Here's a screenshot of the online case docket, showing progress over time. The thing reaching trial was not without delay and postponements (as always, click to enlarge and read):
The parties the UROC.. Hoff's online presence is manifest - he blogs and has been criticized online, as a Google = "Johnny Northside" proves. So, what of the plaintiff? Two to tango, etc.
Start with something I do not know - Jerry Moore's status with UROC, prior to termination. Was he an at will employee, a temp, an independent contractor, or specifically a professional consultant on some manner of no bid contract, or otherwise? Add to that, in the termination, is there a paper trail stating reasons for termination? At will employment, per the cliche, can be terminated by either party, employee or employer, for any reason or for no reason. Has Moore clear and convincing evidence that his termination was caused by or attributable to blogging or other activity of the defendant? I don't know, but I guess the jury will, before their start of deliberation. Or they will know what the admissible testimony, documents, and other tangible or intangible evidence together shows. As they read it. As the do so instructed by the court and after closing arguments of both sides.
Next something fairly clear. Moore's UROC situation prior to its termination was between him and a government entity. The University of Minnesota's ownership stake and responsibility for UROC is clear.
UROC info - about its nature - is online here, here, here, here and here. It appears to have existed for less than a year, and efforts of this sort generally depend critically upon getting the right dedicated and oriented people on board in the early formative months. That months-old status is perhpas best shown in the University's press release on UROC opening, the last of the links, stating:
The University of Minnesota and the residents of North Minneapolis will celebrate the opening of a first-of-its kind collaborative facility that serves the needs of urban communities. The Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center (UROC) holds its grand opening on Wednesday, May 12, from 1 to 6 p.m. at 2001 Plymouth Ave. N., Minneapolis.
As one of the very few land-grant research universities located in an urban setting in the United States, the University of Minnesota has placed a priority on discovering solutions to the many complex issues facing urban communities. The first major step in this initiative is the establishment of UROC, housed in a renovated building in North Minneapolis in the heart of a highly diverse community. UROC is currently home to 12 university programs that are committed to pursuing research and outreach in an authentic and fully-engaged partnership with individuals and organizations in the Northside communities.
“The University of Minnesota is committed to developing strategic, sustainable partnerships with urban communities, residents and governments, leading to positive, measurable outcomes with significant impact toward improving lives and stimulating economic growth,” says university Senior Vice President Robert Jones.
The event is free and open to the public and will include building tours, refreshments, an art exhibit by Fawzia Kahn and Lynn Fellman, a youth choir performance by CitySongs and brief remarks by University of Minnesota Board of Regents Chair Clyde Allen, university President Robert Bruininks and several community and government leaders who have been instrumental in making the partnership a reality. Jones will host the event that includes welcome festivities at 3:30 p.m., followed by a ribbon-cutting ceremony and short program at 4 p.m.
Top university leadership persons took part in this effort "currently home to 12 university programs." At least they did so, being present at the site dedication.
Whatever else, it looks undeniable, it was some kind of government job Moore held.
Finally. It appears Hoff believed it in the public's best interest if the State U. were to consider severing its relation with Moore.
Also, that Hoff's actions were aimed toward that goal.
I have no personal knowledge concerning either of the men. For Moore, same as with Hoff. I never met or spoke to either.
Reporting and/or opinion about Moore is online. Here, here, here, and here (a photo). It is generally unfavorable, with the last item not being focused on Moore. I do not know what more favorable things may have been published. I looked mainly at the initial hits returned by a generally neutrally worded search, a Google = "Jerry Moore" North Minneapolis. I repeated the Google signed into my Blogger account, and not signed in. Sometimes the return results differ if Google has a profile, but this time both results were consistent.
The Moore photo (click to enlarge) is from the NPR link dated June 13, 2008, which identified Moore as "executive director of the Jordan Area Community Council" which is the employment he held before UROC, with reporting being he was severed from both positions within roughly a year or less, JACC being Moore's first job of the two with June 22, 2009 being the reported date of Moore's termination by UROC.
The politics of who was in charge at each severance, first at JACC and then UROC, and how they made decisions, is unknown to me, and Hoff's publishing about things touching each severance is likely to be evidence going to the jury at trial.
Some may notice I have tired to word this post more cautiously than not. With a defamation trial pending, it would be both unwise and improper, to do otherwise. To anyone who may claim I post links unfavorable to Moore, I can only say I looked at what Google returned and went with the first hits, those ranked so, based on Google's presumably neutral search algorithms.
Whatever Moore thinks of whether the linked items are defamatory toward him, he is not suing them, possibly because he believes there is a causation link with Hoff re the UROC termination, but not with the others. It will be his burden of proof at trial to prove causation. Absent causation evidence convincing to a jury, he would have no damages proximately caused by Hoff; and of course if the jury believes and finds Hoff assertions to be true, there is no defamation. In cases where a defamation is found, but no proximately caused pecuniary harm meriting damages, nominal compensatory damages of one dollar have been awarded.
I am unaware of whether there has been any amendment of pleadings to include a request for punitive damages, but the online opening complaint, by statute, would have had to be amended with a motions hearing before a punitive award would attach. Moore could lose entirely, achieve a Pyrrhic victory, or get a cash bonanza. Nothing is a sure bet with a jury. Under the anti-SLAPP statute, if pleadings are deemed to be amended to the proof at trial, Moore might face a judgment award to Hoff of reasonable attorney's fees and/or other relief. We wait and see.