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

Filing 122

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 [phone]

ww.gibsondun.com
MEstrada~gibsondunn.com

October 12,2007

Direct Dial

[phone]
Fax No.

Client Matter No. L 19782-00008

[phone]
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.