Oakley v. MSG Networks Inc.

Background

The case concerns Charles Oakley’s removal from a New York Knicks basketball game on February 8, 2017. The motions addressed an ongoing discovery dispute about whether Oakley could depose James Dolan, executive chairman and chief executive officer of MSG Networks, Inc., Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., and Sphere Entertainment Group, LLC. The court had previously allowed the deposition because MSG had not shown that Dolan lacked relevant knowledge. The earlier order noted that Dolan allegedly witnessed Oakley’s removal, ordered it, or authorized the use of force.

MSG sought partial reconsideration of that earlier decision. It argued that Dolan’s testimony was not relevant to whether the force used against Oakley was reasonable, that the rule protecting senior executives from unnecessary depositions applied, and that Oakley intended to harass Dolan. MSG alternatively sought a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), asking the court to limit the deposition’s subjects, delay it until all other MSG employees had been deposed, and supervise the deposition or appoint a special master.

Oakley moved to maintain redactions in three exhibits MSG submitted with its reconsideration motion. MSG and the National Basketball Association, a non-party, moved to maintain redactions in Oakley’s November 1 letter, which quoted confidential NBA security reports. Oakley moved to file that letter publicly without those redactions.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court denied MSG’s motion for reconsideration. Reconsideration requires a showing that the court overlooked controlling decisions or evidence, made a clear error, or needs to act to prevent a serious injustice. The court concluded that MSG was attempting to relitigate issues already decided and had not met that strict standard.

The court rejected MSG’s argument that Dolan’s testimony was irrelevant to the force question. Although the ultimate question is whether the force was objectively reasonable, Dolan’s possible testimony about instructions to security guards could make it more likely that the guards pushed Oakley or otherwise used force. His testimony could also bear on whether Oakley started or escalated the confrontation and on potential punitive damages if excessive force were found.

The court also held that the executive-witness protection rule did not apply. Unlike a senior executive with no direct involvement or unique knowledge, Dolan allegedly witnessed Oakley’s conduct, directed Oakley’s removal, and authorized the use of force. The court further found that the materials MSG submitted did not show that Oakley sought the deposition simply to harass Dolan. The court therefore left in place its decision allowing the deposition.

Protective Order

The court granted in part and denied in part MSG’s motion for a protective order. It rejected MSG’s request to limit the deposition topics because MSG offered only a conclusory request and did not show the specific facts required to establish good cause. The court noted that Dolan’s eyewitness account, communications with security guards, and hand gestures appeared to be the core relevant subjects, and that existing procedural rules could address bad-faith or oppressive questioning.

The court granted MSG’s request to have Dolan deposed after all other MSG employees. It reasoned that questioning employees who were directly involved in Oakley’s removal first could narrow the scope of Dolan’s deposition. The court denied MSG’s request for court supervision or a special master, finding that additional oversight was unwarranted.

Redactions and Public Access

The court granted Oakley’s motion to maintain redactions in the MSG exhibits. The redactions concealed telephone numbers and brief references to a private sensitive matter unrelated to the dispute. Although the exhibits were judicial documents, the court found that the privacy interests of Oakley and the people involved outweighed the presumption of public access.

The court granted in part and denied in part both the motions by MSG and the NBA to maintain redactions in Oakley’s November 1 letter and Oakley’s motion to file the letter publicly. The court found that the letter was a judicial document because it was submitted by a party and was relevant to the discovery motions. The court held that the two short quotations from the NBA reports should be public because they were relevant to the court’s decision and did not identify witnesses or reveal sensitive investigative practices.

The court nevertheless ordered that the names of the two NBA employees who prepared the reports remain redacted. It found that their privacy interests outweighed the presumption of public access at this stage. Oakley was ordered to file the November 1 letter and the related November 12 motion and declaration with only those names redacted. The court also stated that the NBA reports themselves were not judicial documents because the parties had not placed them before the court, and it directed that electronic copies submitted by email be deleted.

Disposition

MSG’s motion for reconsideration was DENIED. MSG’s motion for a protective order was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Oakley’s motion to maintain redactions to the MSG exhibits was GRANTED. Oakley’s motion to publicly file the November 1 letter was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. MSG’s and the NBA’s motions concerning redactions to that letter were GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.