sat on the documents for fourteen months, nine of which he was actively litigating this case.”