Garber v. Office of Commissioner of Baseball - Joint Pretrial Order

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
FERNANDA GARBER, et al., representing

themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

12 Civ. 3704 (SAS)
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF

BASEBALL, et al.,
Defendants.
Scheindlin, District Judge:
Having conferred among themselves and with the Court pursuant to Rule 16 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties adopt the following statements, directions and
agreements as the Pretrial Order:
1.
Trial Counsel
Plaintiffs trial counsel will be as follows:
Howard Langer
Edward Diver
Peter Leckman
Langer, Grogan & Diver, P.C.
1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 320-5660
Joshua D. Snyder
Boni & Zack, LLC
15 St. Asaphs Road
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Telephone: (610) 822-0200
Jeffrey B. Dubner
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
1100 New York Ave. NW, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 408-4600
Robert J. LaRocca
Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Defendants trial counsel will be as follows:
Beth A. Wilkinson
Alexandra M. Walsh
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
2001 K Street, N.W.
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Daniel J. Toal
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
Attorneys for Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League Baseball
Enterprises Inc., MLB Advanced Media L.P., MLB Advanced Media, Inc.,
Athletics Investment Group, LLC, the Baseball Club of Seattle, L.P., Chicago
Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, Chicago White Sox, Ltd., Colorado Rockies Baseball
Club, Ltd., The Phillies, L.P., Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc., and San Francisco
Baseball Associates, L.P.
Michael P. Carroll
Arthur J. Burke
David B. Toscano
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
Telephone: (212) 450-4000
Attorneys for Comcast Corp., Comcast SportsNet California, LLC, Comcast
SportsNet Chicago, LLC, Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, L.P.
Joseph Serino, Jr.

John C. Vazquez
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Telephone: (212) 446-4800
Melissa D. Ingalls
Tammy A. Tsoumas
Kirkland & Ellis LLP
333 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213) 680-8400
Attorneys for DIRECTV, LLC, DIRECTV Sports Networks, LLC, DIRECTV
Sports Net Pittsburgh, LLC (a/k/a ROOT Sports Pittsburgh), DIRECTV Sports
Net Rocky Mountain, LLC (a/k/a ROOT Sports Rocky Mountain), and DIRECTV
Sports Net Northwest, LLC (a/k/a ROOT Sports Northwest)
Jonathan D. Schiller
Alan B. Vickery
Christopher Duffy
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
Telephone: (212) 446-2300
Attorneys for New York Yankees Partnership
John Schmidtlein
William Vigen
Joelle Perry
Williams & Connolly LLP
725 Twelfth St., N.W.
Telephone: (202) 434-5000
Attorneys for Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network, LLC
2.
Nature of Action and Jurisdiction/Venue

There exists a dispute concerning jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs Jurisdictional Statement
Plaintiffs bring claims pursuant to Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 26, for
violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1-2. This Court has subject
matter jurisdiction over that claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1337. Venue is proper
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 15 U.S.C. 22.
Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants contention that Major League Baseballs limited
exemption from the antitrust laws removes the case from the Courts jurisdiction. The Court has
previously held that that exemption does not apply to the broadcasting restrictions Plaintiffs
challenge. See Laumann v. NHL, 56 F. Supp. 3d 280, 297 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (I therefore decline
to apply the exemption to a subject that is not central to the business of baseball, and that
Congress did not intend to exempt namely baseballs contracts for television broadcasting
rights.). The Court has also held that the scope of the baseball exemption is not a jurisdictional
issue. Opinion and Order, Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, ECF No. 342, at 9
(Sept. 22, 2014).
The basis for the Television Defendants separate claim that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction is unclear. To the extent necessary, Plaintiffs will address this argument in
response to Defendants pretrial brief.
Defendants Jurisdictional Statement
Defendants contend that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the baseball
exemption to the antitrust laws applies to Plaintiffs claims. See, e.g., Flood v. Kuhn, 443 F.2d
264, 270 (2d Cir. 1971), affd, 407 U.S. 258 (1972); Salerno v. Am. League of Profl Baseball
Clubs, 310 F. Supp. 729, 731 (S.D.N.Y. 1969), affd, 429 F.2d 1003 (2d Cir. 1970); Profl
4
Baseball Schools & Clubs, Inc. v. Kuhn, 693 F.2d 1085, 1085 (11th Cir. 1982); MLB v.
Butterworth, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1331 (N.D. Fla. 2001), affd on other grounds 331 F.3d 1177
(11th Cir. 2003).
The Television Defendants1 assert that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the
claims against them because the Court can grant no injunctive relief against the Television
Defendants that would redress Plaintiffs alleged injury. See Reaves v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 355
F. Supp. 2d 510, 515 (D.D.C. 2005) (three-judge court) (per curiam); see also Spencer v. Kemna,
523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (redressability requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial
proceedings).
3.
Jury/Non-Jury
Because Plaintiffs are pursuing only injunctive relief, this will be a non-jury trial.
4.
Amendments/Dismissals
Plaintiffs seek to dismiss their individual damages claims with prejudice pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Defendants stipulate to dismissal on
those terms.
5.
Undisputed Facts
Stipulated and undisputed facts are listed at Attachment A.
The Television Defendants are DIRECTV, LLC, DIRECTV Sports Networks, LLC, DIRECTV
Sports Net Pittsburgh, LLC (a/k/a ROOT Sports Pittsburgh), DIRECTV Sports Net Rocky
Mountain, LLC (a/k/a ROOT Sports Rocky Mountain), and DIRECTV Sports Net Northwest,
LLC (a/k/a ROOT Sports Northwest) (collectively, the DIRECTV Defendants), Comcast
Corporation, Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, LLC, Comcast SportsNet California, LLC,
Comcast SportsNet Chicago, LLC (collectively, the Comcast Defendants) and Yankees
Entertainment and Sports Networks (YES).
5
6.
Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiffs Contentions
It is undisputed that the 30 teams playing Major League Baseball and their broadcast
partners have agreed that none of them will authorize distribution of live telecasts of their games
on the Internet or outside their designated home television territory. Plaintiffs contend that this
violates Sections One and Two of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 & 2.
First, the Defendants agreement constitutes a horizontal market allocation, which harms
competition by reducing output and raising prices. As explained in Plaintiffs Pre-Trial
Memorandum of Law and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Defendants have
not met their heavy burden of showing that this purposeful suppression of competition has any
legitimate procompetitive benefitsand even if they had, any such legitimate procompetitive
benefits could be achieved through less restrictive alternatives. Accordingly, this agreement
violates Section One, 15 U.S.C. 1.
The Television Defendants have actively facilitated and encouraged the division of the
market for the major league baseball telecasts they produce and distribute by, among other
things, entering contracts explicitly incorporating the territorial restraints, knowing that their
competitors had done the same; by paying more for the artificial exclusivity the horizontal
agreement creates; by insisting on contractual provisions prohibiting relaxation of the territorial
allocations; by implementing the blackouts necessary to enforce the territorial restraint; and by
collaborating with one another to ensure that prices remain elevated and output thereby
restricted.
Second, the agreement among the League Defendants artificially creates regional
monopolies over telecasts and distribution over the Internet. As Professor Noll has shown, Major
League Baseball telecasts constitute a relevant product market, and the agreement has divided
6
the United States into submarkets into which only one to six teams can distribute telecasts.
Likewise, by agreeing to an artificial in-market and out-of-market divide, the teams and
league have ceded a monopoly to the League to control out-of-market telecasts. But for the
horizontal agreement, the 30 Teams would compete in the distribution of telecasts.
The League Defendants did not come by this monopoly power innocently. While local
baseball teams might generally be expected to have some market power, given the many
advantages of being present in the market, that market power is dramatically magnified by the
horizontal market allocation. The express purpose of the agreement is to create monopoly power:
to insulate teams from competition and increase their ability to market their product without any
fear of facing competition from other baseball teams or their RSNs. This anticompetitive conduct
willfully creates monopoly power and therefore violates Section Two, 15 U.S.C. 2.
As the Court has already held, the Plaintiffs have standing to challenge these agreements.
See Laumann v. Nat'l Hockey League, 105 F. Supp. 3d 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Laumann v. Nat'l
Hockey League, 907 F. Supp. 2d 465, 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). They are ongoing participants in the
market for major-league baseball telecasts. They have previously purchased Defendants out-ofmarket bundles subject to the challenged restraints, and either continue to purchase major-league
baseball telecasts or would do so in the future if the restraints were lifted. They have faced higher
prices and decreased choices as a result of the restraints.
As a remedy for these violations, Plaintiffs request that the Court declare the market
allocation unlawful; enjoin the League Defendants from restraining any Team from distributing
throughout the United States by any distribution method, including via the Internet; enjoin the
Television Defendants from enforcing and implementing the challenged market allocations; and
impose other remedial terms as necessary to ensure the cessation of the unlawful conduct.
Defendants Contentions
Major League Baseballs (MLBs or the Leagues) telecast licensing system
increases the quantity and quality of baseball available to consumers, and therefore promotes
competition, rather than restraining competition in or monopolizing any relevant market.
MLBs licensing system (1) allocates exclusive telecast rights to each club within a
defined geographic territory and (2) centralizes national telecast rights in the League. The home
team territorial rules that are the underpinning of this licensing and broadcast system have,
among other things, dramatically increased the number of local telecasts, fostered greater local
fan loyalty, and boosted stadium attendance. The Leagues national telecast rights agreements
have permitted the League to innovate new products, including MLB Extra Innings and
MLB.TV, generate substantial shared revenue for every club, and promote the game of baseball
in general, rather than entrenching the popularity of certain clubs. Since the adoption of the
telecast licensing system, the number of live video exhibitions of MLB games has grown, even
more so for the least popular teams. Today, nearly every MLB game is available for video
exhibition to nearly every fan in the United States. The rise in the quantity of broadcasts
available to consumers has coincided with a rise in telecast quality, including team-dedicated
pre- and post-game shows and industry-leading Internet streaming. The product on the field has
also never been better or more competitive: In the ten most recent seasons, 28 out of the 30 MLB
clubs have earned a spot in the playoffs. In short, MLBs telecast licensing system has been
beneficial to baseball fans and enhanced baseballs ability to compete with the myriad forms of
sports and non-sports entertainment that consumers choose to watch on television.
Against this backdrop of expanding output and increased product quality, Plaintiffs will
be unable to demonstrate that MLBs home territory rules harm competition. As an initial
matter, Plaintiffs case rests on an incorrectly defined relevant market and an incorrect
assessment of MLBs market power: the relevant market includes not only professional baseball
telecasts but also (at a minimum) telecasts of other professional sports and non-sports
programming. Plaintiffs cannot establish that MLB possesses market or monopoly power in that
properly defined market. Moreover, the reductions in choice or output that Plaintiffs allege
including that individual teams cannot offer their games out-of-market alongside the League
offering those games out-of-marketare not cognizable anticompetitive effects or antitrust
injuries. This claim ignores that virtually every game played in MLBs regular season is
available to consumers, and in any event, that beginning next season MLB will make singleteam, out-of-market streams available for purchase (alongside the out-of-market package) on
MLB.TV. Finally, Plaintiffs have no evidence that without the current system, consumers in the
but for world would be able to view the same number of games at a comparable price.
Plaintiffs allegations against the Television Defendants also fail. As the League rules
are entirely lawful, Television Defendants are not liable for distributing games pursuant to them.
Further, an injunction against Television Defendants is not necessary to enjoin League rules, and
therefore the injunctive claims against the Television Defendants do not present a triable case or
controversy. Substantively, there is no direct or plausible circumstantial evidence of any
horizontal conspiracy among the RSNs, and there are no plus factors that allow for the inference
of a horizontal conspiracy as opposed to legitimate, parallel conduct. It is in each RSNs
unilateral interest to purchase the only rights they are able to licensei.e., the right to distribute
a particular clubs games in the clubs HTT. There is also no evidence that the Television
Defendants are liable for participating in any alleged horizontal conspiracy among the League
Defendants.
Finally, the evidence will confirm that Plaintiffs claims fall squarely within the antitrust
exemption applicable to the business of baseball and fail for that independent reason.
7.
Issues of Law
There exists a dispute over the scope of the legal issues to be decided.
Plaintiffs Statement of the Ultimate Issues of Law to Be Decided

15 U.S.C. 1
1. Whether it is more likely than not that some or all Defendants engaged in (1) concerted
action between at least two legally distinct economic entities; (2) that constitute[s] an
unreasonable restraint of trade either per se or under the rule of reason. Laumann v. Nat'l
Hockey League, 907 F. Supp. 2d 465, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
a. Whether some or all Defendants entered an express agreement not to compete in
terms of price or output. Natl Coll. Athl. Assn v. Bd. of Regents, 468 U.S. 85,
109 (U.S. 1984) (NCAA).
b. If so, whether Defendants have met their heavy burden of establishing an
affirmative defense which competitively justifies th[e] apparent deviation from
the operations of a free market. NCAA, 468 U.S. at 113.
c. Or, whether Plaintiffs have shown, either directly or through a showing of market
power in a relevant market, that it is more likely than not that Defendants
conduct has caused an actual adverse effect on the market. Laumann, 907 F.
Supp. 2d at 479.
d. If so, whether the Defendants have offered evidence that their conduct has
legitimate pro-competitive effects. Id.
e. If Defendants have met their burden, whether Plaintiffs have shown that it is more
likely than not that any legitimate procompetitive effects could have been
achieved through less restrictive means. Id.
15 U.S.C. 2
1. Whether any or all of the League Defendants2 unlawfully monopolized, or combined or
conspired, to monopolize, trade or commerce.
2
The League Defendants are the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League Baseball
Enterprises Inc., MLB Advanced Media L.P., Athletics Investment Group, LLC, The Baseball
Club of Seattle, L.P., Chicago National League Ball Club, LLC, Chicago White Sox, Ltd.,
Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., New York Yankees Partnership, The Phillies, L.P.,
Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc., and San Francisco Baseball Associates, L.P.
10
a. Monopolization
i.
Whether it is more likely than not that one or more of the League
Defendants possessed monopoly power in the relevant market.
Laumann v. Natl Hockey League, 907 F. Supp. 2d 465, 479 (S.D.N.Y.
2012)
ii.
If so, whether it is more likely than not:

1. (1) that [one or more of the League Defendants have] engaged in
predatory or anticompetitive conduct with (2) a specific intent to
monopolize and (3) a dangerous probability of achieving
monopoly power. Id. at 480; or
2. that one or more of the League Defendants have use[d] its market
power, whether obtained lawfully or not, to prevent or impede
competition in the relevant market. Id. at 492.
b. Conspiracy to Monopolize
i.
Whether it is more likely than not that some or all of the League
Defendants engaged in concerted action with the specific intent to
achieve an unlawful monopoly; and
ii.
committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Injury & Standing
1. Whether at least one Plaintiff has both constitutional and antitrust standing to pursue
injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and/or the certified class.
2. Whether the Plaintiffs have established a cognizable antitrust injury resulting from the
challenged practices.
Defendants Statement of the Issues of Law to Be Decided
1. Whether two or more Defendants entered into a contract, combination, or conspiracy that
unreasonably suppresses or destroys competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, or whether their actions merely regulate or promote competition and
thus are permitted under the law. Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1, 5 (2006).
a. Whether Plaintiffs have satisfied their initial burden of proving that the
challenged restraints more likely than not have an actual, substantial adverse
effect on competition as a whole in the relevant market as to:
11
i.
an alleged horizontal agreement among the League Defendants to

establish territorial rules;
ii.
the Television Defendants alleged participation in the League

Defendants alleged conspiracy, based on the Television Defendants
presumptively legal vertical distribution agreements, which
incorporate territorial rules created and dictated by the League
Defendants;
b. If so, whether Defendants have met their burden of production to offer evidence
of procompetitive effects of the challenged restraint;
c. Whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of proving that those procompetitive
effects could have been achieved through less restrictive alternatives;
d. If so, whether Plaintiffs have met their burden of proving that the procompetitive
effects of the challenged restraints are outweighed by adverse effects on
competition as a whole in the relevant market.
MLB Properties, Inc. v. Salvino, 542 F.3d 290, 317 (2d Cir. 2008); United States
v. Visa, Inc., 344 F.3d 229, 238 (2d Cir. 2003).
2. Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, whether any or all of the League Defendants
unlawfully monopolized, or combined to monopolize, trade or commerce in violation of
Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2; New York ex rel. Schneiderman v. Actavis
PLC, 787 F.3d 638, 651 (2d Cir. 2015);
a. Monopolization.
i.
Whether Plaintiffs have met their initial burden of demonstrating that

the League Defendants possessed monopoly power in the relevant
market; Tops Mkts., Inc. v. Quality Mkts., Inc., 142 F.3d 90, 98 (2d
Cir. 1998);
ii.
If so, whether Plaintiffs have established that the League Defendants:

1. willfully acquired or maintained that monopoly power, as
distinguished from the growth or development of power as a
consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic
accident; and
2. did so by predatory or anticompetitive conduct.
Actavis, 787 F.3d at 651.

b. Conspiracy to Monopolize. Whether Plaintiffs have proven that the League
Defendants:
12
i.
engaged in concerted action deliberately taken with the specific intent

to achieve an unlawful monopoly; and
ii.
committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy;
Discover Fin. Servs. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., 598 F. Supp. 2d 394, 405 (S.D.N.Y.
2008) (quoting Elecs. Commcns Corp. v. Toshiba Am. Consumer Prods., Inc.,
129 F.3d 240, 246 (2d Cir. 1997)).
c. If Plaintiffs prove that the League Defendants have monopoly power, and their
conduct is anticompetitive or exclusionary, whether the League Defendants
proffered procompetitive justifications for their conduct; Actavis, 787 F.3d at 651;
d. If so, whether Plaintiffs rebutted those justifications and established that
anticompetitive harm outweighs the procompetitive benefits. Actavis, 787 F.3d at
651.
3. Whether the Plaintiffs have established a cognizable antitrust injury resulting from the
challenged practices. Paycom Billing Servs., Inc. v. Mastercard Intl, Inc., 467 F.3d 283,
290 (2d Cir. 2006).
4. Whether each Plaintiff has both constitutional and antitrust standing to pursue injunctive
relief on behalf of themselves and/or the certified class. Balaklaw v. Lovell, 14 F.3d 793,
797-98 & n.9 (2d Cir. 1994).
5. As to the Television Defendants, whether Plaintiffs have established an actual injury that
can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision, which is necessary to satisfy the case or
controversy requirement of Article III. Reaves v. U.S. Dept of Justice, 355 F. Supp. 2d
510, 515 (D.D.C. 2005) (three-judge court) (per curiam).
6. Whether Plaintiffs claims are barred by baseballs exemption from the antitrust laws. See
City of San Jose v. MLB, 776 F.3d 686, 69092 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 36
(2015).
8.
Separate Trial of Issues

No party believes that a separate trial of any issues is necessary at this time.
9.
Lists of Prospective Witnesses

Plaintiffs Anticipated Witnesses
Name
Laurence Baer
Vincent Birbiglia
Position
Partial Owner, President, and Chief
Executive Officer, San Francisco
Giants
Plaintiff
13
Means of Presentation
Deposition
Live
Name
Robert Bowman
Timothy Brosnan
Patrick Crumb
Tracy Dolgin
Robert DuPuy
Reagan Feeney
John Henry
Susanne Hilgefort
Marc Lerner
Randy Levine
Robert Manfred
Daniel McFadden
Robert Nutting
Allan Huber Bud Selig
Christopher Tully
Philip Weinberg
Position
President, Business & Media,
Officer of the Commissioner of
Baseball; President and Chief
Executive Officer, MLB Advanced
Media, L.P.
Executive Vice President, Business
(former), Office of the
Commissioner of Baseball
President, DIRECTV Sports
Networks, LLC
President and Chief Executive
Officer, Yankees Entertainment &
Sports Network, LLC
President and Chief Operating
Officer (former), Office of the
Vice President for Programming
Acquisitions (former), DIRECTV,
LLC
Principal Owner, Boston Red Sox;
Executive Council Member
(former), MLB; Director (former),
MLB Advanced Media, L.P.
Senior Director, Broadcasting
Business Affairs, Office of the
Plaintiff
President, New York Yankees
Commissioner, Office of the
Emeritus Professor of Economics,
University of California, Berkeley
Principal Owner and Chairman of
the Board, Pittsburgh Pirates
Commissioner Emeritus, Office of
the Commissioner of Baseball
Executive Vice President, Media,
Office of the Commissioner of
Baseball
Executive Vice President and
General Counsel, Comcast
Spectacor
Comcast Document
Custodian (if necessary)
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Deposition
Live
Deposition
Live
Deposition
Deposition
Live
Deposition
Deposition
Live/Declaration
14
Name
Position
Live/Declaration
DIRECTV Document
MLB Document
NHL Document
Rule 1006 Summary
Witnesses (if necessary)
Live/Declaration
Live/Declaration
Live/Declaration
Defendants Anticipated Witnesses

The following witnesses may offer testimony in Defendants case-in-chief. Defendants
reserve the right to not call at trial any of the witnesses identified below. Defendants also reserve
the right to call at trial any witness disclosed on Plaintiffs witness list. Defendants additionally
reserve the right to call to testify in rebuttal at trial witnesses not identified below.
Name
Title
Affiliation
Testimony
Type
Laurence Baer
Vincent Birbiglia
Robert Bowman
President and CEO
San Francisco Giants

Class representative
Live
Deposition*
Live
Patrick Crumb
Dan Derian
Tracy Dolgin
Marc Lerner
Jon Litner
Robert Manfred
Robert Nutting
Jacqueline Parkes
Derek Rasmussen
Gregory Rigdon
President, Business &

Media
President and CEO
President
Vice President, Research
and Strategic Planning
President and CEO
Group President
Commissioner of
Baseball
Principal Owner and
Chairman of the Board
Chief Marketing Officer
Executive Vice President,
Content Acquisition
15
MLB
MLB Advanced Media
DIRECTV Sports
Networks
MLB
Live
Live
Yankees Entertainment
and Sports Network
NBC Sports Group
MLB
Live
Deposition*
Live
Live
Pittsburgh Pirates
Live
MLB
Comcast Cable
Live
Deposition*
Live
Name
Title
Garrett Traub
Christopher Tully
Daniel York
Executive Vice President

of Media
Chief Content Officer
Affiliation
Testimony
Type
MLB
Deposition*
Live
DIRECTV
Live
* Deposition testimony will be played only if the class representative does not appear at trial in
Plaintiffs case.
10.
Expert Witnesses
Plaintiffs Expert Witnesses
Name
Prof. Roger Noll
Prof. Einer Elhauge
Summary of Proposed Testimony

As reflected in the declarations and reports Professor Noll has
submitted in this matter, Professor Noll will testify about his
analysis of the competitive effects of Defendants television
broadcasting restraints, including the competitive harm caused by
the policies, the relevant market, market power, Defendants
asserted procompetitive justifications, and the existence of less
restrictive alternatives. He may testify in rebuttal in response to
Defendants criticisms of his analysis.
As reflected in the report he has submitted in this matter,
Professor Elhauge will testify in rebuttal about the economic
soundness of Professors Murphy and Elzingas methods and
conclusions, including their opinions regarding efficiencies,
market definition, market power, and consumer effects.
Defendants Expert Witnesses

The following expert witnesses may offer live testimony.
Name
Summary of Proposed Testimony
Dr. Kevin Murphy
Professor Murphy will offer testimony related to the opinions set

forth in his August 24, 2015 report, including without limitation
the procompetitive justifications for MLBs territorial rules, the
relevant market, and MLBs lack of market power. Professor
Murphy will also offer opinions that rebut Professor Nolls and
Professor Elhauges opinions.
16
Dr. Kenneth Elzinga
Professor Elzinga will testify to the opinions, and the basis and
reasons for those opinions, set forth in his August 24, 2015 report
and his October 19, 2015 deposition testimony, including without
limitation the lack of participation by the Television Defendants
in the alleged conspiracies. Professor Elzinga also will offer
opinions that rebut Professor Nolls proffered opinions.
Further, Defendants object under Rule 403 and for the reasons stated in their letter to the
Court dated November 11, 2015 and at the Hearing held on November 24, 2015, to the testimony
of Professor Elhauge as unnecessarily duplicative.
11.
Exhibits
Exhibits and objections are listed at Attachment B (Plaintiffs Proposed Trial Exhibits)
and Attachment C (Defendants Proposed Trial Exhibits). Designated deposition testimony

excerpts and objections thereto are listed at Attachment D (Plaintiffs Deposition Designations)
and Attachment E (Defendants Deposition Designations).
Both parties reserve their rights to raise further objections to exhibits at any time as
permitted by the Court. This includes raising objections based on the context in which or
purposes for which particular exhibits are offered. Defendants reserve their rights to object
based on the party or parties against whom Plaintiffs offer exhibits.
The parties continue to work on objections to exhibits and expect to resolve many issues
prior to trial.
12.
Subsequent Amendment of Witness or Exhibit Lists

Absent the subsequent consent of all the parties hereto, or the issuance of a subsequent
Order by this Court so permitting, no witnesses or exhibits shall be presented at the trial of this
case other than those listed in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 hereof.
17
13.
Estimate of Trial Time

The parties will present a trial plan to the Court listing each witness and the anticipated
time for direct, cross, and re-direct examinations, in advance of the January 5, 2016 status
conference. At present, Plaintiffs anticipate that they will require 5 trial days for the presentation
of their case, including rebuttal. At present, Defendants anticipate that they will require 5 trial
days for the presentation of their case.
14.
Previous Substantive Motions

The following substantive motions have previously been filed:
1. On July 27, 2012, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On December 5, 2012, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Defendants Motion. See ECF No. 83.
2. On August 19, 2013, Comcast Defendants and DIRECTV Defendants each
moved to compel arbitration against certain Plaintiffs. On November 25, 2013,
the Court granted Comcast Defendants motion as to certain Plaintiffs in this
matter (Traub and Rasmussen) and denied it as to other Plaintiffs in this matter
(Birbiglia and Lerner). The Court denied DIRECTVs motion in full. See ECF
No. 167.
3. On April 8, 2014, Defendants moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 56. On August 8, 2014, the Court denied Defendants motions
in full. See ECF No. 316.
4. On September 19, 2014, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). On May 14, 2015, the Court granted in
part and denied in part Plaintiffs Motion. The Court granted Plaintiffs request
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court
18
denied Plaintiffs request for certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF No. 430.
5. On November 12, 2014, Defendants moved to exclude the opinions of Plaintiffs
expert Roger Noll. On May 14, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants Daubert Motion. The Court excluded Dr. Nolls opinions on
forecasting demand in the but-for world, and excluded the demand side of his
damages model. The Court otherwise denied the motion. See ECF Nos. 431 &
433.
15.
Requested Evidentiary Rulings

Plaintiffs may file the following motions in limine on December 22, 2015:
1. Motion to preclude argument or testimony that the challenged restraints are justified
by increased incentives for investment. As they did on summary judgment,
Defendants appear to be planning to offer evidence that the market allocation
increases investment in telecasting by teams or RSNs. Such a defense is barred as a
matter of law. As the Court previously explained, the incentive for added investment
is inflated profit stemming from limited competition. [T]he Rule of Reason does not
support a defense based on the assumption that competition itself is unreasonable.
Laumann v. Natl Hockey League, 56 F. Supp. 3d 280, 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting
Natl Socy of Profl Engrs v. United States, 435 U.S. 679, 695-96 (1978)).
Accordingly, testimony or argument that the restraints have somehow increased
investment is irrelevant and should be precluded.
2. Motion to preclude speculative opinion testimony from lay witnesses. Based on
Defendants declarations and deposition testimony, and the complete absence of
documentary evidence showing any analysis of the need for the territories or the
effect of their removal, it appears likely that Defendants intend to proffer speculative
and self-serving testimony through their own executives. Such testimony would be
impermissible lay opinion under Federal Rule of Evidence 701. See Bank of China,
N.Y. Branch v. NBM LLC, 359 F.3d 171, 181-82 (2d Cir. 2004).
3. Motion to preclude argument or evidence regarding the baseball exemption. In its
August 8, 2014 order denying Defendants motions for summary judgment, this Court
rejected the claim that the baseball exemption immunizes territorial broadcasting
restrictions from antitrust scrutiny. Laumann, 56 F. Supp. 3d at 295-97. The Courts
ruling was not merely that material questions of fact precluded a grant of summary
judgment on this issue, but that the exemption did not apply to broadcasting
19
restrictions at all. Defendants have indicated that they intend to reargue this issue at
trial, but doing so would be a waste of trial time.
Defendants do not intend to file any motions in limine.
16.
Jury Verdict
Not applicable.
17.
Voir Dire Questions, Requests to Charge, and Trial Memorandum of Law in a Jury
Trial
Not applicable.
18.
Trial Memorandum of Law and Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
in a Non-Jury Trial
The parties are concurrently filing trial memoranda, proposed findings of fact, and
proposed conclusions of law. To the extent possible, all documents are being filed publicly; to
the extent necessary, documents are being filed under seal, pursuant to the procedures specified
in the Paragraph 13 of the Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 113. Proposed redacted versions
of all sealed documents will be filed within fourteen days.
SO ORDERED:
Dated:
New York, New York
_______________________________________
SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN
United States District Judge
20
CONSENTED TO THIS DAY,

DECEMBER 18, 2015:
Alexandra M. Walsh
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, N.W.
Telephone: (202) 223-7300
Facsimile: (202) 223-7420
[email protected]
[email protected]
Daniel J. Toal
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas
Telephone: (212) 373-3000
Facsimile: (212) 757-3990
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants Office of the
Commissioner of Baseball, Major League
Baseball Enterprises Inc., MLB Advanced
Media L.P., MLB Advanced Media, Inc.,
Athletics Investment Group, LLC, the
Baseball Club of Seattle, L.P., Chicago
Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, Chicago White
Sox, Ltd., Colorado Rockies Baseball Club,
Ltd., The Phillies, LP., Pittsburgh
Baseball, Inc., and San Francisco Baseball
Associates, L.P.
CONSENTEDTOTHISDAY,
DECEMBER 18,2015:
JosephSerino,Jr.,P.C.
/ /
JminC.Vazquez
KJRKLAND&ELLISLLP
601 LexingtonAvenue
NewYork, NewYork 10022
Telephone: (212)4464800
Facsimile: (212)4464900
[email protected]
[email protected]
MelissaD.Ingalls
TammyA.Tsoumas
KIRKLAND&ELLISLLP
333South HopeStreet
LosAngeles,California 90071
Telephone:(213)6808400
Facsimile: (213)6808500
[email protected]
[email protected]
JamesH.Mutchnik,P.C.
KIRKLAND&ELLISLLP
300North LaSalle
Chicago,Illinois 60654
Telephone: (312)8622000
Facsimile: (312)8622200
[email protected]
AttorneysforDefendants DIRECTV,LLC,
DIRECTVSportsNetworks,LLC,
DIRECTVSportsNetPittsburgh,LLC
a/k/aRootSports Pittsburgh, DIRECTV
SportsNet RockyMountain, LLCa/k/a
RootSports RockyMountainand
DIRECTVSportsNetNorthwest, LLC
a/k/aRootSportsNorthwest

Garber v. Office of Commissioner of Baseball - Joint Pretrial Order

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garber v. Office of Commissioner of Baseball - Joint Pretrial Order

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Garber v. Office of Commissioner of Baseball - Joint Pretrial Order

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FERNANDA GARBER, et al., representing

JOINT PRETRIAL ORDER

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 26

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 26

Joseph Serino, Jr.

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 4 of 26

Nature of Action and Jurisdiction/Venue

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 5 of 26

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 6 of 26

Contentions of the Parties

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 7 of 26

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 8 of 26

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 9 of 26

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 10 of 26

Plaintiffs Statement of the Ultimate Issues of Law to Be Decided

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 11 of 26

If so, whether it is more likely than not:

committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 12 of 26

an alleged horizontal agreement among the League Defendants to

the Television Defendants alleged participation in the League

Whether Plaintiffs have met their initial burden of demonstrating that

If so, whether Plaintiffs have established that the League Defendants:

Actavis, 787 F.3d at 651.

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 13 of 26

engaged in concerted action deliberately taken with the specific intent

committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy;

Separate Trial of Issues

Lists of Prospective Witnesses

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 14 of 26

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 15 of 26

Defendants Anticipated Witnesses

President and CEO

San Francisco Giants

President, Business &

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 16 of 26

Executive Vice President

Prof. Einer Elhauge

Summary of Proposed Testimony

Defendants Expert Witnesses

Summary of Proposed Testimony

Dr. Kevin Murphy

Professor Murphy will offer testimony related to the opinions set

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 17 of 26

Dr. Kenneth Elzinga

and Attachment C (Defendants Proposed Trial Exhibits). Designated deposition testimony

Subsequent Amendment of Witness or Exhibit Lists

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 18 of 26

Estimate of Trial Time

Previous Substantive Motions

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 19 of 26

denied Plaintiffs request for certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of

Requested Evidentiary Rulings

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 20 of 26

New York, New York

Case 1:12-cv-03704-SAS Document 475-1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 21 of 26