Brady et al v. National Football League et al

Filing 128

MEMORANDUM in Support re 127 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer to First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Arizona Cardinals Football Club, Inc., Atlanta Falcons Football Club, LLC, Baltimore Ravens Limited Partnership, Buccaneers Limited Partnership, Buffalo Bills, Inc., Chargers Football Company, LLC, Chicago Bears Football Club, Inc., The, Cinncinnati Bengals, Inc., Cleveland Browns Football Company LLC, Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., Detroit Lions, Inc., The, Football Northwest LLC, Green Bay Packers, Inc., Houston NFL Holdings, LP, Indianapolis Colts, Inc., Jacksonville Jaguars, Ltd., Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, Inc., Miami Dolphins, Ltd., Minnesota Vikings Football, LLC, National Football League, New England Patriots LP, New Orleans Louisiana Saints, LLC, New York Football Giants, Inc., New York Jets LLC, Oakland Raiders LP, The, PDB Sports, Ltd., Panthers Football, LLC, Philadelphia Eagles, LLC, Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., Pro-Football, Inc., Rams Football Co, LLC, The, San Diego Chargers Football Co., San Francisco Forty Niners Ltd., St. Louis Rams Partnership, The, Tennessee Football, Inc., Washington Football Inc. (Connolly, Daniel)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
)
)
TOM BRADY, et al.,
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, et al.,)
)
Defendants,
)
)

No. 0:11-cv-00639-SRN-JJG

DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO
EXTEND THE TIME TO RESPOND TO FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT (BRADY PLAINTIFFS)
Defendants respectfully request an extension of their time from May
23, 2011 to July 6, 2011 to respond to the First Amended Class Action
Complaint (Brady Plaintiffs). The Eller Plaintiffs have already consented to
this extension, and an extension is justified for the Brady Plaintiffs in light of
the pending Eighth Circuit appeal. The Eighth Circuit’s expedited decision
will likely inform both Defendants’ decision whether to file motions to dismiss
(and, if so, on which grounds) and this Court’s resolution of any motions.
Defendants sought consent from the Brady Plaintiffs for an extension, but
they declined.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Brady Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint on March 11, 2011
(Doc. No. 1). Based upon the stipulation of the Brady Plaintiffs and
Defendants, the Court entered orders extending the time to respond to the

Brady Class Action Complaint up to and including April 27, 2011 (Doc. No.
40) and later to May 23, 2011 (Doc. No. 98).
The Eller Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint on March 28,
2011 (Doc. No. 57) and their Amended Class Action Complaint on April 1,
2011 (Doc. No. 73). Based upon the stipulation of the Eller Plaintiffs and
Defendants, the Court entered orders extending the time to respond to the

Eller Class Action Complaint up to and including June 1, 2011. (Doc. No. 39
in Civ. No. 11-748.) This Court consolidated the Brady and Eller cases on
April 11, 2011 (Doc. No. 55).
The Brady Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Class Action Complaint
on May 3, 2011. (Doc. No. 119.) As a result, Defendants are currently
required to respond to the Brady Plaintiffs’ amended pleading “within the
time remaining to respond to the original pleading,” that is, on or before May
23, 2011. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).
An appeal from this Court’s Order of April 25, 2011 is being heard on
an expedited basis by the Eighth Circuit, and will be “submitted for decision

-2-

on a highly expedited schedule” on June 3, 2011. Brady v. NFL, No. 11-1898,
at 13 (8th Cir. May 16, 2011) (per curiam) (District Court Doc. No. 122).
In light of this schedule, and the likely impact of the appellate decision
on the responsive pleading that Defendants would file in response to the
amended complaints, Defendants sought the consent of the Brady and Eller
Plaintiffs to a brief extension of the time in which to respond to their
respective complaints up to and including July 6, 2011. The Eller Plaintiffs
agreed to such an extension (Doc. No. 125). On May 17, the Brady Plaintiffs
stated they would not agree to extend the deadline to respond to plaintiffs’
Amended Complaint, prompting this motion.
DISCUSSION
Under Rule 6(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court
has the power “for good cause” to enlarge the period of time for any act
required to be done within a specified time. When filed before the expiration
of the deadline sought to be extended, Rule 6(b) “motions to extend are to be
liberally permitted, consistent with the admonition of Rule 1 that the rules
are to ‘be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination
of every action.’” Bader v. Craig-Hallum, Inc., 115 F.R.D. 582, 585 (D. Minn.
1987); see 4B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 1165 (3d ed. 2010) (“[A]n application for the enlargement of time

-3-

under Rule 6(b)(1) normally will be granted in the absence of bad faith on the
part of the party seeking relief or prejudice to the adverse party.”).
Defendants respectfully submit that in light of the pending expedited
appeal to the Eighth Circuit, it will be more efficient to the overall resolution
of this action if Defendants’ responsive pleading is filed after the Court of
Appeals has resolved the issues before it. The resolution of the appeal will
likely inform the Defendants’ decision whether to file motions to dismiss
(and, if so, on which grounds) or to answer plaintiffs’ complaints.
Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by this extension. The Eller Plaintiffs
have already consented to an extension up to and including July 6th. The

Brady Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by a similar extension. Indeed, if the
pleadings are joined after the parties have the benefit of the Court of Appeals’
ruling, it will likely narrow the issues in the case and increase efficiencies.
An extension of time will also avoid the parties having to divert resources to
responding to motions to dismiss or counterclaims during the same time
period that they are preparing for the oral argument in the Court of Appeals.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, as well as based upon all of
the files, records and proceedings in this case, Defendants respectfully
request that the Court grant Defendants a short extension until July 6, 2011

-4-

to respond to the Brady Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and to enter an
Order in the form provided herewith.

Respectfully submitted,
David Boies (pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
[phone]
[phone] (fax)

William A. Isaacson (pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
5301 Wisconsin Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20015
[phone]
[phone] (fax)

s/Daniel J. Connolly
Daniel J. Connolly #197247
Aaron D. Van Oort #315539
FAEGRE & BENSON LLP
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
Gregg H. Levy (pro hac vice)
Benjamin C. Block (pro hac vice)
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004-2401
[phone]
[phone] (fax)

Counsel for the NFL and NFL Clubs
May 19, 2011

-5-