Opinion
Case No. 09-cv-1967 CW (NC) Re: Dkt. No. 360
10-06-2011
IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME & LIKENESS LICENSING LITIGATION
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFFS'
PROPOSED MOTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITION OF
MARK EMMERT
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Having considered the "Joint Statement" regarding the plaintiffs' proposed deposition of Mark Emmert (docket entry 360), the Court rules as follows.
The Court is not inclined to deny the Motion outright. Therefore, as requested by the NCAA (Statement at 4), the NCAA may file a full opposition brief by October 14, and the Plaintiffs may reply by October 21.
In the further briefing, the parties are requested to expand on the information in footnote 3 of the Joint Statement. Specifically, what is the status of the other depositions noticed in this case? Might the depositions of eight current NCAA employees make the deposition of Emmert duplicative? And why should Emmert's deposition be taken first, if the named plaintiffs have yet to be presented for depositions noticed for June 2011 (Statement at 3)?
The parties are also to confer further with each other and to report on their proposals for the location of the proposed deposition. Do the plaintiffs object to taking the deposition in Indianapolis? Does the NCAA object to a deposition in San Francisco? And why, or why not, should the deposition be directly supervised by the Court or a neutral mediator (Statement at 3)?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge