Oakley v. MSG Networks Inc.

Background

The case arises from the forcible removal of Charles Oakley from a New York Knicks game at Madison Square Garden on February 8, 2017. After earlier rulings and an appeal, the remaining claims are Oakley’s assault and battery claims against the MSG defendants. Discovery began after the court allowed Oakley to amend his complaint to add new facts supporting claims against the MSG defendants, while denying his request to add James Dolan as a defendant because the new claims against Dolan were time-barred.

Oakley asked to depose Dolan, who was described as the executive chairman and chief executive officer of MSG Networks, Inc., Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., and Sphere Entertainment Group, LLC. Oakley also sought documents from Dolan and fifteen other witnesses who allegedly gave statements about the incident, participated in Oakley’s removal, or witnessed him being abusive. The MSG defendants objected, arguing that Dolan was a senior “apex” witness without unique knowledge, that the proposed email searches were too broad, and that searching the other witnesses’ emails would impose an undue burden.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The party seeking discovery initially must show relevance. The party resisting discovery must then support claims of undue burden or expense with more than general objections.

Courts may closely examine requests to depose high-ranking corporate officials because of possible business disruption or harassment. But senior executives are not automatically exempt from depositions. The party opposing the deposition bears the burden of showing that the proposed witness has nothing to contribute.

Deposition of James Dolan

The court granted Oakley’s motion to depose Dolan. It found that the MSG defendants had not shown that Dolan had nothing relevant to contribute. According to the opinion, Dolan personally observed Oakley’s removal and could testify about Oakley’s behavior and the force used against him.

The court also identified alleged information that other witnesses could not necessarily provide. Oakley alleged that Dolan called over a security guard and spoke with him immediately before the removal. Oakley also alleged that Dolan signaled to the guard and that the guard then radioed other security personnel. The court concluded that Dolan could address the conversation, whether he made the signal, and what he intended it to mean. The court found this information relevant to whether the force used against Oakley was reasonable.

The court rejected the defendants’ suggestion that the deposition was primarily intended to harass Dolan. It concluded that Dolan was not a typical senior executive removed from the key events because he had a direct view of what happened. The MSG defendants also had not convincingly shown that the deposition would cause harassment or business disruption.

Documents from Dolan

The court granted in part and denied in part Oakley’s motion to compel document production from Dolan. It rejected the argument that Dolan was irrelevant to the remaining claims, given his alleged involvement before and during Oakley’s removal.

However, the court found Oakley’s proposed four-year search of Dolan’s emails excessive. Oakley had not explained why emails from years after the 2017 incident were likely to provide evidence about whether reasonable force was used that evening. The court also noted that Oakley sought only three weeks of emails from the other witnesses. It therefore ordered that searches of Dolan’s emails be limited to February 8, 2017, through March 1, 2017.

Documents from the fifteen witnesses

The court granted Oakley’s motion to compel production from the fifteen Interrogatory Witnesses to the extent they were individuals who witnessed Oakley allegedly being abusive, witnessed his removal, or participated in his removal. The court found that these witnesses’ observations could help determine whether the force used was reasonable.

The court said it was unclear what Oakley meant by witnesses who had “given statements” about the incident. It therefore limited the ruling to the specified categories of people who witnessed Oakley’s alleged abusive conduct, witnessed his removal, or participated in the removal. The MSG defendants’ general assertions of overbreadth and burden were insufficient because they provided no evidence, specific factual allegations, or report showing the number of responsive records or the likely cost and time required.

Disposition

The court ordered that Oakley’s motion to depose James Dolan was GRANTED. Oakley’s motion to compel document production from Dolan and the Interrogatory Witnesses was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Doc. No. 178.