I hope to write more in the coming week about the legal issues in the Deflategate federal court case in the Southern District of New York. For the moment, however, I thought readers might be interested in reviewing the docket sheet and several key pleadings filed in the case so far. Some of them, particularly the docket sheet, are quite amusing. I was especially amused by an order the judge entered on July 30 (docket no. 11):
Based upon the record herein, the Court directs as follows: 1− While this litigation is ongoing, it is appropriate (and helpful) for all counsel and all parties in this case to tone down their rhetoric.
Here is a list of key pleadings:
UPDATE: 9/3/15 The judge issued his much anticipated ruling today; He vacated the arbitration award entirely, thereby revoking Tom Brady’s 4 game suspension. I hear folks are dancing in the streets in Boston.
I’ve been involved in a few cases over the years, at trial and appellate levels, in which the parties to an agreement to arbitrate disputes agreed to broader judicial review of the arbitration award than is allowed under the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) or the Connecticut Arbitration Act (“CAA”). Typically the parties agreed to de novo review of questions of law. Frankly, I never gave much thought to whether such agreements were legal; I just assumed they were. I don’t assume that anymore. Read the rest of this entry »