Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball
- Joseph Spero
- 3:14-cv-00608
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Aaron Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., Judge Spero ordered more briefing about discovery from settlement objectors and whether their appeal would delay relief.
The order directly affects Aaron Senne and the other plaintiffs, the settlement objectors, and the defendants because it governs briefing about proposed depositions and the possible effect of the objectors’ appeal on settlement relief. It may also affect class members receiving payments or other non-monetary relief under the settlement.
What happened
Aaron Senne and other plaintiffs asked to depose people who objected to a settlement. The court also wanted briefing on whether the objectors’ appeal would delay payments and other relief for class members under the settlement agreement.
The court said it generally still has authority, even after an appeal begins, to protect its judgments and allow limited additional discovery. Any discovery must be relevant, and the plaintiffs had to explain why they needed to depose both objectors who appealed and those who did not. The court also asked whether information gathered for the appeal could properly be considered there.
The court did not decide whether the depositions may occur. Instead, Judge Joseph C. Spero ordered additional written briefing, set filing deadlines through May 26, 2023, and said it would decide later whether a hearing was necessary.
The detailed version
- Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball · No. 3:14-cv-00608
- Joseph Spero
- May 3, 2023
Background
The court received a joint letter from the plaintiffs and settlement objectors concerning whether plaintiffs’ counsel may depose the objectors. The court also addressed an unresolved question about the settlement’s effective date: whether the objectors’ appeal would delay payments and other non-monetary relief for class members.
The defendants argued that the appeal would unquestionably delay implementation of the settlement until the appeal was resolved. The objectors’ counsel argued otherwise, relying on settlement provisions stating that class counsel’s fee award was considered separately from the reasonableness of the overall settlement.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that it generally retains jurisdiction after a notice of appeal is filed to protect the integrity of its judgments, including by allowing additional discovery. It gave as examples narrowly tailored discovery concerning whether appealing objectors could pay an appeal bond, and discovery related to a possible sanctions motion based on alleged misconduct by an objector’s attorney.
The court emphasized that any such discovery must satisfy the relevance requirement in Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It also cautioned that the court’s inherent power to protect its judgments must be used carefully and sparingly.
The court requested briefing on the specific relevance of the discovery sought to any post-judgment motion that the plaintiffs might ask this court to decide. The plaintiffs also had to address why they sought to depose both appealing and non-appealing objectors. If the discovery was intended to help respond to the appeal rather than support a motion in the district court, the plaintiffs had to identify authority allowing the district court to authorize that discovery and explain whether the information could be considered on appeal despite not being part of the existing record.
Order
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a brief of no more than ten pages by May 5, 2023. Defendants could respond by May 12, objectors could respond by May 19, and plaintiffs could reply by May 26. The court stated that it would decide after reviewing the briefs whether a hearing was necessary.
This was an order for additional briefing. The opinion did not decide whether plaintiffs’ counsel may depose the objectors or whether the objectors’ appeal would delay settlement relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.