A federal judge from the Northern District of California delivered another blow to the plaintiffs in the In Re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation when it denied their motion to compel the Big Ten Conference, the Big Ten Network, and Fox Broadcasting Company to produce certain documents.
In so ruling, the court found that “although antitrust plaintiffs’ document requests call for some documents relevant to the claims or defenses in this action, their substantially overly broad scope would subject the nonparties to significant expense and undue burden if the nonparties were compelled to respond to them in their current form.”
Further, the court found that the plaintiffs “did not make reasonable efforts to limit the scope of their document requests to avoid imposing an undue burden on the nonparties, and that they ended the meet-and-confer process prematurely.”
The instant opinion came on the heels of another ruling earlier this year when the same court ruled for the NCAA when it found that the association is not required to compel its member institutions to turn over documents to the plaintiffs.
The underlying case centers on the plaintiffs’ allegation that the NCAA, Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC), and Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) conspired against them in violation of antitrust and “right of publicity” laws.
The plaintiffs’ claims were brought forward under two legal theories. Firstly, the ‘antitrust plaintiffs’ assert that the defendants have conspired to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act. These plaintiffs contend that “this anti-competitive conspiracy has foreclosed them from receiving compensation in connection with the commercial exploitation of their images, likenesses, and names.” Secondly, the ‘right of publicity plaintiffs’ allege that the defendants “have unlawfully used the plaintiffs’ likenesses in games produced and distributed by EA.”
The subpoenas at issue involved requests for documents from the aforementioned defendants, suggesting that they possess information relevant to the antitrust plaintiffs’ claims concerning the licensing, sale, and use of former student-athletes’ names, images, and likenesses in non-live television broadcasts. After the nonparties objected to the document requests, claiming they were overly broad and called for irrelevant or privileged documents, the antitrust plaintiffs narrowed the scope of the subpoenas. Despite this reduction in scope, the nonparties refused to produce any documents, arguing that the document requests continued to call for documents that are privileged or irrelevant to the claims or defenses in this action.
The antitrust plaintiffs filed three motions to compel against each of the nonparties for failing to produce documents in response to the subpoenas. They also moved for attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5).
In considering the arguments, the court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, which governs any request for the production of documents by subpoena.
At the outset of its analysis, the court found that the time-frame for the documents requested, over a 10 to 12-year period, “is overly broad and not tailored to discover relevant documents.”
The court went through each specific document request.
One example was its demand of the Big Ten conference for “any handbook and/or manuals relating to participation in college athletics, including athletic codes of conduct.”
“The Big Ten Conference contends that the handbook responsive to this request is publicly available,” wrote the court. “As antitrust plaintiffs have not provided the court with any information with respect to the relevance of documents responsive to this request, and because it appears that the antitrust plaintiffs have access to at least some responsive materials through a less burdensome source within the meaning of Rule 26(b)(2)(C), this request is denied as overly broad.”
The court went to deem each of the requests as “overly broad. … The nonparties must produce documents only to the extent described above.
“Additionally, because antitrust plaintiffs did not make reasonable attempts to avoid imposing an undue burden on the nonparties, sanctions against antitrust plaintiffs are warranted under Rule 45.”
IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME & LIKENESS LICENSING LITIGATION; N.D. Cal.; Case No. 09-cv-01967 CW (NC)Related to11-mc-80300 CW (NC)and12-mc-80020 CW (NC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24347; 2012-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P77,810; 2/27/12
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff Samuel Michael Keller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated) Jon T. King, LEAD ATTORNEY, Hausfeld LLP, San Francisco, CA; Shana E. Scarlett, LEAD ATTORNEY, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Berkeley, CA; Celeste H.G. Boyd, PRO HAC VICE, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC, Chapel Hill, NC; Douglas A. Millen, PRO HAC VICE, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Bannockburn, IL; Leonard W Aragon, PRO HAC VICE, Robert B. Carey, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Phoenix, AZ; Steve W. Berman, PRO HAC VICE, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA; Stuart McKinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC, Washington, DC.
(for plaintiff Edward C. O’Bannon, Jr.) Allan Steyer, Donald Scott Macrae, Lucas Erskine Gilmore, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA; Amanda Heather Kent, Girardi and Keese, Los Angeles, CA; Arthur N. Bailey, Arthur N. Bailey & Associates, Jamestown, NY; Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Bruce J. Wecker, Christopher L. Lebsock, Jon T. King, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, San Francisco, CA; Bonny E. Sweeney, Carmen Anthony Medici, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Bruce Lee Simon, Thomas Kay Boardman, Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Carl A. Taylor Lopez, Lopez & Fantel, Seattle, WA; Christopher Theo Hellums, Pittman Dutton and Hellums, P.C., Birmingham, AL; Daniel Cohen, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Washington, DC; Daniel Simon Mason, San Francisco, CA; Derek G. Howard, Minami Tamaki LLP, San Francisco, CA; Douglas A. Millen, PRO HAC VICE, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Bannockburn, IL; Edgar Dean Gankendorff, PRO HAC VICE, Provosty & Gankendorf LLC, New Orleans, La; Ellen Meriwether, PRO HAC VICE, Cafferty Faucher LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Eugene A. Spector, Jay S. Cohen, Jeffrey J. Corrigan, Jeffrey Lawrence Spector, William G. Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, Philadelphia, PA; Hilary Kathleen Ratway, Hilary K. Scherrer, Michael D. Hausfeld, Sathya S Gosselin, Hausfeld, LLP, Washington, DC; Jack Simms, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Washington, DC; Jay L. Himes, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel &Mason LLP, San Francisco, CA; Joel Cary Meredith, Meredith & Associates, Philadelphia, PA; Mitchell J. Rapp, Shawn D. Stuckey, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Morissa R. Falk, Labaton Sucharow LLP, New York, NY; Robert G. Eisler, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert William Finnerty, Thomas V. Girardi, Girardi Keese, Los Angeles, CA; Ronald J. Aranoff, Bernstein Liebhard LLP., New York, NY; Stanley M. Chesley, PRO HAC VICE, Wilbert Benjamin Markovits, PRO HAC VICE, Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley, Cincinnati, OH; Tanya Chutkan, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Washington, DC; Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Minneapolis, MN; William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Washington, DC.
(for plaintiff Bryon Bishop) Austin B. Cohen, Howard J. Sedran, Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, PA; David Haym Weinstein, Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher, Philadelphia, PA; Donald Louis Perelman, Roberta D. Liebenberg, Fine Kaplan and Black, RPC, Philadelphia, PA; Douglas A. Millen, PRO HAC VICE, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Bannockburn, IL; Gerald J. Rodos, Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Barrack Rodos & Bacine, Philadelphia, PA; Jeremy S. Spiegel, Mindee J. Reuben, Steven A. Asher, Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC, Philadelphia, PA; Joseph C. Kohn, Robert Joseph LaRocca, Kohn Swift & Graf P.C., Philadelphia, PA; Karl Olson, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, San Francisco, CA.
For Michael Anderson, Plaintiff: Tracy Tien, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rosemary M. Rivas, Finkelstein Thompson LLP, San Francisco, CA; Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Faucher LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Douglas A. Millen, PRO HAC VICE, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Bannockburn, IL.
For Michael E. Davis, Plaintiff: Brian Douglas Henri, Thomas Whitelaw & Tyler LLP, San Francisco, CA; Douglas A. Millen, PRO HAC VICE, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Bannockburn, IL.
For Bobby C. Maze, Plaintiff: Gordon Ball, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ball & Scott, Knoxville, TN; Douglas A. Millen, PRO HAC VICE, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Bannockburn, IL.
For Ray Ellis, Tate George, Plaintiffs: Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, San Francisco, CA; Douglas A. Millen, PRO HAC VICE, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Bannockburn, IL.
For Craig Newsome, Consol Plaintiff: Eric B. Fastiff, LEAD ATTORNEY, Joseph Richard Saveri, Kelly M. Dermody, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, San Francisco, CA; Daniel E. Gustafson, PRO HAC VICE, Jason Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, MN; David A. Goodwin, Minneapolis, MN.
For Danny Wimprine, Consol Plaintiff: Tracy Tien, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rosemary [*5] M. Rivas, Finkelstein Thompson LLP, San Francisco, CA; Bryan L. Clobes, Ellen Meriwether, Cafferty Faucher LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Lee Albert, Murray Frank LLP, New York, NY.
For Damien Rhodes, Consol Plaintiff: Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA; Eric B. Fastiff, Joseph Richard Saveri, Kelly M. Dermody, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, San Francisco, CA; Joshua P. Davis, Law Offices of Joshua P. Davis, San Francisco, CA; Kendall S. Zylstra, PRO HAC VICE, Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, Jenkintown, PA; Stephen E. Connolly, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Huntingdon Valley, PA.
For Samuel Jacobson, Consol Plaintiff: Bruce Lee Simon, Thomas Kay Boardman, Pearson, Simon, Warshaw & Penny, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, St. Paul, MN; Joe Sibley, Kiwi Alejandro Danao Camara, Camara & Sibley LLP, Houston, TX.
For Electronic Arts Inc., Defendant: Daniel Murray Wall, LEAD ATTORNEY, Kirsten Marie Ferguson, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA; Robert James Slaughter, LEAD ATTORNEY, Daniel E. Jackson, Robert Adam Lauridsen, Robert Addy Van Nest, Steven A. Hirsch, Keker & Van Nest LLP, San Francisco, CA; Timothy L. O’Mara, Latham [*6] & Watkins, San Francisco, CA.
For National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant: Robert James Wierenga, LEAD ATTORNEY, Frederick Richard Juckniess, Gregory L. Curtner, Jessica Anne Sprovtsoff, PRO HAC VICE, Kimberly K. Kefalas, Schiff Hardin LLP, Ann Arbor, MI; David P. Borovsky, Glen Robert Olson, Long & Levitt LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jason Alex Geller, Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick & Pearson LLP, San Francisco, CA; Kimberly Lynn Scott, PRO HAC VICE, Ann Arbor, MI; Matthew S. Weiler, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA; Rocky N. Unruh, Schiff Hardin LLP, San Francisco, CA; Suzanne Wahl, Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone PLC, Ann Arbor, MI.
For Collegiate Licensing Company, Defendant: Amber Melia Trincado, King & Spalding LLP, San Francisco, CA; Cindy Dawn Hanson, PRO HAC VICE, R. Charles Henn, Jr., Sara M. Vanderhoff, PRO HAC VICE, William Howard Brewster, PRO HAC VICE, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA; Constance K. Robinson, Peter M. Boyle, PRO HAC VICE, Svetlana S. Gans, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Washington, DC; Gregory S. Gilchrist, Kilpatrick Townsend and Stockton LLP, San Francisco, CA.
For James Brown, James “Jim” Brown, Herbert Anthony Adderley, Amicus: Mark Steven Lee, LEAD ATTORNEY, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles, CA.
