Around the globe, betting on sporting events have led to corruption scandals involving match fixing and organized crime.
New Jersey is so poorly managed, has experienced such historic corruption and fiscal mismanagement, they are desperate to suck every $$$ for residents' pockets and betray the public trust. Republican Governor Chris Christie is willing to suck discretionary income from the pockets of the poor before adopting sound fiscal policy.
This bears watching.
Meadowlands Matters
Posted on Sunday, September 30, 2012
by John Brennan
Should attorneys representing New Jersey be permitted to obtain depositions from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, NBA Commissioner David Stern, and other league bosses as part of the discovery process in the leagues’ lawsuit against the Garden State’s bid to offer sports betting?
That’s just one of several issues that have gone before federal Judge Lois Goodman on Thursday without a resolution at hand (if you need to catch up on this case, go HERE)
State attorneys say the depositions should be allowed because “The Commissioners themselves each have claimed to possess direct and personal knowledge about the impacts New Jersey’s legalization of sports wagering may have on Plaintiffs’ operations.” As an example, attorneys note that in his declaration to the court, Stern – a Teaneck High grad, by the way – wrote in part, “The sports gambling scheme contemplated by the State of New Jersey threatens to alter these fundamental characteristics of NBA basketball.”
But attorneys for the plaintiffs say that the declarations “were not submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and that Plaintiffs are not relying on them for that motion. Those declarations were submitted solely in connection with the alternate motion for a preliminary injunction…. At this point, Defendants’ dogged refusal to acknowledge Plaintiffs’ representations on this score can be understood as nothing more than harassment.”
At least the two sides agree on one thing: “The parties also respectfully request an in-person hearing with the Court early next week or as soon thereafter as the parties may be heard.”
A look at some of the other issues:
……….
There are seven points of contention:
1. “Whether Plaintiffs’ Alleged Injury-In-Fact Is Subject To Discovery” – The leagues say that “no discovery should be allowed because their…. standing can be resolved as a matter of law.” The defense argues that the court already has denied a bid to prevent any investigation, on Aug. 30 allowing discovery “narrowly tailored to address only the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ pending motion for summary judgment.” New Jersey attorneys note that while the leagues contend their standing “is established as a matter of law,” that contention was not part of the argument for summary judgment.
The state is fishing for “studies, analyses and memorandums regarding the impact that sports gambling has on their viewership, ticket sales, reputation, fan interest and fan loyalty….” The leagues counter that they have “already produced more than 2200 pages” of discovery material. Additional requests, they say, are “far-reaching and overly broad.” They also promise not to rely on any witnesses or declarations in their preliminary injunction attempt.
2. “Whether Defendants May Take Discovery Relevant To The Relief Requested By Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment” – This has to do with the leagues seeking a permanent injunction against NJ sports betting. The dispute is whether a 2006 ruling in an EBay case applies. If so, the leagues have to show “irreparable harm” – a very high hurdle, given that the leagues are doing fine with Nevada offering the same product for decades. The leagues instead refer to a 2009 federal case where Delaware lost on its attempt to expand beyond the limited NFL parlay betting it has, with a summary judgment settling the matter. The 20-year-old law that prohibits this gambling, the leagues say, intends to allow such injunctions against any state attempting to move sports betting forward.
3. “Whether Witnesses Submitting Declarations In Support Of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Summary Judgment Or A Preliminary Injunction May Be Deposed” – we addressed this one at the top.
4. “Whether Defendants May Take Deposition Testimony From Representatives Of The Plaintiffs
Under Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6)” – Similar point, with the state adding that it wants to know more about regulatory system that help casinos detect fraud as well as how leagues and NCAA also benefit from fantasy sports and March Madness. The leagues counter that the issue at hand has to do with state sponsorship of sports betting.
5. “Whether The Purported Benefits Plaintiffs Draw From Sports Gambling Are Subject To Discovery” – An expansion of the point about the “benefits” of gambling to the leagues, who counter that state-sponsored betting don’t help them at all.
6. “Whether Plaintiffs Must Produce A Privilege Log” – State wants one, and leagues say “there is no privilege log to be produced.”
7. “Whether Plaintiffs Must Search For Electronically Stored Information And Internal Correspondence” – Again, New Jersey wants more, and the leagues object to “further costly and time-consuming discovery.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment