Oakley v. MSG Networks Inc.

Background

The court considered a joint letter that it treated as Charles Oakley’s motion to compel discovery from MSG Networks, Inc., Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., and Sphere Entertainment Group, LLC, which the opinion collectively calls “MSG.” Oakley sought two forms of relief: production of documents identified on MSG’s privilege log and another deposition of MSG CEO James Dolan, including questions about an unrelated 2006 employment-retaliation lawsuit involving MSG and Dolan.

Privileged Documents

Oakley argued that MSG’s privilege log did not comply with Southern District of New York Local Rule 26.2, that MSG improperly withheld some documents in full instead of redacting only privileged material, and that the common-interest doctrine did not protect certain documents involving the National Basketball Association.

The court did not decide the merits of those privilege arguments. It held that Oakley’s request was untimely. MSG had provided the privilege log on November 13, 2024, but Oakley did not raise his objections until January 29, 2025, two days before fact discovery closed. He did not file the discovery-dispute letter until February 6, 2025, nearly a week after fact discovery closed. The court therefore denied the request to compel production of the privilege-log documents.

Dolan Deposition

Oakley argued that Dolan should be required to answer questions about the 2006 lawsuit, which Oakley said might have involved a finding that MSG and Dolan lied about the reason given for terminating the plaintiff. The court again found the request untimely because it was filed after fact discovery closed on January 31, 2025.

The court also ruled on the merits of this request. Applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which permits relevant and nonprivileged discovery that is proportional to the needs of the case, the court held that a second deposition of Dolan about the old lawsuit would be disproportionate. The court acknowledged that impeachment discovery—evidence used to challenge a witness’s credibility—may be relevant, but said there must be limits on discovery pursued generally to establish credibility or gather possible impeachment information. The court also noted its prior expectation that Dolan’s deposition would focus on the remaining core issues and would not be used for harassment or publicity. It denied Oakley’s request to compel another deposition and testimony about the 2006 lawsuit.

Ruling

Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied Oakley’s motion to compel MSG to produce the privilege-log documents and to compel Dolan to sit for another deposition. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at Doc. No. 308.