Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated
Filing
264
MOTION for Leave to File A Supplemental Memorandum on Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion filed by National Football League Players Incorporated, National Football League Players Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Supplemental Memorandum on Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion)(Padnos, Todd) (Filed on 4/8/2008)
EXHIBIT A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111
Todd Padnos (Bar No. 208202) tpadnos@dl.com DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 951-1100; Fax: (415) 951-1180 Jeffrey L. Kessler (pro hac vice) jkessler@dl.com David G. Feher (pro hac vice) dfeher@dl.com David Greenspan (pro hac vice) dgreenspan@dl.com DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 259-8000; Fax: (212) 259-6333 Kenneth L. Steinthal (pro hac vice) kenneth.steinthal@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Tel: (650) 802-3000; Fax: (650) 802-3100 Bruce S. Meyer (pro hac vice) bruce.meyer@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Tel: (212) 310-8000; Fax: (212) 310-8007 Attorneys for Defendants National Football League Players Association and National Football League Players Incorporated d/b/a Players Inc UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION BERNARD PAUL PARRISH, HERBERT ANTHONY ADDERLEY, WALTER ROBERTS III, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION and NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS INCORPORATED d/b/a/ PLAYERS INC, Defendants. Case No. C 07 0943 WHA DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON PLAINTIFFS' CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
Defendants' Miscellaneous Administrative Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum
Civ. Action No. C07 0943 WHA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111
Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification ("Reply Br.") is replete with distortions that Defendants will address at the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion. There is, however, one factual misstatement to the Court that Defendants believe requires immediate correction. In discussing Defendants' argument that individual questions of law predominate because California law may not be universally applied in this putative "nationwide" class action, Plaintiffs state: Defendants' claim that Plaintiffs have not alleged how many putative class members reside in California is also misleading. In response to Plaintiffs' discovery requests for addresses of the putative class members, Defendants expressly and repeatedly refused to provide this information on the grounds that it would be unduly burdensome and that "[s]uch information is neither relevant nor discoverable under the [federal rules] before the certification of a class." According to paragraph 16 of this Court's rules, Defendants are therefore precluded from denying that putative class members reside in California. Reply Br. at 11-12 (internal citation omitted). Contrary to Plaintiffs' description, Defendants did not refuse to provide Plaintiffs with sufficient information to determine "how many putative class members reside in California." Id. During the meet and confer process regarding the relevant interrogatory requests, Defendants declined to provide the addresses of the thousands of putative class members (which Plaintiffs could try to use for political purposes), but expressly offered to provide the state of residence of each putative class member if Plaintiffs chose to make such a request: Plaintiffs have not provided any reasoning as to why the addresses of thousands of putative class members is relevant to the issue of commonality. If and when Plaintiffs provide any reasoning as to why address information is relevant to the issue of commonality, Defendants would be more than happy to revisit the issue. Indeed, we note that Plaintiffs are not seeking, for example, the state of residence of each class member which may be relevant to choice of law issues but the specific addresses of all of the thousands of putative class members. Ltr. from David Greenspan to Ryan Hilbert at 3 (Jan. 17, 2008) (attached hereto as Exhibit A) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs, however, never took Defendants up on this offer and never asked for the state of residence of each putative class member, as Defendants invited Plaintiffs to do.
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
Defendants' Miscellaneous Administrative Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum
Civ. Action No. C07 0943 WHA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111
Instead, Plaintiffs simply "reserve[d] [their] rights for the time being" on the issue of addresses. Ltr. from Ryan Hilbert to David Greenspan at 1 (Jan. 22, 2008) (attached hereto as Exhibit B).1 In short, Plaintiffs' representation to the Court that Defendants refused to provide information as to the states of residence of the putative class members is erroneous, and the exact opposite of what in fact occurred. Date: April 8, 2008 DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP BY: _ /S/ David G. Feher_ _______ David G. Feher Attorneys for Defendants
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
In refusing to consent to the filing of Defendants' supplemental brief, Plaintiffs claim that their position is factually accurate because Defendants "should" have produced the state of residency information (even though Plaintiffs never requested it, after Defendants offered to produce the information if only Plaintiffs would ask for it rather than seeking irrelevant individual addresses). See Ltr. from Noel Cohen to David Feher (Apr. 7, 2008) (attached hereto as Exhibit C). Plaintiffs' response is totally illogical -- finding Defendants at fault for not producing something that Defendants offered to produce, but which Plaintiffs never requested -- and yet another example of their continuing "smoke and mirrors" approach to this litigation. -2Defendants' Miscellaneous Administrative Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Memorandum Civ. Action No. C07 0943 WHA
EXHIBIT A
DEWEY
LEBOEUF
DEWEY LEBOEUF LLP 1301 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK NY 1001 96092
TEL
FAX
2122596438 2122596333
DGREENSPANDLCOM
JANUARY 17
2008
BY EMAIL
HUBERT RYAN MANATT PHELPS 1001 PAGE MILL
PHILLIPS
LLP
ROAD
94304
BUILDING
PALO ALTO
CA
RE
DEAX
PARRISH
ET
AL
NFLPA
ET
AL
ND CAL NO C07
2008
0943
VHA
RYAN
TO
WRITE IN RESPONSE OBJECTIONS BEFORE
YOUR
LETTER
OF JANUARY
CONCERNING DEFENDANTS
TO PLAINTIFFS
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
RESPONSES AND WHICH WERE SERVED APPROXIMATELY THREE WEEKS
THEN
INTERROGATORY
REQUESTS
NOS
AND
IN
THESE INTERROGATORIES
PLAINTIFFS
REQUESTED PLAINTIFFS
INFORMATION
ABOUT PUTATIVE
CLASS
MEMBERS
AS TO TIME
PERIODS
OTHER THAN THOSE IN WHICH
HAD THE STATUS ON WHICH THEY BASE THEIR CLAIMS
AS TO TIME PERIODS FOR WHICH PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS OBJECTED CLAIM
IN
TO PRODUCING INFORMATION LETTER YOU FAIL
CANOOT ASSERT VIEW THAT THEY ARE BETWEEN
IN
YOUR JANUARY
TO OFFER
ANY AUTHORITY
NOT HAVE
TO SUPPORT
PLAINTIFFS
ENTITLED TO INFORMATION
ABOUT RETIRED PLAYERS
WHO DID
GLAS
WITHIN
EFFECT AT ANY TIME
FEBRUARY 14 2003
AND DECEMBER 31 2005
THE ONLY TIME PERIOD
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
WHICH ADDERLEY THE ONLY PLAINTIFF
THEREFORE MAINTAIN SIGN THEIR OBJECTION
WHO ASSERTS
GLABASED
CLAIM
HAD
GLA
IN EFFECT
DEFENDANTS
TO THE PRODUCTION
THIS
OF INFORMATION
ABOUT RETIRED PLAYERS
IS
WHODID
NEITHER
NOT
GLA
THAT
WAS IN
EFFECT DURING CALCULATED
PERIOD
ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH INFORMATION
OF ADMISSIBLE
RELEVANT
NOR REASONABLY
TO LEAD TO THE DISCOVERY
EVIDENCE
THAT SAID AS YOU
SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING
ALL
KNOW DEFENDANTS
PRODUCED IN
ITS
HAVE NOT WITHHELD
ANY INFORMATION
ON THE BASIS
OF THIS
OBJECTION
IN RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES
NOS
SINCE
AND
DEFENDANTS IDENTIFIED
RANGE OF DOCUMENTS OF ANY
GLAS
THIS
ACTION
DEFENDANTS DID NOT WITHHOD THE PRODUCTION
OF TIME IN WHICH
IN
GLA GLA
AND
ON THE GROUND THAT
IN EFFECT
TERM DID NOT OVERLAP
WITH THE PERIOD
ADDERLEY HAD
THE RANGE OF DOCUMENTS IDENTITIED THOSE
BY DEFENDANTS
RESPONSE
TO INTERROGATORIES THE BOTTOM LINE OF POST
IS
NOS
THAT
ALSO INCLUDES THE PARTIES
GLAS
ENTERED
INTO AFTER
DECEMBER 31 2005
REGARDING
THUS
ALTHOUGH
HAVE ADOPTED DIFFERENT
LEGAL POSITIONS
THE RELEVANCE
DECEMBER
ISSUE
IS
31
2005
GLAS
NO INFORMATION
TIME
HAS BEEN WITHHELD
ON THAT GROUND AND ANY DISPUTE
ON
THIS
THEREFORE
MOOT FOR THE
BEING
SHOULD
THIS
DISPUTE
BECOME RIPE
IN THE FUTURE
WE WOULD
BC
NEW YOI
ALBANY FRANKFURT MILAN ALMATY
AUSTIN
LONDON
MULTTNATIONAL
PARTNFR
WASHINGTON CHARLOTTE
DC
CHICAGO
PLY LTD EAST
BEIJING
BOSTON HOUSTON
PAI1TNERSHIP
BRUSSELS
PALO ALTO ANGELES
HARTFORD
PARIS
HONG KONG
MULTINATIONAL
JACKSONVILLE
RIYADH
AITILIATLO
JOHANNESBURG
OFICL
LOS
MOSCOW
ROME
SAN FRANCISCO
WARSAW
RYAN HUBERT JANUARY 17 2008
PAGE
WILLING
TO MEET AND CONFER WITH TO DISCOVERY
PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS
AND CONSIDER
ANY AUTHORITY
FOR YOUR POSITION
THAT PLAINTIFFS
ARE ENTITLED
REGARDING
THAT ADDERLEY OR PARRISH
CANNOT ASSERT
ON
RELATED ISSUE TO THE EXTENT THAT YOUR LETTER TAKES ISSUE WITH DEFENDANTS IDENTIFICATION OF RANGE OF DOCUMENTS FROM WHICH THE REQUESTED INFORMATION MAY BE LOCATED WE DIRECT YOU TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WHICH EXPRESSLY PERMITS PARTY TO REFER TO DOCUMENTS TO RESPOND TO AN
33D
INTERROGATORY
RULE
33D
PROVIDES
THAT SUCH
SPECIFICATION
SHALL BE IN SUFFICIENT AS CAN THE PARLY
DETAIL TO PERMIT
THE INTERROGATING
PARTY PLAINTIFFS
TO LOCATE AND IDENTIFY
AS READILY
SERVED THE
RECORDS FROM WHICH THE ANSWER JUST
MAY BE
ASCERTAINED
THE
THAT
IS CERTAINLY
THE CASE HERE WHERE PLAINTIFFS
AS
READILY
AS DEFENDANTS IN
CAN IDENTIFY
GLAS
CONTAINING
THE
SAME LANGUAGE
ALL
AS THE
GLAS
THAT
SIGNED
BY ADDERLEY
RESPONSE TO YOUR SPECIFIC
PRODUCTION
QUESTION
WE HAVE
IDENTIFIED
DOCUMENTS
WE
ARE AWARE OF IN DEFENDANTS
THAT CONTAIN
INFORMATION
RESPONSIVE
TO INTERROGATORIES ISSUE
NOS
AND
ACCORDINGLY
WE BELIEVE
THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE
WITH RESPECT TO THIS
THERE IS HOWEVER ONE SUBJECT RAISED IN YOUR LETTER AS TO THESE INTERROGATORIES OVER WHICH THE PARTIES DO APPEAR TO HAVE THE ISSUE OF PRECERTIFICATION RIPE DISPUTE OF ADDRESS INFORMATION FOR DISCOVERY EACH PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBER WHICH YOU CANDIDLY DESCRIBE IN YOUR LETTER AS CONTACT INFORMATION FRANKLY THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR THAT SUCH CONTACT INFORMATION AT THE PRE GENERALLY IS NOT DISCOVERABLE STAGE THG OPPENHEIMER FUND INC SANDERS 437 340 351 1978 HOLDING THAT SUCH INFORMATION IS NOT GENERALLY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF LEGITIMATE SEALIFT DISCOVERY DZIENNIK INC 05CV4659 DLI 2006 DIST LEXIS 33011 MAY 23 2006
CERTIFICATION
US
MIDG
REFUSED
US
EDNY
COURTS HAVE
CERTIFICATION IDENTIFY
ORDINARILY
TO ALLOW
DISCOVERY
OF CLASS MEMBERS IDENTITIES
AT THE
PRE
TO
STAGE OUT OF CONCERN THAT PLAINTIFFS
ATTORNEYS
MAY BE SEEKING
SUCH INFORMATION
OF CERTIFICATION
POTENTIAL
NEW
CLIENTS
RATHER THAN TO ESTABLISH
THE APPROPRIATENESS
EMPHASIS
ADDED
THESE CASES DO NOT ABSOLUTELY OF PUTATIVE CLASS PROTECT IN EVERY CASE THE PRODUCTION OF CONTACT
WE RECOGNIZE
INFORMATION THE PROTECTION
MEMBERS
IS
PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION
HOWEVER
THE CASE LAW
MAKES CLEAR
IS
THAT
OF SUCH INFORMATION
THE PUTATIVE
THE RULE AND THAT THE PRODUCTION
OF SUCH INFORMATION
THE
EXCEPTION
WITH
CLASS REPRESENTATIVES
NEED FOR SUCH INFORMATION
SEE MANTOLETE
BOL
BEARING
THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING
THE EXCEPTIONAL
767
F2D 1416
CLASS
1424
9TH CIR 1985
TO
FTJHE
OF
PLAINTZFF BEARS THE BURDEN OF ADVANCING
PRIMA FACIE
SHOWING THAT THE CLASS ACTION REQUIREMENTS
PUTATIVE
IS LIKELY
FEDRCIVP
SUBSTANTIATION AUTHORITY
23 ARE SATISFIED
OR THAT DISCOVERY
OF THE
PRODUCE ANY BASIS
IN THIS
OF THE CLASS ALLEGATIONS
EMPHASIS
ADDED YOUR
LETTER
DOES NOT PROVIDE
TO THE RULE INFORMATION
OR
TO SUPPORT THE PRODUCTION
OF CONTACT
INFORMATION
IE
THE EXCEPTION OF CONTACT
CASE
RATHER YOU BALDLY ASSERT THAT PLAINTIFFS
CLASS
SEEK THE DISCLOSURE
FROM
PUTATIVE PLAINTIFFS
MEMBERS PRECISELY
CLAIMS
UNDERLYING
RELEVANT TO MAY HAVE INFORMATION AND THAT ALSO BEARS ON CLASS CERTIFICATION ISSUES SUCH AS COMMONALITY
BECAUSE THESE INDIVIDUALS
ANDOR NUMEROSITY
WITH
RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF NUMEROSITY PLAINTIFFS ALREADY HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION THEY COULD
CONCEIVABLY NEED WITH RESPECT TO NUMEROSITY AS TO THE ASSERTED PRODUCED IN
THIS
GLABASED
CLASSES
THE 3LAS
WITH THE
ACTION
ENABLE
PLAINTIFFS
TO COUNT UP THE
NUMBER OF PLAYERS WHOSIGNED GLAS
RYAN HUBERT JANUARY 17 2008
PAGE
SAME LANGUAGE AS ADDERLEYS
IDENTIFY THE
GLAS
MEMBERS
IS
THIS INFORMATION
IN THE TWO PUTATIVE
IS
MORE THAN
SUFFICIENT
FOR PLAINTIFFS OTHER
TO THE
NUMBER OF
CLASS
GLA
CLASSES
ON THE
IS
HAND
TO THE
ADDRESSES PUTATIVE
OF THESE RETIRED PLAYERS CLASS
SIMPLY IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF NUMEROSITY
CLASS FOR WHICH
AS
NUMBER OF
MEMBERS
IN THE
NONGAPUTATIVE
TO PROVIDE
MR PARRISH
SEE
THE PUTATIVE
FIRST SET OF
REPRESENTATIVE INTERROGATORIES TO INTERROGATORY
DEFENDANTS ARE WILLING
DID NOT INCLUDE
SUCH INFORMATION
INFORMATION
BUT PLAINTIFFS
PROPER REQUEST AS TO THIS
DISCUSSION
BELOW RELATING
NO
THAT THE ADDRESSES PURE IPSE DIXIT OF THE PUTATIVE CLASS
PLAINTIFFS
CONTENTION
IS
MEMBERS
IS
RELEVANT
TO THE SEPARATE ISSUE
OF COMMONALITY ADDRESSES
PLAINTIFFS CLASS
OF THOUSANDS OF PUTATIVE
MEMBERS
HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY REASONING AS TO WHY THE IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF COMMONALITY IF AND
WHEN PLAINTIFFS
COMMONALITY
PLAINTIFFS RELEVANT
IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF PROVIDE ANY REASONING AS TO WHY ADDRESS INFORMATION DEFENDANTS WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO REVISIT THE ISSUE INDEED WE NOTE THAT
ARE NOT SEEKING TO CHOICE
FOR
EXAMPLE
THE STATE
OF RESIDENCE ADDRESSES
OF EACH CLASS
MEMBER
WHICH MAY BE
CLASS
OF LAW ISSUES
BUT THE SPECIFIC
OF ALL OF THE THOUSANDS OF PUTATIVE
MEMBERS
INDEED
PLAINTIFFS ASSERTION THAT THEY
SEEK
THE DISCLOSURE
OF CONTACT INFORMATION RELEVANT
FROM PUTATIVE
CLASS
MEMBERS PRECISELY CLAIMS
INDICATES
BECAUSE THESE INDIVIDUALS
THAT PLAINTIFFS
IS
MAY HAVE
INFORMATION
TO PLAINTIFFS
UNDERLYING
INTEND THE TYPE
TO CONDUCT
MASS MAILING
TO ALL OF THESE THOUSANDS OF RETIRED
NFL
IN
IN
PLAYERS THIS AND
IS
PRECISELY
OF PRECERTIFICATION
CONDUCT THAT COURTS HAVE GENERALLY NOT
ARE REPEATEDLY
PERMITTED BROAD
THIS
OF EVEN GREATER CONCERN HERE WHERE PLAINTIFFS CAMPAIGN
AGAINST THE
ON RECORD AS ENGAGING
TO THE REMAINING CLAIMS
POLITICAL
NFLPA
ON ISSUES WHOLLY UNRELATED
CASE
THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY PLAINTIFFS ISSUE DID ARE NOT ON POINT
FINALLY
ON
THIS
556 560 562 2007 SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR TO PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS CONTACT INFORMATION BUT RATHER REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS PERTAINING PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS HOURS WAGES BUSINESSRELATED EXPENSES REPAYMENT OF WAGES TO EMPLOYER TERMINATION WAGES MEAL BREAKS AND REST BREAKS WHICH THE COURT FOUND TO BE RELEVANT TO THE WAGE OF THE ADDRESSES AND HOUR DISPUTE CLAIMS OF THE PUTATIVE CLASS MEMBERS INDEED THE ONLY DISCUSSION BAUER 242
NOT EVEN INVOLVE OF THE PUTATIVE INCIDENTAL CLASS
FRD
CD
FOR EXAMPLE HILL
CAL
MEMBERS WAS IN
OF IDENTIFYING
RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANTS PRIVACY IN
ARGUMENTS BASED ON THE
AT
PRESENCE
INFORMATION
SOME OF
THESE
DOCUMENTS SEE ID
563
HERE
THE GLAS PRODUCED
DATE THE RETIRED PLAYER RESPONSES DURING
ALSO PROVIDE SIGNED THE
THE
NAME
OF EACH SUCH RETIRED PLAYER
WHO AS
SIGNED
THE
IN
GLA
THE
GLA
AND
AND THE DATE THE
GLA
EXPIRED
INDICATED
DEFENDANTS
TO INTERROGATORY
NOS
THERE ARE FOUR ADDITIONAL
RETIRED PLAYERS
WHOSIGNED GLAS
FORMS
OUT OF
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
BUT WHOSE
GLAS
CANNOT BE LOCATED THESE
COURSE OF BUSINESS TO PRODUCE
GLA
THOUSANDS
WERE APPARENTLY
MISPLACED IN THE ORDINARY
ARE WILLING
PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THIS ACTION DEFENDANTS
INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE FOUND ON THE
FOR THESE PERSONS THE SAME
IS
GLA
TO THE EXTENT SUCH INFORMATION
OTHERWISE
AVAILABLE
IN
DEFENDANTS
RECORDS
RYAN HUBERT JANUARY 17 2008
PAGE
PLAINTIFFS CLASS
HAVE FAILED TO OFFER ANY SUBSTANTIVE
IS
RATIONALE
SHOWING
HOWADDRESS
INFORMATION
OF PUTATIVE
MEMBERS
PURPORTEDLY
RELEVANT
THE REMAINDER
SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL
OF PLAINTIFFS
CITED
CASES ARE ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE
ON THE BASIS THAT THEY INVOLVED
FACT
EMPLOYMENTRELATED
PUTATIVE CLASS
CLAIMS
LLLIY
PUTATIVE
CO 508
CLASS
MEMBERS WAS AT SUPP 2D 812 814
TAKE MEAL
WHERE THE SCOPE OF THE DEFENDANTS CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO ISSUE PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION OF ANY CLASS SEE PUTNAM ELI
CD CAL 2007
SD
ABRAMS
MJ CONTACT
INFORMATION
RELEVANT
TO DETERMINING
WHETHER DEFENDANT
HAD PAID PUTATIVE
CLASS MEMBERS OVERTIME PAY AND PERMITTED
MEMBERS TO
2007
CLASS
01330JMPOR
BECAUSE PUTATIVE
BABBITT
WL 628041
INC
BREAKS WIEGELE CAL FEB
FEDEX GROUNDPACKAGE SVS
NO 06CV
2007
1992
CONTACT INFORMATION
RELEVANT
MEMBERS WERE PERCIPIENT
WITNESSES
ALBERTSONS
NO C921883
INFORMATION
SBA
1992
HAMILTON
MJ CONTACT
AGAINST AS TO
PM
IS
TO PLAINTIFFS
WL 605652
CLAIMS
WAGE AND HOUR ZLAIMS CAL NOV 30
ND
RELEVANT
TO PLAINTIFFS
OF DISCRIMINATORY
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
GIVEN NO INDICATION
IN
THEM AND OTHER HISPANIC
INFORMATION
AND FEMALE EMPLOYEES
RELEVANT
TO THEIR
HERE
PLAINTIFFS
HAVE
HOWCONTACT
IS
IS
PURPORTEDLY
CLAIMS
SUM
THE ADDRESS INFORMATION
IF
THE ONLY INFORMATION EVER CERTIFIED
IS
THAT PLAINTIFFS
ARE NOT RECEIVING
THIS
IN
RESPONSE
TO
THESE INTERROGATORIES BUT IN THE MEANTIME
CLASS
WE WILL
RECONSIDER
YOUR REQUEST FOR
INFORMATION
WE BELIEVE
REQUEST
OUR POSITION
THE RIGHT ONE UNDER THE
LAW
INTERROGATORY
NO
INFORMATION AS TO RETIRED
INTERROGATORY
NO
SOUGHT IDENTIFYING
WITHIN
NFL
PLAYERS
WHOPAID
OF TIME
CLUES
TO
BC
MEMBER
OF THE
NELPA GLA
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
AND WITHIN
THE PERIOD
THAT THE
NELPA
DID
CONSTITUTION
ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT
WAS IN
EFFECT BUT
WHO ACCORDING
INFORMATION
TO YOUR RECORDS
NOT SIGN
THE SAME YEAR THAT THEY WERE DISCUSSED
MEMBER
APART FROM THE FACT THAT DEFENDANTS
CONTACT
ASSERTED THE PRINCIPLE
SAME OBJECTIONS
PLAINTIFFS
ABOVE AS TO PROVIDING
AN IMPORTANT
IN
MISS THE POINT THAT DEFENDANTS DID NOT WITHHOLD
ANY INFORMATION
RESPONSE
AT ALL IN
TO
INTERROGATORY
NO
ON THIS GROUND IN FACT DEFENDANTS DID NOT WITHHOLD ANY INFORMATION
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY
PLAYERS THE
NO
THE ANSWER TO
SET FORTH IN
INTERROGATORY
NO
IS
SIMPLY THAT THERE ARE NO RETIRED
AS TC IN THIS VERSION OF
WHO MEET
THE CRITERIA
THAT REQUESTS
WHICH REQUESTED INFORMATION
PERIOD
NELPA
CONSTITUTION
THAT WAS IN EFFECT BEFORE
THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
CASE
IN
DEFENDANTS
RESPECTIVE
RESPONSES
TO INTERROGATORY
NO
WE
OFFERED TO MEET AND CONFER WITH IN DRAFTING
YOU
ABOUT
REFORMULATION
OF INTERROGATORY
NO
THAT WOULD ASSIST PLAINTIFFS
AN INTERROGATORY
FACT SPECIFY
IN
THAT WOULD YIELD
THE INFORMATION
YOU MAY HAVE BEEN SEEKING
ABOUT
BUT THAT YOU DID NOT IN
YOUR INTERROGATORY
SUBJECT TO OUR OBJECTION
PRODUCING CONTACT
INFORMATION
LETTER
FOR WHATEVER AND
REASON YOU HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO TAKE US UP ON OUR OFFER DOCUMENTS NEVER PREVIOUSLY
LETTER
INSTEAD YOUR
DEMANDS INFCRMATION
REQUESTED
BY PLAINTIFFS
IN
DEMANDS THAT WE IDENTIFY
THE
BATES RANGES FOR THE
PROPER DISCOVERY REQUEST FOR EXAMPLE YOUR MARCH 1996 AMENDMENT AND AIL OTHER
WE ARE
MODIFICATION
AWARE OF AND TOOK INTO ACCOUNT YOUR MODIFICATION HAD NO BEARING ON OUR RESPONSE
TO INTERROGATORY
NO
BUT THAT
RYAN
1LILBERT
JANUARY 17 2008 PAGE
NELPA
PLAINTIFFS SERVED
CONSTITUTIONS
THAT WERE IN EFFECT DURING
THE RELEVANT TIME
HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY
MADE ANY
REQUEST FOR THOSE
US WITH
SECOND SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS CALLING
PERIOD YOU APPARENTLY RECOGNIZE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE FEW DAYS AGO YOU FOR SUCH DOCUMENTS WE WILL TIMELY
READERS OR TO REWRITE DISCOVERY REQUESTS AS TO INTERROGATORY
RESPOND TO THAT REQUEST BUT YOU CANNOT EXPECT US TO BE
THAT ARE NOT PROPERLY DRAFTED IN
MIND
SUM
THERE IS NO BONA FIDE
IT
DISPUTE
NO
BECAUSE
DEFENDANTS HAVE FULLY RESPONDED TO THAT REQUEST AS YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM
IF
WAS DRAFTED BY PLAINTIFFS
ABOUT THESE MATTERS
WE WOULD
BE HAPPY TO MEET AND CONFER FURTHER
VERY TRULY YOURS
VID
GREENSPAN
EXHIBIT B
MANATT
MANATT PHELPS
PHILLIPS
RYAN
MANATT PHELPS DIRECT DIAL
HUBERT
PHILLIPS
650
LLP 8121347
EMAIL
RHILBEDMANATTCOM
JANUARY
22 2008
CLIENTMATTEN
29749060
VIA EMAIL
DAVID GREENSPAN ESQ LEBOEUF LLP DEWEY
1301
AVENUE OF
THE
AMERICAS
NEW YORK NY 100196092
RE
BERNARD PAUL PARRISH AND PLAYERS INC CASE
ET AL
NATIONAL
FOOTBALL
LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION
NO C070943 WIIA
DEAR DAVE
THIS JANUARY RESPONDS TO YOUR LETTER DATED JANUARY
17 2008
AND
IS
FURTHER SET
TO
MY
LETTER
DATED
2008
REGARDING DEFENDANTS RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFFS
TO
FIRST
OF INTERROGATORIES
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES
INTERROI
NOS
AND
IN
WE RESPECTFULLY
AND FOR EXAMPLE
DISAGREE WITH
YOUR ASSERTIONS
CONNECTION
WITH
INTERROGATORY
NOS
THAT
FALLS
WE
DO NOT UNDERSTAND
SQUARELY UNDER PARAGRAPHS NOR REASONABLY INO
CALCULATED
8283
TO
OF PLAINTIFFS
LEAD TO THE
HOW YOU CAN ALLEGE THAT INFORMATION THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT IS NEITHER
DISCOVERY OF ADMISSIBLE
RETIRED
RELEVANT
EVIDENCE
COMPARE
INTERROGATORY
CALLING
PRINTED
FOR DEFENDANTS TEXT TO THE
TO IDENTIFY ATTACHED
EACH
HERETO
PLAYER
WHO SIGNED 8283
DEFINING
GLA
THE TO
THAT CONTAINS IDENTICAL
GLA
PLAYERS
AS EXHIBIT
AND THAT WAS IN EFFECT
DURING
THE
STATUTE
OF LIMITATIONS
PERIOD
TO THIRD
AMENDED
AT TO
COMPLAINT
GLA
THE
CLASS
AS ALL
THOSE RETIRED LANGUAGE
NFL
SIMILAR
WHO
ANY TIME
THE POINT
HAVE SENT AN EXECUTED ATTACHED
AS EXHIBIT
GLA
AJ
NFLPA
IN EFFECT
CONTAINING DURING THE
OR IDENTICAL
AT
GLA
THAT
WAS
PERIOD BEGINNING OF THE
LAST
THE
EARLIEST
OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
AND
CONTINUING
UNTIL
THE EXPIRATION
SUCH
GLA
OF RULE
WITH YOUR MISEHARACTERIZATION OF YOUR PRODUCTION YOUR MISAPPLICATION DISAGREE AND YOUR CONTINUED REFUSAL TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS NOS AND INTERROGATORY AND COMPLETELY PARTICULARLY WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTACT INFORMATION OF RETIRED NFL PLAYERS FULLY
WE ALSO
33D
NONETHELESS
ARE WILLING INTELTOGATORY
IN
AN EFFORT TO PUT THIS DISPUTE
FOR THE
BEHIND
US AND IN THE SPIRIT
ISSUES
OF COMPROMISE
WE
AND
TO RESERVE OUR RIGHTS
TIME
BEING
ON THOSE
NOS
AND
WITH
FOOTNOTE
ONE EXCEPTION
AS REQUESTED IN
WE RAISED IN CONNECTION MY LETTER OF JANUARY
PLEASE
LET
WITH
PURSUANT TO YOUR OFFER IN
OF YOUR LETTER OF JANUARY
17
US
KNOW AS
SOON AS
1001
PAGE
MILL
ROAD
BUILDING
PALO ALTO CALIFORNIA
943041006
PUB
TELEPHONE
ALTO
6508121300
FAX 6502130260 WASHINGTON
ALBANY
LOS ANGELT
NEW YORK
ORANGE COUNTY
SACRAMENTO
DC
MANATT
MANATT PHELPS
PHILLIPS
DAVID GREENSPAN ESQ JANUARY 22 2008
PAGE
POSSIBLE
GLAS
NAMES AND INFORMATION OF THOSE BUT WHOSE GLAS CANNOT BE LOCATED
THE TO
FOUR
RETIRED
NFL
PLAYERS
WHOMYOU
SIGNED
DEFENDANTS RESPONSES AS YOU
DEFENDANT WITHIN
HERETO THE
1NTERRO NO
NO
NFL
BUT
KNOW INTERROGATORY
EACH
WAS WERE
IN RETIRED
WHICH
PLAYER
THE
IS
THE
SAME
FOR BOTH
DEFENDANTS
THE DID
CALLS FOR EACH THE
TO IDENTIFY STATUTE
WHO PAID
PERIOD
DUES TO BE
THAT
MEMBER OF
CONSTITUTION
NFLPA
ATTACHED
OF LIMITATIONS
EFFECT
AND WITHIN
OF TIME
AS EXHIBIT
WHO ACCORDING
TO YOUR RECORDS
NOT SIGN
GLA
THE
SAME
YEAR THAT THEY PUTTING
ASIDE
MEMBER
OBJECTIONS THAT ISSUE
DEFENDANTS
DISCUSS
CONCERNING ANOTHER TIME
RELEVANCY
WHICH YOU
APPEAR TO HAVE
ARE ENTITLED TO
ABANDONED THOUGH WE CAN
THE RETIRED PLAYERS
CONTACT REFUSE
AND WHETHER PLAINTIFFS
TO RESERVE
INFORMATION
TO PROVIDE IN
WHICH WE ARE
WILLING
OUR RIGHTS
ON AS
ABOVE
THE THE
YOU DISINGENUOUSLY
ANY RESPONSE TO THIS
INTERROGATORY
ON
IN
THE
GROUND THAT THE DURING WITH
NFLPA
RELEVANT
CONSTITUTION STATUTE
IDENTIFIED
INTERROGATORY THE
NO
MERITS
WAS NO LONGER YOU
REFUSE
EXISTENCE
PLAINTIFFS
OF LIMITATIONS
IN
AT
SAME TIME
THE
TO PROVIDE
INFORMATION
THEY NEED
ORDER TO ASSESS
OF YOUR POSITION
AND
REACH
SUITABLE
COMPROMISE MORE SPECIFICALLY
ALLOW PLAINTIFFS
YOU
REFUSE
TO IDENTIFY THE
TO ACCURATELY
ASSESS
THE BATES RANGE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD MERITS OF YOUR POSITION IRONICALLY YOU STATE THAT SUCH
PLAINTIFFS IN
DOCUMENTS WERE NEVER
PREVIOUSLY
IS
REQUESTED BY
THE
PROPER
DISCOVERY
REQUEST
HOWEVER THIS
1994
ARGUMENT
BELIED TO
BY
FACT THAT DEFENDANTS
HAVE ALREADY PRODUCED THE MARCH
THAT FACT
CONSTITUTION
P1027327
P1027346
THEREBY CONCEDING
IN
IS
DEFENDANTS
THAT
CONSIDERED SUCH PROPOUNDED
DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE AT LEAST AT ONE POINT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT REQUESTS ON THIS MATTER
INFORMED
ADDITIONAL
TIME
THE
ON THIS
PLAINTIFFS
NOT PERSUASIVE
RIGHTS
YOU
THAT PLAINTIFFS
WERE RESERVING
THEIR
AS YOU KNOW WE EXPRESSLY ISSUE AT THE TIME WE SENT YOU THE
REQUESTS
ALSO REFUSE TO EXPLAIN CONSTITUTION
YOU
MARCH 1994
DIFFERED
HOW THE
TERMS OF THE CONSTITUTION CONTINUED FOR
ALL
THAT ALLEGEDLY STATUTE
SUCCEEDED THE PERIOD
AND
PRESUMABLY
INTO
THE
OF LIMITATIONS
FROM THE
MARCH 1994
PLAYERS
CONSTITUTION OF THE VARIOUS
TO
PLAINTIFFS
KNOW THE
TERMS AT LEAST AS THEY
RELATE TO RETIRED
NFL
NFLPA
CONSTITUTIONS
ARE THE
SAME WE
GROUNDS
TRUST THAT
DEFENDANTS
ARE
NOT OBJECTING
INTERROGATORY
NO
ON PURELY TECHNICAL
WHEN
THE
SUBSTANCE OF THEIR RESPONSE WOULD NOT CHANGE
YOU
INCORRECTLY
STATE THAT
FLOR
IS
MEET AND CONFER ABOUT THIS ISSUE
THAT
WHATEVER REASON EWE HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO TAKE YOUL UP ON LYOURJ OFFER TO NOT TRUE AS EXPLAINED ABOVE THE REASON PLAINTIFFS REQUESTED CERTAIN CLAIMS SO THAT WE COULD MORE EFFICIENTLY AND
EFFECTIVELY
INFORMATION WAS TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE MERITS OF DEFENDANTS REACH COMPROMISE
MANATT
MANATT PHELPS
PHILLIPS
DAVID GREENSPAN ESQ JANUARY 22 2008
PAGE
NOTWITHSTANDING
THE
AT
THE
FOREGOING
WE ARE
PREPARED TO DISCUSS
THIS
MATTER OVER THE PHONE IN PLEASE GIVE
HOPE OF RESOLVING THE DISPUTE
WITHOUT THE NEED FOR COURT INTERVENTION
ME
CALL
YOUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE
VERY
TRULY
YOURS
HUBERT RYAN MANATT PHELPS
PHILLIPS
LLP
CC
RONALD DAVID
KATZ ESQ FEHER ESQ
201882182
EXHIBIT C
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?