Oakley v. MSG Networks Inc.
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:17-cv-06903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
Oakley v. MSG Networks: Judge Sullivan denied Defendants’ protective-order motion concerning James Dolan’s deposition location and security measures.
The ruling affects Plaintiff Charles Oakley, Defendants MSG Networks, Inc., Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., and Sphere Entertainment Group, LLC, and non-party James Dolan by leaving Dolan’s deposition at the location noticed by Oakley and declining to require the additional requested security measures.
What happened
In Oakley v. MSG Networks Inc., Defendants asked the court to change the location of James Dolan’s deposition or require additional security measures. Plaintiff Charles Oakley opposed the request.
Defendants cited security concerns, Dolan’s status as a prominent public figure, a recent killing of a corporate executive, a past statement by Oakley, and technical problems during another deposition. Oakley argued that the request was an improper attempt to revisit an earlier ruling and that Defendants had not shown sufficient reason to change the deposition’s noticed location.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied Defendants’ motion for a protective order. The court held that Defendants had not shown good cause to change the location or impose additional security measures beyond those Oakley had already offered, and ordered that Dolan’s deposition take place at the location Oakley noticed.
The detailed version
- Oakley v. MSG Networks Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-06903
- Richard Sullivan
- Jan. 27, 2025
Background
The court considered Defendants’ motion for a protective order, which is an order limiting or regulating discovery. The motion concerned the location and security arrangements for the deposition of non-party James Dolan. Defendants sought to move the deposition to MSG’s offices, or otherwise change the deposition’s location, and requested additional security measures. The court’s order states that Plaintiff had already offered some security measures.
The parties’ joint letter stated that Oakley had previously taken nine depositions virtually over Zoom, including depositions of MSG security guards and corporate representatives. Defendants argued that Dolan’s security detail should inspect the location in advance and remain present throughout the deposition. They relied on concerns about threats to prominent corporate executives, a recent fatal shooting of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, a statement attributed to Oakley about putting something in Dolan’s food, and power outages during another deposition.
Oakley opposed the request. He argued that Defendants were effectively seeking reconsideration of an earlier ruling concerning Dolan’s deposition and had not shown the required good cause for a protective order. Oakley also argued that the party noticing a deposition usually chooses its location and that Defendants’ asserted safety concerns did not justify changing the noticed location.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that, in this district, the party noticing a deposition usually has the right to choose its location. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the party seeking a protective order must show good cause. The court concluded that Defendants had failed to establish good cause either to alter the deposition’s location or to impose additional security measures beyond those Plaintiff had already offered.
Disposition
Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied Defendants’ motion for a protective order. The court ordered that Dolan’s deposition take place at the location noticed by Plaintiff and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Doc. No. 277.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.