Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

N.D. California

Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball

DecidedMay 3, 2023

Docket3:14-cv-00608

StatusUnknown

This text of Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 AARON SENNE, et al., 8 Case No. 14-cv-00608-JCS Plaintiffs, 9 v. AMENDED ORDER FOR 10 ADDITIONAL BRIEFING1 KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL 11 CORP., et al., 12 Defendants.

13 14 15 16 The Court is in receipt of the joint letter submitted by Plaintiffs and the Objectors2 on the 17 question of whether Plaintiffs’ counsel may depose the Objectors. Dkt. no.1194. In order to 18 resolve this dispute, the Court seeks additional briefing as set forth below. 19 First, the Court requests additional briefing on the question of whether the Objectors’ 20 appeal will delay the payments and other non-monetary relief afforded to the class members under 21 the Settlement Agreement. In particular, the parties should address Defendants’ response (dkt. no. 22 1195) to the joint letter, which argues that Objectors’ appeal will, unquestionably, delay the 23 implementation of the settlement until after Objectors’ appeal is resolved under the term that 24 governs the Effective Date of the settlement. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 1.m. The parties should 25 also address the argument of Objectors’ counsel to the contrary, relying on provisions of the 26 1 The content of this Order is identical to dkt. no. 1196 except that a clerical error related to 27 Defendants’ response deadline has been corrected and some briefing deadlines have been changed 1 Settlement Agreement specifying that the amount of Class Counsel’s fee award is to be considered 2 separately from the reasonableness of the overall settlement. 3 With respect to whether Plaintiffs’ counsel may depose the Objectors, the Court finds, as a 4 general matter, that it has jurisdiction, even after a notice of appeal has been filed, to preserve the 5 integrity of its judgments, including by permitting additional discovery. See In re Netflix Priv. 6 Litig., No. 5:11-CV-00379-EJD, 2013 WL 6173772, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013). Thus, for 7 example, to the extent Plaintiffs may ask the Court to require under Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of 8 Appellate Procedure that the Objectors file a bond to ensure payment of costs on appeal, narrowly 9 tailored discovery aimed at determining the ability of the Objectors who are appealing in this case 10 might be appropriate. Other post-judgment motion practice, such as a motion for sanctions like 11 the one in In re Itel Sec. Litig., brought under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 and Rule 11 based on 12 alleged misconduct by the objector’s attorney, might also warrant discovery. All such discovery, 13 however, must meet the standards of relevance under Rule 26(b)(1). Further, the Supreme Court 14 has cautioned that the Court’s inherent power to protect its judgments must be used “carefully and 15 sparingly.” In re Itel Sec. Litig., 596 F. Supp. at 233 (citing Roadway Express v. Piper, 447 U.S. 16 752, 765(1980)). 17 Accordingly, the Court requests further briefing on the specific relevance of the discovery 18 Plaintiffs seek to any post-judgment motions it envisions being decided by this Court. Plaintiffs 19 should address the need to depose both the Objectors who are appealing and those who are not. 20 To the extent Plaintiffs seek discovery for use in responding to the Objectors’ appeal rather than a 21 motion that Plaintiffs seek to bring in this Court, Plaintiffs should cite authority establishing that 22 such discovery may be authorized by this Court and that the information they seek can be 23 considered on appeal even though it is not part of the current record. 24 Plaintiffs shall file a brief on these questions, not to exceed ten (10) pages, no later than 25 May 5, 2023. If Defendants chose to file a response to Plaintiffs’ brief, their response should be 26 filed by May 12, 2023. Objectors’ response to Plaintiffs’ opening brief and Defendants’ response, 27 if any, shall be filed by May 19, 2023. Plaintiffs’ reply shall be filed by May 26, 2023. 1 Court will determine whether a hearing is necessary after it has considered the parties’ briefs. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: May 3, 2023 4 J PH C. SPERO 5 nited States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 AARON SENNE, et al., 8 Case No. 14-cv-00608-JCS Plaintiffs, 9 v. AMENDED ORDER FOR 10 ADDITIONAL BRIEFING1 KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL 11 CORP., et al., 12 Defendants.

13 14 15 16 The Court is in receipt of the joint letter submitted by Plaintiffs and the Objectors2 on the 17 question of whether Plaintiffs’ counsel may depose the Objectors. Dkt. no.1194. In order to 18 resolve this dispute, the Court seeks additional briefing as set forth below. 19 First, the Court requests additional briefing on the question of whether the Objectors’ 20 appeal will delay the payments and other non-monetary relief afforded to the class members under 21 the Settlement Agreement. In particular, the parties should address Defendants’ response (dkt. no. 22 1195) to the joint letter, which argues that Objectors’ appeal will, unquestionably, delay the 23 implementation of the settlement until after Objectors’ appeal is resolved under the term that 24 governs the Effective Date of the settlement. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 1.m. The parties should 25 also address the argument of Objectors’ counsel to the contrary, relying on provisions of the 26 1 The content of this Order is identical to dkt. no. 1196 except that a clerical error related to 27 Defendants’ response deadline has been corrected and some briefing deadlines have been changed 1 Settlement Agreement specifying that the amount of Class Counsel’s fee award is to be considered 2 separately from the reasonableness of the overall settlement. 3 With respect to whether Plaintiffs’ counsel may depose the Objectors, the Court finds, as a 4 general matter, that it has jurisdiction, even after a notice of appeal has been filed, to preserve the 5 integrity of its judgments, including by permitting additional discovery. See In re Netflix Priv. 6 Litig., No. 5:11-CV-00379-EJD, 2013 WL 6173772, at *4-5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013). Thus, for 7 example, to the extent Plaintiffs may ask the Court to require under Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of 8 Appellate Procedure that the Objectors file a bond to ensure payment of costs on appeal, narrowly 9 tailored discovery aimed at determining the ability of the Objectors who are appealing in this case 10 might be appropriate. Other post-judgment motion practice, such as a motion for sanctions like 11 the one in In re Itel Sec. Litig., brought under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 and Rule 11 based on 12 alleged misconduct by the objector’s attorney, might also warrant discovery. All such discovery, 13 however, must meet the standards of relevance under Rule 26(b)(1). Further, the Supreme Court 14 has cautioned that the Court’s inherent power to protect its judgments must be used “carefully and 15 sparingly.” In re Itel Sec. Litig., 596 F. Supp. at 233 (citing Roadway Express v. Piper, 447 U.S. 16 752, 765(1980)). 17 Accordingly, the Court requests further briefing on the specific relevance of the discovery 18 Plaintiffs seek to any post-judgment motions it envisions being decided by this Court. Plaintiffs 19 should address the need to depose both the Objectors who are appealing and those who are not. 20 To the extent Plaintiffs seek discovery for use in responding to the Objectors’ appeal rather than a 21 motion that Plaintiffs seek to bring in this Court, Plaintiffs should cite authority establishing that 22 such discovery may be authorized by this Court and that the information they seek can be 23 considered on appeal even though it is not part of the current record. 24 Plaintiffs shall file a brief on these questions, not to exceed ten (10) pages, no later than 25 May 5, 2023. If Defendants chose to file a response to Plaintiffs’ brief, their response should be 26 filed by May 12, 2023. Objectors’ response to Plaintiffs’ opening brief and Defendants’ response, 27 if any, shall be filed by May 19, 2023. Plaintiffs’ reply shall be filed by May 26, 2023. 1 Court will determine whether a hearing is necessary after it has considered the parties’ briefs. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: May 3, 2023 4 J PH C. SPERO 5 nited States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Senne v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/senne-v-office-of-the-commissioner-of-baseball-cand-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack