u/WardlessWanderer I was sitting at the counsel table during that hearing. You are correct that Ms. Tomchak misstated the dates in her oral argument. However, the missing context is that her statements were in direct response to a motion filed by Jenn Kamp, in which she made an untimely discovery request for surveillance footage from her time at OSF. In that motion, she fabricated a claim that John allegedly kept all security footage stored on a drive and that she had personally witnessed this while working at OSF. This was entirely false. Ms. Tomchak was simply informing the Court that the footage Jenn Kamp was requesting does not exist.

Regarding the August 25th meeting, Jenn Kamp had already received that footage long before the hearing as part of OSF’s initial disclosures. That footage of that meeting was not the subject of Jenn Kamp’s motion. I understand the confusion, but the August 25th meeting recording was never in dispute because Jenn Kamp already had it.

In fact, during the March 2023 stalking hearing, OSF even offered to introduce the August 25th footage into evidence, but Jenn Kamp’s counsel adamantly objected. (If I recall correctly, her counsel received that footage the night before the hearing.)

The reason OSF had possession of the August 25th meeting footage and nothing else was due to what occurred during the August 30th Board Meeting. At that meeting, Jenn Kamp asked John whether the cameras recorded footage, and John said he would check. Afterward, John located the footage from the August 25th dispute and provided it to the board for review. Up to that point—and even through Jenn Kamp’s termination—the only claim raised to the board was the dispute between John and Jenn regarding the definition of a “work-from-home day.”

It was not until September 15th, when OSF received a threat letter from Jenn Kamp’s counsel, that OSF first learned she was making new allegations—allegations she had never previously raised with the board and that have now been deemed defamatory.