From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Ncaa Student-Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
May 1, 2013
Case No. 09-cv-01967 CW (NC) (N.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 09-cv-01967 CW (NC)

05-01-2013

IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME AND LIKENESS LICENSING LITIGATION


TENTATIVE ORDER AND ORDER

SETTING HEARING RE:

DISCOVERY DISPUTES


Re: Dkt. Nos. 724, 745, 746

Antitrust Plaintiffs moved to compel the depositions of 12 declarants, the declarations of whom defendants rely on to oppose plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants opposed the motion as untimely. The Court will hold a hearing on May 8, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, to determine the necessity and feasibility of proceeding with the requested depositions within the newly revised class certification briefing schedule. Tentatively, the Court is inclined to grant plaintiffs the opportunity to depose those declarants whom they have not already deposed. The Court would like more information on the proposed scope, length, schedule, method, and location of the depositions. The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer before the hearing and must be prepared to propose a schedule, methods, and locations for the remaining depositions.

The parties have reached an agreement regarding Guy Ben-Ishai, and plaintiffs admit to deposing Kevin Lennon. Defendants assert that plaintiffs also deposed Mark Womack. The remaining declarants at issue are Bob Bowlsby, James Delany, D. DeLoss Dodds, Douglas Elgin, Jonathan LeCrone, Mark Lewis, Todd Petr, Larry Scott, and John Welty.

Also on May 8, the Court will address plaintiffs' motion to compel the data referred to in Todd Petr's declaration as it relates to defendants' expert reports, and specifically whether Petr's deposition would moot the motion. The Court will address plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery regarding recent changes in NCAA bylaws as well. It declines the parties' invitation for more briefing on that issue for the moment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________

Nathanael M. Cousins

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

In re Ncaa Student-Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
May 1, 2013
Case No. 09-cv-01967 CW (NC) (N.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)
Case details for

In re Ncaa Student-Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litigation.

Case Details

Full title:IN RE NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE NAME AND LIKENESS LICENSING LITIGATION

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: May 1, 2013

Citations

Case No. 09-cv-01967 CW (NC) (N.D. Cal. May. 1, 2013)