Judge's Ruling on Trevor Bauer vs Lindsay Hill

In 2021, Major League Baseball star pitcher Trevor Bauer was accused of sexual assault by Lindsay Hill. Bauer was never charged but due to the allegations, Bauer went from MLB’s top pitcher to being banished from the majors to Japan. The old allegations got new attention this month when Bauer released his side of the story.

Bauer and Hill settled, with Hill agreeing to drop her civil case over alleged sexual battery, and Bauer agreeing to drop his defamation suit against Hill. Therefore, the only legal ruling concerning Hill’s allegations is Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Dianna Gould-Saltman’s 2021 rejection of Hill’s “materially misleading” request for a restraining order.

In my opinion, Judge Gould-Saltman’s ruling provides the best objective overview of what we know happened. Here are her full comments (minus some legal jargon):

LET ME FIRST START BY THANKING THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE QUALITY OF THEIR PRESENTATION. IT ASSISTS THE COURT TREMENDOUSLY TO HAVE ATTORNEYS OF YOUR CALIBER PRESENTING THE BEST CASE ON BOTH SIDES.

THE FACTS INDICATE THAT THERE WERE TWO IN-PERSON MEETINGS BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERE AND SOME DIRECT MESSAGES AND TEXTS BETWEEN APRIL 18TH OF THIS YEAR AND MAY 30TH OF THIS YEAR.

PETITIONER MADE CLEAR IN HER TESTIMONY THAT WHAT SHE THOUGHT PRIVATELY AND WHAT SHE COMMUNICATED TO RESPONDENT WERE OFTEN NOT THE SAME THING, SPECIFICALLY WHEN IT CAME TO ROUGH SEXUAL ACTS. PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT WHEN SHE SET BOUNDARIES, RESPONDENT RESPECTED THEM.

PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT RESPONDENT ASKED PETITIONER TO SET BOUNDARIES. ON THEIR SECOND IN-PERSON ENCOUNTER, PETITIONER SET ONE THING AS OFF LIMITS AND ASSUMED THAT ANOTHER WAS OFF LIMITS AFTER THE PARTIES' FIRST ENCOUNTER, WHICH SHE TOLD NURSE VALENCIA DID NOT OCCUR DURING THE SECOND ENCOUNTER.

THE EVIDENCE, INCLUDING PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY, SHOW THAT RESPONDENT INVITED PETITIONER TO TALK TO HIM WHEN SHE SEEMED UPSET AND THAT SHE HAD MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO SET BOUNDARIES. PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT RESPONDENT DIDN'T CROSS THE BOUNDARIES WHICH PETITIONER EXPRESSED TO HIM.

RESPONDENT COULDN'T KNOW THE BOUNDARIES WHICH PETITIONER DIDN'T EXPRESS TO HIM. PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT BOTH SEXUAL ENCOUNTERS BEGAN CONSENSUALLY BUT THAT, AT LEAST AS TO THE SECOND ENCOUNTER, IT VENTURED INTO AREAS TO WHICH SHE DID NOT CONSENT.

THE PRIMARY QUESTION FOR THIS COURT IS, TO WHAT DID PETITIONER CONSENT? AND HOW DID SHE MANIFEST THAT CONSENT TO RESPONDENT?

IN WRITTEN EXCHANGE PETITIONER SAID THAT "SHE WANTED ALL THE PAIN." THOSE WERE HER WORDS. SHOULD RESPONDENT HAVE BELIEVED HER? IN WRITTEN COMMUNICATION PETITIONER SAID SHE WANTED TO BE CHOKED OUT. RESPONDENT SOUGHT CLARIFICATION AS TO WHETHER SHE MEANT "OUT," AS IN UNCONSCIOUS, AND PETITIONER REPLIED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. SHOULD RESPONDENT HAVE BELIEVED HER?

WE CONSIDER THAT, IN THE CONTEXT OF A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER, WHEN A WOMAN SAYS "NO," SHE SHOULD BE BELIEVED. SO WHAT ABOUT WHEN SHE SAYS "YES"?

PETITIONER TESTIFIED THAT SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO BEING PUNCHED TO THE POINT OF HAVING BLACK EYES AND HAVING TO BE HOSPITALIZED. HAVING BLACK EYES AND BEING HOSPITALIZED WERE THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING SOME OF WHICH PETITIONER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT SHE DID CONSENT TO, SUCH AS BEING CHOKED.

THE ONLY EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING WHICH HAPPENED WHILE PETITIONER WAS UNCONSCIOUS WAS HAVING BEEN HIT ON THE BUTT IN THE PARTIES' FIRST ENCOUNTER. OTHER ACTS OCCURRED WHILE PETITIONER WAS CONSCIOUS. SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE WASN'T ABLE TO SPEAK PART OF THAT TIME BUT RESPONDENT COULDN'T KNOW THAT.

ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION, WHEN RESPONDENT WAS DOING SOMETHING PETITIONER DIDN'T WANT AND SHE COULDN'T SPEAK, SHE MOTIONED TO HIM AND HE DID STOP. ON ANOTHER, SHE USED THE FIRST PART OF THEIR AGREED SAFE WORD AND HE DID STOP.

RESPONDENT DID NOT PURSUE PETITIONER. HE DID NOT THREATEN PETITIONER TO COERCE HER INTO SEXUAL ACTIVITY. AND HE DIDN'T THREATEN HER AFTER THEY HAD ENGAGED IN SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

PETITIONER COMPLAINS IN HER TESTIMONY THAT ONE OF HER PROBLEMS HAS BEEN HER DESIRE TO SEEK ATTENTION. COMMUNICATIONS TO HER FRIENDS, WHICH ARE ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE, INDICATE SHE WAS EXCITED FOR THE ATTENTION TO HER AND, EVENTUALLY, THE DAMAGE THAT ATTENTION WOULD HAVE ON RESPONDENT.

LET ME BE CLEAR. THE INJURIES AS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOGRAPHS ARE TERRIBLE. UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, MERELY SEEING PHOTOGRAPHS SUCH AS THOSE WOULD SERVE AS A PER SE CONDEMNATION OF THE PERPETRATOR OF SUCH INJURIES. BUT PETITIONER HAD AND HAS THE RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN ANY KIND OF SEX AS A CONSENTING ADULT THAT SHE WANTS TO WITH ANOTHER CONSENTING ADULT.

SHE WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS ABOUT WANTING ROUGH SEX IN THE PARTIES' FIRST ENCOUNTER AND WANTING ROUGHER SEX IN THE SECOND ENCOUNTER. PETITIONER WAS ASKED BY RESPONDENT TO DECIDE WHATEVER SHE WANTED TO LET RESPONDENT KNOW WAS OFF LIMITS, AND SHE DID.

IF SHE HAD SET LIMITS AND HE HAD EXCEEDED THEM, THIS CASE WOULD BE VERY CLEAR. BUT SHE SET LIMITS WITHOUT FULLY CONSIDERING ALL THE CONSEQUENCES AND RESPONDENT DID NOT EXCEED THE LIMITS THAT PETITIONER SET.

…THE COURT FINDS THAT PETITIONER'S INITIAL DECLARATION, WHICH WAS THE BASIS UPON WHICH SHE OBTAINED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, WAS MATERIALLY MISLEADING. SHE CLAIMED THAT RESPONDENT WAS CALLING AND TEXTING NON-STOP FOR TWO WEEKS. WHEN THE REALITY WAS THAT RESPONDENT RARELY CALLED AND TEXTED ONLY WHEN SHE HAD TOLD HIM SHE WAS IN THE HOSPITAL TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE WAS STILL OKAY. EACH OF THOSE TEXTS OR VOICEMAILS WAS OF A SIMILAR SORT, "ARE YOU OKAY?"

PETITIONER WAS CLEAR THAT SHE WAS EXTREMELY STRESSED AND HAD EXTREME ANXIETY WHEN RESPONDENT SENT MESSAGES. SHE ALSO TESTIFIED THAT SHE WAS EXTREMELY STRESSED AND ANXIOUS WHEN HE DIDN'T SEND MESSAGES. THAT ISN'T RATIONAL.

RESPONDENT DID NOT PURSUE PETITIONER. SHE PURSUED HIM. PETITIONER'S TESTIMONY MADE CLEAR THAT SHE WAS UPSET THAT RESPONDENT DIDN'T CALL HER WHEN SHE EXPECTED HIM TO AND THAT DURING AND AFTER THEIR FIRST IN-PERSON ENCOUNTER, PETITIONER WANTED MORE OF A RELATIONSHIP WITH RESPONDENT THAN THE FACTS, AS SHE PRESENTED THEM, COULD REALISTICALLY BE EXPECTED.

HER FEAR THAT RESPONDENT MIGHT DO SOMETHING IF HE KNEW SHE WENT TO THE HOSPITAL HAD NO FACTUAL BASIS. HER FEAR THAT RESPONDENT MIGHT DO SOMETHING IF HE KNEW SHE HAD FILED A REQUEST FOR RESTRAINING ORDER DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE HAD ANY FACTUAL BASIS.

IN THIS CASE, THE COURT FINDS THERE IS NO SUPPORTABLE EVIDENCE THAT RESPONDENT IS LIKELY TO CAUSE PETITIONER ANY HARM OR EVEN HAVE CONTACT WITH THE PETITIONER. FOR ALL THE REASONS STATED, THE COURT DENIES PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR A LONG TERM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER. AND THE COURT HEREBY DISSOLVES THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER.