Clarification of the Federal Protective Order & requests to view CMRA books/records

wow... how did all of this happen? Just curious to know why isn’t anyone defending cmra here or on wera page? I didn’t because I don’t really know what all is going on, only information is coming from opposite side. Hope that changes....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dustin Dominguez

wow... how did all of this happen? Just curious to know why isn’t anyone defending cmra here or on wera page? I didn’t because I don’t really know what all is going on, only information is coming from opposite side. Hope that changes....

---

Probably because of 2 or 3 pending lawsuits. One of which used posts from CMRA forums. Like you, nobody wants to get in the middle of it without all the facts. The people with all the facts can't and shouldn't talk publicly because they are involved in the lawsuits.

In light of recent discussions concerning access to the CMRA’s books and records, I wanted to clarify that the CMRA and the other defendants did not seek an order in the Inge lawsuit for the purpose of avoiding showing books and records to CMRA members. In May and June of 2016, the defendant attorneys filed two motions for a supplemental protective order because it was thought that doing so was in the best interests of the CMRA, its Board, and its employees. These motions explain the reasons for seeking this protection. The court agreed with these motions and entered a supplemental protective order in September of 2016. CMRA defendant motions and the order are matters of public record and can be found at www.pacer.gov. These motions are documents number 49 and 58, and the order is document number 74.

In January of 2017, the court clarified that the supplemental protective order prohibits the defendants from allowing any third parties to inspect and/or copy CMRA records during the pendency of the Inge lawsuit, including any appeals. This 2017 order is under seal, so it is not available for review by general public. In the meantime, in November of 2016, the court entered an order prohibiting the parties from filing any further motions in this case. That order remains in effect, and the Inge lawsuit is still on-going. Thus, the CMRA cannot presently permit inspection or copying of CMRA records.

A word about using pacer.gov to view the public record: Using Pacer is free, but you do need to register with an email and password. Once registered, you will need to know that the Inge Lawsuit is currently pending in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and that its case number is: 3:16-CV-00042-B. Once you have pulled up the case records, each filing is given a number. As noted above, the filings that explain the reasons that we sought the order are numbers 49 and 58, and the order itself is number 74. Pacer will list all of the filings in the case, and you will be able to read any filing which has not been sealed by the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Orchard

...

A word about using pacer.gov to view the public record: Using Pacer is free, but you do need to register with an email and password. Once registered, you will need to know that the Inge Lawsuit is currently pending in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and that its case number is: 3:16-CV-00042-B. Once you have pulled up the case records, each filing is given a number. As noted above, the filings that explain the reasons that we sought the order are numbers 49 and 58, and the order itself is number 74. Pacer will list all of the filings in the case, and you will be able to read any filing which has not been sealed by the court.

---

A few hoops to jump through to gain PACER access without providing CC info but once access is gained reading the referenced documents actually filed with the Court and Order issued by the Court is certainly enlightening.

Recognizing that the Motions filed by the Defendants (docs 49 & 58) represent only the Defendants' perspective as to the necessity and appropriateness of limiting certain document disclosure during the litigation, one does find it interesting that even after Plaintiff filed multiple responses to the Court arguing disagreement with the merit of those Motions, upon weighing the arguments from both parties the Court "...Grants the Defendants' Motions in their entirety..." in the issued Order (doc 74).

Thanks, John, for the info, links, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Orchard

All - I want to provide the following information as a matter of clarification regarding the protective order that is in place from the Federal court as it relates to the CMRA books and records.

The CMRA is currently under a court order that prohibits us from allowing anyone who is not a party to the Inge lawsuit from inspecting our books and records. This order remains effective for so long as the lawsuit is pending, including any appeals. If we were to make our records available, we would be in contempt of court, which we obviously cannot do. The court order covers even books and records that are otherwise a public record, such as our annual tax returns (IRS Form 990s). You can obtain those returns (which contain quite detailed financial information) from the IRS directly. For more info on that alternative, see here: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...ments-from-irs.

Additionally, simply for your information, all directors have the option of inspecting our books and records at the CMRA office (even though the members cannot do so) because the court order does not prohibit this. All directors have been made aware of this option multiple times since that order was issued 16 months ago.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Orchard

Hi Anita - I'm disappointed to continue seeing such inaccurate statements about the CMRA and the CMRA's numerous volunteer CMRA members, elected to serve on the Board of Directors, being falsely accused of any negligence and wrong doing while volunteering their time for the betterment of the club. Unfortunately, since this appears to be a lawsuit, it is inappropriate for me to comment specifically or try to publicly refute each of the inaccurate statements posted by a CMRA member on the WERA organization's forum.

Regarding the financials and what is available to all directors - every Board meeting includes a detailed financial review of the budget, planned YTD spend, actual YTD spend, event evaluation, away from track expenses against budget and a detailed analysis of variations along with discussion of what adjustments need to be made. All Directors also have access to any additional information by request, following the defined procedure. Once the court order is lifted, any member will be able to follow this same procedure to review the CMRA's detailed financial information if desired.

---

John, I'll call if for what it is, complete and utter crap. You're using this protective order as yet another excuse to deny members access, once the court order is lifted you all will simply find another excuse. I went through great lengths in 2014/15 to get access to the detailed books and records of the club and I was flat out denied over and over, the best the board was willing to concede was the 990s which were publicly available and a 10 or so line P&L overview which you all told me was above and beyond what I was allowed to see. This was January 2015, long before any court order was put in place.

I have no intentions in a pissing match with you or anyone else over this John, you all (directors) have threatened my posting privileges enough over the years because of this issue. Say what you want now, but in 2014/15 you all sang a very different tune about letting someone see anything. Plain and simple you all denied me access years before any court order, don't use the court order as an excuse now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dennis King

John, I'll call if for what it is, complete and utter crap. You're using this protective order as yet another excuse to deny members access, once the court order is lifted you all will simply find another excuse. I went through great lengths in 2014/15 to get access to the detailed books and records of the club and I was flat out denied over and over, the best the board was willing to concede was the 990s which were publicly available and a 10 or so line P&L overview which you all told me was above and beyond what I was allowed to see. This was January 2015, long before any court order was put in place.

I have no intentions in a pissing match with you or anyone else over this John, you all (directors) have threatened my posting privileges enough over the years because of this issue. Say what you want now, but in 2014/15 you all sang a very different tune about letting someone see anything. Plain and simple you all denied me access years before any court order, don't use the court order as an excuse now.

---

Tell your buddy Gomer says "Hey".