Sept 11 (Askume) – For the past seven years, Manhattan federal Judge Richard Sullivan has been hearing a trial involving the 2017 murder of New York Knicks All-Star Charles Oakley over his forced eviction from Madison Square Garden.
Sullivan, who was first assigned to the case when he was a federal district judge and continued to oversee the litigation after being promoted to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018, has no particular sympathy for Oakley, which initially filed a series of lawsuits against MSG (MSGS.N) CEO James Dolan and several MSG-related companies.
Sullivan dismissed the entire case in 2020, finding that Oakley’s lawsuit, which the judge compared to a “public relations exercise,” failed to state valid legal claims. In 2021, after the Second Circuit reheard Oakley’s assault and battery allegations against some MSG defendants (but not Dolan), Sullivan granted summary judgment to the defense, citing video evidence that “demonstrated it was Oakley alone who committed the crime.” The sentencing hearing was a “forcible demolition.”
Even after Oakley’s assault and battery charges were reinstated in the Second Circuit in 2023 , Sullivan refused to allow the former Knicks to name Dolan as a defendant despite Oakley’s claim in April that Dolan had directed security to remove him from Ball Pavilion.
Given Sullivan’s skepticism about Oakley’s claims, you’d think the judge would accept the argument that Dolan has more important things to do than provide information about Oakley’s recantation from testimony at a long-ago basketball game.
you are wrong.
In Tuesday’s ruling , Sullivan rejected MSG’s argument that Dolan should not testify under the so-called “superiority doctrine,” which broadly requires courts to rule on discovery requests by plaintiffs of senior corporate executives.
Itold you earlier this year that state and federal courtsAn ongoing debate on supreme principles .
The idea behind the top exception to the general rule of discovery is that plaintiffs should not weaponize discovery requests by seeking the testimony of busy officials who have no unique or relevant information about the case. Otherwise, one would think that plaintiffs with small claims against large corporations would seek testimony from high-ranking corporate officials in order to gain an advantage in a nuisance settlement.
But because the doctrine was developed through precedent and not (mostly) formalized in state or federal procedural rules, its application varies between jurisdictions. In particular, courts are divided on the burden of persuasion. In some cases, plaintiffs must demonstrate why they need the testimony of a top witness. In other cases, the burden is on company executives to prove that their testimony is unfounded.
The two decisions I reported last January illustrate the vagaries of this theory. In Florida, an appeals court threw out a subpoena for the testimony of Tesla CEO Elon Musk based solely on Musk’s sworn statement that he allegedly has no memory of giving to the father of a teenager who was involved in an accident in his Tesla and was on the phone. The Florida court said that once Musk denies having unique knowledge, the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove why they still need his testimony.
But in California federal court, the company and its executives must prove that top witnesses are entitled to special protection. San Francisco Federal
In the Oakley case, Sullivan’s position as an appellate judge and his prior rulings on the merits of Oakley’s claims made his insistence on the controversial theory particularly notable.
MSG attorneys at King & Spalding claimed that under New York federal court precedent on supremacy, Oakley’s Wigdor attorneys had the burden of proving Dolan had unique knowledge that could not be obtained from other witnesses.
Sullivan believes this interpretation “misunderstands which party bears responsibility.” The judge said precedent from cases such as Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill and Chevron v. Donziger show that plaintiffs do not bear the exclusive burden of proving that top witnesses have unique knowledge. Instead, Sullivan said, defendants need to show that senior executives were unable to provide new and relevant information.
He said the MSG defendants failed to fulfil this obligation.
“Dolan is far from the typical top witness who distances himself from the key facts in dispute,” Sullivan wrote. “Dolan was sitting in court during the game here. He likely had relevant knowledge that other witnesses did not have.
The judge also stated that the MSG defendants had not shown that Oakley requested the testimony solely to harass Dolan or that Dolan’s testimony would disrupt MSG’s business.
MSG said in an emailed statement that Oakley’s insistence on deposing Dolan “is another example of how the legal tactics of Charles Oakley and his attorneys continue to waste the time and resources of everyone involved.”
Oakley’s legal counsel, Verdi Likoul, said his side looks forward to questioning the chief executive. “We are pleased that the court rejected Mr. Dolan’s efforts to avoid providing sworn testimony regarding Mr. Oakley’s removal from MSG,” he said in an emailed statement.
Read more:
Why Elon Musk was able to recuse himself from testifying but Satya Nadella couldn’t
The Paramountcy Doctrine and Executive Testimony: Disagreements Among Circuit Courts
Uber executives can’t avoid testifying in IPO class action lawsuit
The views expressed are solely those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Askume News, which is committed to integrity, independence and non-partisanship in accordance with the principles of trust.
