E-FILED | 5/7/2019 4:26 PM CC-02-2019-C-114 Berkeley County Circuit Clerk Virginia Sine
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BERKELEY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA
KASEY MURPHEY, as mother and next friend of O.R., a minor, and FLORENCE BLOUNT, as mother and next friend of A.D., a minor, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-C-114
BERKELEY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, MANNY ARVON, DAVID BANKS, AMBER BOECKMAN, CHRISTINA LESTER, JUNE YURISH, KRISTIN DOUTY, MICHELLE TOST, and KAREN PETRUCCI,
Defendants, and
JUNE YURISH, and KRISTIN DOUTY,
Cross Complainants, and
BERKELEY COUNT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Cross Defendant. and JUNE YURISH, and KRISTIN DOUTY,
Third Party Complainants, and SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC., BARRINGTON BROADCASTING GROUP, LLC, CUNNINGHAM BROADCASTING CORPORATION, DEERFIELD MEDIA, INC., GOCOM MEDIA OF ILLINOIS, LLC, GRAY TELEVISION, INC. HOWARD STIRK HOLDINGS, LLC, ROBERTS MEDIA, LLC, NEW AGE MEDIA, NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC., SHENANDOAH COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TEGNA, INC., E.W. SCRIPPS COMPANY, THOMAS BROADCASTING COMPANY, WAITT BROADCASTING, INC., GREER INDUSTRIES, INC., RSV NG, LLC., PRESTON AND SALANGO, PLLC, BOWLES RICE, LLP, and ADRIAN WOOD,
Third Party Defendants.
THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT Comes now Defendants and Third Party Complainants Kristen Douty and June Yurish
(hereinafter “Complainants”), by counsel, who files the instant Third Party Complaint against the following Third Party Defendants (“hereinafter “Defendants”): Barrington Broadcasting Group,
LLC; Cunningham Broadcasting Corporation; GOCOM Media of Illinois, LLC; Gray
Television, Inc.; Howard Stirk Holdings, LLC; KMTR Television, LLC; New Age Media, LLC;
Nexstar Media Group, Inc.; Shenandoah Communications, Inc.; Sinclair Broadcasting Group,
Inc.; Tegna, Inc.; The E.W. Scripps Company; Thomas Broadcasting Company; Waitt
Broadcasting, Inc.; Greer Industries (WEPM and W.Va. Radio Corp); RSV NG LLC (Nancy
Grace and Crimeonline.com); Preston and Salango, PLLC; Bowles Rice, LLP; and Adrian Wood for violations of The West Virginia Wire Tapping and Surveillance Act (“West Virginia Wire Tap Act”), W.Va. Code §62-1D-1 et seq., and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (“Federal Wiretap Act”), 18 USC §§2510-22. Complainants aver that
assertion of liability against the above named third parties is proper under Rule 14 because the claims are derivative of the same transaction, occurrence, or nucleus of operative fact as
Complainants’ underlying claim, to wit, the creation and dissemination of the unlawful recording created by Amber Pack on or about October 5, 2018, and therefore impleader under Rule 14 is proper pursuant to Cava v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 232 W.Va. 503, 752
S.E.2d 1 (W.Va. 2013).
Additionally, pursuant to Rule 18(a) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure,
Complainants Douty and Yurish assert against the above named Defendants additional claims maintained by Complainants against said Defendants.
WHEREFORE, Complainant’s Douty and Yurish Complain as follows:
1. At all times relevant, Complainants Yurish and Douty were residents of Berkeley County,
West Virginia.
2. At all times relevant, Complainants Yurish and Douty worked at Berkeley Heights
Elementary School, located in Berkeley County West Virginia.
3. At all times relevant, the various Defendants named in the instant Third Party Complaint
were either media companies, law firms, or bloggers who published stories targeted at
Complainants, Berkeley Heights Elementary School, and the Berkeley County Board of
Education, all of which are located in Berkeley County.
4. On or about October 5, 2018, Amber Pack, mother and next friend of the infant A.P.,
violated the West Virginia Wiretap Act by placing a secret audio recording device in her
daughter, A.P.’s, hair. 5. A.P. was not legally capable of consenting, was not offered the opportunity to give her
consent, and did not, at any point, give actual consent.
6. A.P. then went to school at Berkeley Heights Elementary and, unbeknownst to her,
recorded all ambient noise, conversations had, and statements made within audible range
of her hair, regardless of whether such statements were being had to her, to other
students, or between teachers and other school staff.
7. Thereafter, Ms. Pack, or another individual on her behalf, edited approximately sixty to
one hundred a twenty seconds of clips from the unlawful audio footage, captured over an
entire eight-hour school day, and unlawfully disseminated said edited footage to various
media groups.
8. In February of 2019, Defendant Barrington Broadcasting Group, LLC, on 10 separate
occasions, broadcast edited clips of the unlawful recording at various locations,
including:
a. February 7, 2019 in or around Quincy, Illinois
b. February 7, 2019 in or around Kirksville, MO
c. February 7, 2019 in or around Harlingen, TX
d. February 7, 2019 in or around Rio Grande Valley, TX
e. February 7, 2019 in or around Columbia, SC
f. February 7, 2019 in or around Albany, GA
g. February 7, 2019 in or around Toledo, OH
h. February 7, 2019 in or around Syracuse, NY
i. February 7, 2019 in or around Traverse City, MI
j. February 7, 2019 in or around Abilene, TX k. February 9, 2019 in or around Amarillo, TX
9. On or about February 7, 2019, Defendant Bonten Media Group (owned now by Sinclair
Broadcast Group, Inc), on 4 separate and discrete occasions, broadcasted edited clips of
the unlawful recording in or around locations including the following:
a. Abilene, TX
b. New Bern, NC
c. Tri-Cities (Kingsport, Johnson City, Bristol) TN
d. Tri-Cities, TN
10. On or about February 7, 2019, Defendant Cunningham Broadcasting, on 4 separate and
discrete occasions, broadcasted edited clips of the unlawful recording in or around the
following locations:
a. Portland, ME
b. Columbus, OH
c. Dayton, OH
d. Reno, NV
11. On or about February 7, 2019, Defendant Deerfield Media, on three separate and discrete
occasions, broadcasted edited clips of the unlawful recording in or around the following
locations:
a. Amarillo, TX
b. Rochester, NY
c. Mobile, AL
12. On or about February 7, 2019, Defendant GOCOM Media of Illinois, LLC broadcasted
clips of the unlawful recording in or around its Springfield, IL location 13. On or about February 7th, 8th, and 9th, 2019, Defendant Gray Television, on nineteen
separate and discrete occasions, broadcasted edited clips of the unlawful recording at the
following locations:
a. February 7, 2019 in or around Harrisonburg, PA
b. February 8, 2019 in or around New Orleans, LA
c. February 9, 2019 in or around Charlotte, NC
d. February 9, 2019 in or around Sarasota, FL
e. February 9, 2019 in or around Lufkin/Nacogdoches, TX
f. February 9, 2019 in or around Cape Girardeau, MO
g. February 9, 2019 in or around Shreveport, Louisiana
h. February 9, 2019 in or around Charlotte, NC
i. February 9, 2019 in or around Louisville, KY
j. February 9, 2019 in or around Jackson, MI
k. February 9, 2019 in or around Montgomery AL
l. February 9, 2019 in or around Amarillo, TX
m. February 9, 2019 in or around Evansville, IN
n. February 9, 2019 in or around Lake Charles, LA
o. February 9, 2019 in or around Richmond, VA
p. February 9, 2019 in or around Huntsville, AL
q. February 9, 2019 in or around Biloxi, MS
r. February 19, 2019 in or around Harrisonburg, PA
14. On February 7, 2019 Defendant Howard Stirk Holdings, LLC broadcasted edited clips of
the unlawful recording on its Clio, MI television station. 15. On February 7, 2019, Defendant KMTR Television, LLC broadcasted the unlawful
recording on its Springfield, OR television station.
16. On February 7, 2019, Defendant New Age Media, LLC broadcasted the unlawful
recording, on two separate and discrete occasions, at its Gainsville, FL television station.
17. Between February 8, 2019 and March 5, 2019, Defendant Nexstar Media Group, Inc., on
9 separate and discrete occasions, broadcasted edited clips of the unlawful recording on
or about the following dates and at or around the following locations:
a. February 8, 2019 in or around Beckeley, WV
b. February 8, 2019 in or around Hagerstown, MD
c. February 9, 2019 in or around Charleston, WV
d. February 9, 2019 in or around Huntington, WV
e. February 9, 2019 in or around Beckley, WV
f. February 9, 2019 in or around Wheeling, WV
g. February 10, 2019 in or around Johnson City/Bristol TN/VA
h. March 5, 2019 in or around Hagerstown, MD
i. March 5, 2019 in or around Hagerstown, MD
18. On or about February 9, 2019, Defendant Raycom Media, on 8 separate and discrete
occasions, broadcasted edited clips the unlawful recording on or about the following
dates and in or around locations including the following:
a. Tyler, TX
b. Columbus, Georgia
c. Cincinnati, OH
d. Batton Rough, LA e. Tucson, AZ
f. Montgomery, AL
g. Lubbock, TX
19. On February 18, 2019, Defendant Shenandoah Communications, Inc. broadcasted edited
clips of the unlawful recording at its Martinsburg, WV television station.
20. From February 7, 2019 to March 11, 2019, Defendant Sinclaire Broadcasting Group, Inc.,
on at least 86 separate and discrete occasions, broadcasted edited clips of the unlawful
recording on or about the following dates and in or around locations which include the
following:
a. February 7, 2019 in or around Charleston, SC;
b. February 7, 2019 in or around Birmingham, AL;
c. February 7, 2019 in or around Tulsa, OK;
d. February 7, 2019 in or around Lynchburg, VA;
e. February 7, 2019 in or around Dayton, OH;
f. February 7, 2019 in or around St. Louis, MO;
g. February 7, 2019 in or around Mobile, AL;
h. February 7, 2019 in or around Pensacola, FL;
i. February 7, 2019 in or around Seattle, WA;
j. February 7, 2019 in or around Columbus, OH;
k. February 7, 2019 in or around Little Rock, AR;
l. February 7, 2019 in or around Redding, CA;
m. Twice on February 7, 2019 in or around Charleston, WV;
n. February 7, 2019 in or around Washington, DC; o. February 7, 2019 in or around Chattanooga, TN;
p. February 7, 2019 in or around Portland, OR;
q. February 7, 2019 in or around Springfield, IL;
r. February 7, 2019 in or around Kearney, NE; s. February 7, 2019 in or around Traverse City, MI; t. February 7, 2019 in or around Charleston, WV; u. February 7, 2019 in or around Portland, ME; v. February 7, 2019 in or around Beaumont, TX; w. February 7, 2019 in or around Albany, NY; x. February 7, 2019 in or around Quincy, IL; y. February 7, 2019 in or around North Bend, OR; z. February 7, 2019 in or around West Palm Beach, FL; aa. February 7, 2019 in or around New Bloomfield, MO; bb. February 7, 2019 in or around Eugene, OR cc. February 7, 2019 in or around Harrisburg, PA; dd. February 7, 2019 in or around Cedar Rapids, IA; ee. February 7, 2019 in or around Boise, ID; ff. February 7, 2019 in or around Salt Lake City, UT; gg. February 7, 2019 in or around Lewiston, ID; hh. February 7, 2019 in or around Kalamazoo, MI; ii. February 7, 2019 in or around Roseburg, OR; jj. Twice on February 7, 2019 in or around El Paso, TX; kk. Twice on February 7, 2019 in or around Pasco/Yakima/Richland, WA; ll. February 7, 2019 in or around Syracuse, NY; mm. Three times on February 7, 2019 in or around Bakersfield, CA; nn. February 7, 2019 in or around Austin, TX; oo. February 7, 2019 in or around Cincinatti, OH; pp. February 7, 2019 in or around Medford, OR; qq. February 7, 2019 in or around South Bend, IN; rr. February 7, 2019 in or around Reno, NV; ss. February 7, 2019 in or around Green Bay, WI; tt. February 7, 2019 in or around Nashville, TN; uu. February 7, 2019 in or around Macon, GA; vv. February 7, 2019 in or around Oklahoma City, OK; ww. February 7, 2019 in or around Fresno/Visalia, CA; xx. February 7, 2019 in or around Savannah, GA; yy. February 7, 2019 in or around Omaha, NE; zz. February 7, 2019 in or around Baltimore, MD; aaa. February 7, 2019 in or around Beaumont, TX; bbb. February 7, 2019 in or around Lexington, KY; ccc. February 7, 2019 in or around Flint, MI; ddd. Twice on February 7, 2019 in or around San Antonio, TX; eee. February 7, 2019 in or around Rochester, NY; fff. February 7, 2019 in or around Providence, RI; ggg. February 7, 2019 in or around Las Vegas, NV; hhh. February 7, 2019 in or around Johnston, PA; iii. February 7, 2019 in or around Traverse City, MI;
jjj. February 7, 2019 in or around Steubensville, OH;
kkk. February 8, 2019 in or around Washington, DC;
lll. February 8, 2019 in or around Hayes Center, NE;
mmm. February 9, 2019 in or around Washington, DC;
nnn. February 9, 2019 in or around Reno, NV;
ooo. February 9, 2019 in or around Greenville/Spartanburg/Asheville/Andersen
NC;
ppp. Twice on February 11, 2019 in or around Washington, DC;
qqq. February 13, 2019 in or around Washington, DC;
rrr. February 19, 2019 in or around Washington, DC;
sss. February 19, 2019 in or around Charleston/Huntington, WV;
ttt. February 26, 2019 in or around Washington, DC;
uuu. February 28, 2019 in or around Washington, DC;
vvv. February 28, 2019 in or around Charleston, WV;
www. March 1, 2019 in or around Washington, DC;
xxx. March 11, 2019 in or around Bakersfield, CA
21. On or about February 7, 2019 Defendant Sinclair Broadcasting, through its
ABC/ABC33/ABC40 subsidiary, posted edited clips of the unlawful recording to
Facebook.
22. On or about February 8, 2019 Defendant Sinclair Broadcasting, through its
ABC/WJLA/7DC subsidiary, posted edited clips of the unlawful recording to Facebook. 23. On or about February 8, 2019, Defendant Sinclair Broadcasting, through its
CBS/KUTV2NEWS subsidiary, posted edited clips of the unlawful recording to
Facebook.
24. On or about February 8, 2019, Defendant Sinclair Broadcasting published edited clips of
the unlawful recording on Circa.com.
25. On or about February 9, 2019, Defendant Tegna, Inc. broadcasted the unlawful recording
at its Midland, Texas television station.
26. On or about February 7, 2019, Defendant The E.W. Scripps Company broadcasted the
unlawful recording at its Myrtle Beach/Florence, SC station.
27. On or about February 8, 2019, Defendant Thomas Broadcasting Company broadcasted
the unlawful recording at its Beckley, WV station.
28. On or about February 7, 2019, Defendant Waitt Broadcasting, Inc., on two separate and
discrete occasions, broadcasted the unlawful recording from its Sioux City, IA location.
29. On or about February 8, 2019, Defendants John and David Raese published edited clips
of the unlawful recording on its Martinsburg, WV WEPM radio station.
30. On or about February 28, 2019, Defendant Leigh Egan published edited clips of the
unlawful recording on its Crimeonline.com podcast via the show “Crime Stories with
Nancy Grace”.
31. On or about February 28, 2019 Defendant Nexstar Media Group, Inc., published edited
clips of the unlawful recording to its website www.localdvm.com
32. On or about February 8, 2019, Defendant Nexstar Media Group published edited clips of
the unlawful recording via Instagram. 33. On or about March 5, 2019 Defendant Nexstar Media Group published edited clips of the
unlawful recording via Twitter.
34. On or about February 25, 2019, Defendant Preston and Salango, PLLC, used the
unlawful recording in publishing quotations from said unlawful recording to its website
under the URL https://www.wvlawyer.com/blog/2019/02/disturbing-audio-recordings-at-
berkeley-heights-elementary-shows-verbal-abuse-from-instructors/.
35. On or about March 6, 2019, Defendant Preston and Solango, PLLC published a link to
the unlawful recording on its website under the URL
https://www.wvlawyer.com/blog/2019/03/charleston-attorney-ben-salango-berkeley-
county-teacher-aides-physically-abused-special-needs-students/.
36. On or about February 8, 2019 through March 17, 2019, Defendant Adrian Wood used the
unlawful recordings on at least two separate and discrete occasions to publish quotations
from the unlawful recording on her website, www.talesofaneducateddebutante.com, and
her Facebook page, https://www.facebook.com/talesofaneducateddebutante/.
37. Defendant Wood further used the unlawful record by relying on it repeatedly to discuss
Complainants Yurish and Douty, as well the Berkeley County Board of Education and
other individuals in the Berkeley County education community.
38. In addition to her unlawful use and disclosures, Defendant Wood, throughout her
repeated Facebook and blog posts on the topic, made false and defamatory
representations about Defendants, including:
a. That Complainants were physically and verbally abusing their students;
b. That Cross Complainant June Yurish was fraudulently utilizing handicapped
parking; c. That Cross Complainant June Yurish was criminally involved in the death of
another student, E.R.
39. Defendant Wood circulated and disseminated said false and defamatory statements
repeatedly in order to create public outrage so as to increase viewership to her website
and facebook page and increase her number of paying subscribers.
40. Despite the fact that Complainants Yurish and Douty are private individuals, and not
public figures, Defendant Wood made no attempt to verify the truth or falsity of her many
defamatory and sensationalized statements.
41. Defendant Wood, through use of the illegal recording and use of her defamatory
statements, incited her viewers to harass, accost, and intimidate not only Complainants,
but also Defendant Berkeley County Board of Education.
42. On or about November of 2018, Defendant Berkeley County Board of education used the
unlawful recording by listening to and relying on it for the purpose of conducting an
investigation against Complainants, which ultimately was unable to substantiate
allegations of misconduct.
43. After conducting its investigation, Defendant Berkeley County Board of Education then
unlawfully disclosed said recording to law firm Bowles Rice, LLP for the unlawful
purpose of using said recording to create a transcript of said recording.
44. On or about January through February, 2019, Defendant Bowles Rice, LLP used the
unlawful recording to produce a transcript of said unlawful recording, and thereafter,
disclosed said transcript to the Berkeley County Board of Education. 45. Cross Complainant’s Yurish and Douty were employed under “continuing contracts,”
termination from which required the observance of certain procedures under W.Va. Code
§ 18A-2.
46. On February 8, 2019 Defendant Berkeley County Board of Education, despite having
previously conducted, in November of 2018, an investigation based on the audio
recording for which they were unable to substantiate misconduct, drafted termination
letters intended to terminate the employment of Complainants Yurish and Douty.
47. Defendant Berkeley County Board of Education then induced Complainants Yurish and
Douty to “resign” in lieu of termination, and thereby giving up their right to contested
termination procedures, by promising not to include adverse employment information
regarding the circumstances under which they resigned in their permanent personnel files.
48. However, thereafter, at a public hearing held on February 14, 2019, the Berkeley County
Board of Education went into a closed door meeting with members of public regarding
Yurish and Douty’s resignations, and, upon returning to the public hearing, amended its
motion to accept said resignations to include in their personnel files statements conveying
exactly the adverse and derogatory information that said resignations were intended to
obviate.
49. Defendant Berkeley County Board of Education then used the fraudulently induced
resignation of June Yurish to deny her unemployment benefits upon her termination.
50. Complainants Yurish and Douty had no representation at said February 14th public
hearing, were not noticed that adverse employment consequences may follow from said
hearing, and had no opportunity to respond. 51. Complainants Yurish and Douty were not provided with a termination hearing or right of
appeal pursuant to W.Va. Code article 6C-2.
52. The Berkeley County Board of Education’s actions regarding the termination of June
Yurish were found to be improper by Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Charles
Anderson in his April 19, 2019 decision reversing her denial of unemployment benefits,
who stated that “The Board of Education has no evidence of misconduct on behalf of the
claimant [June Yurish]”. ALJ Anderson further found that “the claimants resignation was
the result of an illegal action taken by a parent recording information,” and that “all of the
actions of the Board of Education were taken as a result of information which was
obtained illegally.” He ultimately held that “the claimant [June Yurish] was discharged,
but not for misconduct.”
53. Each of the above stated media Defendants played edited clips of the unlawful recording
which had the affect of misleading the listener into believing that Defendants were
making statements to special needs students, rather than to other teachers.
54. It was known by all Defendants that the footage came from a secret recording which was
placed in the hair of A.P. and for which no consenting party was present.
55. The widespread proliferation of the misleadingly edited and unlawful footage created
hostility and anger within the community in which Complainants live and work.
56. The widespread proliferation of the misleadingly edited footage, and the ensuing public
mob it engendered, caused the Berkeley County Board of Education to terminate
Complainants for reasons of political expediency, and thereby caused Complainants to
lose their jobs despite the board having been unable to substantiate the allegations of
misconduct allegedly raised by the unlawful recording. 57. The widespread proliferation of the misleadingly edited footage, and the ensuing public
mob it engendered, has caused June Yurish and Kristin Douty to be unable to find
employment since their wrongful termination.
58. The widespread proliferation of the misleadingly edited footage, and the ensuing public
mob it engendered, caused Complainants to be the victims of ongoing and sustained
harassment of such severity that Complainants are uncomfortable leaving their homes
and often cannot do so without having pictures of themselves and their families posted on
the internet by total strangers with malicious comments attached thereto.
59. The improper actions of the Berkeley County Board of Education caused Complainant
Yurish to be wrongfully denied unemployment benefits from the time of her firing until
April 16, 2016, when West Virginia Board of Review overturned said denial of
unemployment benefits.
60. The actions of the Berkeley County Board of Education were found to constitute
termination by the West Virginia Board of Review’s Administrative Law Judge
Anderson on April 16, 2019, entitling Cross Complainant Yurish to unemployment
benefits.
61. Complainant Yurish, as a direct and proximate result of the above described actions of
Third Party Defendants, lost her job where she earned $23,402.35 per year.
62. Complainant Douty, as a direct and proximate result of the above described actions of
Defendants, lost her job where she earned $30,268.84 per year.
63. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of the above described actions of
Defendants, lost retirement benefits which would have paid to each of them, starting at age 60, a defined annual retirement benefit calculated by multiplying the final average
salary by the years of service by .02.
64. Complainant Yurish is currently 57 years old, and has been working with the Berkeley
County Board of Education since 2014.
65. Had Complainant Yurish retired at age 65, assuming no pay increases, she would have
been entitled to a defined annual retirement benefit of $6,084.61, plus additional
healthcare benefits.
66. Complainant Douty is currently 53 years old and has been working with the Berkeley
County Board of Education since 2005.
67. Had Complainant Douty retired at age 65, assuming no pay increases, she would have
been entitled to a defined annual retirement benefit of $15,084.61, plus additional
healthcare benefits.
68. The average life expectancy for women in the United States is 81.3 years.
69. Complainants, as a result of the public mob which has been generated through Third
Party Defendant’s illegal use and disclosure of edited and misleading clips of the
unlawful recording, as well as the defamatory statements of Third Party Defendant
Wood, have been forced to spend most of their days in hiding in their homes, with shades
drawn, for fear of being accosted, harassed, photographed, and defamed by members of
the public who are possessed with erroneous beliefs as to Complainants actions because
of the illegal dissemination of misleading and sensationalized clips of the unlawful
recording. 70. Complainants have suffered severe emotional distress as a direct and proximate result of
the release and dissemination of the misleadingly edited and recklessly sensationalized
footage.
71. Complainants have suffered severe emotional distress as a direct and proximate result of
the defamatory statements made by Defendant Wood
72. Complainants have suffered severe emotional distress as a direct and proximate result of
losing their jobs.
COUNTS 1-20: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF BARRINGTON BROADCASTING 73. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if incorporated
fully herein.
74. Defendant Barrington Broadcasting, on at least ten separate and discrete occasions,
violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it
intentionally used and disclosed, through its affiliate television stations, the unlawfully
intercepted communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the
information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation
article 62-1D.
75. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the preceding
paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and 2511(1)(c).
76. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is intercepted,
disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for each day of
violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and reasonable
costs of litigation. 77. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
78. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred actual
damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76 in lost
retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on behalf of
Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Douty,
$241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost healthcare
benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress on behalf
of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNTS 21-28: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF BONTEN MEDIA GROUP (NOW SINCLAIR BROADCAST GROUP, INC.) 79. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if incorporated
fully herein.
80. Defendant Bonten Media Group, on at least four separate and discrete occasions, violated
the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally
used and disclosed, through its affiliate television stations, the unlawfully intercepted
communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the information was
obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation article 62-1D. 81. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the preceding
paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and 2511(1)(c).
82. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is intercepted,
disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for each day of
violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and reasonable
costs of litigation.
83. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
84. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred actual
damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76 in lost
retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on behalf of
Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Douty,
$241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost healthcare
benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress on behalf
of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNTS 29-36: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF CUNNINGHAM BROADCASTING. 85. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if incorporated
fully herein. 86. Defendant Cunningham Broadcasting, on at least four separate and discrete occasions,
violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it
intentionally used and disclosed, through its affiliate television stations, the unlawfully
intercepted communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the
information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation
article 62-1D.
87. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the preceding
paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and 2511(1)(c).
88. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is intercepted,
disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for each day of
violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and reasonable
costs of litigation.
89. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
90. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred actual
damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76 in lost
retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on behalf of
Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Douty,
$241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress on behalf
of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNTS 37-42: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF DEERFIELD MEDIA GROUP. 91. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if incorporated
fully herein.
92. Defendant Deerfield Media, on at least three separate and discrete occasions, violated the
provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used
and disclosed, through its affiliate television stations, the unlawfully intercepted
communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the information was
obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation article 62-1D.
93. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the preceding
paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and 2511(1)(c).
94. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is intercepted,
disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for each day of
violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and reasonable
costs of litigation.
95. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 96. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred actual
damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76 in lost
retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on behalf of
Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Douty,
$241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost healthcare
benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress on behalf
of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 43-44: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF GOCOM MEDIA. 97. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if incorporated
fully herein.
98. Defendant GOCOM Media violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and
62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully intercepted
communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the information was
obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation article 62-1D.
99. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the preceding
paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and 2511(1)(c).
100. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
101. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
102. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNTS 45-81: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF GRAY TELEVISION, INC. 103. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
104. Defendant Gray Television, Inc., on nineteen separate and discrete occasions,
violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it
intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully intercepted communications of
Complainants while having reason to know that the information was obtained through the
interception of oral communications in violation article 62-1D.
105. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
106. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
107. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
108. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 82-83: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF HOWARD STIRK HOLDINGS, LLC. 109. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
110. Defendant Howard Stirk Holdings LLC violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§
62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully
intercepted communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the
information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation
article 62-1D. 111. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
112. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
113. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
114. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 84-85: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF KMTR TELEVISION, LLC (OWNED BY ROBERTS MEDIA, LLC). 115. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein. 116. Defendant KMTR Television LLC violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-
1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully
intercepted communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the
information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation
article 62-1D.
117. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
118. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
119. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
120. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 86-87: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF NEW AGE MEDIA, LLC 121. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
122. Defendant New Age Media, LLC violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-
1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully
intercepted communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the
information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation
article 62-1D.
123. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
124. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
125. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 126. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNTS 88-106: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF NEXSTAR MEDIA GROUP, INC. 127. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
128. Defendant Nextar Media Group, Inc., on 11 separate and discrete occasions,
violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it
intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully intercepted communications of
Complainants while having reason to know that the information was obtained through the
interception of oral communications in violation article 62-1D.
129. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
130. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation. 131. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
132. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 107-121: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF RAYCOM MEDIA, INC (SUBSUMED THEREAFTER BY GRAY TELEVISION) 133. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
134. Defendant Raycom Media, Inc., on 8 separate and discrete occasions, violated the
provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used
and disclosed the unlawfully intercepted communications of Complainants while having
reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of oral
communications in violation article 62-1D. 135. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
136. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
137. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
138. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 122-123: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF SHENDANDOAH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 139. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein. 140. Defendant Shenandoah Communications, Inc violated the provisions of W.Va.
Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the
unlawfully intercepted communications of Complainants while having reason to know
that the information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in
violation article 62-1D.
141. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
142. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
143. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
144. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNTS 124-301: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF SINCLAIR BROADCASTING GROUP, INC. 145. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
146. Defendant Sinclair Broadcasting Group, Inc., on 90 separate and discrete
occasions, violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3)
when it intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully intercepted communications of
Complainants while having reason to know that the information was obtained through the
interception of oral communications in violation article 62-1D.
147. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
148. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
149. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 150. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 302-303: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF TEGNA, INC. 151. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
152. Defendant Tegna, Inc. violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2)
and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully intercepted
communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the information was
obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation article 62-1D.
153. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
154. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
155. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
156. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 304-305: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF THE E.W. SCRIPPS COMPANY 157. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
158. Defendant E.W. Scripps Company violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-
1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully
intercepted communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the
information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation
article 62-1D.
159. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c). 160. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
161. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
162. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 306-307: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF THE THOMAS BROADCASTING COMPANY 163. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
164. Defendant Thomas Broadcasting Company violated the provisions of W.Va. Code
§§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the
unlawfully intercepted communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in
violation article 62-1D.
165. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
166. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
167. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
168. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 308-309: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF WAITT BROADCASTING, INC. 169. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
170. Defendant Waitt Broadcasting, Inc. violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-
1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully
intercepted communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the
information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation
article 62-1D.
171. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
172. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
173. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
174. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNTS 310-311: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF GREER INDUSTRIES (WEPM / WEST VIRGINIA RADIO CORPORATION) 175. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
176. Defendant WEPM/West Virginia Radio violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§
62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully
intercepted communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the
information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation
article 62-1D.
177. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
178. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
179. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
180. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNTS 312-313: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT RSV NG LLC 181. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
182. Defendant Nancy Grace, by and through her company, RSV NG LLC
(Crimeonline.com) violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-
3(a)(3) when she intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully intercepted
communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the information was
obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation article 62-1D.
183. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d) and
2511(1)(c).
184. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
185. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
186. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNTS 314-315: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT PRESTON AND SALANGO, PLLC 187. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
188. Defendant Preston and Solango, PLLC violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§
62-1D-3(a)(2) and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully
intercepted communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the
information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation
article 62-1D. 189. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d) and
2511(1)(c).
190. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
191. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
192. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNTS 316-317: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT ADRIAN WOOD. 193. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein. 194. Defendant Adrian Wood violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3(a)(2)
and 62-1D-3(a)(3) when it intentionally used and disclosed the unlawfully intercepted
communications of Complainants while having reason to know that the information was
obtained through the interception of oral communications in violation article 62-1D.
195. Defendant, in using and disclosing the unlawful recording as indicated in the
preceding paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d). and
2511(1)(c).
196. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
197. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
198. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish.
COUNTS 318-319: VIOLATIONS OF W.VA. CODE § 62-1D-3 AND 18 USC § 2511 ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT BOWLES RICE, LLP 199. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
200. Defendant Bowles Rice, PLLC violated the provisions of W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-
3(a)(3) when it intentionally used the unlawfully intercepted communications of
Complainants in creating a transcript of said recording while having reason to know that
the information was obtained through the interception of oral communications in
violation article 62-1D.
201. Defendant, in using the unlawful recording as indicated in the preceding
paragraph, further violated the provisions of 18 USC §§ 2511(1)(d).
202. W.Va. Code § 62-1D-6 entitles any person whose oral communication is
intercepted, disclosed, or used to compensation for actual damages not less than $100 for
each day of violation, punitive damages where proper, and reasonable attorney fees and
reasonable costs of litigation.
203. 18 USC § 2520 entitles any person whose oral communications are intercepted,
disclosed, or used to: (a) equitable and/or declaratory relief; (b) the greater of the sum of
actual damages and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, or
statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or
$10,000; (c) punitive damages where appropriate; and (d) reasonable attorney fees and
other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 204. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, incurred
actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $97,353.76
in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare benefits on
behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant
Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty, and lost
healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional distress
on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 320: DEFAMATION ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT ADRIAN WOOD 205. Complainants incorporate by reference the above stated paragraphs as if
incorporated fully herein.
206. Defendant Adrian Wood published claims that 3rd Party Complainants Yurish and
Douty committed crimes of abuse, and further falsely claimed that they were involved in
the death of student, E.R.
207. Said claims are false.
208. Complainants Yurish and Douty are private individuals.
209. Defendant made said defamatory statements having reason to know that such
allegations were false, and/or did so without having reason to believe that such
allegations were true.
210. Defendant was negligent in publishing said information without taking reasonable
efforts to ensure the veracity of said claims.
211. Defendant’s defamatory statements involved false allegations that Complainants
Yurish and Douty committed criminal acts, and thus qualify as defamation per se. 212. Complainants, as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s defamation,
incurred actual damages of $210,618 in lost salary on behalf of Complainant Yurish,
$97,353.76 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Yurish, lost healthcare
benefits on behalf of Complainant Yurish, $665,914.48 in lost salary on behalf of
Complainant Douty, $241,344 in lost retirement income on behalf of Complainant Douty,
and lost healthcare benefits on behalf of Complainant Douty, as well as severe emotional
distress on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and Douty.
COUNT 321: REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST ALL NAMED DEFENDANTS. 213. Complainants incorporate by reference the allegations above as if set forth fully
herein.
214. Complainants bring this count pursuant to Rules 57 and 65 of the West Virginia
Rules of Civil Procedure, West Virginia Code § 55-13-1 et. seq. also known as the
Uniformed Declaratory Judgment Act, West Virginia Code 53-5-1 et. seq., and pursuant
to West Virginia common law principles.
215. A justiciable controversy exists between the parties sufficient to confer
jurisdiction upon this Court for purposes of the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, West
Virginia Code §§ 55-13-1 for the purpose of seeking an adjudication and declaration of
the rights of the parties to this Action related to the production, maintenance, use and
disclosure of the audio recording and/or its contents, as described herein above.
216. The West Virginia Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (W.Va. Code §§
62-1D-1 — 62-1D-16) (hereafter “Wiretap Act”), prohibits the intentional interception or
attempted interception of any oral or electronic communication. The Wiretap Act also prohibits procuring another person to intercept or attempt to intercept any oral or
electronic communication.
217. The Wiretap Act further prohibits any person from intentionally disclosing or
attempting to disclose the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication, when
such person knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the
interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication in violation of the provisions of
the Wiretap Act.
218. The Wiretap Act further prohibits the intentional use, disclosure or attempted
disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication or the identity of
any party to such communication when it is known or there is reason to know that such
information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral or electronic
communication in violation of the provisions of the Wiretap Act.
219. The Wiretap Act further provides that “[a]ny person whose wire, oral or
electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, used or whose identity is disclosed in
violation of [the Wiretap Act] shall have a civil cause of action against any person who so
intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use
the communications, and shall be entitled to recover from any such person or persons: (1)
Actual damages, but not less than one hundred dollars for each day of violation; (2)
Punitive damages, if found to be proper; and (3) Reasonable attorney fees and reasonable
costs of litigation incurred.”
220. The Wiretap Act further provides that evidence obtained, directly or indirectly, by
the interception of any wire, oral or electronic communication in violation of the
provisions of the Wiretap Act is not admissible in any proceeding. 221. The Wiretap Act further provides that, where evidence is obtained, directly or
indirectly, by the interception of any wire, oral or electronic communication in
compliance with the provisions of the Wiretap Act, such evidence is only admissible in
grand jury proceedings and criminal proceedings in magistrate court and circuit court.
222. The Wiretap Act further provides that “[a]ny aggrieved person in any trial,
hearing or proceeding in or before any court of this state may move to suppress the
contents of any intercepted wire, oral or electronic communication or evidence derived
therefrom on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted . . . If the
motion is granted, the contents of the intercepted wire, oral or electronic communication
or evidence derived therefrom, shall not be admissible in evidence, in any such trial,
hearing or proceeding.”
223. In the absence of injunctive relief, Complainants will suffer irreparable injury,
loss, or damage as a result of Defendant’s continued and ongoing violation of the West
Virginia Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (W.Va. Code §§ 62-1D-1 — 62-
1D-16).
RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Complainants respectfully request from this Court the following relief:
1. $907, 258.48 in lost salary and retirement income on behalf of Cross Complainant
Douty;
2. $307.971.76 in lost salary and retirement income on behalf of Cross Complainant
Yurish; 3. Compensation for lost healthcare benefits on behalf of both Complainants Yurish and
Douty;
4. Pain, suffering, and emotional distress damages in the amount of $1,000,000 on
behalf of Complainant Douty;
5. Pain, suffering, and emotional distress damages in the amount of $1,000,000 on
behalf of Complainant Yurish;
6. Prejudgment interest on all liquated sums from the date of incident until the return of
a verdict in favor of the Complainants;
7. Post-judgment interest on all special and general damages from the date of the jury
verdict in favor of the Complainants until payment;
8. Attorney fees;
9. Punitive damages, where allowed by law, of $5,000,000, or of sufficient amount to
deter similar conduct in the future;
10. Issuance of a declaration of the rights, duties, and responsibilities between the parties
related to the production, maintenance, use, distribution and admissibility of the audio
recording produced by Amber Pack on October 4, 2018, as described herein above, to
wit:
a. That said recording was produced in violation of the provisions of the West
Virginia Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act (“The Act”);
b. That any communications of Complainants contained within the audio
recording were unlawfully intercepted in violation of the provisions of the
Act; and c. That disclosure of the contents of said audio recording constitutes a violation
of the Act;
11. Preliminary and permanently enjoin Defendants, their agents, employees, attorneys,
and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual
notice of the injunction, from copying, publishing, disclosing, or distributing the
audio recording produced by Amber Pack on October 4, 2018, or any contents thereof
in any forum including any media platform of any kind or any pleading, motion,
hearing, proceeding, or deposition undertaken in connection with this or any other
civil action.
COMPLAINANTS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE
Complainants Yurish and Douty,
By Counsel:
/s/ Christian J. Riddell Christian J. Riddell, State Bar #12202 Law Offices of Stedman & Riddell 329 S. Queen Street Martinsburg, WV 25401 (304) 267-3949