McAllister v.St. Louis Rams, LLC

Filing 275

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 224 First MOTION to Compel Against Rams filed by Plaintiff Brad Pearlman, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff Richard Arnold, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff R. McNeely Cochran motion is DENIED as MOOT. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 11/15/17. (MRS)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION RONALD MCALLISTER, Plaintiff, v. THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ No. 4:16-CV-189 No. 4:16-CV-262 No. 4:16-CV-297 CONSOLIDATED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Richard Arnold’s motion to compel defendant The St. Louis Rams, LLC to produce documents pertaining to the pricing of Personal Seat Licenses (“PSLs”) at the Rams’ new stadium in California (#224). Plaintiff Arnold seeks documents responsive to two Requests for Production, inter alia, pertaining to PSL pricing at the Rams’ new stadium in California. Rams at first responded that the requests sought irrelevant documents and also that the documents were privileged. Then the Rams, after plaintiff filed his motion, produced documents that it located through electronic search methods. The Rams also promised to produce a threedocument privilege log. Arnold’s reply memorandum suggested that the Rams had improperly failed to search hard copy documents. The Rams filed a surreply that stated they had completed their hard document search and had turned up no responsive documents. Arnold did not respond further to the October 13 surreply. The Court presumes that the Rams produced its privilege log as promised and concludes that, apparently, the motion has been mooted. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Richard Arnold’s motion to compel (#224) is DENIED as moot. Dated this 15th day of November, 2017. STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?