Town Square

Post a New Topic

Judge upholds settlement in Menlo Park fire director defamation lawsuit

Original post made on Jul 9, 2014

A judge has denied a request to nullify the settlement agreement reached in a defamation countersuit between a Menlo Park fire board director and John Woodell.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Wednesday, July 9, 2014, 9:58 AM

Comments (14)

Like this comment
Posted by phew
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Jul 9, 2014 at 12:24 pm

Please let this be done. This has been a painful and senseless issue to watch. Lots of money and time spent on a playground squabble that should never have entered the legal system.

Like this comment
Posted by Befuddled
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jul 9, 2014 at 1:01 pm

The settlement was marked confidential then the judge says just because a document is marked confidential it does not mean that it is. This clearly does not make sense. The judge should not have upheld the settlement since the terms of the settlement were clearly violated.

Like this comment
Posted by k2w
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Jul 9, 2014 at 1:40 pm

Dear Befuddled. Apparently you are indeed. The quote in the article is clear: "there was no term in the offer of compromise requiring either that the parties fail to comply with the mandatory provision (to file the agreement with the court), or requiring that any such filing be done under seal." SO, neither party could divulge the terms of the settlement. But a sloppy bit of drafting made the settlement be filed with the court, and therefore, made public. Look to the lawyer who drafted it if you do not like the result.

Like this comment
Posted by ethics
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jul 9, 2014 at 2:28 pm

Confidentiality in Settlement Agreements Is a Virtual Necessity
Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by 50-50
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 9, 2014 at 3:40 pm

In a community property state isn't Council Member Kirsten Keith obligated for 1/2 of that settlement?
That should be listed on her Form 700. As well as any other settlements or awards in these foolish cases.

Like this comment
Posted by Common Sense
a resident of another community
on Jul 9, 2014 at 5:08 pm

Dear 50/50, that may be the case if Mr. Woodell and Mrs. Keith were the ones receiving the settlement money, but in this case they are the ones paying. Mr. Woodell was ordered to pay Mrs. Kiraly $5,000.01 to settle her counter suit. Mr. Woodell lost his law suit last month!

Like this comment
Posted by SteveC
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jul 9, 2014 at 6:53 pm

SteveC is a registered user.

Keith has nothing to do with this. Woodell is the one suing. Not Keith. Husband/wife has nothing to do with this. Keith did not sue anyone!!!

Like this comment
Posted by other way around
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jul 9, 2014 at 7:49 pm

SteveC, this article is about a settlement agreement. Kiraly is the one suing, and Woodell agreed to settle, not the other way around.

Like this comment
Posted by phew
a resident of Menlo Park: Linfield Oaks
on Jul 9, 2014 at 9:02 pm

Other way around....Woodell started this whole thing. He sued first for defamation, then of course thru the process defamed others, so they sued back. It's crazy. Woodell is the first to start the insanity. No sympathy for suing in this case from the start. The initial filing was a disproportionate reaction to a low level event.

Like this comment
Posted by Crazy!
a resident of Atherton: other
on Jul 10, 2014 at 12:34 am

Phew is right... Woodell started this whole mess. He defamed Kiraly, and a judge ruled that she could win on her lawsuit. This was after he intentionally destroyed evidence that would not allow a fair trial for those he was suing! How crazy is that??? It was Woodell who gave Kiraly a settlement offer, thereby admitting that he did defame. Kiraly just accepted the offer given to her by Woodell. It seems that if anyone wants this lawsuit to be over with, it is Kiraly- not Woodell. It's as if he and his wife, Kirsten Keith, are fighting against the San Mateo County Superior Court system. Crazy!

SteveC: Keith is an attorney. I would think she would be advising her husband throughout his ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit. As far as I'm concerned, they are in this lawsuit together. But, I guess, you have to start spinning things to make her like she wasn't involved in her husband's mess since she is running for re-election to the MP City Council this fall. I doubt anyone believes she was an innocent bystander.

Like this comment
Posted by Sarah
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jul 10, 2014 at 8:24 am

At some point in time, there needs to be a gracious loser. Mr. Woodell is anything but a gracious loser. Clearly he's gone past the point of being a sore loser., and he's well on his way to being irrational and a bit of a freak. The handbrake is off and he's on a roll. As for Ms. Keith, she might want to seriously consider taking a firm hold of her husband, shoving him behind her, stepping forward and being the gracious loser. Otherwise she is likely to be, as the teenagers of today say, "shipped with a freak".

Like this comment
Posted by My two cents
a resident of Atherton: West Atherton
on Jul 10, 2014 at 9:35 am

@phew: "The initial filing was a disproportionate reaction to a low-level event." Agreed. What we don't know, since settlement discussions are confidential, is whether Kiraly and Bernstein resisted efforts to settle it on the basis of it being a low-level event. It wasn't a zero-level event.

@Crazy: "It was Woodell who gave Kiraly a settlement offer, thereby admitting that he did defame." I think you are making Woodell's point for him on the confidentiality of settlement, since it's exactly this type of statement that provides the rationale for settlement discussions and settlements being confidential. Offering a settlement, particularly one for this amount, is not technically an admission of guilt, nor practically in many circumstances. It can be related to the cost of defense, prioritizing resources in other directions (e.g., Woodell's case-in-chief, etc.).

This being said, I do agree with the judge's decision on the settlement. This was not handled well by Woodell's attorney. He should have put confidentiality and the requirement to file the response under seal as a term of the settlement. Two minutes of work on the word processor to make that crystal clear. The notation of "Confidential" pursuant to the protective order really wasn't enough in this circumstance. And when Kiraly's attorney filed it publicly, they should have asked her to refile under seal to correct the problem, rather than blowing up the settlement. If she refused, he had a decent chance (at least better than how they did play this) to get some sanctions on the protective order, and for the judge to seal the filing.

Where I do disagree with the judge is the terminating sanction, and think that has a decent chance of being reversed on appeal. There were other remedies available to make the defendants whole, such as performing the necessary tests to on a stock Android phone with the software Woodell had loaded to see if the screen saver displayed as noted. Woodell could have been barred from challenging the results on the basis that his phone behaved differently, and could have been ordered to pay for that exercise.

Like this comment
Posted by gracious
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Jul 10, 2014 at 10:08 am

Gracious: courteous, kind, and pleasant. Good advice that everyone should follow.

Anonymous users have been using this forum to post thinly veiled threats of blackmail since long before the scandal over Kiraly's felled sign. The only thing that has changed is the new low standard for what constitutes defamation of an elected official.

Like this comment
Posted by bizarre
a resident of Atherton: other
on Jul 11, 2014 at 9:14 pm

You should always question these stories, "The vehicle's front license plate, however, was stuck in a bush at the point of impact. Viegas' wallet with his identification was also found there, on the ground." (Web Link). There are two possibilities. This guy is either the most unlucky person in the world, or somebody wanted him shipped off.

This Fireboard sign case is a bit more suspect. First of all, since when has anyone cared about the FIreboard? The two individuals providing information first about the "moved sign" (scene of crime) and later the "stolen signs" elsewhere, have both now elected to this board. When you watch other news stories about stolen signs, there is usually more evidence, like video of a person stealing a sign (Web Link)

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


To post your comment, please login or register at the top of the page. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Opening alert: Kyosho Sushi in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,878 views

Love is a Verb
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,149 views

Umeboshi - The Macrobiotic Antibiotic
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 919 views

On Voter Databases and Election Systems
By Stuart Soffer | 2 comments | 238 views


Meet the winners!

The results are in. Check out The Almanac readers' favorite foods, services and fun stuff in the area.

View Winners