Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated

Filing 344

Declaration of JEFFREY KESSLER in Support of 343 Letter Brief DEFENDANTS REPLY LETTER BRIEF filed byNational Football League Players Incorporated, National Football League Players Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EXHIBIT 1 MANUAL FILING NOTICE, # 2 Exhibit EXHIBIT 2 MANUAL FILING NOTICE, # 3 Exhibit EXHIBIT 3 MANUAL FILING NOTICE, # 4 Exhibit EXHIBIT 4 MANUAL FILING NOTICE, # 5 Exhibit EXHIBIT 5, # 6 Exhibit EXHIBIT 6 MANUAL FILING NOTICE, # 7 Exhibit EXHIBIT 7 MANUAL FILING NOTICE, # 8 Exhibit EXHIBIT 8, # 9 Exhibit EXHIBIT 9 MANUAL FILING NOTICE, # 10 Exhibit EXHIBIT 10, # 11 Exhibit EXHIBIT 11, # 12 Exhibit EXHIBIT 12, # 13 Exhibit EXHIBIT 13, # 14 Exhibit EXHIBIT 14, # 15 Exhibit EXHIBIT 15, # 16 Exhibit EXHIBIT 16, # 17 Exhibit EXHIBIT 17 MANUAL FILING NOTICE, # 18 Exhibit EXHIBIT 18, # 19 Exhibit EXHIBIT 19 MANUAL FILING NOTICE)(Related document(s) 343 ) (Padnos, Todd) (Filed on 8/1/2008)

EXHIBIT 15

Case No. C 07 0943 WHA Parrish v. National Football League Players Association, et al.

PAGES

12

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT
BEFORE THE

OF CALIFORNIA

HONORABLE WILLIAM

ALSUP

BERNARD PAUL PARRISH HERBERT ANTHONY ADDERLEY WALTER ROBERTS

III
PLAINTIFFS

VS
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION AND NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS INCORPORATED DBA PLAYERS INC

NO

0700943

WHA

10 11

SAN FRANCISCO DEFENDANTS

CALIFORNIA

WEDNESDAY
JUNE

12 13 14 15 16 17

11

2008

TRANSCRIPT APPEARANCES FOR PLAINTIFFS

OF PROCEEDINGS

MANATT PHELPS
1001 PAGE

BY
18 19 20 21 22

LLP PHILLIPS MILL ROAD BUILDING TWO PALO ALTO CALIFORNIA 94304 RYAN HILBERT ESQUIRE

MCKOOL SMITH 300 CRESCENT COURT SUITE

1500

DALLAS

TEXAS

75201

BY
FOR DEFENDANTS

LEWIS

LECLAIR

ESQUIRE

BY
23 24 25

DEWEY LLP LEBOEUF 1301 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS NEW YORK NEW YORK 10019 DAVID FEHER ESQUIRE

REPORTED BY

JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI CSR 5435 RPR OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER DISTRICT

US

COURT

11

THE

REASON ITS

DENIED

IS

THAT

THE IN

SALARY

PAID

TO

UPSHAW IS

SO FAR

REMOVED FROM THE
HIS

ISSUES

THIS AND

CASE
TRY MAKE

THAT

DONT
ISSUE

SEE IN

ANY REASON TO INVADE
THIS

PRIVACY

HIM THE

CASE
CANNOT IMAGINE

SCENARIO WHERE WE SAY TO THE
HIS

JURY
EITHER
PLAYERS

YOU GO AND DECIDE
THE

WHETHER UPSHAW EARNS
YOU SHOWED ME THE

MONEY OR NOT
DAY GIVES IN THAT THE

CONTRACT THAT
OR IT IF THE

OTHER

SOME RIGHTS OUT

DOESNT
PLAYERS JUST

WE CERTIFIED SOME RIGHTS

CLASS UNDER

ORDER TO FIND
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

HAVE BEING

AGREEMENT AND THAT PLAYERS ASSOCIATION

THEYRE

TOTALLY

SCREWED

BY THE

CANT
INTO THAT

IMAGINE

ANY SCENARIOS

WHERE
SO WHETHER HE

UPSHAWS SALARY
EARNS IT OR

TIES

SOMEHOW EVEN LESS

NOT
THE FACT
IS

THAT

THEY

NEGOTIATED

DEAL

THATS
THAT THAT

WHAT

THEYRE PAYING HIM
SO IF

THATS
YOUR CASE
THINK

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION
DEPENDS

THEY GOT TO MEET UPSHAW IS ADVISE GETTING

UPON SHOWING
IN

OVERPAID

YOURE

TROUBLE

WOULD

YOU TO COME UP WITH 50 THIS

BETTER THEORY

MOTION IS

DENIED

IM
DID

HANDING BACK THESE CHAMBERS

THINGS

YOU ASKED ME TO LOOK HAVE THIS

AT

REVIEW THEM IN
THAT

AND THEY
STAKE IN

NOTHING TO DO WITH THE

ROYALTIES

ARE AT

CASE
PART

IT
IS

DOES FOR THE RECORD LIST TRUE
FOR THE REASONS

WHAT HIS

23 24 25

SALARY IS
NOT

THAT

STATED

THATS

RELEVANT ENOUGH TO GET INTO

OKAY

THANK

YOU COUNSEL