O'Bannon, Jr. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association et al

Filing 148

Antitrust Plaintiffs' Opposition to NCAA's Motions in Limine (Dkt. 1069 in Case No. 09-1967) filed byEdward C. O'Bannon, Jr.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Gosselin, Sathya) (Filed on 5/23/2014) Modified on 5/27/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

MICHAEL D. HAUSFELD (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
HILARY K. SCHERRER (SBN 209451)
[e-mail]
SATHYA S. GOSSELIN (SBN 269171)
[e-mail]
SWATHI BOJEDLA (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
MICHAEL P. LEHMANN (SBN 77152)
[e-mail]
BRUCE J. WECKER (SBN 78530)
[e-mail]
HAUSFELD LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel with Principal Responsibility
for the Antitrust Claims
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

OAKLAND DIVISION

17
18
19
20

EDWARD C. O’BANNON, JR. on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

21
22
23
24

v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION (NCAA); ELECTRONIC
ARTS, INC.; and COLLEGIATE
LICENSING COMPANY,

25

Case No. 4:09-cv-3329 CW
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT NCAA’S MOTIONS
IN LIMINE
Judge:
Courtroom:
Hearing:
Time:

The Honorable Claudia Wilken
2, 4th Floor
May 28, 2014
2:00 p.m.

Defendants.

26
27
28
1176497.2

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
NCAA’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
CASE NO. 4:09-CV 3329 CW

1
2
3
4
5

Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) filed motions in limine.
The Court, having duly considered the submissions, denies the NCAA’s motions as follows:
The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 1 is DENIED. Plaintiffs are permitted to introduce
evidence and argument about injuries in college sports.
The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 2 is DENIED. Plaintiffs are permitted to introduce

6

evidence and argument about licensing, even if it is unrelated to live broadcasts, rebroadcasts or

7

clips, or videogames.

8
9

The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 3 is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ experts may present the
findings by the Regional Director of Region 13 of the National Labor Relations Board relating to

10

the integration (or lack thereof) of athletics and academics. The parties have stipulated that the

11

report itself is not admissible as a trial exhibit.

12

The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 4 is DENIED. Plaintiffs are permitted to introduce

13

reports of third-party organizations, including but not limited to the Knight Commission on

14

Intercollegiate Athletics.

15
16
17
18
19

The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 5 is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ experts are permitted to
read in to the record excerpts from Walter Byers’s book Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 6 is DENIED. Plaintiffs may present the expert
witness testimony of Dr. Ellen Staurowsky and Taylor Branch.
The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 7 is DENIED. Plaintiffs are permitted to introduce

20

the deposition testimony of Walter Byers from White v. NCAA, Civ. No. 06-0999 VBF (MANx)

21

(C.D. Cal.).

22
23
24
25
26

The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 8 is DENIED. Plaintiffs are permitted to reference
the incomes of defense witnesses, NCAA employees, and university employees.
The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 9 is DENIED. Plaintiffs are permitted to introduce
college athlete eligibility forms.
The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 10 is DENIED as moot. The parties are ordered to

27

meet and confer regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning adjudicated or alleged

28

criminal conduct unrelated to the rules at issue in this case.
-2-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
NCAA’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
CASE NO. 4:09-CV 3329 CW

1
2
3

The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 11 is DENIED as moot. The parties have agreed to a
stipulation on this motion.
The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 12 is DENIED. Plaintiffs are permitted to introduce

4

evidence and argument about less restrictive alternatives, even if they have not been explicitly

5

analyzed by Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Roger Noll.

6

The NCAA’s Motion in Limine No. 13 is DENIED. In the event that Plaintiffs call Mary

7

Willingham as a witness, Plaintiffs will make Mrs. Willingham available for a deposition by the

8

NCAA prior to her testimony at trial.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Date: __________________

_________________________________
The Honorable Claudia Wilken
United States Chief District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
NCAA’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE
CASE NO. 4:09-CV 3329 CW