It was around noon on January 27 when Jemma E. Dunn’s cell phone rang.

Dunn, an Orange County attorney, was driving in Utah on a family vacation. She didn’t recognize the number but answered the call.

The caller identified herself as Amanda Waters, the former Mater Dei High School athletic director.

Waters has been considered a key witness in a lawsuit stemming from an alleged February 2021 hazing incident involving two Mater Dei football players that has attracted national attention and raised questions about the culture of one of the country’s premier high school football programs.

During her conversation with Dunn, an attorney for the alleged victim in the hazing suit, Waters contradicted repeated assertions by Maria Roberts, an attorney for Mater Dei and the Diocese of Orange, that her firm represented Waters in the hazing matter, according to emails, letters and court documents obtained by the Orange County Register.

Waters confirmed that she was not represented by the firm in an email to the Register and reiterated her willingness to testify in the case.

“She does not represent me, and yes, I was available,” Waters said referring to Maria Roberts, an attorney representing Mater Dei and the diocese. “I told both sides I am available whenever they want me.”

Waters declined to say whether her resignation at Mater Dei in March was related to the alleged hazing incident a month earlier.

“I cannot comment on the last question,” she said. “Hope you understand.”

Waters was scheduled to be deposed on January 28 and called Dunn about the logistics of the deposition which was to be conducted via Zoom.

“I apologized to Ms. Waters and explained to her that I could not speak with her about her deposition because she was represented by counsel,” Dunn, an attorney at Greenberg Gross, said in a sworn declaration. “Ms. Waters laughed at my statement, and replied that she was not represented by counsel, no one told her she was represented by counsel, she did not agree to be represented by counsel, and most importantly, no one associated with Mater Dei had contacted her about her deposition scheduled for the next day. Ms. Waters further stated that she was ready and available to comply with the subpoena.”

Waters made similar assertions in two emails to attorneys later that day.

“At this time I am not choosing to be represented by an attorney,” Waters said in an email to attorneys on both sides in the hazing lawsuit.

The dispute over Waters’ deposition has emerged as a contentious, and perhaps pivotal, legal battle between attorneys for the victim in the alleged hazing incident and lawyers for Mater Dei and the Diocese of Orange. The family of a former Mater Dei football player filed suit against the school and the diocese in Orange County Superior Court on November 23.

The suit alleges negligence, negligence per se-hazing in violation of the California penal code, negligent failure to warn, train or educate, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Attorneys for Mater Dei and the diocese filed a motion to quash Waters deposition with Orange County Superior Court on January 27, only hours before it was scheduled to take place. Attorneys for the alleged victim filed an opposition to the motion on Monday, alleging that Mater Dei “through its lawyer” is waging a “campaign designed to prevent Ms. Waters from testifying at all costs.”

“Defendants’ Motion to Quash is nothing more than an attempt to silence a former employee at Mater Dei High School who possesses key information that is adverse to the Defendants,” the motion said. “Filed as a last-ditch effort to thwart Plaintiff from taking the deposition of Mater Dei’s former Athletic Director, Amanda Waters.”

“It’s unfortunate that we reached this point so early on in this lawsuit,” said Brian Williams, an attorney for the former player. “This action was filed to promote change and ensure accountability. The deposition of Ms. Waters is an important step in uncovering everything that went wrong that led to this unfortunate incident.”

Roberts, the attorney for Mater Dei and the diocese, however, in the January 27 motion asked the court to quash the deposition because of “defects in the deposition notice and subpoena” and her and another attorney for her firm’s “unavailability.”

“It was properly served,” said Williams. “There was no gamesmanship on our part.”

During an incident on February 4, 2021, a current Mater Dei football player punched a teammate, 50 pounds lighter than him, three times in the face during an alleged hazing ritual called “Bodies” while some Monarchs players present shouted racial epithets at the smaller player, according to two videos of the altercation obtained by the Register.

The fight left the smaller player with a traumatic brain injury, two gashes over his right eye, one over his left and a broken nose that would require surgery, according to surgeon’s reports and other medical records. The injuries were the results of a series of blows to the head that would prompt a Santa Ana Police Department investigator to recommend the Orange County District Attorney’s juvenile division file felony battery charges against the other player, according to a police report obtained by the Register.

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office declined to file charges in the case.

Waters resigned her Mater Dei post on March 24, just nine months after she took the job amid much fanfare. She is currently the athletic director at St. Andrews, a private school in Savannah, Georgia.

Waters was scheduled to be the first person deposed in the lawsuit filed by the former player’s family.

Mater Dei officials initially declined to cooperate with Santa Ana Police Department investigators, according to police reports. Monarch head football coach Bruce Rollinson and Kevin Kiernan, the school’s athletic director, finally agreed to be interviewed by a Santa Ana Police Department investigator with Mater Dei assistant principal for student services Miguel Gutierrez present on April 21, more than two months after the altercation and when the Santa Ana PD first requested information from the school, according to police reports.

Rollinson during the police interview denied hazing existed in the Mater Dei program. He added that the interview was the first time he had heard of the Bodies game.

Waters also told a Santa Ana PD officer hazing was “not tolerated” in a separate interview, according to police reports.

Chatham County Superior Court in Georgia issued a subpoena for Waters to be deposed on January 3. She was served with a subpoena on January 5, according to court records. The deposition was scheduled for January 28.

“The date a month out gave everyone ample time to have someone there to take the deposition,” Williams said.

Roberts informed attorneys for the former player in a January 18 letter that her firm “represents Amanda Waters in relationship to the litigation initiated by your clients. Therefore, neither you nor any of your agents, investigators, clients, or representatives, should have contact with her.”

Roberts in the January 27 court filing said “an agreement … had been reached with Ms. Waters” to be represented by Roberts. The motion was filed 6:09 p.m., more than five hours after attorneys for the former player informed her of Waters’ statements that Roberts did not represent her.

“If Maria Roberts had not told us (on January 18) that she represented Amanda Waters and that we couldn’t contact her, we could have contacted Waters and picked a date that worked for everybody’s schedules,” Williams said.

Roberts did not respond to a request for comment.

Waters was apparently unaware of Roberts’ January 18 letter when she called Dunn.

“I told Ms. Waters that the attorney for Mater Dei had objected to the deposition, but I did not know what the status was regarding whether the deposition was still going forward based on those objections,” Dunn said in the declaration. “I told Ms. Waters that since I had been informed she was represented, she needed to confirm the details with Mater Dei’s attorneys. Ms. Waters again stated that she was not represented and that she did not want to be represented by Mater Dei’s attorneys. I told her she had the right to be represented so she needed to discuss the situation with Mater Dei’s attorneys.”

Waters’ phone conversation touched off a series of contentious emails between attorneys on the two sides.

“I propose we take this one issue at a time. First, I think we need clarity around representation,” Mike Reck, an attorney for the former player wrote to Roberts in a 12:39 p.m. email on January 27. “Resolution of that issue will likely provide direction for all of us. Do you currently represent Ms Waters? Ms. Waters has informed us that you do not. However, I also want to be deferential to your (understanding). Perhaps we should simply call her together? Are you available at 1pm pst?”

Roberts responded 10 minutes later.

“I disagree,” she wrote Reck. “There is no reason to take these issues one at a time. We are unavailable for deposition tomorrow and there were multiple defects in the subpoena and the deposition notice to which proper and timely objections were served sometime ago. Whether I represent the witness or not the deposition cannot proceed tomorrow. With respect to whether I represent the witness, that is my understanding and until I hear from her that that is not the case you should operate with that understanding. Having not heard back from you confirming that the deposition improperly noticed for tomorrow is off calendar, we will move to quash the notice and subpoena.”

Later that afternoon, Reck again pushed Roberts for clarification.

“To clear the representation issue up once and for all, it is my understanding that Ms. Waters has advised you personally today that she does not want your office to represent her,” Reck wrote in an email. “Is this incorrect?”

“I am at the airport about to leave town,” Roberts answered a few minutes later. “I told you very clearly I represented the witness. That is the agreement we had. You now tell me she purportedly called you or your co-counsel and said that was not true. I have not heard that from her. I have phoned her and sent a written message to her about this, but have not heard back.”

Later that night Waters emailed Roberts and Reck.

Related Articles

“As this is my first go-around with being subpoenaed to testify, I apologize for the back and forth with you both,” Waters wrote. “As a 3rd party witness and having been served a subpoena, I will comply with whatever is necessary and whatever you work out. I will make myself available when needed.

“At this time I am not choosing to be represented by an attorney. If and when I choose to utilize an attorney, I will let you both know ASAP. At this point, I am not concerned with this request. If that changes, I will notify you both.

“Please keep me informed about the next steps, as I will attend whatever and wherever necessary.

“Thanks again for your understanding.”

Roberts wrote Waters back, reiterating the deposition would not proceed as originally scheduled.

“As I indicated in my earlier communications with you today (before you confirmed this afternoon that you did want my firm to represent you), whatever you decide on this issue is fine with us, we just needed to know,” Roberts said. “We have filed and will be serving you with a motion to quash the deposition notice and subpoena served on you which was defective on numerous grounds. That prevents the deposition from proceeding tomorrow.”

“Thanks Maria and I will cooperate with whatever you all need,” Waters said. “I do not feel I need an attorney at this point.”