Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated

Filing 406

Declaration of ROY TAUB in Support of 405 MOTION in Limine DEFENDANTS MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING HOW DEFENDANTS ALLEGEDLY SPENT MONIES CLAIMED BY PLAINTIFFS, AND EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ECONOMIC WEALTH OF DEFENDANTS AND ACTIVE NFL PLAYERS filed byNational Football League Players Incorporated, National Football League Players Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) 405 ) (Padnos, Todd) (Filed on 10/8/2008)

EXHIBIT 1

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

PROCEEDINGS

WEDNESDAY

JUNE

11

2008

THE

CLERK

CALLING

CIVIL

ACTION

07943

ITS

PARRISH

VERSUS NATIONAL COUNSEL

FOOTBALL LEAGUE
STATE

PLEASE

YOUR APPEARANCES AND RYAN

HR LCLAIR
HILBERT
ON BEHALF THE OF THE

YOUR HONOR LEW LECLAIR
PLAINTIFFS

COURT

ALL DAVID

RIGHT

WELCOME BACK
OF THE

MR FEHER
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

FEHER ON BEHALF
HOPE

DEFENDANTS

IM MR
ABSENSE

KESSLERS

PARTNER

YOULL EXCUSE

ME FOR HIS

THE

COURT

THAT
FEIIER

FEHER

DID

YOU

SAY

HR FEHER
THE

FEHER
HERE

COURT RIGHT

OKAY MR FEHER YOU ARE MOST WELCOME

ALL

WE

ON

DISCOVERY

DISPUTE

MR LECLAIR HR LGCLAIR
THINK
THEIR THE

WHATS THE ISSUE
YOUR HONOR THANK
PARTIES IN THIS HAVE

YOU

WORKED HARD TO RESOLVE
BUT THIS ONE WE SIMPLY

DISCOVERY

DISPUTES

CASE
JUST

COULD NOT RESOLVE YOU
BIT

AND IF

COULD

SPEND

MOMENT GIVING

OF BACKGROUND ABOUT

THIS
OF THE CASE IS

22
23

OUR THEORY
THAT
40

ONE OF OUR THEORIES

OF EACH DOLLAR OF LICENSING

REVENUE APPROXIMATELY
SHARE

24 25

PERCENT IS

PAID

AS AN EQUAL

ROYALTY THEY

WE CLAIM

THAT

SHOULD HAVE

GONE TO THE

RETIRED

PLAYERS

OBVIOUSLY

CLAIM
60

IT

SHOULDNT HAVE

AND THATS

DISPUTE

WELL HAVE

BUT

PERCENT OF EACH DOLLAR OF LICENSING

REVENUE GOES TO THE NFL OVERHEAD AND
TOO THAT

PA AND PLAYERS OTHER COSTS

INC

PRESUMABLY TO COVER THEIR

AND WE HAVE AN EXPERT WHO SAYS

THATS
IS

HIGH

AND WE ALSO HAVE AN EXPERT WHO SAYS PART

OF THIS

MR UPSHAWS

COMPENSATION IS

EXTEAORDINARILY ABOUT

HIGH

WE HAVE

SOME INFORMATION

MR UPSHAWS
HIGHLY THE

COMPENSATION BOTH IN CONFIDENTIAL
10 11 12 13 14 15 16

PUBLICLY

FILED

DOCUMENTS AND IN
BUT WE DO NOT HAVE

FINANCIAL
TO

STATEMENTS

INFORMATION

SHOW US HOW MUCH HE WAS PAID

EACH YEAR
BECAUSE HE TAKES

HE DOUBLE BIG SALARY

DIPS

IN

OUR THINKING

FROM THE NFL

PA

THE

UNION

AND

BIG

SALARY

FROM
IS

PLAYERS
MUCH IS

INC
HE PAID

AND HE GETS
EACH

BONUSES
SALARY

WHAT WE

DONT KNOW
HE PAID

HOW

YEAR IN

HOW MUCH IS

IN

SUPPOSED BONUS HOW MUCH COMES FROM PLAYERS
COMES FROM THE

INC
IS

AND HOW MUCH
TO US THIS

NFL

PA

AND THAT

INFORMATION

IMPORTANT THAT

17
18 19 20 21 22 23

TO UNDERSTAND AND TO HELP

OUR EXPERT WHO IS

OPINING

COMPENSATION
THE TOTAL

THAT

THE IS

AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION IS
TAKEN TO TAKE BY THE

TOO HIGH

AND

AMOUNT THAT
TO TAKE

TWO DEFENDANTS
60

COLLECTIVELY LICENSING AND THATS

MORE THAN

PERCENT

OF EVERY

DOLLAR IS
WHAT 50

TO OUR WAY OF TRYING ONE TO

THINKING

OUTRAGEOUSLY HIGH

WERE
IS

PROVE

THIS

FACT

ITS

NOT BUT IT

THE IS

ONLY

FACT

IT

24 25

MAY NOT BE THE MOST IMPORTANT

FACT

AN IMPORTANT
OF EXACTLY HOW

FACT

FOR US TO GET THE

DETAILS

YEARBYYEAR

MUCH IT

IS

THAT
IS

MR

UPSHAW IS

MAKING FROM EACH ENTITY AND HOW MUCH OF IT
IS

AND

HOW

MUCH OF THAT

DISCRETIONARY

FIXED

AND

THATS

WHY WE WANTED TO SEE THESE

EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS OF

MR UPSHAW
AND YOUR HONOR CAN DECIDE
WANTS TO DECIDE TO PROTECT THE
IT

WHATEVER RULES

YOUR HONOR

CONFIDENTIALITY

OF THE

INFORMATION

BUT

IS
IT

IN

OUR WAY OF THINKING
OF HAVING

RELEVANT AND ACCURATE INFORMATION
TIME THAT OF
IT

WERE ENTITLED
INFORMATION
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

TO SEE AND

FOR PURPOSES

THAT
HAVE

WHY WEVE ASKED RAISED
WAS THEY

FOR THIS

THEY THESE

ONLY

ONE OBJECTION

AT THE

REQUESTS

AND TEAT

RAISED

AN OBJECTION

WAS IRRELEVANT

AND THEN THEY

CLAIM

WE WERE ON SOME PUBLICITY

STUNT

THATS ALL
IT
IS

THEYVE SAID
IN

RELEVANT

OUR WAY OF THINKING AND FOR THAT

THEY

DID

NOT

RAISE

ANY OTHER OBJECTION
US THOSE

REASON WE ASK

YOUR HONOR TO GIVE
THANK THE

CONTRACTS

YOU
ALL

COURT FEHER

RIGHT

MR FEHER
YOUR HONOR
THING

WHAT DO YOU SAY

THANK YOU
MOST

THINK DOCUMENTS IS
NOT

THE

IMPORTANT

ABOUT THESE
WHICH
IS

WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING

HERE

WHETHER OR

22
23

THEYRE RELEVANT
RELEVANT
TO THE

AND THE QUESTION

ISNT

WHETHER OR NOT MIGHT WANT UPSHAW IS
HAVE

THEYRE
TO MAKE PAID TOO

TO SOME ARGUMENT THAT TO STAMP HIS FEET

MR LECLAIR
AND SAY

24 25

JURY

MR

MUCH WHETHER THEYRE RELEVANT CLAIMS

PLAINTIFFS

ASSERTED
WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THE CLAIMS PLAYERS

PLAINTIFFS

HAVE AS MUCH

ASSERTED THEY SAID

THE

RETIRED

ARENT GETTING
THE

MONEY AS THEY SHOULD
THAT THEIR THAT

WHEN YOU LOOK AT

DAMAGES ANALYSIS

EXPERT HAS ALREADY PUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT
WERE ALLOCATED OF CONTRACTS THAT IN THE

IN

THE

DAMAGES THAT

ANALYSIS

IS

SAYING

REVENUES

COME

IN

INSTEAD PLAYERS PLAYERS

OF HOW THEY

TERMS

OF MONEY TO ACTIVE

WITH CERTAIN SEPARATELY
10 11 12 13 14 15 16

APART IT

FROM WHATEVER RETIRED
BE DIVIDED

RECEIVED
PLAYERS THE

SHOULD

EQUALLY AMONG

THE

ACTIVE

AND RETIRED
IN

PLAYERS
TERMS OF THE

PROBLEM IS
SHOULD DID ON GET

CLAIM

SAYING

THE

RETIRED

PLAYERS

MORE WHATEVER THE NFL PA OR
CAME IN

PLAYERS
THEY

INC
IT

WITH MONEY THAT

SEPARATELY
SPENT

WHETHER
IT

SPENT

MR UPSEAWS

CONTRACT OR THEY

ON

NEW BUILDING BUILDING
ARE ALL

WHICH THEY DID
SPENT

RECENTLY WHEN THEY MOVED TO
IT
IT

NEW
THOSE

WHETHER THEY
JUST

ON

NEW COFFEE

MACHINE

17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

EXPENDITURES

HAS NOTHING

TO DO WITH

PLAINTIFFS

CLAIMS
IN TERMS AT OF THE THE END

STATEMENT THAT
OF DISCOVERY THEY

NFL PAS OVERHEAD IS
THIS
IS

TOO

HIGH

WERE

NOW

THE

LAST TO

DISCOVERY ASK

DISPUTE

BEFORE YOU

HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY NO QUESTIONS WERE

MR

UPSHAW ABOUT HIS
THEY

COMPENSATION

ASKED

HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY NFL

AND ACTUALLY
DESIGNEE

THEY

DID

ASK

QUESTIONS

OF THE

PAS 30B

ON ACCOUNTING

MATTERS GLEN LYRE

PHONETIC

FROM THE

INDEPENDENT

ACCOUNTING

FIRM
TIED

MR
IT

LYRE

SAID TIED

THAT

MR UPSHAWS COMPENSATION CANT
REVENUES
CLAIMS

BE

ISNT ITS

TO ANY FORM OF LICENSING

WHATSOEVER

COMPLETELY DISCONNECTED FROM THE
YOU

HERE

WHAT WE HAVE HERE
IS JUST

KNOW IN

THE

FINAL

ANALYSIS
TO GET

REQUEST TO TRY
THAT SAY HAVE

TO GET

INTO

SIDESHOW TO TRY

INTO

THINGS

NOTHING TO DO WITH PLAINTIFFS
BAD JOB

CLAIMS AND IS
PAID THIS

BUT RATHER
TOO

SOMEHOWMR UPSHAW DID
IS

MUCH

THAT

JUST

NOT

FAIR

GROUNDS

FOR ARGUMENT IN

CASE
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

IT
WHICH
AFIELD
IT TRULY

NOT RELEVANT DOES CLAIMS OPEN TEE

TO PLAINTIFFS

CLAIMS
THAT AND

BESIDES

DOOR TO ISSUES
IN THIS ISSUES CASE

ARE SO FAR
THAT HAVE

FROM THE

REMAINING
THE

MUCH MORE TO DO WITH
THIS COURT IN

POLITICAL

THAT

HAVE

BEEN

BEFORE
HAS

PRIOR MOTIONS FROM THE

AND MATTERS THAT
THAT

THIS SUCH

COURT

ALREADY STRICKEN
THAT IT

CLAIMS
AT

ITS

DIVERSION

REALLY MAKES NO SENSE

ALL
EVEN IF
THEY

MR UPSHAWS PERFORMANCE
ARGUE

WOULD LIKE
FIRST INTO TO

TO

MR
ITS

UPSHAW HASNT
NOT

PERFORMED AS HOW HE SHOULD SECONDLY
IF

OFF
BIG

CONNECTED TO CLAIMS
AS TO HOW

WE GET

DISCUSSION

MR UPSHAW PERFORMED

WERE

GOING

BE ARGUING IN THE 2006

ABOUT

WHETHER OR NOT MR UPSHAWS GREAT PERFORMANCE BARGAINING
HIS

COLLECTIVE JUSTIFY

NEGOTIATIONS
TO THE

WITH

THE

NFL

OWNERS MORE THAN

SALARY

POINT

WHERE

24
25

THINK
PUBLIC

AS YOUR HONOR

KNOWS THE NFL OWNERS AS
SOME FURTHER YEARS

MATTER OF
OF THE

RECORD HAVE

TERMINATED

COLLECTIVE PUBLICLY
PLAYERS

BARGAINING

AGREEMENT
TOO GREAT

THEYRE
JOB

ESSENTIALLY

SAYING

MR
IN

UPSHAW DID
LAST

ON BEHALF

OF THE

THE 50

NEGOTIATION
HERE HAVE

PLAINTIFFS IN

BEEN ARGUING
IN 2007

THERES
AND ITS
GAME IN THE

SUDDEN INCREASE INEXPLICABLE
THIS ISSUES

MR UPSHAWS
IT IS

SALARY SHOULD
IT

SO THEREFORE
BUT THE

SOMEHOW BE FAIR

TRIAL
IN

REALITY

HAS NOTHING

TO DO WITH

THIS

CASE
IN

WE MADE AN
10 11 12 13 14 15 16

CAMERA SUBMISSION
THE

OF

THE

EMPLOYMENT

CONTRACTS
TIED IN

THERES NOTHING IN

CONTRACTS THEMSELVES LICENSING

THATS

ANY WAY SHAPE RETIRED

OR FORM TO THE

REVENUE AT ALL

MUCH LESS

PLAYER LICENSING
INTO ABOUT SIDE

REVENUE AT ALL
THAT WILL

RATHER
YIELD

ITS

JUST

DIVERSION

ISSUES

JUST

DEBATE AND DISCUSSION
THIS

THINGS

HAVING

NOTHING TO DO WITH

CASE
IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE
IS

PARTICULARS
AS

DO WANT TO

17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

NOTE EVEN THOUGH IT
FEDERAL LABOR LAW

COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT
TOTAL

MATTER OF DISCLOSED

MR UPSHAWS

COMPENSATION IS
THE TOTAL

UNDER DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

REGULATIONS

AMOUNTS ARE

THERE
WHAT

SO

THERES NO DISPUTE
PLAINTIFFS
THINK

AS TO WHAT THE TO GET

DOLLAR AMOUNTS ARE
IS

THINK

ARE TRYING
PART TO ARGUE

INTO

THE

DETAILS

ALSO

OF THE

REASON WERE STANDING

HERE AND
BECAUSE THIS
THE SAME

DONT WANT
IS

TOO MUCH ABOUT PRINCIPLE OR

QUESTION AS TO WHATS RELEVANT

NOT

AT

TIME

THERES MUCH MISCHIEF

IF

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS

IN ARE THE

FULL NOT CASE

OF

UNION HEAD ARE PRODUCIBLE
TO THE THE

IN

MANNER WHERE THEY
THIS
IS

RELEVANT GIVEN

UNDERLYING
NFL

CLAIMS
IN THE

ESPECIALLY

THAT

PA IS

MIDST
NFL

OF COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING

NEGOTIATIONS

RIGHT NOW WITH THE
TO BE NOTED

OWNERS

SO

THATS

CONCERN AT LEAST

HERE
THE LETTERS THAT HAVE

THERES ALSO
BEEN SUBMITTED
IN TERMS

REFERENCE IN
OF REALLOCATING

MR UPSHAWS SALARY
PLAINTIFFS
AS THEY ARE

NOW

WE TOOK

THAT

TO MEAN

THAT

IN

EFFECT
JUST

TRYING
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

TO REDUCE ALL

MR UPSHAWS SALARY
THIS CASE THAT

MADE PUBLIC
IS

STATEMENTS

ALONG IN

MR UPSHAW
THE

OVERPAID

DURING THE MEET AND CONFER IN
SURE TIME
IF

ROOM

IM

NOT

DISAVOWED IS

EXACTLY

THE

RIGHT

WORD BUT AT THE SAME
NOT WHAT THEY PROOF OF

PLAINTIFFS

COUNSEL

INDICATED

THATS

INTENDED

RATHER IT

RELATES

SOMEHOW TO THEIR

REALLOCATION

AND

ASSUME DAMAGES OF SOME SORT AGAIN
THEIR
IS

THE

PROBLEM WITH THAT

ITS

DISCONNECTED
ARE THEY THE THE HAVE

FROM ANY RELEVANCE TO THE ALREADY

CASE
REPORTS

EXPERT REPORTS
DO WHAT TO TAKE

IN

THEIR
SINCE
IT

EXPERT THE

ON DAMAGES

BEEN CLAIMING AND THEN
DIVIDE

BEGINNING
THE

WHICH IS PLAYERS

REVENUE

AMONG ALL

INCLUDING

RETIRED

PLAYERS
OF

THERES NO ANALYSIS
IT

OF OVERHEAD

THERES NO ANALYSIS

EXPENSES

JUST

DOESNT RELATE TO THE CLAIMS
HAVE DONE HAD

PLAINTIFFS

EVERY OPPORTUNITY

TO PURSUE

24
25

THIS
THE

THEY

HAVE

NOT

SO

ITS

REALLY

QUESTION

OF

AT

VERY END OF DISCOVERY

MAKING

REQUEST FOR

VERY PERSONAL

DOCUMENT RELATING MAY BE BOILERPLATE PRINCIPLE
THIS

TO

MR UPSHAWS
AT THE

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

WHILE

IT

SAME TIME

ITS

AN

IMPORTANT TO THE CLAIMS TO BE IN

AND GIVEN
WE BELIEVE

ITS

COMPLETE

IRRELEVANCE

CASE

THERES REALLY NO POINT

AT ALL

SERVED
THE

BURDEN IS WE THINK

THEIRS
THEY

ITS

SENSITIVE

EMPLOYMENT
TO CARRYING

DOCUMENTATION THEIR

HAVENT COME CLOSE

BURDEN AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR HONOR DENY THE

MOTION
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

THANK YOU
THE

COURT

MR

LECLAIR THINK

ANY REBUTTAL
ONE VERY IMPORTANT

HR LECLAIR
HONOR

POINT

YOUR

MR

FEHER SAID
IN

GUESS

TWO

POINTS

HE SAID

THAT

WE DISAVOWED SOMETHING

OUR FILING

AND

WANT TO DISAGREE WHAT WE SAID IS WAS

WITH THEIR

THAT

WE DID TOO

NOT

MAKE THE ARGUMENT AND PART
OF THAT

AMOUNT IS AND

HIGH

MR UPSHAWS
TO THE AND

SALARY
NOT

GREATER PORTION UNION OFFICIALS AND THATS
TO THE

SHOULD

BE GOING

PLAYERS
SO

TO THESE

AND OVERHEAD COSTS

THATS

WHAT WE SAID
STILL SAYING

WHAT WE

MEANT AND THATS

WHAT

WERE

COURT
IS

THE

SECOND POINT

HE SAID IN

THESE THE

TOTAL

AMOUNTS ARE
WHICH
IS

DISCLOSED

BUT

YOUR HONOR WHATS
IS

LM
NOT
IS

2S

THE

24
25

ANNUAL REPORT BETWEEN PLAYERS

SINGLE

NUMBER THATS
NFL

BROKEN DOWN NOT BROKEN DOWN

INC

AND THE

PA

IT

10

BETWEEN SALARY
BASIS

AND BONUS

IT

DOES NOT

EXPLAIN

EXACTLY

THE OR

ON WHICH HE IS

PAID

WHETHER ITS
AND

DISCRETIONARY
THE

CONTRACTUAL SEEKING
THIS

OR WHAT IT INFORMATION

IS

THATS

REASON WHY WE ARE

AND SAYING
IS

WOULD NOTE THAT

MOST OF WHAT

MR FEHER

IS

SEEMS

TO ME TO BE PREMATURE LIMINE BUT

WHAT HE REALLY WANTS TO DO EVIDENCE
WE WANT

HAVE

MOTION IN ON AT TRIAL
TRYING

ABOUT SOME OF THE

TO PUT

THATS NOT WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR TODAY
THE

WE ARE JUST
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TO SEE ACCESS

EVIDENCE

FOR PURPOSES
IN

OF ALLOWING

OUR EXPERT TO HAVE
THE

TO THE

INFORMATION
TOO

CONNECTION WITH

REPORT ABOUT

THE

OVERHEAD BEING

HIGH
HAVE

THE COURT

REPORT SHOULD
WE

ALREADY BEEN DONE
THE

MR LECLAIR
PROCESS
AND ONE OF

HAVENT FINISHED

EXPERT REPORT
THAT THESE

OUR EXPERT

HAS ALREADY

SAID

AMOUNTS ARE HIGH THE COURT
WAS THE LAST DAY TO FILE

ACCORDING TO MY THING
EXPERT

IT

SAYS

MAY 23RD

REPORTS
TO FILE

MR LECLAIR
THE

THEY HAVE
THEN WE HAVE

THEIR

EXPERT

REPORTS

END OF THIS

WEEK

ANOTHER WEEK TO FILE DOING IS TRYING
TO

REBUTTAL

REPORTS

AND PART
LAST

OF WHAT WE ARE

GET ACCESS TO THIS

PIECE
REPORT

OF INFORMATION IF WE CAN GET

WHICH MIGHT CAUSE
ACCESS TO

US TO AMEND OUR EXPERT

IT

THATS

THE

REASON WE ARE MAKING THE MOTION
THE

COURT

ALL

RIGHT

THE

MOTION TO COMPEL

IS

DENIED

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

12

MR FEHER

PLEASE

SUBMIT

FORM OF ORDER THAT

CAPTURES WHAT THE RULING

WAS YOU YOUR HONOR YOU

MR

FELLER

THANK THANK

THE COURT PROCEEDINGS

ADJOURNED

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

13

CERTIFICATE
JOAN MARIE

OF REPORTER OFFICIAL REPORTER FOR THE
HEREBY

COLUMBINI

UNITED CERTIFY

STATES THAT

COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT
THE

OF CALIFORNIA IN CR

FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS
ET

0700943

WHA

BERNARD PARRISH

AL

NATIONAL CERTIFIED

FOOTBALL

LEAGUE ET

AL

WERE REPORTED BY ME THEREAFTER
THAT THE

SHORTHAND REPORTER
INTO

AND WERE

TRANSCRIBED

UNDER MY DIRECTION

TYPEWRITING

FOREGOING IS

FULL

COMPLETE THE TIME

AND TRUE RECORD OF SAID
OF

PROCEEDINGS AS BOUND BY ME AT
THE

FILING
OF SAID

VALIDITY

OF THE

REPORTERS CERTIFICATION

TRANSCRIPT
COURT

MAY BE VOID

UPON DISASSEMBLY

ANDOR

REMOVAL

FROM THE

FILE

JOAN MARIE

COLUMBINI
JUNE

CSR

5435
2008

RPR

WEDNESDAY

11