Federal judge supports motion by Michael Irvin despite Marriott’s attempts to withhold video

Michael Irvin experienced an early win related to his $100 million lawsuit against Marriott and an unnamed accuser. Earlier this month, the Renaissance Phoenix Downtown Hotel to turn over any video related to the interaction that led to his removal from scheduled appearances during Super Bowl week in Phoenix, AZ.

At that time, a judge ordered the hotel to send the clips to Irvin no later than February 20. They were also ordered to provide:

the name of the accuser

names of anyone else who may have filed a complaint against Irvin

the names of the NFL employees who received the complaints

Since then, Marriott moved the case to federal court in an attempt to circumvent the order. The move was successful, because the original lawsuit was not filed in the county in which the defendant operates.

According to some legal analysts, it seemed that Marriott was hoping to convince a different judge to support the hotel’s stance that they should not be required to provide any of the requested items to Irvin.

The federal judge handling the case sided with Irvin, however.

It is Amos L. Mazzant III who will handle Michael Irvin’s case. That name might sound familiar to the most observant Cowboys fans. Mazzant is the same judge that blocked the suspension of Ezekiel Elliott in 2017. In that situation, the NFL ultimately prevailed because of an appeal and ultimately bringing the case before a different judge.

On Friday, Mazzant ordered Marriott to respond to Michael Irvin’s request for materials by no later than 5pm on Tuesday, February 28. So far, there has been no further response from the hotel.

Potential Upcoming Developments for Michael Irvin

The most recent order by a federal judge may not immediately yield the results sought by Michael Irvin. Before the previous deadline, Marriott filed a 10-page objection to ordering them to turn over video and names of involved parties.

Part of the objection was due to their perception that the order was “overly broad and unduly burdensome.”

Marriott also added, “Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected from discovery under the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Respondent will not produce such information.”

It is reasonable to expect that Marriott might file a similar objection before the current deadline is reached.

In his Friday order, Mazzant said that he would “take up the merits of the motion” if Marriott objects to or does not respond to the motion by the deadline.