A judge overseeing the NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Litigation has ruled for the NCAA in a critical discovery dispute, finding that the NCAA is not required to compel its member institutions to turn over documents to the former college student-athletes who are bringing the lawsuit.
In sum, the court, pursuant to a straightforward analysis of Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, found that the plaintiffs “have failed to establish that the NCAA has ‘control’ of its member institutions and that the particular information (the plaintiffs) seek about member institutions is ‘available’ to the NCAA.” Further, “the NCAA cannot be compelled to produce documents or information that it does not already possess.”
The underlying case centers on the plaintiffs’ allegation that the NCAA, Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC), and Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) have conspired against them in violation of antitrust and “right of publicity” laws.
The plaintiffs’ claims were brought forward under two legal theories. The “Antitrust Plaintiffs” assert that the defendants have conspired to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act. The 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.” The “Right of Publicity Plaintiffs” allege that the defendants “have unlawfully used the plaintiffs’ likenesses in games produced and distributed by EA.”
During discovery, the plaintiffs asked the NCAA to “produce documents in the possession of NCAA members.” Specifically, they claim that the NCAA has “control” of the documents “possessed by its member institutions.” They also sought, by way of interrogatories, information possessed by member institutions, which is “available” to the NCAA.
“To be clear, this discovery dispute does not concern whether the NCAA must produce documents and information in its possession, even if such documents or information came from members,” wrote the court. “The NCAA states that it has no objection to producing documents in its possession, custody, or control, and that it has no objection to responding to interrogatories with information that is presently in its possession or control. This dispute also does not concern whether the documents and information sought are relevant to this case. It is assumed for purposes of this order that the documents and information sought are relevant. Finally, this order does not determine whether NCAA members are ‘real parties in interest’ to this case, because Plaintiffs have not advanced that theory. See University of Texas v. Vratil, 96 F.3d 1337, 1340 (10th Cir. 1996) (declining to require the NCAA to respond to discovery on behalf of its members under the theory that the members were “real parties in interest” under Kansas law).”
In the discussion phase of the opinion, the court wrote that “the crux of this discovery dispute is whether the NCAA has control of its member institutions for purposes of responding to discovery requests.”
The court summarized the position of the NCAA, which claims it “does not have the authority to acquire from its members the documents and information that the plaintiffs seek.”
The plaintiffs, “on the other hand, maintain that the NCAA Bylaws permit the NCAA to exert sufficient control over its members that it should be able to provide information and documents. At the least, the plaintiffs contend, the NCAA should ask its members to voluntarily provide information, or should play a facilitating role in collecting documents and information.”
The court examined the plaintiffs’ three theories “in support of their assertion that the NCAA has ‘control’ of its members’ documents.”
“1. Does the NCAA Have a ‘Legal Right’ to Obtain Documents?”
The court found that the plaintiffs “have fallen short of establishing that the NCAA has a ‘legal right’ to acquire the documents sought from its member institutions. Neither the NCAA Constitution nor the Bylaws grants the NCAA the right to take possession of its members’ documents showing template likeness release/consent forms, television and licensing contracts, copyright policies, and broadcasting manuals. At best, the relationship between the NCAA and its members is analogous to the ‘cross-sales agent relationship’ described in Beilstein-Institut Zur Forderung Der Chemischen Wissenschaften v. MDL Info. Systems, Inc., No. C 04-05368 SI, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98747, 2006 WL 3742244, (N.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 2006) (finding no ‘control’ where cross-licensing agreement was not as strong as a traditional principal-agent relationship). Here, as in that case, the NCAA rules do not grant one party control over the other.
“Furthermore, the fact that the NCAA can take enforcement action against member institutions that violate NCAA rules does not mean that the NCAA has power to compel members to produce the documents sought in this litigation. See Int’l Union, 870 F.2d at 1452 (finding that International Union did not have ‘control’ over local union documents even though International had power to dissolve local union, revoke charter, and remove recalcitrant leaders under certain circumstances).”
The second question: “Does the NCAA Have a ‘Practical Ability’ to Obtain Documents?” Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the necessary “agent-principal” relationship between the NCAA and its members. “Even if this Court were to apply the ‘practical ability’ test proposed, the plaintiffs here have not established facts to support the assertion that the NCAA has the ‘practical ability’ to produce documents possessed by its member institutions.”
Lastly, “Did the NCAA Waive Its Objection to Producing Its Members’ Documents by Pleading a ‘Single Actor’ Affirmative Defense?”
The court again sided with the NCAA, noting that the plaintiffs “cite no authority for the proposition that asserting a ‘single actor’ defense to a conspiracy charge means that an alleged conspirator has to produce discovery possessed by all the co-conspirators.”
In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Litigation; N.D. Cal.; Case No. 09-cv-01967 CW (NC), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5087; 2012-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P77,762; 1/17/12
Attorneys of Record
Plaintiffs:
(for 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 Edward C. O’Bannon, Jr.) Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA; Amanda Heather Kent, Girardi and Keese, Los Angeles, CA; Arthur N. Bailey, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., PRO HAC VICE, Arthur N. Bailey & Associates, Jamestown, NY; 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; Bruce J. Wecker, Christopher L. Lebsock, Jon T. King, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld 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, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Washington, DC; Daniel Simon Mason, San Francisco, CA; Derek G. Howard, Minami Tamaki LLP, San Francisco, CA; Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith 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; 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, Hausfeld, LLP, Washington, DC; Jack Simms, Tanya Chutkan, William A. Isaacson, 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; Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP, Washington, DC; Lucas Erskine Gilmore, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA; [*3] Michael D. Hausfeld, Sathya S Gosselin, Hausfeld LLP, Washington, DC; 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, 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; Thomas V. Girardi, Girardi & Keese, Los Angeles, CA; Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Minneapolis, MN.
(for Bryon Bishop) Austin B. Cohen, Howard J. Sedran, Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, Philadelphia, PA; David Haym Weinstein, Jeremy S. Spiegel, Mindee J. Reuben, Steven A. Asher, 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; 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Minneapolis, MN; David A. Goodwin, Jason Kilene, Minneapolis, MN.
(for Danny Wimprine, consol) Tracy Tien, LEAD ATTORNEY, Rosemary M. Rivas, Finkelstein Thompson LLP, San Francisco, CA; Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Faucher LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Lee Albert, Murray Frank LLP, New York, NY.
(for Damien Rhodes, consol) Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., Philadelphia, PA; Eric B. Fastiff, LEAD ATTORNEY, 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, Stephen E. Connolly, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Huntingdon Valley, PA.
(for Samuel Jacobson, consol) 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.
Defendants:
(for Electronic Arts Inc.) Daniel Murray Wall, Kirsten Marie Ferguson, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Timothy L. O’Mara, 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.
(for National Collegiate Athletic Association) Robert James Wierenga, LEAD ATTORNEY, Gregory L. Curtner, PRO HAC VICE, Jessica Anne Sprovtsoff, PRO HAC VICE, Kimberly K. Kefalas, PRO HAC VICE, Suzanne Wahl, PRO HAC VICE, 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.
(for Collegiate Licensing Company) 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.
Amicus:
(for James Brown, James “Jim” Brown, Herbert Anthony Adderley) Mark Steven Lee, LEAD ATTORNEY, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, Los Angeles, CA.
