Oakley v. MSG Networks Inc.

Background

The court considered a joint letter from plaintiff Charles Oakley and non-party Frank Benedetto concerning subpoenas Oakley served on Benedetto. The court treated the letter as four requests: Oakley’s motion to compel Benedetto to attend a deposition; Oakley’s motion to compel Benedetto to produce documents; Benedetto’s opposition; and Benedetto’s alternative motion for a protective order limiting the deposition.

The underlying case involves Oakley’s forcible removal from a New York Knicks basketball game at Madison Square Garden on February 8, 2017. Benedetto had been MSG’s Vice President of Security and was present at the Garden that night.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a subpoena may require a non-party to testify at a deposition or produce specified documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things. The party seeking discovery must first show that the requested information is relevant and proportional to the case’s needs. The burden then shifts to the opposing party to show that compliance would be unduly burdensome. A person claiming undue burden must explain the manner and extent of that burden rather than merely assert that compliance would be inconvenient.

Under Rule 26(c), a court may issue a protective order for good cause, including limiting discovery to particular matters. The party seeking such an order must provide a specific factual showing of good cause.

Deposition

The court granted Oakley’s motion to compel Benedetto’s deposition. It found that Benedetto’s potential testimony about Oakley’s removal was relevant to the remaining factual disputes and proportional to the needs of the case. The court relied in part on the Second Circuit’s recognition that eyewitness testimony could provide context beyond the video record concerning what happened and whether the force used was reasonable.

The court rejected Benedetto’s arguments that Oakley’s request was untimely, that his testimony would be cumulative or irrelevant, and that the deposition would be unduly burdensome. Fact discovery had not yet closed, and Benedetto had not explained the manner or extent of any claimed burden. The court also stated that the relevance of Benedetto’s testimony arose from his position, presence at MSG, and possible knowledge of what occurred—not from the fact that he was later terminated.

Protective order

The court granted Benedetto’s motion for a protective order. The deposition may cover what Benedetto personally observed on February 8, 2017, and statements that other people made to him about Oakley’s removal, including statements by MSG executives at the time of Benedetto’s firing.

The court barred a more general discussion of Benedetto’s termination and his working conditions at MSG before the termination. It stated that those subjects were not relevant to the remaining issues—namely, the amount of force used to remove Oakley and whether that force was objectively reasonable—and warned against using the deposition for harassment or negative media publicity.

Document production

The court denied Oakley’s motion to compel Benedetto to produce documents. Oakley sought documents including materials related to Benedetto’s termination. The court found that Oakley had not shown that termination-related records were relevant to the dispute. It also relied on Benedetto’s response that he had produced all documents, communications, and electronically stored information concerning Oakley.

Disposition

The court granted Oakley’s motion to compel Benedetto to sit for a deposition, granted Benedetto’s motion for a protective order, and denied Oakley’s motion to compel document production. The deposition is limited to what Benedetto observed on February 8, 2017, and what other individuals told him about Oakley’s removal.