Between 2010 and 2015, the Blackhawks were a model NHL franchise. The team had superstars and future hall of famers and managed to take home individual and team awards, including three Stanley Cups during that time – 2010, 2013, and 2015. Now, years later, what was once a model franchise on the ice is facing crisis off the ice.
In recent months, separate lawsuits were launched in Illinois against the Blackhawks. The first lawsuit alleged the team ignored allegations of the ex-players being sexually assaulted by then video coach, Brad Aldrich. Additionally, the Blackhawks face allegations in a second lawsuit of providing positive employment references on behalf of Aldrich, despite knowing complaints against Aldrich.
While the allegations by the ex-players may be decided by the courts, the Blackhawks have hired their own independent investigator to further investigate these allegations as well as the culture of the organization. The Blackhawks, however, were reluctant to reveal the report to the public. Earlier this week though, the organization pledged to make the report public.
That, however, begs the question: why now? While in the middle of a lawsuit, why are the Blackhawks willing to reveal this information to the public? Did the organization simply have a change of heart, or is there something more than what meets the eye?
The Work-Product Doctrine
Until now, the Blackhawks position had been against revealing the independent investigators’ report. In the middle of a civil action, that had huge ramifications for the ex-players, the Plaintiffs in the action, since the Blackhawks could protect the information the investigation reveals thanks to the work product doctrine.
Generally, the parties to an action can get access to relevant information pertaining to the lawsuit. The independent investigators’ report certainly seems relevant and pertinent to the case. However, just like everything in law, there are exceptions, and the work product doctrine is one such exception. This typically means that if information is discovered for or in anticipation of litigation, that information can be protected.
In the Blackhawks case, the team could argue that any report created through the independent investigation is protected because the investigation was conducted as a result of a litigation action against them. However, the plaintiffs may be able to access the report if it was shared by third-parties, for instance the league. While there may be other ways to access the information, it would be up to the plaintiffs to make such an argument in court.
Now, if the Blackhawks stay true to their word and release the investigators’ report, the plaintiffs would have access to the information in the report which could in theory help bolster the plaintiffs case.
But, how helpful will the investigation report truly be?
Controlling Access
Since this is an independent investigation, the Blackhawks effectively control access to the investigation. The Blackhawks control the witnesses and the documents that are being made available to the investigators. This fact alone calls into question how independent the investigation is. Additionally, the independent investigators will not be interviewing the alleged victims since the Blackhawks are not making members of the organization accessible to the plaintiffs. As such, the plaintiffs lawyer denied the team access to the victims themselves.
The investigation of the Blackhawks has the potential to illicit serious misconduct on the part of the Blackhawks organization. However, given the Blackhawks themselves control access to all the evidence, it is highly unlikely the report will reveal earth shattering details about the investigation. Ultimately, disclosing an independent investigation seems like an empty, hollow gesture that’s more a public relations move and less like an organization that is remorseful and looking to make a meaningful change to the culture of their organization.
Featured Image: Image by Tess Wendorf from Pixabay