A federal judge last week rejected movements by Oakley and MSG intended to benefit each team’s pretrial discovery as Charles Oakley’s legal challenge with Madison Square Garden Networks comes into its eighth year.
U.S. District Judge Richard J. Sullivan denied Oakley’s request to have his personal cell phones searched by MSG and overturned the 10-deposition cap established by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 ( a ). In addition, the judge rejected MSG’s request to ban summons for personal contacts from MSG employees and to reduce the overall size of depositions to seven hours. Sullivan, but, agreed with MSG that Oakley may change over bank information.

For a situation that has been in jury since 2017 and is fairly straightforward, such as whether a spectator was legally forced to leave a sports arena, Oakley v. MSG is at a wonderfully first stage of the dispute life. That is largely due to the fact that the case has been reinstated thrice and dismissed twice on the appellate level. It’s generally in square three. Barring a lawsuit, the case may be in court for years to come.
Sullivan explained that Oakey “failed to match” the burden required for being able to do more than 10 depositions, a control intended to give courts “tighter rein” on the discovery process. According to the judge, Oakley “offers no justification as to why” additional witnesses would provide “unique information” from insights that have already been shared. Additionally, Sullivan emphasized the simplicity of the facts, not the kind of dispute that warrants unusually extensive discovery, as” a single instance” of an alleged assault and battery “on an isolated evening in 2017.” The judge was concerned that “allowing Oakley to depose more than 10 people would be inconvenient given the needs of this case.”
Oakley’s request that MSG search employees ‘ personal phones also persuaded Sullivan. Oakley thinks those phones have relevant text messages. However, Oakley demanded copies of emails from MSG employees who may have claimed to have witnessed him being abusive and that he already had ruled on MSG’s document production obligations. At that time, Sullivan wrote, Oakley “made no mention of text messages or searches of the personal phones of MSG employees”. According to Sullivan, allowing Oakley access to texts would now allow him to file “piecemeal discovery requests,” which are incompatible with just, quick, and affordable litigation.

For the most part, Sullivan was similarly unmoved by MSG’s arguments for its motions. Although MSG requested that three depositions be limited to seven hours total, Sullivan pointed out that a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure advisory note recommended a seven-hour maximum for each deposition, not several, but that it should be done simultaneously.
Additionally, Sullivan came to the conclusion that MSG has no authority to overturn the subpoenas of four current MSG employees. Oakley demands they share copies of emails, texts or instant messages on WhatsApp and other services from Feb. 8, 2017, to March 1, 2017. The judge argued that these four individuals are not parties ( Oakley isn’t suing them ) and that in the Second Circuit, a party ( i .e., MSG) typically lacks standing to challenge subpoenas issued to non-parties when the objection concerns relevance or excessive burden. Despite this, Sullivan continued, MSG hasn’t claimed a right or privilege in these employees ‘ private communications.
MSG did score a win in terms of Oakley’s document production. MSG contends that Oakley hasn’t turned over all the paperwork he’s required to. Sullivan agreed with MSG that Oakley hasn’t sufficiently produced bank or credit card statements from Feb. 7 to Feb. 9, 2017. He wasn’t persuaded by MSG regarding several categories of documents.
Despite these requests, Oakley gives no justification for why he hasn’t given MSG the name and address of his bank, according to Sullivan. The Court finds no justification for withholding this information, which is obviously relevant to whether Oakley purchased alcohol ( and was intoxicated ) at the time of the February 7 incident as well as whether Oakley may have been a compliciter in the policing of evidence. The judge granted MSG’s request to compel Oakley to provide the banking details.
On December 19, the parties ‘ attorneys will appear before Sullivan to review MSG’s request for sanctions against Oakley and his attorneys. MSG contends that Oakley “destroyed all of his text messages from prior to February 2022″, which was” well after the duty to preserve]evidence ] was triggered”. The attorneys for Oakley contend that both the client and the client have adhered to the law.