Although denied once, counsel for the defendants in the federal suit against Kingfisher Public Schools and some of its coaches is asking the court to reconsider its ruling on a gag order in the case.

United States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin denied the defendants’ request for a “protective order” in a signed order filed May 11.

The defense had filed that request on May 9, 2022.

The initial request was directed at the social media activity as well as other comments made to media by Cameron Spradling, the attorney for Mason Mecklenburg, who filed suit against KPS, head football coach Jeff Myers, assistant Derek Patterson and former assistants Blake Eaton and Micah Nall in July 2021.

In his ruling, Goodwin said “…the court finds that defendants have not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that Mr. Spradling’s extrajudicial commentary will prejudice a fair trial for the defendants.”

In the most recent request asking the judge to reconsider, defense attorneys said “while the defendants recognize the reasoning behind the court’s decision, it was based on Mr. Spradling’s commentary from the previous year – 2022. Unfortunately, Mr. Spradling has continued his public media campaign, which has only gotten worse.”

The next 21 points of the 20-page document, filed May 22 and signed by Emily C. Krukowski of Rosenstein, Fist & Ringold (RFR), lay out the defense’s claims of what it calls “troubling” actions by Spradling, especially via his Twitter account and comments to the media.

The filing has screen shots of some of Spradling’s tweets as well as links to view them.

Some of those tweets in late April related to the school district’s financial condition as well as the district’s decisions related to its insurance coverage. The filing called the tweets “very critical” of the district in those regards.

Some of the tweets provided a link to a Dropbox account in which users could view Mecklenburg’s most recent settlement demands, which were set to be discussed at the Kingfisher Board of Education’s May 1 meeting.

“It is apparent that Mr. Spradling’s tweets related to the settlement demand letter were designed to bring this matter to the attention of the media and to put pressure on the school district’s board of education which would be meeting on May 1, 2023, in executive session to discuss the lawsuit.”

The defense also has issue with what Spradling would term “evidence” presented in stories by some media outlets or other court documents.

“He is putting out a false narrative about the parties and the lawyers involved,” the motion states. “He is putting information in the public that is inadmissible. He is characterizing the information he disseminates to the public about the case as ‘evidence,’ which, in turn has been phrased that way by news media.”

Part of the “false narrative” claimed by the defendants was a May 5 tweet from Spradling sharing via Dropbox a May 4 letter written by plaintiff’s lawyers to the defendants, their attorneys and Kingfisher’s board of education.

That letter accused former KHS football assistant coach Taylor Schwerdtfeger - and potentially the law firm of RFR - of witness tampering and included a screen shot of a text message allegedly sent from Schwerdtfeger to a former football player.

“Mr. Spradling’s second tweet in the thread includes a screenshot of the very same text messages that plaintiff’s counsel manipulated in their May 4 letter to give off the appearance of witness tampering - thus proving that plaintiff’s counsel had a copy of the complete, un-doctored text messages when they drafted the May 4 letter accusing the defendant’s counsel at RFR of witness tampering,” the motion reads. “The fact that plaintiff’s counsel possesses the complete, un-doctored version of the text messages at the same time they transmitted the May 4 letter demonstrates that they intentionally misquoted the messages to support their baseless claims of witness tampering.”

The motion lists some other tweets by Spradling as “troubling.”

Screenshots of a series of tweets from Spradling on April 30 appear in the motion, though the motion says they no longer appear on Spradling’s Twitter account.

The first screenshot reads: “Well, 1) I come from a family of educators, so I trust people know the difference between those who are good and those who are bad, 2) Kingfisher turned down $1.5M a year ago, it’s only gotten worst [sic]. The real question is can they absorb a $25 million verdict!”

The next screenshot reads: “Anymore questions? Because maybe you didn’t read the 13 page Settlement Demand Letter, because honestly we want a trial and to burn them down! Fallout to the community? They should have thought of that before they spent the last 18 years causing so much damage!”

Another tweet reads: “I’ll answer that, we vote our Board of Education to reflect the values of the community. Then the BOE creates policies for the Superintendent and teachers & coaches to follow. What happened in Kingfisher reflects the values of that community!”

The last tweet shown from that day is in response to another tweet that said, “So in your last statement, I assume that’s what you are looking for..the $25M payday” Spradling’s response was: “We are looking to absolutely wipeout Kingfisher so this never happens again in Oklahoma or elsewhere. No mercy and they deserve it!”

The defense’s motion also accuses Spradling of misrepresenting facts in statements made to the media regarding the court’s May 11 order that Mecklenburg must reveal his identity for the case to proceed.

The case was originally filed by a John Doe No. 1 and an earlier ruling upheld the plaintiff’s request to remain anonymous. That was reversed last month by Goodwin.

In a story published by KFOR.com on May 19, a statement from the plaintiff’s attorneys began with: “Our client, Mason Mecklenburg, formerly John Doe, has determined to reveal his identity to put an end to the Kingfisher culture of silence and fear of speaking out.”

The defense motion says “Mr. Spradling’s statement characterizes this as a decision made solely by Plaintiff to put him in a favorable light.”

The motion calls Spradling’s Twitter activity and statements to the media “an obvious attempt to try his case in the public in an effort to pressure Defendants into settlement.”

It also says: “Unfortunately, these statements by Mr. Spradling are often misrepresentations or exaggerated accounts of this case…While the Defendants realize that they also have the ability to make statements to the media, the Defendants should not have to constantly monitor Mr. Spradling’s social media and should not have to try their side of the case outside of the courtroom in an effort to counter Mr. Spradling’s activities.”

The most recent motion by the defendants concludes with five requests that prohibit Spradling from making any commentary on (1) any statements relating to the character, credibility, reputation, arrests or criminal record of a party or witness in the case; (2) any statements accusing any defendant of a criminal offense; (3) any statements about what the trial of this matter will reveal before the trial occurs; (4) any statements as to insurance coverage availability or settlement negotiations; and (5) showing or putting on social media any videos or pictures related to the allegations unless those materials are publicly filed.

As of now, the civil trial is set to begin Oct. 10. However, the defense has filed a motion to again push that back, providing a number of reasons.

According to a brief filed by defense attorneys, the plaintiff’s attorneys do not wish to move the trial date.