Sanders v. Madison Square Garden, L.P. et al

Filing 122

FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - MOTION to Continue (post-trial briefing schedule)(LETTER). Document filed by Madison Square Garden, L.P., James L. Dolan.(Estrada, Miguel) Modified on 10/15/2007 (KA).

Download PDF
Sanders v. Madison Square Garden, L.P. et al Doc. 122 Case 1:06-cv-00589-GEL-DCF Document 122 LA WYERS Filed 10/12/2007 Page 1 of 2 GIBSON, DUN & CRUTCHER LLP A REGISTERED LIMITED LIAILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORA TrONS 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washigton, D.C. 20036-5306 (202) 955-8500 ww.gibsondun.com MEstrada~gibsondunn.com October 12,2007 Direct Dial (202) 955-8257 Fax No. Client Matter No. L 19782-00008 (202) 530-9616 Honorable Gerard E. Lynch United States District Judge 500 Pearl Street, Room 910 New York, NY 10007-1581 Re: Sanders v. Madison Square Garden, L.P. et aL., No. 06-CV-0589 (GEL) Dear Judge Lynch: We represent Defendants Madison Square Garden, L.P. and James L. Dolan. We write to address the briefing schedule for post-trial motions. As the Cour is aware, MSG and Dolan pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) orally renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law and moved for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59 subsequent to the jur's verdict on both liability and punitive damages, and subsequent to the jur's verdict on the amount of puntive damages. See Tr. at 1873, 1900.1 Although the Cour granted the defendants until October 17, 2007 to submit fuher briefing in support of their pending motions, the Cour also indicated that such briefing is unlikely to be helpful to the Cour, because the Cour has already considered and rejected the defendants' contentions. Tr. at 1873-75. In light of the views already expressed by the Cour on these matters, MSG and Dolan will not be submitting any further briefing in support oftheir pending motions, with one Following the jury's verdict on the amount of punitive damages, MSG and Dolan's counsel renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Rule 50(b) but did not explicitly mention the Rule 59 motion. Tr. at 1900. Out of an abundance of caution, and solely for puroses of preserving the appellate record, MSG and Dolan respectfully so move now pursuant to Rule 59 for a new tral on punitive damages. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:06-cv-00589-GEL-DCF Document 122 Filed 10/12/2007 Page 2 of 2 Honorable Gerard E. Lynch October 1 2, 2007 Page 2 exception: Defendants respectfully submit that the Court would benefit from written submissions from the paries addressing whether the size ofthe puntive awards in this case is consistent with applicable legal and constitutional requirements. Defendants believe, however, that this Cour's rulings on front pay, back pay, and after-acquired evidence would likely be relevant to their challenges to the punitive damages awards, and that it would be most economical of the Cour's and paries' time if such briefing were postponed until after the Cour has ruled on those issues. Defendants therefore respectfully request that the Court postpone the post-trial briefing on punitive damages until after the Court rules on front pay, back pay, and after-acquired evidence, and that the Court set a briefing schedule then as the Cour deems appropriate. 2 f/IlE/~ Respectfully submitted, Miguel A. Estrada cc: Sue Ellen Eisenberg, Esq. Ane Vladeck, Esq. 2 Plaintiff's counsel has advised that plaintiff opposes this request.

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?