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) [e-mail] DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone] Jeffrey L. Kessler (pro hac vice) [e-mail] David G. Feher (pro hac vice) [e-mail] David Greenspan (pro hac vice) [e-mail] DEWEY & LEBOEUF LLP 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone] Kenneth L. Steinthal (pro hac vice) [e-mail] WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone] Bruce S. Meyer (pro hac vice) [e-mail] WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone] 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 [phone] 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