DNA Sports Performance Lab, Inc. v. Major League Baseball
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-00546
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In DNA Sports Performance Lab v. Major League Baseball, Judge Alsup denied defendants’ motion to require appeal transcripts, leaving the issue for the appeals court.
The plaintiff-appellants, who remained without lawyers in the district court and had limited funds, and the defendant-appellees seeking the transcripts.
What happened
In DNA Sports Performance Lab, Inc. v. Major League Baseball, the defendant-appellees asked the district court to require the plaintiff-appellants to provide transcripts of proceedings for their appeal.
The court said the requested transcripts should be required only if they were necessary for the appeal or for understanding the parties’ positions. It noted that the appeals court had already refused to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute, that it was unclear whether the plaintiffs had lawyers in the appeal, and that the plaintiffs remained without lawyers in the district court and had limited funds.
Judge William Alsup denied the motion in the district court. He concluded that the appeals court was better positioned to resolve the transcript issue and that a broad transcript order could impose unnecessary expenses.
The detailed version
- DNA Sports Performance Lab, Inc. v. Major League Baseball · No. 3:20-cv-00546
- William Alsup
- July 14, 2021
Background
The defendant-appellees moved to compel the plaintiff-appellants to produce transcripts of proceedings for their appeal. The motion cited Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10 and a Northern District of California rule.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that, when deciding whether to require an appellant to obtain transcripts, it considers whether the transcripts are necessary for the appeal or for an informed analysis of the parties’ positions. It also considers other relevant circumstances, including whether a party is proceeding without a lawyer.
The court said the court of appeals was in a better position to resolve this procedural issue. The court of appeals had already denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to prosecute. The district court also noted open questions about whether the plaintiffs had representation in the appellate case, while the plaintiffs remained without lawyers in the district court. In addition, the plaintiffs had limited funds, and a broad transcript order could require them to incur expenses for transcripts that might not be needed for the appeal.
Disposition
The district court denied the motion. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice. William Alsup signed the order as United States District Judge.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.