Oakley v. MSG Networks Inc.

Background

This order concerns discovery in Charles Oakley’s remaining assault and battery claims against MSG Networks, Inc., Madison Square Garden Company, and MSG Sports and Entertainment, LLC, collectively called the MSG defendants. The claims arise from Oakley’s forcible removal from a New York Knicks game at Madison Square Garden on February 8, 2017.

Oakley noticed a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which permits an organization to designate a representative to testify about specified topics. The proposed topics covered: (1) fan-security and fan-safety policies; (2) policies for recording incidents and conducting investigations; (3) employee communication methods and technologies; (4) the MSG defendants’ relationship with the New York Police Department concerning officer assignments for the February 8, 2017 game; (5) recording devices in use at Madison Square Garden; and (6) policies and practices for making and retaining recordings. The parties agreed that Topic 2 was not disputed.

The MSG defendants argued that several topics were too broad and offered written responses instead of deposition testimony for Topics 3, 5, and 6. They also asked the court to require Oakley’s deposition to occur before the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

Rulings on the Deposition Topics

The court granted the MSG defendants’ motion to limit Topic 1. It held that policies adopted during the seven years after February 8, 2017 were not shown to be relevant to whether the force used to remove Oakley that night was objectively unreasonable. The court also found that requesting testimony about that entire period was disproportionate to the needs of a case involving one alleged assault and battery incident.

The court denied the MSG defendants’ motion to strike Topics 3, 5, and 6 from the deposition. Because a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition would already occur on other subjects, the court found that including these topics was not so burdensome as to outweigh the district’s preference for deposition testimony over written statements. The court nevertheless granted the motion to limit Topic 3 to communication methods, media, and technologies that were in use or available for use on February 8, 2017.

The court granted the MSG defendants’ motion concerning Topic 4. It approved the topic only as concerning the defendants’ relationship with the New York Police Department as it existed on February 8, 2017, in connection with the assignment of officers to that game.

Sequence of Depositions

The court granted the MSG defendants’ motion to require Oakley’s deposition before the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. It reasoned that Oakley had first-hand knowledge of the physical events underlying his claims and that his testimony would likely clarify the factual issues and streamline later discovery.

Disposition

Judge Sullivan ordered that the defendants’ motion to narrow Oakley’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics was granted in part and denied in part. He also ordered that the defendants’ motion to schedule the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition after Oakley’s deposition was granted.