You are on page 1of 6

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 30 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 126

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
________________________________
)
JAMIE ANN NAUGHRIGHT,
)
)
Case No. 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
PEYTON MANNING,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
________________________________ )
DEFENDANT PEYTON MANNING’S ANSWERS
TO THE COURT’S STANDARD INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANTS
Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated April 25, 2005 requiring Defendant Peyton
Manning (“Manning”) to serve and file Answers to Standard Interrogatories in advance
of the preliminary pretrial conference scheduled for May 18, 2005, Manning hereby
responds to the Standard Interrogatories as follows:

Defendant’s Interrogatory #1
State whether the defendant is properly identified, and if not, give his or her
proper identification. State whether you will waive service or accept service on an
amended summons and complaint reflecting the information furnished by you in this
answer.
Response:
Manning is properly identified in the amended complaint.

\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 893484 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 30 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID 127

Defendant’s Interrogatory #2
Describe in detail all laws, acts having the force and effect of law, codes,
regulations and legal principles, standards, and customs or usages which you contend are
applicable to the instant action.
Response:
This Court has jurisdiction over the claims in the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1332.
The laws, acts having the force and effect of law, codes, regulations and legal
principles, standards, and customs or usages, which Manning contends are applicable to
the instant action are as follows: the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, contract law,
common law contract principles, the law of waiver, and the doctrines of unclean hands
and equitable estoppel.
Should discovery commence in this action, Manning may discover that additional
laws, acts having the force and effect of law, codes, regulations and legal principles,
standards, and customs or usages are applicable to this action.

Defendant’s Interrogatory #3
Furnish a detailed factual basis for the defenses you assert in your answer.
Response:
While discovery has not yet begun in this case, Manning bases his defenses on
compelling facts that are currently known and have been known since the inception of
this action. They are as follows:

2
\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 893484 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 30 Filed 05/11/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID 128

Plaintiff Jamie Ann Naughright (“Plaintiff”) asserts a cause of action for breach of
contract against Manning, alleging that Manning breached the confidentiality provision
(the “Confidentiality Clause”) of a Settlement Agreement and Release (the “Settlement
Agreement”) executed by the parties as of December 2, 2003 that resolved a lawsuit
between the parties in Florida state court. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff alleges that
this breach occurred during an interview given by Manning, which was subsequently
edited and aired in a television program entitled “SportsCentury: Peyton Manning”.
Manning has asserted four defenses: 1) Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted; 2) Plaintiff’s purported claim is barred by the doctrine of
equitable estoppel; 3) Plaintiff’s purported claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean
hands; and 4) Plaintiff’s purported claim is frivolous and sanctionable.
Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because there
is no factual or legal support for Plaintiff’s claims.

Manning did not breach the

Settlement Agreement either in the interview that was subsequently aired in the
SportsCentury program or at any other time because Manning did not make any
statements whatsoever about Plaintiff.
Similarly, Plaintiff’s claim is frivolous and sanctionable because, as discussed
above, there is no factual or legal support for Plaintiff’s claim and Plaintiff knew that to
be true before commencing this lawsuit.
Further, Plaintiff’s purported claim is barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel
because Plaintiff herself breached the Settlement Agreement by contacting Mike Freeman
(“Freeman”), a columnist at The Florida Times-Union and telling him about this lawsuit.

3
\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 893484 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 30 Filed 05/11/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID 129

Further, Plaintiff’s counsel breached the Settlement Agreement by sending a copy of the
complaint in this action to Freeman.
Similarly, Plaintiff’s purported claim is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands
because Plaintiff breached the Settlement Agreement by contacting Freeman, and
Plaintiff’s counsel breached the Settlement Agreement by sending the complaint to
Freeman.
Should discovery commence in this action, it is likely that Manning will discover
other facts to support his defenses.

Defendant’s Interrogatory #4
State to the best of your knowledge whether all proper parties have been joined.
If you contend that some other person or legal entity is, in whole or in part, liable to the
plaintiff or defendant in this matter, state that party’s full name, address and telephone
number, and describe in detail the basis of the alleged liability.
Response:
To the best of Manning’s knowledge, all proper parties have been joined.

Defendant’s Interrogatory #5
Describe the nature of all dispositive motions which are anticipated to be filed in
this action.
Response:
On May 5, 2005, Manning filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking a

4
\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 893484 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 30 Filed 05/11/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID 130

judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s amended complaint in its entirety.

The Motion for

Summary Judgment and supporting papers was filed under seal.
In her response to this Court’s interrogatories, Plaintiff stated that she intended to
file a motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim. If Plaintiff moves for summary
judgment on the counterclaim, Manning may cross-move for summary judgment on the
counterclaim.
Dated:

May 11, 2005

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Slade R. Metcalf, Esq.
Slade R. Metcalf
Katherine M. Bolger
HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P.
875 Third Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Tel: (212) 918-3000/Fax: (212) 918-3100
srmetcalf@hhlaw.com
Benjamin H. Hill, III, Fla. Bar No. 094585
Lara J. Tibbals, Fla. Bar No. 129054
HILL, WARD & HENDERSON, P.A.
101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, S. 3700
P. O. Box 2231
Tampa, Florida 33601
Tel: (813) 221-3900/Fax: (813) 221-2900
ltibbals@hwhlaw.com
Attorneys for Peyton Manning

5
\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 893484 v1

Case 8:05-cv-00637-SCB-TBM Document 30 Filed 05/11/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID 131

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on May 11, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of
electronic filing to Michael D. Martin, Esquire, mike@martinpa.com.

By: s/ Slade R. Metcalf, Esq.

\\\NY - 23693/0001 - 893484 v1