Opinion
22-cv-04486-BLF (SVK)
01-27-2023
MATT JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PGA TOUR, INC., Defendant.
ORDER ON JOINT SUBMISSION RE RFP NO. 8 OF THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS
Re: Dkt. No. 236
SUSAN VAN KEULEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Court has considered the concerned parties' joint submission, the relevant discovery history in this matter and relevant statutes and case law. For the reasons identified below, the Court ORDERS that additional material be provided to the Court for in-camera review before ruling on the dispute.
Disputed subpoena request no. 8 is directed to PGA independent directors and a former commissioner (“Subpoenaed Parties”). The target of request no. 8 is communications with members of Augusta National regarding LIV. Through meet and confer efforts, the target was narrowed from all members of Augusta National to certain individuals. The extent of that list is the crux of the dispute. The concerned parties have agreed on eleven individuals; Plaintiffs seek ten additional individuals and “members of the Masters Committee.”
The summary chart (Dkt. 236-1) reflects that the concerned parties are in agreement as to eleven persons. In the joint statement, the Subpoenaed Persons state they have agreed to produce communications with “12” individuals; the Court presumes the number 12 is a typographical error.
The Subpoenaed Parties point to the allegations in the operative complaint regarding Augusta National which state that defendant PGA and Augusta National aligned to block LIV golfers from the Masters tournament. Dkt. 236 at 7. Accordingly, the Subpoenaed Parties have agreed to search for and produce communications with the eleven persons they understand are responsible for determining eligibility for the Masters. Dkt. 236 at 8.
Plaintiffs' argument for a broader target list of Augusta members is not limited to the targets' role vis a vis LIV and the Masters. Rather, Plaintiffs argue that the Subpoenaed Persons asked or directed the targeted Augusta members to bring pressure on others to “chill” them “against working with LIV.” Dkt. 236 at 4. In support of this argument, Plaintiffs cite brief excerpts from six documents produced by defendant PGA that purport to reflect efforts by five Augusta members not currently on the target list to act on PGA's behalf. Dkt. 236 at 4-5.
To assist the Court in evaluating the proportionality of the disputed request, Plaintiffs are to provide the six PGA documents cited in the joint submission for in-camera review. The documents are to be emailed to SvKCRD@cand.uscourts.gov upon receipt of this order and no later than 12 p.m. on January 30, 2023, with no additional argument. Counsel for defendant PGA and the Subpoenaed Parties are to be copied on the email.
SO ORDERED.