Idaho Radio News Etc.

Peak Broadcasting and Citadel Broadcasting can go back to competing on the airwaves and the offices of advertisers — but not in the courtroom.

After a year of coughing up cash to attorneys – the two parties have now settled.

The terms? None really. Pay your own attorneys and take you ball and go home.

The Citadel Broadcasting v. Peak Broadcasting et al case won’t settle on March 10th as first thought. The settlement conference set for March 10th has been pushed back to March 27th. No real reason was given – except to not that both parties agreed to the delay.

The Citadel Broadcasting v. Peak Broadcasting lawsuit could be history by the time spring blooms. The two sides scheduled a settlement conference for March 10 in front of Judge Mikel H. Williams. The settlement would put the nearly year-long litigation between the two sides to rest.

You’ll remember that Citadel sued Peak and several of its representatives last year alleging a slew of things – centered on the defection of several employees from Peak to Citadel.

Peak Broadcasting does not own radio stations in Boise – and doesn’t employ Kevin Godwin.

Instead, Peak Broadcasting of Boise, LLC owns radio stations in Boise, and employs Godwin. That’s the wonderfully convoluted legalese overflowing in the Citadel v. Peak lawsuit.

Peak today replied to Citadel’s earlier demand for a wide range of discovery Citadel asked for. Peak says the “overbroad” requests amount to “nothing more than a ‘fishing expedition.’” Peak says Citadel’s requests lack a time frame, and are an attempt to prove its charge of violation of the Idaho Trade Secrets Act — without actually stating what trade secret Peak violated.

In one particularly funny passage (intentionally or not), Peak notes Citadel’s request to look over computer equipment isn’t very specific.

“Citadel’s Request for Production Nos. 49 – 52 require the Peak Entities to produce all computer equipment in any way used or accessed by the individual defendants… These discovery requests contain no reference as to whose computer should be produced, as well as no time period restrictions. Furthermore, the requests do not limit the computer equipment to equipment used for work purposes only.

OK, boring so far. Right? Wait for it…

Also, “use” and “access” are not defined; so, if an individual defendant used another employee’s computer for a project or a day, is Citadel entitled to access to that computer?”

Attention all Peak employees: If any manager ever used your computer… it may be confiscated by the lawsuit police.

“If a defendant had access to a friend or family member’s computer for non-business purposes only, is Citadel entitled to that machine?

The mean man took my computer away daddy!

The breadth of these requests would potentially required production of computers owned and in the possession of people with no relation to this case, which contains vast amounts of private personal information, to which Citadel has absolutely no reasonable basis to claim entitlement.”

Note to self. Don’t let Peak’s management borrow my computer.

EXCLUSIVE
After the two parties previously looked like they might be close to settling – the Peak/Citadel lawsuit is heating up – with Citadel charging that Peak is holding back on the discovery phase of the proceedings. Discovery is the process that allows two sides in case to size each other up and inspect any potential evidence in the case.

One filing notes the case was “dormant for a few months” while the parties tried to settle. It now appears the lawsuit is back in action after the judge in the case told the two sides to put up or shut up last month.

Citadel’s attorneys say the made requests for discovery was made in July – and that Peak is holding back on a number of fronts.

- Info on Peak’s customers
- Details of Peak’s financial standing in Boise and Fresno
- Info on payments made to several of the co-defendants in the case (likely Kevin Godwin, Mike Sutton, Todd Lawley, Rick Stewart et al)
- Citadel wants to inspect computers owned by Peak accessed by those defendants
- Information on the recruitment of the defendants by Peak
- Other information that is incomplete

The document filed by Citadel says Peak objected to all but two of its requests – with more than 200 objections by Peak to Citadel’s 68 requests.

In August, Peak agreed to provide additional material, and Citadel said it would cut down its overall request. By December, Citadel still wasn’t happy with Peak’s responses – and is now asking for an appearance in front of the court to hammer out the issues – and has filed a Motion to Compel, and is additionally requesting Peak pay for fees connected with that motion.

Citadel says its requests for things like inspection of the computers and the inspection of the employee’s personell files was deemed “irrelevant” by Peak.

One request was for Citadel to be informed of any person that Peak tried to hire in Boise for a specified amount of time. Peak’s response? They sent over a phone list. As Citadel said in its motion “this response appears incomplete.” Idaho Radio News has obtained the phone list – it is dated August 6 of 2007.

Peak also denied a number of requests, based on the grounds that the company did not exist prior to November 9, 2006. While that is technically true – IdahoRadioNews.com previously reported that the company began a series of activities before the November 9th date. Citadel charges that Peak is trying to “hide behind” the formation date to conceal information.

The latest filing in the Citadel v. Peak lawsuit brought earlier this year show signs that the two sides will settle – but a judge isn’t letting the two parties drag their collective feet.

In a joint filing, attorneys for both sides said “the parties continue to engage in settlement discussions and appear to have made progress towards reaching an amicable settlement of this case. The extension of deadlines requested will facilitate those continued discussions and will allow the parties and the Court to avoid the costs and expenses…”

The two radio companies already were granted a delay of the court calendar (including the discovery process) – and asked for another postponement Thursday. Yestrerday, Judge Larry M. Boyle ruled that no such delay would be granted.

The Court does not find good cause to extend these deadlines further based solely upon the parties’ interest in pursuing settlement negotiations. Such settlement discussions can take place as the parties continue to move the case forward.

The Citadel & Peak lawyers wanted to begin discovery with disclosure of Citadel’s expert witnesses on February 1. Since that request has been denied, the earlier schedule will stay in place – giving Citadel until yesterday, November 30th (yes, yesterday) to disclose its slate of witnesses.

We’ll keep watching.

Just checked on the status of Citadel Broadcasting v. Peak Broadcasting et al. A month ago I noted a filing that indicated a possible settlement between the two radio groups – but as of this writing, nothing’s happened.