Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc.

Background

Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen issued an order addressing whether subpoenas issued by PGA Tour, Inc. to Public Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and His Excellency Yasir Othman Al-Rumayyan could be enforced. PGA Tour was the defendant and counterclaimant; PIF and Mr. Al-Rumayyan were counterdefendants, but the court continued to treat them as non-parties while service of process was pending.

PGA Tour and PIF and Mr. Al-Rumayyan each challenged the magistrate judge’s order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. PIF and Mr. Al-Rumayyan then moved to stay enforcement of the order while the district court considered their Rule 72 motion. The court noted that the motion’s notice and proposed order appeared to seek a stay of all current and future discovery against them, but the motion itself requested a stay only of the magistrate judge’s order.

Legal Standard

The court applied the standard used for a stay pending appeal. It considered four factors: the applicant’s likelihood of success, the risk of irreparable harm without a stay, the harm to other interested parties, and the public interest. The moving parties had the burden of showing that a stay was warranted.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that PIF and Mr. Al-Rumayyan had raised serious legal questions in their Rule 72 challenge. Those questions included the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, whether Mr. Al-Rumayyan had common-law immunity from enforcement of PGA Tour’s subpoena, and whether the court had personal jurisdiction over the movants. The court stated that it was premature to decide their entitlement to sovereign immunity in the stay proceeding.

The court also found a probability of irreparable harm because requiring compliance before the court decided the Rule 72 motion could effectively deny the relief sought in that motion. PGA Tour argued that the subpoenaed material was critical to its defense of the plaintiffs’ antitrust claims and that delay would interfere with its ability to develop its case. The court recognized the importance of the discovery but found that PGA Tour had not shown that the brief delay would cause substantial prejudice.

The parties identified competing public interests. PIF and Mr. Al-Rumayyan cited respect for foreign sovereigns’ immunity and international comity. PGA Tour cited timely compliance with court orders and equal application of the law. The court found that neither interest was dispositive. Overall, it concluded that three of the four factors favored a stay: serious legal questions, probable irreparable harm, and no substantial prejudice to PGA Tour.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the motion to stay the magistrate judge’s order pending disposition of PIF and Mr. Al-Rumayyan’s Rule 72 motion. The stay applies only to the subpoenas addressed in that order and does not preclude any other discovery in the case. The order terminated ECF 308.