PFT has obtained the document filed by Antonio Brown in response to the lawsuit filed against him by Britney Taylor. That document mentions on multiple occasions another document that apparently is critical to a full understanding of the situation.
At page 5 of his response to the complaint filed in the state-court proceeding that was initiated on September 10, Brown mentions for the first time that he “executed a confidentiality agreement under duress.” He claims that the confidentiality agreement “precludes him from discussing a number of relevant events.”
“Unless Taylor waives the restrictive requirements of the confidentiality agreement or a Court Order is entered regarding the same, Brown will remain unable to recite these events, which he deems essential to the Court’s understanding of his defense and the counterclaims asserted herein,” Brown explains.
Brown contends that Taylor declined while meeting with NFL investigators to waive the terms of the confidentiality agreement, and Brown asserts that, after the confidentiality agreement is properly addressed, his counterclaim will be amended “to add a count of civil conspiracy naming all at-fault parties.”
The document is again mentioned at page 32, as part of Brown’s counterclaim: “On March 8, 2019 . . . Brown’s legal representative executed a confidentiality agreement under duress, which precludes him from discussing a number of relevant events that have since transpired — all of which relate to the civil conspiracy to extort, defraud, defame and harass Brown.”
It’s possible, if not likely, that Brown was threatened with immediate litigation in March 2019, as he was in the midst of trying to finagle a trade from the Steelers to a new team (and a new contract), that Taylor’s lawyer(s) explained the lawsuit would not be filed while settlement discussions commenced, and that Taylor’s lawyer(s) insisted on the signing of a confidentiality agreement regarding the settlement talks. If that’s the case, however, the confidentiality agreement should have included protections for Brown that would allow him to tell his story, to the extent that his story is relevant to his defense or his counterclaim.
Regardless, there seems to be more to this story, and that once the confidentiality agreement is extinguished, the rest of the story will emerge.