McAllister v.St. Louis Rams, LLC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 321 Third MOTION to Compel filed by Plaintiff Brad Pearlman, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff Richard Arnold, Consolidated Filer Plaintiff R. McNeely Cochran motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as provided herein.. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/12/18. (MRS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC,
No. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff Richard Arnold’s third 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
The Court has used plaintiff Arnold’s subheadings in addressing the various
components of plaintiff’s motion.
Plaintiff questioned two documents on the Rams’ privilege log because the
documents had been sent to a non-lawyer. After the motion to compel was filed, the
Rams produced the two documents and did not respond to the issue in its response
memorandum. Arnold complains that one document included an attachment, a
September 2016 “Original Design v. Proposed Change” document that includes an eightpage section entitled “PSL Inventory & Potential Pricing,” which Arnold says should
never have been withheld because there was no independent basis for invoking the
privilege. Plaintiff asks for an order requiring the Rams to review the attachments in
their privilege logs for responsiveness and also supplement the logs with a detailed
description of the attachments. Plaintiff’s request is granted.
Interrogatory I concerns the number of persons on the Rams’ PSL deposit list.
Plaintiff asserts that the interrogatory gauges real-world interest in LA PSLs based on
how many persons placed PSL deposits. The Rams do not clearly address this
interrogatory in their response memorandum. The interrogatory appears proper, and the
Rams shall answer the interrogatory.
Requests for Production
RFPs 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8
These requests concern LA PSL pricing and market demand. The Rams opine that
they have produced all responsive documents at least in part because, one day before
filing their response memorandum to the instant motion to compel, they produced
documents pertaining to the 2017 pricing analysis conducted by the Rams’ pricing
consultant (“Legends”). Plaintiff objects to the belated production of these documents
because they were produced after a critical deposition during which the 2017 pricing
analysis was discussed. Plaintiff asks for an order requiring the Rams to produce that
deponent (Rams Chief Operating Officer Kevin Demoff) in St. Louis for re-deposition.
Plaintiff also notes that the Rams have not produced correspondence concerning the 2017
survey or an executive summary to the 2017 study. Plaintiff thus asks for an order
requiring the Rams to produce all responsive documents including the most current (and
subsequent) Legends pricing recommendations, final surveys of 2016 and 2017,
correspondence concerning the 2017 survey, and the 2017 executive summary.
Plaintiff’s requests with respect to these matters is granted.
This request seeks the agreement between the Rams and an entity known as LA
Fan Club, Inc., which was apparently created by the Rams to effectuate PSL sales. The
Rams contend that plaintiff failed to meet and confer with them regarding this request in
violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37-3.04(a).
Plaintiff does not refute that contention. The Court therefor will not address the motion
with respect to this request.
Arnold withdrew his motion to compel with respect to this request.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff Richard Arnold’s motion to compel
(#321) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as provided herein.
Dated this 12th day of April, 2018.
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?