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)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 6 Case No. C 07 0943 WHA Parrish v. National Football League Players Association, et al. HIGHLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT CONFIDENTIAL COURT SOUTHERN BERNARD DISTRICT PAUL OF NEW YORK ET PARRISH AL PLAINTIFFS AGAINST NATIONAL FOOTBALL ET LEAGUE PLAYERS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL ASSOCIATION AL DEFENDANTS CASE 10 11 12 13 14 NO C07 0943 WHA 399 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK NEW YORK APRIL 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 904 AM 2008 DEPOSITION OF ADAM ZUCKER PURSUART NOTARY TO SUBPOENA OF THE BEFORE SOPHIE OF NOLAN PUBLIC STATE NEW YORK ELLEN 126 GRAUER COURT REPORTING CO LLC EAST 56TH STREET FIFTH FLOOR NEW YORK NEW YORK 10022 212 7506434 REF 87185A APPEARANCES MOKOOL SMITH ATTORNEYS 300 FOR PLAINTIFF CRESCENT TEXAS COURT 75201 SUITE 1500 DALLAS BY LEWIS BRETT PHONE LECLAIR CHARHON ESQ ESQ 2149784984 2149784044 LLECLAIRMCKOOLSMITH CORN 10 11 12 13 14 FAX EMAIL DEWEY LEBOEUF FOR LLP 15 16 17 18 ATTORNEYS 1301 DEFENDANTS OF AVENUE THE AMERICAS NEW YORK NEW YORK 100196092 BY DAVID IAN GREENSPAN ESQ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAPENDICK 212259 212259 ESQ 6438 6333 PHONE FAX EMAIL DGREENSPAN APPEARANCES INGRAM YUZEK GAINEN CONTD BERTOLOTT LLP CARROLL ATTORNEYS 250 FOR NONPARTY PARK WITNESS AVENUE NEW YORK 10177 NEW YORK BY DAVID MIOKO PHONE EBERT TAJIKA 212 ESQ ESQ 9079603 10 11 12 FAX 2129079681 DEBERTINGRAMLLPCOM EMAIL 13 14 ALSO PRESENT JOHN 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MARTUCCI LEGAL VIDEOGRAPHER 77 ZUCKER CONTACTING THIRD HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL PARTIES GOING THROUGH PLAYERS WITHOUT INC MR EBERT QUESTION OBJECTION IS THAT MR LECLAIR MR EBERT QUESTION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 YES OBJECT TO THAT MR LECLAIR REPHRASE DID ALL RIGHT ILL IT YOU JOB TELL OF PLAYERS NOT INC THAT YOU WOULD DO PARTIES BETTER WITHOUT CONTACTING THIRD GOING THROUGH PLAYERS OBJECTION TO THIS WENT INC TO MR GREENSPAN THINK WE SAID THAT WE APOLOGIZE FORM PURSUANT EXAMPLE CLOWN FOR HOW THIS DO AND NEXT TIME IF WELL YOU BETTER JOB AN WANTED TO GET YOU ACTIVE HAVE TO PLAYER GO GET TO SIGN AUTOGRAPHS DID ALSO AN AGREEMENT TO DO THAT WHAT DO YOU IN PLEASE CLARIFY THAT SURE TO AND OTHER WORDS IM TRYING UNDERSTAND RERIRED THE DIFFERENCES IN BETWEEN ACTIVE PLAYERS TERMS OF TOPPS 78 ZUCKER HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENTS OKAY OR HIGHLIGHT AGREEMENTS AUTO AGREEMENTS MR EBERT THINK SAY LETS OBJECTION WHEN YOU WITNESS IS YOURE MISCHARACTERIZING AUTO AGREEMENTS THAT THE CLEAR THESE AND AGREEMENTS ARE MORE THAN KEEP AUTOGRAPHS 10 11 12 13 14 YOU TRYING TO SAY ITS AN AUTOGRAPH OBJECT ON IT AGREEMENT THAT BASIS AND ASK IF YOU YOU TO CHARACTERIZE MORE PROPERLY WOULD HAVE YOU REFERRED TO THEM GS AUTO 15 16 17 18 AGREEMENTS NO YOU NEVER REFERRED TO THEM AS AUTO AGREEMENTS MIGHT YOU HAVE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REFERRED MIGHT TO THAT TO KNOW TO AN AGREEMENT QOT OF TALK SOMEBODY HEY BUT MY THE AN AUTOQRAPH AQREEMENT AGREEMENT THAT IS DEFINITION HAVE WITH THE PLAYERS DEPARTMENT AND INC THAT THAT THAT FACILITATED THROUGH HIGHLIGHT FROM OVERSEE ITS AGREEMENT COULD INCLUDE ANYTHING 79 ZIIICKER HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL AUTOGRAPHS TO AUTOGRAPHS YOU KNOW CONTRACTING CONTRACTING PACKAGING RIGHTS FOR AD RIGHTS AN APPEARANCE ON BASE CAMP RIGHTS RETIRED PLAYERS CARDS SO AN AT TIMES MIGHT REFER TO BUT MY IRL IT AS AUTOGRAPH AGREEMENT IN INTERNALLY THE CATEGORY THE CARD CATEGORY WITH AN COMPETITORS 10 11 12 13 14 WITH AGENT WE USE WE USE THE WORD HIGHLIGHT CALL IT AGREEMENT ELSE PLAYERS WE CALL IT INC MIGHT SOMETHING HIGHLIGHT AGREEMENT NOW SPECIFICALLY IF MY QUESTION PLAYER TO IS YOU WANTED TO TO AN GET VETERAN DID WHO WAS 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ACTIVE INTO SIGN CARDS WITH YOU HAVE ENTER AGREEMENT THERE THEM ABOUT THAT MR EBERT THE THEM PLAYER BEING WHO ACTIVE WE WOULD NEGOTIATE THE RESPECTIVE AUTOGRAPH AGREEMENT THROUGH PLAYERS INC AN AGREEMENT WOULD BE DRAWN UP BETWEEN TOPPS AND THE PLAYERS RIGHTS OF INC OR FOR SERVICES OF WHOEVER OR APPEARANCE AND TELL ME OF WHAT WAS DLFFEIENT 80 ZUCKER ABOUT RETIRED THAT AS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL THE SAME OPPOSED TO TO AGREEMENT WITH PLAYER DO THE THING IF THE AGREEMENT ITSELF WITH YCU WERENT FAMILIAR AT FOOTBALL YOU THE WOULD LOOK ONLY IT THEY WOULD LOOK SIMILAR IS DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THE RETIRED AGREEMENT THERE RIGHTS PARAGRAPH THATS GRANTING US RIGHTS 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE ACTIVE RIGHTS PLAYER AGREEMENT WE ARE WOULDNT RECEIVING HAVE THOSE PARAGRAPH BECAUSE RIGHTS TO RESPECTIVE THESE MAKE CARDS THROUGH ONE OF LICENSING AGREEMENTS YOUVE PRESENTED MR EBERT REFERRINQ STICKER TO THE WITNESS IS EXHIBITS WHAT DOES THAT SAY THE WITNESS 390 IT WOULD HE 394 393 DID 392 ANYONE FROM PLAYERS ALREADY HAD RIQHTS INC EVER TELL YOU THAT THEY FROM CERTAIN RETIRED PLAYERS NO YOU DIDNT KNOW THAT AT AL THE MR EBERT OBJECTION 109 CERTIFICATE STATE OF NEW YORK SS COUNTY OF NEW YORK SOPHIE WITHIN AND NOLAN STATE NOTARY PUBLIC OF NEW YORK DO FOR THE HEREBY CERTIFY 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 THAT ADAM ZUCKER IS THE WITNESS BEFORE SET SUCH WHOSE DEPOSITION HEREIN FORTH WAS DULY IS SWORN BY ME AND THAT TRUE BY DEPOSITION TESTIMONY RECORD OF THE GIVEN FURTHER SUCH WITNESS THAT AM NOT TO CERTIFY OF RELATED ACTION AM THIS IN TO ANY THE PARTIES THIS THAT BY BLOOD OR MARRIAGE IN AND THE NO WAY INTERESTED OUTCOME OF MATTER IN WITNESS WHEREOF 14TH DAY OF HAVE HEREUNTO 5TT RN HDND THIS APILL 2008 22 23 24 25 F0 SOPHIE NOLAN

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?