Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated
Filing
385
Declaration of Jeffrey Kessler in Support of 384 Letter Dated August 1, 2008 filed byNational Football League Players Incorporated, National Football League Players Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19)(Related document(s) 384 ) (Padnos, Todd) (Filed on 8/25/2008)
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
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?