IN THE STATE COURT OF EFFINGHAM COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No.: ST13CV058RT USA GYMNASTICS, INC. USA GYMNASTICS, SAVANNAH METRO, INC., AND WILLIAM A. Defendants. RESPONSE OF USA GYMNASTICS TO MOTION TO UNSEAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE INDIANAPOLIS MOTION TO INTERVENE AND TO UNSEAL EVIDENCE Defendant USA Gymnastics, Inc. Gymnastics?) respectfully submits this Brief in Response to the Motion to Unseal Evidence of Plaintiff and Supplemental Brief in Further Support of its Motion to Seal Records Pursuant to Uniform State Court Rule 21 and in opposition to The Indianapolis Star?s ("Indy Star's) Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Evidence. 1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS Indy Star initially moved to intervene and unseal evidence in this case via reference to unsupported allegations, inapplicable case law, and a complete failure to acknowledge the Court's prior careful examination of the issues presented. USA Gymnastics' Response Brief spelled out the fatal defects in Indy Star's arguments, and also speci?ed the substantial privacy interests that would be irrevocably violated if this Court permits public disclosure of the con?dential USA Gymnastics ?les relating to former professional members (the "Sealed Documents"). Indy Star's subsequent Reply Brief "doubled down" on its initial strategy of lobbing baseless allegations, including by asserting that USA Gymnastics had deliberately "bur[ied]" allegations of sexual abuse as part of its "covert disregard of child welfare laws." [Reply Brief at Indy Star cited not one document, nor any testimony or other evidence, in support of its in?ammatory charges. In striving to bolster its position, Indy Star also again cited inapplicable law, and even went so far as to misstate or gloss over the substance of relevant appellate authorities. The unsupported contentions in Indy Star's brief were so incendiary, and so divorced from the reality of the record and the law, that it was apparent that Indy Star's request for the Sealed Documents did not represent any objective investigative effort, but rather served only to bolster the pre-ordained conclusions of a planned "hit piece" crafted to drive page views, website traf?c, and advertising revenue as the Rio Olympics commenced. The article ?nally published by Indy Star on August 4, 2016 - the very day before the Opening Ceremonies of the Rio Olympics - con?rmed Indy Star?s parochial motivation. The article left readers with the conclusion that USA Gymnastics deliberately ignored concrete evidence of speci?c abuse. Indeed, the piece began: "Top executives at one of America?s most prominent Olympic organizations failed to alert authorities to many allegations of sexual abuse by coaches." [Marisa Kwiatkowski, Mark Alesia, Tim Evans, A Blind to Sex Abuse: How USA Gymnastics Failed to Report Cases, THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR, Aug. 4, 2016, attached as Ex. and available at This statement was made despite the fact the undisputed record evidence establishes that USA Gymnastics never received any allegation that William McCabe engaged in any act of sexual abuse against a child prior to his arrest in 2006. The article also conspicuously omitted any reference to the extent or nature of the allegations reported to USA Gymnastics, or its role in coordinating with law enforcement, as to the other three coaches discussed by Indy Star. USA Gymnastics cannot address publicly the con?dential information in those ?les, and it recognizes that the tactics used by the Indy Star reporters are intended to open that door. The "public interest" incited by Indy Star is, therefore, a mirage, based on assumptions and unfounded allegations accepted as gospel by the numerous news outlets and editorialists echoing or commenting on Indy Star's reporting, all of which generate an increasing risk of extreme prejudice to USA Gymnastics in this case. Any interest in allegations of sexual abuse that the ?public? possesses may be satis?ed by information from the police, FBI and other law enforcement sources. Such interest must be balanced against the crucial privacy interests at stake in the Sealed Documents, not only with respect to victims, but also the accused, other persons, and USA Gymnastics itself. The risk of prejudice to USA Gymnastics presented by Indy Star's biased reporting also tips the scales in favor of maintaining the con?dentiality of the Sealed Documents. Only the bravest citizen or juror would dare speak up to point out that the facts relevant to this suit may be more complicated than are expressed in an expose or tweeted in 140 characters or less.1 In this age of increasingly short attention spans by some adults, the release of the Sealed Documents re?ecting the complicated reality of responding to information that was received by USA Gymnastics between 1996 and 2006, ten to twenty years ago, including rumors or hearsay comments, as well as allegations about children who were harmed - will only deepen the prejudice against USA Gymnastics in this case. 1 Indy Star's August 4, 2016 article, and each corresponding story, were published along with the social media hashtag "#outotbalance." Indy Star's reporting is perfectly suited for social media, where "[p]eople are inclined to believe claims that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs, especially if they produce an emotional response." [Liam Stack, N0, Google Says, It Did Not Delete "Palestine" From Its Maps, THE NEW YORK TIMES, Aug. 11, 2016 (attached as Ex. and available at According to Kate Klonick, a resident fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, "the cycle of outrage on social media is ?reactive, its emotional, not particularly thoughtful, but its satisfying in a lot of ways for people.? Id. On August 11, 2016, Plaintiff ?led her own Motion for the release of the Sealed Documents. She has, of course, taken steps to maintain her own privacy in this case, including by ?ling as a Jane Doe Plaintiff. USA Gymnastics respects Plaintiff anonymity, and it has always supported her right to do so. Plaintiff?s lawyers? ?ling nevertheless now contends that other victims, or alleged victims, of sexual misconduct should face the risk that they will not be accorded the same anonymity, even with their names redacted, and that the identity of the professional members identi?ed in the ?les must be disclosed, whether they are guilty or innocent, and no matter the consequences when zealous investigative reporters start pursuing individuals associated with matters that are more than 10 or 20 years old. Plaintiff therefore purports to utilize Uniform State Court Rule 21.2 as both a shield and a sword. See, e. Doe v. Archdiocese of Atlanta, 328 Ga. App. 324, 32829, 761 864, 868 (2014), cert. denied (Jan. 12, 2015) (weighing whether the privacy interests of a "Jane Doe" under Uniform Rule 21 with respect to her sexual abuse allegations outweighed the right of public access to court records, and deciding in favor of privacy). Given the unfounded mischaracterizations, assumptions, and conclusions in Indy Star?s reporting, as well as the crucial privacy interests at stake, the documents at issue should remain sealed. USA Gymnastics therefore respectfully requests that this court exercise its broad discretion to deny the Motions of both Indy Star and Plaintiff and, if necessary, grant USA Gymnastics' Motion to Seal Evidence. This Court is all that stands in the way of both irredeemable privacy violations and the danger of additional prejudice to USA Gymnastics in this case. II. ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY A. Section 9-11-24 Governs Indy Star's Motion to Intervene Indy Star maintains in its Reply that Gymnastics' reliance on 0.C.G.A. 9-11-24 is miSplaced." [Reply Brief at Indy Star goes on to contend that its right to intervene is proper pursuant to unspeci?ed "constitutional mandates," and that reference to the procedure speci?ed by the Civil Practice Act is unnecessary. [Reply Brief at Indy Star's position is an incredible one, since Georgia law does not contemplate any procedure for Indy Star's intervention in State Court, either via the Civil Practice Act or otherwise, outside of that Code section. Section 9-11-1 of the Civil Practice Act speci?cally provides that "[t]his chapter governs the procedure in all courts of record of this state in all actions of a civil nature 0.C.G.A. 9-11-1. Indy Star has styled its Motion as one to intervene. Section 9-11-24 therefore applies.2 B. The Federal Precedents Relied Upon by Indy Star are Inapplieable Indy Star also contends that USA Gymnastics errs generally in failing to address the numerous federal decisions cited in its brie?ng, which it argues are "controlling." [Reply Brief at Again, Indy Star's position has no basis in Georgia law. The Eleventh Circuit, as cited by Indy Star, requires a party to demonstrate that the sealing of records is "necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to that interest. E. Brown v. Advantage Eng?g, Inc, 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992) (quoting Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp, 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985) (internal punctuation and emphasis omitted); 2 Indy Star cites inapplicable federal cases describing the standing of the press or any person to move to intervene for the purpose of unsealing court records. [Reply Brief at 2-3 (citing, inter aZia, Brown v. Advantage Eng?g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992).] These cases, following a line of precedent distinct from those interpreting Uniform State Court Rule 21, have no bearing. Of note, however, is that these decisions contemplate intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, analogous to O.C.G.A. 9-11-24. See Brown, 960 F.2d at 1015; Van Etten v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc, 117 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 1379 (SD. Ga. 2000), vacated sub nom. Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc, 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001). accord Newman v. Graddick, 696 F.2d 796, 802 (11th Cir. 1983). Uniform Rule 21, by contrast, requires only that the Court balance the privacy interest of persons affected by disclosure against the general public interest in access to court records, and provides that an order sealing documents may be granted "upon a ?nding that the harm otherwise resulting to the privacy of a person in interest clearly outweighs the public interest." Unif. State. Ct. R. 21.2. Thus, as stated by Georgia?s Supreme Court, "in cases of clear necessity, identi?ed as instances where privacy rights are in jeopardy, the right of public access should yield. Savannah Coll. of Art Design v. Sch. of Visual Arts, Inc, 270 Ga. 791, 793, 515 370, 372 (1999) (discussing the application of Uniform Rule 21.2). USA Gymnastics does not contend that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution has no bearing with respect to the question of preserving the con?dential nature of the Sealed Documents. It is the law of Georgia, however, rather than that of the federal courts, that determines the mannerin which the Court must address the issues raised. See, e. Doe v. Archdiocese of Atlanta, 328 Ga. App. 324, 328-29, 761 864, 868 (2014), cert. denied (Jan. 12, 2015) (noting that "First Amendment guarantees are implicated" while acknowledging that "the presumption of open judicial proceedings is not absolute" and applying Georgia law). Indeed, Indy Star fails to cite - and cannot cite any Georgia court decision wherein a court of this State applied any federal standard in place of Georgia law under similar fact circumstances. C. The Stipulated Con?dentiality and Protective Order Satisfies the Requirements of Uniform State Court Rule 21 and Protects all Evidence Relating to the Sealed Documents From Disclosure Indy Star maintains that the Stipulated Con?dentiality and Protective Order previously entered (the "Protective Order") is somehow constrained in scope and is a "purely discovery order and applies only to discovery materials." [Reply Brief at Nothing in the Protective Order states that it applies only with respect to discovery. Rather, it generally provides that the Sealed Documents "shall not be disclosed to anyone" other than speci?ed classes of individuals. Indy Star's interpretation de?es reason, since there would be no basis for the entry of a broad Protective Order shielding the Sealed Documents from disclosure if it somehow applied with respect to only discovery, but ceased to be relevant when it came time for motions practice or trial. Nor is there any mystery regarding the meaning of the Court's language stating that the documents "shall not be disclosed.? Although the Protective Order makes reference to O.C.G.A. part of the Georgia Code governing discovery, that section also speci?cally contemplates the ?ling of documents "in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court.? O.C.G.A. Incredibly, Indy Star also contends that the multiple hearings and ongoing discussions regarding the con?dentiality of the documents at issue do not "count" for purposes of the application of Uniform Rule 21 because those proceedings were solely con?ned to discovery issues. Indy Star's characterization is improper, demonstrates again that Indy Star?s lawyers failed to educate themselves about the hearings and associated communications between the Court and counsel, and ignores the plain import of the Protective Order. Indy Star additionally argues via footnote that the Court is somehow prohibited from issuing an order clarifying that the Sealed Documents shall remain con?dential. [Reply Brief at 5, n. Indy Star cites no basis for this position. Although Indy Star references In re Atlanta J0urnal~Constitution, that case says nothing about a court's authority to remedy any alleged noncompliance with the requirements of Uniform Rule 21. 271 Ga. 436, 519 909 (1999). Indy Star also studiously avoids the import of Savannah College of Art Design v. School of Visual Arts, Inc. cited repeatedly in USA Gymnastics' prior brie?ng where the Georgia Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion by agreeing to unseal records, even where the relevant documents had originally been ?led under seal only at SCAD's request and without any sort of Rule 21 hearing. 270 Ga. 791, 792-93, 515 370, 371-72 (1999). SCAD makes explicit the propriety of even a late-entered Rule 21 order, to the point where it was an abuse of discretion not to con?rm that the con?dential documents at issue must remain protected from disclosure, even if the parties did not, at ?rst, follow the procedural steps set forth in the Uniform Rule. Finally, Plaintiff contends in her Motion that the Protective Order fails to encompass deposition transcripts. Plaintiffs position is contrary to the plain text of the Order, which states: "All information and documents at issue relating to the individuals on the 'permanently ineligible' list" and "alleged sexual misconduct" are shielded from disclosure. [Protective Order at 2 (emphases added).] D. The Contention of Indy Star and Plaintiff that the Public Interest in Disclosure Outweighs the Privacy Interests of Numerous Persons in Interest is Supported Only by Innuendo Indy Star expends a great deal of effort in the last several pages of its Reply Brief irresponsibly reciting numerous unsupported allegations with respect to USA Gymnastics' alleged "deliberate[]" efforts to "bur[y] decades of allegations of abuse of the children entrusted to its care." [Reply Brief at 7, n. Indy Star contends that it is the public's interest in this terrible, intentional wrongdoing that justi?es the unsealing of the Sealed Documents. Yet Indy Star cites not a single fact or document, either from the record of this case or otherwise, in support of its grossly irresponsible allegations. The statements in Indy Star's Reply Brief, untethered from reality and wholly unsupported by any evidence, have been crafted in order to support the illusion of "public interest" - as set forth in Indy Star's reporting - that might be viewed as outweighng the extraordinarily damaging privacy invasions that will follow any order disclosing the Sealed Documents. Despite its shocking statements, Indy Star also goes out of its way to point out that its particular motivation for seeking disclosure of the Sealed Documents is irrelevant, and that its reasons whether proper or improper for seeking access to the Sealed Documents are of "no moment" because it is the right of the public generally to access court records that are at issue. [Reply Brief at 7, n. Even the case cited, however an inapplicable federal decision applying a standard distinct from that imposed by Rule 21 notes that the court "must examine the reason why closure or nonclosure is sought" in addition to considering the general interest of the public in open court records. Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp, 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985). Indy Star's sole motivation, as revealed through its unfounded charges, has been to create a ?restorm of interest - and revenue - with respect to an emotionally-charged topic while the 2016 Rio Olympics are at the forefront of the world's attention. The Court should therefore view its claims of acting on behalf of the public interest with skepticism. E. Plaintiff and Indy Star Wholly Ignore the Serious and Substantial Privacy Violations that will Result from Disclosure In its Reply, Indy Star repeatedly labels USA Gymnastics' arguments as conclusory, going so far as to claim that Gymnastics failed to articulate or present evidence of any specific harm It is Indy Star's brie?ng an overwrought jeremiad unconnected to any facts or evidence that is "conclusory." USA Gymnastics can and has speci?ed numerous serious and irrevocable consequences that will follow if the Sealed Documents are made available, including: the identi?cation of the victims or alleged victims of child sexual abuse, even with their names redacted; I the identi?cation of alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse, whether guilty or innocent, and whether listed as "permanently ineligible" by USA Gymnastics or not; 0 the identi?cation of others such as parents, siblings and friends connected to such allegations, whether as those who reported abuse; those who failed to report abuse; or persons with potentially relevant facts; or persons with improper motivations for making false accusations; the severe, unjusti?ed invasion of USA Gymnastics? privacy, including with respect to the most sensitive, con?dential, and protected information received by the organization; and the irredeemable prejudice to USA Gymnastics in this case. Indy Star refuses to address any of these substantial concerns, except to attack the suggestion that disclosure might violate the privacy of victims or alleged victims in a footnote suggesting that redactions will ameliorate any risk. [Reply Brief at 8, n. Even with redactions, however, victims or alleged victims may be identi?able given the other facts set forth in the ?les, including with respect to the professional member identi?ed, the or other facility involved, and the identities of others, including family and other members, whether adult or youth. The Georgia Court of Appeals recently addressed the application of Uniform State Court Rule 21.2 in the context of alleged sexual abuse, reversing the trial court's ruling that the plaintiffs attempt to proceed as a "Jane Doe" with regard to her claims of childhood abuse was a legal nullity. Doe v. Archdiocese of Atlanta, 328 Ga. App. 324, 332, 761 864, 870 (2014), cert. denied (Jan. 12, 2015). In so ruling, the Court emphasized that the "sensitive and highly personal nature" of the claims and the risk of "physical or harm" might 10 weigh in favor of the plaintiff proceeding anonymously. Id., 328 Ga. App. at 331, 761 at 869-70. The same considerations are at issue here given the extraordinarily sensitive, incendiary, and private information at issue. Indy Star's footnote 4 also dismisses the risk of prejudice to USA Gymnastics presented by disclosure by suggesting that a jury may be instructed to ignore the Indy Star's allegations crafted without factual support, but repeated throughout its brie?ng that USA Gymnastics has hatched a plot to suppress allegations of sexual abuse. Although the Sealed Documents bear no connection to Plaintiff?s claims in this suit, it is extremely unlikely a jury will be able to ignore the incendiary allegations Indy Star has directed at USA Gymnastics through its series of articles, particularly given the emotionally-charged nature of the alleged misconduct at issue. Release of the Sealed Documents will greatly increase this harm. Crucially, Indy Star also wholly ignores the serious privacy concerns surrounding the disclosure of ?les as to the coaches accused, whether guilty or innocent, and fails to raise any other points addressing the severe privacy violations that will follow disclosure. Indy Star's failure to address the weight of these extraordinarily serious privacy intrusions speaks volumes about its inability to justify the disclosure of the Sealed Documents under Uniform Rule 21. Finally, many of the Sealed Documents contain information either protected from disclosure by the attorney?client privilege or consisting of attorney work product, or both. Such records are protected from disclosure, whether to Indy Star or any other party, under Georgia law. O.C.G.A. 24-5-501 (attorney-client privilege); O.C.G.A. (work product); see, Gopher v. Mackey, 220 Ga. App. 43, 45, 467 362, 365 (1996) (holding that work product doctrine shielded statements obtained in anticipation of litigation from 11 disclosure). The Protective Order speci?cally contemplates that the Sealed Documents may contain privileged information. [Prot. Order at F. Plaintiff's Suggestion that USA Gymnastics Lacks Standing to Argue on Behalf of the Privacy Interests of Persons in Interest has no Basis Plaintiff contends, without citation to a single authority, that USA Gymnastics might lack standing to argue on behalf of the privacy interests of those identi?ed in the Sealed Documents, whether alleged victims, alleged perpetrators, or others. This argument ignores the plain language of Uniform State Court Rule 21.2, which states that a court may order records sealed in light of ?the harm resulting to the privacy of a person in interest,? not a party. Unif. State Ct. R. 21.2 (emphasis added). The proper interpretation of a statute "begins with the language of the statute itself, and that is also where the inquiry should end." Puerto Rico v. Frankiin California Tax?Free Trust, 136 S. Ct. 1938, 1946 (2016) (internal quotation omitted). Thus, courts must "construe statute according to its terms, give words their plain and ordinary meaning, and avoid a construction that makes some language mere surplusage." Roseburg Forest Products Co. v. Barnes, 787 232, 235 (Ga. 2016) (internal quotation omitted). Further, the Georgia Court of Appeals, in applying Uniform Rule 21.2 to protect the identity of an alleged childhood sexual abuse victim, speci?cally held that a court weighing privacy interests against the general right of public disclosure may consider, in its sound discretion, both "whether the lawsuit involves matters of sensitive and highly personal nature" and also "whether [a party] or an innocent non-party risks suffering physical or harm." Doe v. Archdiocese of Atlanta, 328 Ga. App. 324, 331, 761 864, 870 (2014), cert. denied (Jan. 12, 2015) (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis added). Moreover, it is unreasonable to conclude that the Georgia Supreme Court and Council of Superior Court Judges, in enacting the Uniform Rules, intended that every individual with a 12 privacy interest worthy of protection bears the burden both of (1) discovering that litigation to which he or she is not a party endangers his or her privacy and (2) retaining counsel to intervene in that litigation in order for a court to consider those fundamental privacy interests. Such a rule would require the intervention of tens or hundreds of people in this and many other cases, and so generate overwhelming administrative burdens for our courts. The balancing test required of this Court by the Uniform Rules would also be meaningless under such a framework, since the privacy interests of numerous individuals would be routinely ignored. As such, the organization is in a better position than any other person or entity to argue on behalf of its members, whether past, present, or future, in accordance with the Congressional mandate that it "be responsible to the persons and amateur Sports organizations it represents." 36 U.S.C. 220524(1). G. The Senators' Letter is Irrelevant to the Request of Indy Star and Plaintiff Plaintiff contends in her Motion that the August 5, 2016 correspondence from US. Senators Dianne einstein, Patrick Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, and Joe Donnelly, attached to Plaintiffs ?ling, somehow supports the request to release the Sealed Documents. No part of the Senators' correspondence touches on that issue. The only request for information in the letter is as follows: We also urge you to provide USA Gymnastics' current policies on how it handles allegations of sexual abuse, and how those policies have changed over the last two decades. Please also explain how coaches or others who supervise children are vetted and evaluated over time to ensure athletes in their care are protected. Letter from Senators Dianne Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, and Joe Donnelly, US. Senate, to Steve Penny, President and CEO, USA Gymnastics (Aug. 5, 2016) (attached to Plaintiffs Motion as EX. Files spanning a more-than ten-year period from 1996 to 2006 need not be released in order for USA Gymnastics to communicate with the Senators regarding its current policies. Nor are the ?les relevant to USA Gymnastics' current vetting or evaluation 13 process for its members. It is disappointing that Plaintiff?s lawyers introduced the letter to this lawsuit because it shows the to which they will go to introduce irrelevant material. Finally, nothing in the correspondence suggests that the Senators desire USA Gymnastics to violate members' privacy interests in order to respond to their inquiry, which is in response only to Indy Star's biased reporting. The letter is forward-looking and emphasizes the importance of protecting children from sexual abuse and reporting alleged abuse to the authorities, a position USA Gymnastics endorses without reservation. H. Indy Star Misrepresents Applicable Law Relevant to this Court's Determination In a footnote, Indy Star disingenuously repeats its prior baseless contention that USA Gymnastics lacks any privacy interest given its status as a corporate entity. [Reply Brief at 8, n. Having found no case law to support its novel legal position, Indy Star is reduced to citing the dissent in a case that in fact affirmed the privacy rights of corporations in the context of a Uniform Rule 21 determination. Savannah Coll. ofArt Design v. Sch. of Visual Arts, Inc, 270 Ga. 791, 793, 515 370, 371-72 (1999). In SCAD, the Georgia Supreme Court unequivocally held: "We ?nd in this case that the presumption in favor of public accessibility to court records is clearly outweighed by SCAD 's privacy interest. Id., 270 Ga. at 793, 515 at 372 (emphasis added). Indy Star's repeated suggestion, notwithstanding SCAD, and in the face of the discussion presented in USA Gymnastics' prior brie?ng, is perplexing at best. Indy Star also cites various state statutes requiring the reporting of suspected child abuse, and asserts, without speci?c citation, that Gymnastics has an independent obligation to report all allegations of sexual abuse and misconduct against minors [Reply Brief at 10.] This allegation echoes the claim made in Indy Star's reporting. None of the statutes cited, however, in fact impose any reporting obligation on a corporation. The Georgia and DC. 14 provisions, for example, apply only to certain categories of professionals. Other categories of persons "may report" or "may make a report" of abuse. O.C.G.A. DC. Code Ann. The reporting obligations for both of these statutes also apply only to individuals, rather than to entities. O.C.G.A. DC. Code Ann. Florida Statutes Section 39.201, also cited by Indy Star, by its unambiguous terms likewise applies only to individuals, and not to organizations or even facilities such as hospitals or nursing homes. .S.A. see, Smith v. HCA Inc, No. 303CV754J99TEM, 2005 WL 1866395, at *8 (MD. Fla. July 26, 2005) affd, 183 F. App'x 854 (11th Cir. 2006). This was also the case under the statutory version effective at the time USA Gymnastics received the Giunipero and Dickey Letters in late October 1998. (At that time: Section [The 1998 Florida Statutes 39.201 39.201") attached as Ex. to USA Gymnastics' Brief in Support of its M. for The Indiana statute, Section 31-33?5?1, likewise imposes reporting requirements only upon "an individual." I.C.A. 31-33-5-1. Thus USA Gymnastics is not a so-called "mandatory reporter," at least according to the law of Georgia, Indiana, Florida, and the District of Columbia. CONCLUSION USA Gymnastics is incredibly proud of the extraordinary athletes who represented the United States in the sport of gymnastics at the Rio Olympic Games. The American people, as well as these athletes, and all USA Gymnastics athletes, parents, and coaches, deserve better than to have the gymnastics national governing body tried by and in the press based on incomplete, mischaracterized, and omitted facts and conclusions. Given the speci?c contents of the Sealed Documents, which are known to the Court, USA Gymnastics? legitimate interest in keeping the documents sealed is based on the true facts, not Indy Star's biased reporting. Further, Indy Star?s 15 argument is outweighed by the substantial privacy interests at certain risk and the likelihood of additional, irredeemable prejudice to USA Gymnastics? rights in this case. USA Gymnastics therefore respectfully requests that this Court deny Indy Star's Motion to Intervene and to Unseal Evidence as well as Plaintiffs Motion to Unseal Evidence and, if need be, grant USA Gymnastics' Motion to Seal Evidence. Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of August, 2016. GILSON ATHANS P.C. Michael Mthans Georgia Bar No. 026285 Jeffrey A. Kershaw 980 Hammond Drive, Suite 800 Georgia Bar No. 159054 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 770-512-0300 (Telephone) Attorneys for USA Gymnastics, Inc. d/b/a 770-512-0070 (Facsimile) USA Gymnastics mathans@gilsonathans.com ikershaw@gilsonathans.com 16 A blind to sex abuse: How USA Gymnastics foiled to report cases SHARE STORY THE PROMINENT OLYMPIC ORGANIZATION FAILED TO ALERT AUTHORITIES TO MANY ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL ABUEIE BY COACHES. Top executives at one of America's most prominent Oiympic organizations fated to alert authorities to many allegations of sexud abuse by. coaches relying on a policy that enabled predators to abuse gymnasts long after USA Gymnastics had rescaled warnings. MW uncovered multiple exan'ples of children suffering the consequences. including int-lnwhicha coach prayed on young female athletes for seven years after USA Gymnastics dismissed the first of four warnings about him. In a 2013 ant?ied by one ofthat coach's victims, Mo former USA Gymnastics o?iclals =10 nu: mm: . WW under oath th the organization routinely dismissed sexual abuse alegatiOns as hearsay untees they came directty from a victim or victim's parent. Legal experts and child advocates expressed alarm about that approach. saying the best practice is to report every allegation lac authorities. Laws In every state Lamina failed at this,? said Lisa Ganser. whose daughter tiled the Georgia iawsuit, which is still being argued. Gymnastics had enough informatbn. I think. to have done something about this. It didn't have to happen to my daughter, and it didn?t have to happen to other little girls.? Watme the sport's national caveman body. develops the U.S. Olyn'pic team and promotes the Industry at all levels. Its members include more than 121,000 athletes and 3.000 gyms. The organization touts itself as a I It; premier athletes wil be showcased on a 36-clty . .: Wesson. a one-two punch of publicity mat typically prompts a menhership surge at gyms. USA Gymnastics wodd not disclose the total number of sexual misconduct degatlons it receives each year. But records show the organization mum - .33those tiles ruied. But even without access to those ?les. tracked down four cases in which USA Gymnastics was armed of suspected abuse by coaches but did not initiate a report to authorities. Those coaches went on, according to police and court records. to abuse at least 14 underage gymnasts after the wamings: I g" I I. .- lt?. .I who was named 2010 national Women?s Coach of the Year. It described Inappropriate touching of minors and warned that he shouldn't be around children. WW comely explicit pictures of her begirning when she was 12 years old. Shortly after he Was charged in federal court in Indianapolis last year. MW 1' -I. .01: - USA Gyn'u'lestics had compiled a thick file of corrplalnts about coach Mark Schiefelbein yaarsbeforehewas l- .. -: with molesting a Tennessee girl when she was 10 years old. The girl's famin contacted police in 2002. Schlefelbein penetrated her with his finger multiple times. according to police records. He also videotaped her exposed vagina for what he called ?training purposes, 50 he would know where not to touch her." The girl?s fernin was shocked to discover the history of complaints against SchiefelbeinI which I?ll r5i.? from USA Gymnastics. A Jury in Williamson County. Tennessee. convicted him In 2003 of seven counts of aggravated sexual battery and one count of aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor. He is serving a 36-year prison sentence. on Bell In Oregon. In 1990. an go gymnast told police that Bell had climbed on top oi her and told her he wanted to take off her pants. In 1991. a 10-year-old gymnast said Bell chick his hand inside her shirt and pinched her breast. Bel wasn't charged and continued coaching until his former employer 15mm in Middletown, Rhoda island. He went on the run in 2004 and wasn't rearrested until last year. Beil pleaded guilty in December In Newport County. Rhode Island. to three counts of child rmlestetion and is sewing eight years In prison. USA Gymnastics received at least Writs orgmizetion In 1998 that McCabe ?should be locked in a owe before someone is raped.? USA Gymnastics never reported the allegations to police and. according to federal authorities. he began molesting an underage gin In 1999. McCebe continued to coach children for nearly seven more years. until Lisa Ganser went to the FBI with concerns about emails to her then-11-year?old daughter. McCabe was charm a-gu'u 3: cl - Ideotaplng gins changing I '5 rm - - 2008 in Savannah. 0 making false statements. He is serving a 30-year sentence. USA Gymnastics, in response to Il.? lil'.? Ole l-l W. defended its handling of child abuse compialnts. it id It folcws reporting laws and is doing enough to protect children. EXHIBIT A . . p. ail-nu 5 mass 2 is; hm ll. n. the organization's president, declined to be interviewed, citing privacy issues of those lnvohred and the ongoing lawsuit in the McCabe case. But he released this statement: Gymnastics has along and proactive h'Btory of developing policy to protect Its athletes and will remain diligent In evaluating new and best practices which should be implemented. We recognize our leadership role is important and remain con?ded to working with the entire gymnastics community and other lrrportant partners to promote a safe and fun environment for chidren.? More from this project: WM its member coaches and as "gold standard Li. distinction that parents look for and depend upon.? Yet the Internal policies uncovered by leave some with a different Impression. Shelley Haymeker, an indlana attorney who represents some victims In ch?d welfare cases. said USA Gymnastics' approach ?sickens? her. USAG may not have been the Min-:1 th at oh used these innocent children. but it we arm. Shelley Hoyrnoker. . matures-5111.15. uhsseut?ln'slncizalu weenie-nae:- . ?i w? may not have been the hand that ultimately abused these innocant children," Haymaker said. ?but it was de?nitely the arm." Con?dential sexual misconduct files EXHIBIT A . - - A I ?Us! I II m- 01 -. thet it seldom. if ever. forwarded allegations of child abuse to police or chic protective services without being asked. When questioned mder oath snout its practices. Penny and his predecessor. Robert Coiarossi. shed light on why. The allegation proved to be false. to Err. yo:- .: 2 :o rut-ta! ALNI ., neat-[J Ir . "a tran MP .5 Vac. 22' u. 4.01 it I. Steve Penny. Presldent of USA during a 21315 deposition-i. Colarossisald he n- .. WNW an executive policy of dismissing complaints as ?hears unless they were signed by a vlctim or victim's parent a policy that experts said could deter people from reporting abuse. We not clear exactly when that po?cy was created or by whom. ?What we're talking about.? Coiarossi said. ?is a policy that was a policy of the executive ott?lce. Michael Athens. an attorney representing USA Gymnastics, told those policies 90 back to at least the 19903 and 'raer haven't changed.? Plaintiffs in the McCebe case contend that of?cials administered the execulive policy inconsistency. Sometimes, USA Gymnastics "hvestigated rumors, anonymous claims or hearsay allegations." MW miter times. it didn't Investigate complaints that appeared to meet its requirements. 'utl Athans said he wished it were possble to further clarify the crgarization?s policies. but citiclals are limited because of the McCabe litigation. literally felt my stomach' A, . r-Iiw fig-$3 A 'f-ii} .4519) 4.. a his. our mm; do; analyse: a new {a coaches-teacher; {nanny apieha?tsmhaao?wtem we Wash-d Mid raw its festive msyhave strictly tmr(?has I M?s Formerng owner Don In as latterto USA Gymnoettcs complaining about a coach. McCebe was suspected of praying on young gymnasts as early as 1995. when hewas ?red from Gymnastic World in Cape Coral. Florida. by the gym's owner. Dan Dickey. Two years later, Dickey learned that McCabe had started coaching at a to Tallahassee. 111at's When 2 IF. .3 . - to USA Gymnastics. EXHIBIT A Dickey?s letter, received by USA Gymnastics on Oct 24. 1998-? and included in records in the Georgia lawsuit described how he ?red McCabe after a staff member had told him that McCabe bragged about having a 15-year-old girl in her mderwear and said he thought he would be able to her very soon.? "To ollow this atom bog to - mntinue Working within community wattle be a terrible insult to all of the owners and coaches? who hove worked so hard to build up the Don Dickey. former owner to lute: to Dickey said he also learned that McCabe had boasted about sleeping with gymnasts in other clubs where he had worked. "To allow this scum bag to continue working within the gymnastic community world be a ten'ibie insult to all of the owners and coaches who have Worked so hard to build up the reputation of gymnastics,? Dickey wrote in his letter to USA Gymnastics. USA Gymnastics sent Dickey a short letter four days later. saying it was "awaiting an of?cial letter oi complaint from a parent and athlete. i wil add your letter to the tile in the event we receive the letter and an investigation is dammed.? By then. Jan Glunlpero. then-owner of the Tallahassee gym. had sent USA Gymnastics a fax after McCabe resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment involving females at the gym. The fax. dated Oct. 20. 1998. Included II II- against McCabe with names and contact Infon'natlon for other that had ?red him or that he had left under questionable circumstances. tam. re so! mimie?kcmge are {a it a wear. 3'93 the ISM music has mob-?eet :me? m! a mist. name. wk ease as mews: um slat. any ei' malaise: :ts Liz-dd; 'Ia?i?rt Jan Gulnlpero. In a letter to USA Gymnastics. Yet. months later, McCabe was atli coaching. . II *4 u. urging USA literally felt sick to my stomach to think he would even be touching these girls: she wrote. ?is this the kind of organization you w'eh to run? if there is any other Incident sirniar in nature. who Is to blame? The who unknom'ryy hires someone like Mr. ivicCabe or USA Gymnastics who knew about him and did nothing? EXHIBIT A Around that same time. McCabe began sexualy abusing an underage girl. according to prosecutors In his eventual criminal case. The abuse continued for ?several years.? USA Gymnast Filed my Colemsei. who was USA Gymnastics president from 1m to 2005. acknowledged in a deposition last year that the organization dismissed the allegations against McCabe as ?hearsay? because they did net come from a victim or victim's parent. No one at the organization ever htewiewed Dickey. Glunbero or two other coach whom Giunlpero recommended USA Gymestico contact about McCebe's conduct. according to court records. Whya?omeyw Brianc nwe?oflaaky?omaLLau . .- . r: . - Ganser?s daughten ?This one says he's a dangerous coach. Over here it says an incident happened. We don?t know what the incident is.? ?But you made no further inquiry into what any ol? the incidents or allegations were?" Comwel asked. "We didn't." Cdarosst said. He said USA Gymnastics instead ?le. . it?s motear which, if any. of the corrplatnts in those flies were reported to authorities. it?s also unclear how many ?ies have been added since 2006. Court testimony also revealed why USA Gymnastics of?ciais were reluctant to consider comptaims from one coach about another coach. ?in the sport of gymnas?cs. it's very competitive to gain and retain students andfor athletes. and people have all kinds of reasons for saying things Coiarossl M2015 - an -: - I lm'u. . Penny, the USA Gymnastics president since 2005. ME EXHIBIT A USA Gymnastics President Show Penny airing the woman'- wmmtiol ham trials in .lluljr 2516 in Bali Jose. California. (Phot'o: rot-um mum m:deposition that the possibility of a witch hunt is "very reef and otiictals have to move carefully on complaints 'becsuse the coach is as much a member as the outlets." Although USA Gymnastics didn?t pass all complaints to police, o?icids did sometimes launch their own investigation. But that. too. is a bad practice, child welfare experts note. because internal investigations can be tainted by a con?ict of Interest and can impede a crimtnal probe. Depositions and other ccut records reviewed by reveal the organizatbn was inconsistent in the criteria it used to decide whether to investigate. Robert Agnew. a retired FBI agent whom USA Gymnastics kept on retainer to investigate cormlalnts, said in a deposition last year that he anagram allegations against He said he deferred to top USA Gymnastics of?cials on whether to report dlegations to police or welfare oitlciats even If he 'probabiy felt" a report should be made. would not independently refer a case to law enforcement.? Agnew said. Penny said USA Gymnastics would follow child abuse reporting guidelines for any state laws that exist. But he suggested the organization was not obligated to report allegations of sexual misconduct by coaches to authorities. "To the best of my knowledge. there?s no duty to report if you are ifyou are a third-party to some a?ega?m." Peony knowledge." ?Err on the side of the child' Legal experts told the law doesn?t require information. All It requires is a ?reason to believe' douse has occurred. EXHIBIT A The Indiana law reouires a ?very broad Interpretation of this de?nition." said Heymeksr. the attorney who represents abuse victims in chid welfare cases. "In fact. one is encouraged to err on the side of precaution." After reviewing documents from the McCabe lawsuit at request, Haynraker said she believes USA Gymnastics viohted state law when it failed to report allegations of child abuse to law aniorcamem or child welfare agencies. "There is no question that USAG Is not interpreting the law of our state. but rather their own intemai law and system.? she said. All 50 states have laws 1that require people to report suspected child abuse to authorities. Who has that duty varies from state to state. In indiana. where USA Gymnastics Is headquartered. the law specifically requires everyone -- lnciuding coaches. owners and of?cials of sports organhatlons to report child abuse. "When an agency receives hforrnetion. ?st they need to ask themselves: Do] have reason to believe that a child is being abused or neglected based on this information that I've received??I said Assistant .3. Attomey Kristine Korobov, a longtime prosecutor of child abuse cases, who couid not comment speci?cally on USA Gymnasti. ?And if so. you make a report. And you make an immediate report. End of story.? USA poll-tie: and pros! teas are dasig nod to protect Its brand. instead of and keeping its athletes sate irom child molesters masquerading as can she s. W. Brien Eernweli. at Lumwlimt representing an no use loo suit rig-must Ufa-'1, that high school principal violated the law when he waited four hours to report the alleged rape of a student. Child advocates say there also is moral obligation to report suspected chid abuse a duty emphasized in the advice USA Gymnastics shared with its numbers. Througha i I LL. - up o; litlaunched in 2012. USA Gymnastics encourages Iosai to Immediately report abuse altegations to law enforcement EXHIBIT A Katherine Starr. founder of a national advocacy group called Wes WNW. who has followed USA Gymnastics' practices for years. said that when it comes to its own hmdiing of allegations. USA Gymnastics ?one on the side of the institution.? coach in good McCabe continued coaching gymnastics untl 2006. more than seven years enter USA received its first warning about him. By then. he was co-owner of Savannah Metro Gymnastics 8. Cheerleeding In em. George, and he was preying on other young victim. "It did not have to no one n. Bill Mchb-e could have . been stopped dose to ll] years before he. got I mass girls. He 5h culti've boon Stopped before he ever got to our town." I. 1' .- 1 Ultra Gamer. lT?ril-ttl' .I f: L1- if] tilt-um.- sub-,1 131mm,- alt-5 WW about the opening in 2002 promoted the fact that McCebe was a USA Gymnastics member and skill evaluator. It also said he had three gymnasts make the natlonel team. Lisa Ganser enrolied her daughter in McCebe?s new in 2002. More than a year later. Ganser received an amnymous packet that included the complaints that had been sent to USA Gymnastics. according to court records. Ganser caled USA Gymnastics. She said an o??rcid there con?rmed McCabe's membership and toid her 1there were no complaints against him. ?it was supposed to be reassu'ng.? Ganeer said. 'that he was a coach In good standing.? She also confronted McCabe. who denied the allegations and said the packet came from a disgruntled former business partner. So Ganser thought her daughter was safe. 'it's iike they don't want people to report? Some In the gymnastics community told they question whether USA is too precocupied with producing Olympic champions, winning sponsorships and growing the Sport or too con?icted about protecting its image to ensure the safety of tens of thousands of children In gyrmestics?with? M1991 1131993 and now a coach In the Cincinnati area. said she thinks USA Gymnastics c??icials have good intentions but are overmatched by the substantiei growth in me nun'laer of member clubs. EXHIBIT A ?Gymnastics is such a bubble. it's Its own mlverse.? Shawerr-Kolniann said. The federation is thinking about the Olympics, then the Worid Championships. It's 90. go. 90. That's how they have to be.? With that In mind. some experts recon'mend USA Gymnastics sirpiy report allegations to authorities. It?s a no?risk proposition in all stat because of mm mm. mi immoivil or criminal liability to "Heir-mi. I n- Individuals who make a report in good faith. Child advocates argue that law enforcement and child weifane experts are best quali?ed to Investigate such diegetions not an organization that also might have to protect itseif. EQUIIHEJLISIQIJI ecu-Ines! Kiehi ie a survivor ofaexuel abuse by her former gymnastics conch. A: molt of the some. Kiehl and another survivor co?l'ounded the Abused Chlidren Heard Everywhere Founded? (ACHEJ to help oil-Ir emitters of abuse Ihlh' stories. really needed smelling good to some out of this,? she slid. (more: mm mm? Children Heard Everywhere Fathdalion. salted USA Gymnastics' approach 'absurd.? She laughed at the requirement that complaints be signed by a victim or victim's parent. "It sounds like someone came with something who has no real idea ofwhat the experience of a victim is.? Kiehi said. Coming fonnard and speaking out about one of these crimes. she said. can be traumatic. Victims may be reluctant to make a formal report but could con?de In a friend or trusted adult the very people whose complaints. under USA Gymnastics' practice. wotidn?t merit an Investigation or report to law enforcement. ?It's like they don?t want people to report." Kiel-ll said. "That's crazy to me. that you wouldn?t want to be proacthra.? ?He should?vo been stopped? In January 2006. months alter USA Gymnastics reassured her about MoCabe. Genser found emails on her 11-year-oid daughter's computer. They appeared to be from an Olympic gold medalist The exchanges started with casual gymnastics taik but escalated to sexual requests. Ganser's dat?der also received pictures of naked female body parts. Ganser contacted the FBI. EXHIBIT A minors he met through gymnastics. The FBI discovered McCabe had secretly recorded sexually exp?ctt video of young McCabe. who declined an Interview with is serving a 30-year sentanoe i1 federal prison. Ganser's daughter ?led her lawsuit against McCabe and USA Gymnastics in 2013 in the State Court of Elilngham County in Georgia. ?Although UEA Gymnastics had received correspondence from Giunlpero and Dickey reporting third-hand hearsay allegations regarding McCabe and Mo cheerleaders. It had not received any complaint from either a member athlete or parent of a member athlete claiming Woodhull because the mandatory child abuse reporting laws in Florida and lndiane the USA Gymnastics? tepid approach to his daughter's predator Was "kind of like Pontlus Pilate. I wash my hands of it.? Genser said the e?eot on her daughter and other little gids will be ?everlasting: After McCabe's ah'est. Ganser's 11-year-old daughter lived in fear. She slept in her parents' bedroom for about three weeks. Then she cieened out her bedroom closet and siept coded up on the floor for two weeks with pillows, blankets and the (tours closed. Ganser said her dauglter. now 22. etil is afraid to trust. And she knows the naked pictures McCabe took of her are still out there and could resurface at any time. know there's always going to be little gln?s and people who have bad things happen to them, but this did not have to go on,? Ganser said. 'lt did not have to happen. Bill McCabs coutd have been stopped close to 10 years before he got these girls. He shouldive been stopped before he ever got to our tom.? With Kaylin Maddox Brietzke. it was a different coach in a different state. but the trauma was much the some. The Rhode island woman said the shoes she suffered at coach James Bali's hands my world upside down." Brietzke was 7 years old when her new coach started touching and kissing her and other gymnasts. It went on for two years. She was too young to understand. And confused by reassurances from adults. 'He had different ways of doing things." she said. "and we were told that his Ways of doing things got people to Keyltn Hedda: Brletzlte [seen Irer I'lla?lal?, Natalie Headers left) is . ., the Olympics' a survivor of sen?l than by her l?onner gymnastics coach. James Bell. who I: serving an ?it-year prison salience in Rhode Island. Brietzke. now 22, said she later questioned ?mm? herself. feesng stupid for not realizing it was abuse. Even no?, she breaks down in tears when crime the way she felt. ?What was wrong with me that I didn't see that that was wrong?" she wondered. Brletzke sald she has struggled with authority, particularly with male coaches and mas teachers. ?30 anytime anyone told me to do anything. i was against it.? she said. didn?teverl want to clean my room if someone told me to. I wanted it to be my decision. You know. I didn?t want to eatmy dinneriflwas told to. I wanted IttD be mydecleion.And that's how I was fromg years old to 12 years old. And then all through high school and all through the rest of my life. You know. even now. It's something that have to continue working on.? And when it comes to USA Gyrmastics. Brietzke's response mirrors Genear?s: Bell could have been stopped years before he reached her gym. if only USA Gymnastics had focused on things that really mattered. ?It doesn't matter who you're protecting.? she said. ?It doesn't matter that they're part of your organization and you want to save face." Brietzke paused. de?ecting herself. "How about saving me?? wifl continue to investigate this topic. If you have [Mon-nation you would like to share, please email or cal (317) 444-6262. LEAVE SPRINT. MOVE TO UNLIMITED Sag L1: I 12,777 momma EXHIBIT A No, Google Says, It Did Not Delete ?Palestine? From Its Maps s- lof4 Egg arm {geek aims MIDDLE EAST Google Says, it Did Not Delete ?Parestine? From its Ma s- By LIAM STACK AUG. 11, 2016 Supporters of the Palestinian cause denounced Google online this week for removing the word ?Palestine? from Google Maps, but there was just one problem: The company said the word had never been there in the ?rst place. Even by the boom-and?bust standards of anger on social media, this tale spread quickly, spurred by statements of outrage from Palestinian advocacy groups, news stories and viral videos that included no comment from Google. An online petition from March condemning Google (and insinuating its ?two Jewish founders? removed the word ?Palestine? because of their alleged ties to Israel) had collected more than 280,000 signatures by Wednesday, more than 180,000 of those since the day before. Angry tweets were sent and there were calls to boycott the company. A hashtag, #PalestineIsHere, was born. But as far as Google Maps is concerned, it actually had not been. ?There has never been a ?Palestine? label on Google Maps, however we discovered a bug that removed the labels for ?West Bank? and ?Gaza Strip,? "the company said in a statement. ?We?re working quickly to bring these labels back to the area.? It is unclear if that bug played a role in spurring the online outrage. 8/16/2016 2:03 PM EXHIBIT No, Google Says, It Did Not Delete ?Palestine? From Its Maps - 201?4 Elizabeth Davidoff, a spokeswoman, said in an email that the company had also never used the label ?Palestinian territories? on its maps. The bug affecting the words ?Gaza Strip? and ?West Bank? persisted on Wednesday, but when Google Maps functions properly both areas are labeled and separated from Israel by a dotted line to signify that their borders are not internationally recognized. The word ?Palestine? was recently removed from the local home page of the company?s search engine, but the reason was aesthetic, not political, Ms. Davidoff said. It was taken down to make space for an Olympics-themed Google doodle, a design that sometimes greets users, as were country-speci?c tag lines for every country in the world. ?There?s no Google?wide effort to remove Palestine or anything like that,? Ms. Davidoff said in an email. She said a GIF circulating online (and shared by the activist group Jewish Voice for Peace) that claimed to show a before- and?after image that proved the alleged deletion, was fake. Up until July 25 the word Palestine was on Google's map. pic.twitter.com/I31EkA9qGV JenishVoiceForPeace (@jvplive) Aug. 9, 2016 So, how did this happen? Part of it is a by?now familiar dynamic on social media. People are inclined to believe claims that reinforce their pro-existing beliefs, especially if they produce an emotional response. Kate Klonick, a resident fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, said the cycle of outrage on social media is ?reactive, its emotional, its not particularly thoughtful, but it is satisfying in a lot of ways for people.? And few issues are more emotionally fraught than the Israeli-Palestinian con?ict, one of the most intractable and heated disputes in international 8/16/2016 2:03 PM EXHIBIT No, Google Says, It Did Not Delete ?Palestine' From Its Maps 4 3of4 affairs. The anger of Google?s critics was unlikely to be soothed by the facts of this case, Ms. Klonick said. ?If you were upset that you thought Google removed Palestine, it does not ameliorate your anger at all to ?nd out they never had Palestine there to begin with,? she said. Naomi Dann, a spokeswoman for Jewish Voice for Peace, said the claims about Google Maps gained traction in recent days in part because a journalist group, the Forum of Palestinian Journalists, criticized the company in a statement. (Ms. Dann also said the GIF her organization posted to Twitter was created by one of her colleagues.) In the statement, the forum said it believed ?what the Google search engine has done is part of an Israeli plan to propose the entrenchment of ?Israel? as the name of a state for generations to come and the abolition of ?Palestine? once and for all, and its erasure from any map.? Emad Zakaria, who wrote the statement, said he heard the claim that Google removed the word ?Palestine? from the website of a Palestinian Organization in Lebanon whose name he could not remember. ?Anyone looking for Palestine on Google will not be able to ?nd it,? he said. Still, the initial source of the outrage remains a mystery. The claims about Google had extra emotional weight because they involved a visual representation of Israel and Palestine, Ms. Dann said. ?Maps have always been political, and the ways that borders are demarcated on them is always political,? she said. Rami Nazzal contributed reporting. A version of this article appears in print on . on page A8 of the New York edition with the headline: Google Says It Didn't Drop ?Paiestine' From its Maps. 8/1612016 2:03 PM EXHIBIT No, Google Says, It Did Not Delete ?Palestine? From Its Maps 4 2016 The New York Trmes Company 4 of4 I 8/16/2016 2:03 PM IN THE STATE COURT OF EFF INGHAM COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA JANE DOE, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No.: ST13CV058RT USA GYMNASTICS, INC. USA GYMNASTICS, SAVANNAH METRO, INC., AND WILLIAM A. Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing RESPONSE OF USA GYMNASTICS TO MOTION TO UNSEAL EVIDENCE AND SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS AND IN OPPOSITION TO THE INDIANAPOLIS MOTION TO INTERVENE AND TO UNSEAL EVIDENCE on all counsel of record, via United States mail with proper postage af?xed thereto, addressed as follows: S. Derek Bauer, Esq. Jeffrey W. Lasky, Esq. Ian K. Esq. W. Brian Cornwell, Esq. Baker Hostetler LLP LASKY COOPER LAW 1170 Peachtree Street, NE. 120 West Liberty Street Suite 2400 PO. Box 9086 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Savannah, GA 31412 Attorneys for Purported Intervenor Attorneys for Plainti? The Indianapolis Star This 23rd day of August, 2016. ONLY ON NEXT 980 Hammond Drive, Suite 800 Atlanta, Georgia 30328 770?5 1 2-03 00 (Telephone) 770-512-0070 (Facsimile) mathans@gilsonathans.com jkershaw@gilsonathans.com GILSON ATHANS P.C. Michael IT'Athans Georgia Bar No. 026285 Jeffrey A. Kershaw Georgia Bar No. 159054 Attorneys for USA Gymnastics, Inc. d/b/a USA Gymnastics