Luck v. McMahon, et al
| Connecticut District Court | |
| Judge: | Victor A Bolden |
| Referred: | S Dave Vatti |
| Case #: | 3:20-cv-00516 |
| Nature of Suit | 190 Contract - Other Contract |
| Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Case Filed: | Apr 16, 2020 |
| Re-opened: | Nov 16, 2020 |
| Terminated: | Jun 29, 2022 |
| Last checked: Tuesday Oct 13, 2020 6:18 AM EDT |
|
Defendant
Vincent K. McMahon
|
Represented By
|
|
Plaintiff
Oliver Luck
|
Represented By
|
GPO
Jun 26 2020
ORDER denying 58 Motion for Prejudgment Remedy; denying 61 Motion for Disclosure; finding as moot 21 Motion for Prejudgment Remedy; finding as moot 25 Sealed Motion for Disclosure of Assets for the reasons stated in the attached ruling.The case is stayed until Alpha Entertainment LLC can be joined as an indispensable party to the action and DENIES without prejudice Mr. Luck's motions for prejudgment remedy and disclosure of assets. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/26/2020. (Conde, Djenab) |
|
|
GPO
Feb 05 2021
ORDER. For the reasons discussed in the attached Ruling and Order, Mr. Luck's objection to the discovery of the passcode for the Alpha-issued iPhone is overruled. Defendants may use the previously provided passcode to access the contents of the Alpha-issued iPhone upon the development and implementation of a system to segregate and remove privileged content with Mr. Luck.Defendants' objections to Mr. Luck's discovery requests are overruled. Defendants shall comply with Mr. Luck's discovery requests 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29. Defendants also are ordered to provide complete answers to Mr. Luck's interrogatories 1, 2, and 4.The parties are ordered, by March 8, 2021, to file a proposed scheduling order, including dates for the close of discovery, a post-discovery telephonic status conference, the filing of dispositive motions, any responses or replies to any dispositive motions, the joint trial memorandum, and a trial-ready date. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 2/5/2021. (Shaffer, Chelsea) |
|
|
GPO
Sep 17 2021
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 151 Motion to Dismiss; granting in part and denying in part 157 Sealed Motion to Compel, 158 Motion to Compel; denying 160 Sealed Motion to Amend/Correct, 161 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 168 Motion to Compel; denying 171 Motion to Strike; denying 179 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 185 Sealed Motion, 186 Motion for Protective Order; granting 191 Sealed Motion; denying 197 Motion to Compel; denying 227 Motion to Compel; granting in part and denying in part 241 Motion to Compel; denying 246 Motion to Compel; denying 251 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 271 Sealed Motion; denying 300 Motion for Leave to File; denying 302 Motion for Leave to File.For the reasons described in the attached ruling and order, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count Four of the Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 151, is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Mr. Luck's claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as to Mr. McMahon is DISMISSED, but Defendants' motion to dismiss Mr. Luck's breach of the implied duty of good faith claim against Alpha is DENIED. Mr. Luck's Motion for Leave to Amend his Second Amended Complaint, ECF Nos. 160 and 161, is DENIED. Mr. Luck's Motion to Compel Documents, ECF No. 158, is GRANTED with respect to Entries 80-89 of Defendants' privilege log, and DENIED with respect to the remaining documents, with the exception of a subset of entries for which the Court will conduct in camera review. Defendants shall disclose these documents to the Court by September 24, 2021.Mr. Luck's Motion to Compel the Verification of Alpha's Interrogatory Answers and Response to Interrogatory No. 2, ECF No. 168, is GRANTED.Alpha's Motion to Strike Mr. Lucks Affirmative Defenses, ECF No. 171, is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. Mr. Luck's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Alpha Representatives, ECF No. 179, is DENIED without prejudice to renewal.Mr. Luck's Motion for a Protective Order and Motion to Seal, ECF Nos. 185 and 186, is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. To the extent Mr. Luck seeks to exclude discovery related to Mr. Luck's use of the iPhone for non-XFL matters, this request is DENIED. The motion is GRANTED as to the disclosure of the information gleaned from Mr. Lucks Alpha-issued iPhone, until such time as the Court may determine a protective order is no longer warranted following a ruling on any dispositive motions.Defendants' Motion to Compel Answers to Deposition Questions, ECF No. 191, is GRANTED, as specifically described in the attached ruling and order.Mr. Luck's Motion to Compel the Deposition of Jerry McDevitt, ECF No. 197, is DENIED.Mr. Luck's Motion to Compel World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. to produce documents, ECF No. 227, is DENIED as moot. Defendants' Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Answers to Interrogatories, ECF No. 241, is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part. Mr. Luck shall serve amended responses to the Requests For Admissions, except to the extent described below, by October 8, 2021. Mr. Luck's Motion to Compel Documents and Answers to Deposition Questions, ECF No. 246, is DENIED.Mr. Luck's Second Amended Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer to Alpha's Amended Counterclaims, ECF No. 302, is DENIED. His initial Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer, ECF No. 251, and First Amended Motion for Leave to File an Amended Answer, ECF No. 300, are DENIED as moot.Mr. Luck's motion for a discovery conference, ECF No. 271, is DENIED. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 9/17/2021. (Lee, Diana) |
| 1. | Former XFL commissioner Oliver Luck sues Vince McMahon for wrongful termination (cbssports.com) |
| Submitted Tue 04/21/2020 | |
| Docket last updated: 8 hours ago |
| Wednesday, June 29, 2022 | ||
| 487 | 487 ORDER finding as moot448 Motion for Permanent Injunction; finding as moot459 Motion in Limine; finding as moot460 Motion in Limine; finding as moot461 Motion in Limine; finding as moot462 Motion in Limine; finding as moot463 Motion in Limine; finding as moot464 Motion in Limine; finding as moot465 Motion in Limine; finding as moot466 Motion in Limine; finding as moot467 Motion in Limine; finding as moot468 Motion in Limine; finding as moot470 Motion in Limine; finding as moot471 Motion in Limine; finding as moot472 Motion in Limine. In light of the Court's Order, ECF No. 486, the pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT . Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/29/2022. (Lee, Diana) | |
| 486 | 486 ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Based on the484 Stipulation of Dismissal, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice , with each party bearing its own costs and fees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) ("[T]he plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing...a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared."). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/29/2022. (Lee, Diana) | |
|
notice
Judicial Evaluation Program Survey
Wed 06/29 3:30 PM
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS SURVEY - FOR COUNSEL ONLY: The following link to the confidential survey requires you to log into CM/ECF for SECURITY purposes. Once in CM/ECF you will be prompted for the case number. Although you are receiving this survey through CM/ECF, it is hosted on an independent website called SurveyMonkey. Once in SurveyMonkey, the survey is located in a secure account. The survey is not docketed and it is not sent directly to the judge. To ensure anonymity, completed surveys are held up to 90 days before they are sent to the judge for review. We hope you will take this opportunity to participate, please click on this link: https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?survey (Murphy, Tatihana) |
||
|
order
Order Dismissing Case
Wed 06/29 9:42 AM
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: Based on the484 Stipulation of Dismissal, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice , with each party bearing its own costs and fees. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) ("[T]he plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing...a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared."). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/29/2022. (Lee, Diana) |
||
|
order
Order on Motion for Permanent Injunction Order on Motion in Limine
Wed 06/29 9:46 AM
ORDER finding as moot448 Motion for Permanent Injunction; finding as moot459 Motion in Limine; finding as moot460 Motion in Limine; finding as moot461 Motion in Limine; finding as moot462 Motion in Limine; finding as moot463 Motion in Limine; finding as moot464 Motion in Limine; finding as moot465 Motion in Limine; finding as moot466 Motion in Limine; finding as moot467 Motion in Limine; finding as moot468 Motion in Limine; finding as moot470 Motion in Limine; finding as moot471 Motion in Limine; finding as moot472 Motion in Limine. In light of the Court's Order, ECF No. 486, the pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT . Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 6/29/2022. (Lee, Diana) |
||
| Tuesday, June 28, 2022 | ||
| 485 | 485 ORDER granting483 Motion to maintain sealing. In his ECF326 Order, Judge Bolden provisionally sealed filings containing information concerning the plaintiff's personal use of his company-issued iPhone, subject to the following condition: "[I]f the Court determines that all of this information is both 'relevant to' Defendants' defense, and 'proportional to the needs of the case,' in a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the materials will be unsealed and available for public view." Subsequent filings containing such information were sealed on the same basis. Thereafter, in his ECF423 Order on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Bolden ruled that the defendants could not rely on after-acquired evidence regarding the plaintiff's "personal use" of the iPhone as a defense to liability, a limitation on damages, or a basis for a counterclaim, and so "the issue of [Plaintiff]'s personal use of the iPhone will no longer be in this case." Furthermore, the case has been finally resolved by settlement, so there is no conceivable need for the information. Thus, even assuming that the sealed materials are judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access, the weight of the presumption in this case is low because the information has played a minor role, if any, in the exercise of Article III judicial power, and has minimal value, if any, to those monitoring the federal courts. See Mirlis v. Greer , 952 F.3d 51, 59 (2d Cir. 2020) (summarizing the sealing inquiry articulated in the Amodeo decisions). When weighed against the privacy interest asserted by the plaintiff, the balance tips against permitting public access. See , e.g. , id. For these reasons, the Court finds that good cause exists to seal these documents/materials and that sealing is supported by clear and compelling reasons and is narrowly tailored to serve these reasons. See L. Civ. R. 5(e)(3). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the previously-sealed filings in this action containing information obtained from the plaintiff's company-issued iPhone shall remain under seal absent future order of the Court. So ordered. Signed by Judge S. Dave Vatti on 6/28/22. (Nichols, Jeffrey) | |
|
order
Order on Motion to Seal
Tue 06/28 5:19 PM
ORDER granting483 Motion to maintain sealing. In his ECF326 Order, Judge Bolden provisionally sealed filings containing information concerning the plaintiff's personal use of his company-issued iPhone, subject to the following condition: "[I]f the Court determines that all of this information is both 'relevant to' Defendants' defense, and 'proportional to the needs of the case,' in a ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the materials will be unsealed and available for public view." Subsequent filings containing such information were sealed on the same basis. Thereafter, in his ECF423 Order on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, Judge Bolden ruled that the defendants could not rely on after-acquired evidence regarding the plaintiff's "personal use" of the iPhone as a defense to liability, a limitation on damages, or a basis for a counterclaim, and so "the issue of [Plaintiff]'s personal use of the iPhone will no longer be in this case." Furthermore, the case has been finally resolved by settlement, so there is no conceivable need for the information. Thus, even assuming that the sealed materials are judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access, the weight of the presumption in this case is low because the information has played a minor role, if any, in the exercise of Article III judicial power, and has minimal value, if any, to those monitoring the federal courts. See Mirlis v. Greer , 952 F.3d 51, 59 (2d Cir. 2020) (summarizing the sealing inquiry articulated in the Amodeo decisions). When weighed against the privacy interest asserted by the plaintiff, the balance tips against permitting public access. See , e.g. , id. For these reasons, the Court finds that good cause exists to seal these documents/materials and that sealing is supported by clear and compelling reasons and is narrowly tailored to serve these reasons. See L. Civ. R. 5(e)(3). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the previously-sealed filings in this action containing information obtained from the plaintiff's company-issued iPhone shall remain under seal absent future order of the Court. So ordered. Signed by Judge S. Dave Vatti on 6/28/22. (Nichols, Jeffrey) |
||
| Thursday, June 23, 2022 | ||
| 484 | 484
2
pgs
misc
Stipulation of Dismissal
Thu 06/23 8:52 AM
STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by the Parties by Oliver Luck. (McHazlett, Jared) |
|