| James Dolan Fending Off
Oakley Lawsuit Gets Hearing on Loss of Oakley
Text Messages
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Substack
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Nov 20 – Following the
ejection of former Knick
Charles Oakley from Madison
Square Garden by security
guards who had just conferred
by James Dolan, a lawsuit has
been proceeding in the U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New
York.
On December 22,
2020 Judge Richard J. Sullivan
held arguments. Inner City
Press live tweeted them here
and below. On November 8, 2021
Judge Sullivan ruled against
Oakley, who he described as a
"former star power forward for
the New York Knicks."
Circuit Judge Sullivan
concluded that while much ink
has been spilled about the
run-in, now was the time for
evidence "and the undisputed
video evidence conclusively
demonstrates that the Garden's
security guards did not use
excessive force as they
escorted Oakley from the
arena."
From December 22,
2020: At issue today: upcoming
motions to amend the
complaint, and for summary
judgment. Judge
Sullivan: "Who's carrying the
ball here? You, Mr. Boxer?"
Nelson Boxer, for Oakley: I
am, your Honor.
Judge
Sullivan: I'm curious how the
puppet master who orchestrated
the removal of Mr. Oakley was
not named. Oakley's lawyer: We
did not yet have video of Mr.
Dolan, only of the security
guard. But the video filed
with the motion to dismiss
shows Mr Dolan
Oakley's
lawyer: The video shows Dolan
conferring with the security
guard for 40 seconds. Then
they oust him. Judge Sullivan:
You alleged that. Why does
video change it? Oakley's
lawyer: Mr. Dolan gave a hand
signal. Then the assault and
battery occurred.
Randy Mastro for
Dolan: Your Honor had it
right. The core of what they
are now alleging, they have
already said. They said Dolan
was attempting to publicly
humiliate Oakley. I respect
Mr. Boxer, but I have to
correct: Mr. Wigdor admitted
they had the video
Mastro: The
Arena-cam footage, was given
to the D.A.'s office. And Mr.
Wigdor said they had that.
They talked about Mr. Dolan
endorsing it with a thumbs up.
They knew everything from Feb.
2018 on. They call him the
puppet master. We call him the
centerpiece.
Mastro: When it
comes to res judicada, you
have a defendant, he was
dismissed from the case. Game
over on Mr Dolan, who has
already been dismissed. I'm
not going to use basketball
analogies like this is a slam
dunk, but c'mon - it's game
over on amending complaint
Boxer for
Oakley: Directing the removal
was not enough to support an
aiding and abetting claim. Now
we have the video, the thumbs
down [sic] -- Judge Sullivan:
You had that in 2018. Boxer:
There was a colloquy about
when to amend.
Judge
Sullivan: Mr Mastro wants to
make a motion for summary
judgment. The video seems to
contradict a fair amount of
what's in the complaint - some
of it is patently false -
potentially a basis for
sanctions [!]
Mastro: We
produced all of the Arena
footage, leading Oakley out to
the NYPD Judge Sullivan: Is
that an allegation this was
doctored? Or incomplete?
Mastro: We produced it all.
It's a series of stills. From
Oakley's time taken through
the tunnels to the NYPDMastro:
ESPN was covering the game.
There's no question that
footage was authentic. There's
also YouTube... The courts
have everything that they
should need. I don't like to
have to this, but these are
fabrications. Mr. Oakley has
not told the truth.
Mastro for
Dolan: Oakley was the
aggressor, and, I don't like
saying, using profanity, fist
in face of a security guard,
chopping down on his arms.
This is not a man in a
defensive posture. This is not
a man complying with a request
to leave. He got violent....
Mastro for
Dolan: An NYPD officer was
nearest to him. I think it's
game over. They have a false
narrative. They want to show
why the security guards
approached Mr. Oakley. We're
down to the short strokes.
It's a revocable license. He
could be asked to leave.
Mastro for Dolan:
The short stroke we're down to
is whether the force used was
reasonable. The videos show
that it was. "Let's go to the
video tape," in the words of
the immortal Warner Wolf.
Mastro for
Dolan: I have two short clips,
I'd like to show them to the
court now. Judge
Sullivan: I wouldn't mind
seeing them. Boxer: I object -
your rules prohibit showing
them. But I defer to your
Honor's judgment. Judge
Sullivan: You've seen them.
Boxer: He might
have cut and paste them.
Mastro for Dolan: It's from
You Tube. Oakley can't meet
his burden of objective
unreasonableness. Boxer: Let
me speak first. There were two
omissions by Mr. Mastro.
Reasonableness is best left to
the jury.
Judge
Sullivan: Are you aware of any
video of six security
officials throwing Mr. Oakley
to the ground? That is going
to be important on this motion
for summary judgment
Boxer for Oakley:
Force used is measured against
the crime or incident. We have
no video of him walking into
the Garden. Dolan on the
Michael Kay show spoke of how
Mr. Oakley behaved. Judge
Sullivan: You're saying
surrounding Mr. Oakley
constituted excess force?
Judge
Sullivan: Mr. Oakley basically
grabbed onto the railing so he
wouldn't be removed from the
Garden. Boxer for Oakley:
We're entitled to discovery on
that -- Judge Sullivan: Nooo,
no. You are not. You respond
once you see what their motion
is.
Mastro for
Dolan: Let's go to the video
tape. This picks up as Oakley
gets up the first time. It
shows how he trips and falls.
Declan, take it away. [It's
Declan of Gibson Dunn, running
the screening.]
Judge
Sullivan: Mr. Boxer, are you
disputing the authenticity of
the video? Boxer for Oakley:
It's just a snapshot. The
question is reasonableness
under the circumstances. Like
when he walked into the
Garden.
Judge Sullivan:
I'm not doing this for the
back pages, I'm not doing this
for Page Six. [An aside: Inner
City Press SDNY coverage (of
#6ix9ine case) in Page Six, here]
Judge Sullivan:
If I can be asked to leave any
time, it doesn't matter if I
peacefully bought a hot dog
and a Coke first. I don't care
about the concession stand.
Let's go to the second
video...
Boxer for Oakley:
in the 2nd video, they were
holding him -- Judge Sullivan:
The complaint at Para 47 said
he was thrown on the ground.
Did we just see that? Boxer
for Oakley: I thought I saw
that. It went by fast.
Judge Sullivan: I have in mind
parallel briefing
Mastro for Dolan:
On how much time we need, let
me ask Declan, the brains of
the operation (laughs) Judge
Sullivan: I'm not sure I need
much more briefing on the
motion to amend. But
responding to Summary
Judgment, you have to Feb 19.
Mastro: We'd like to reply.
Judge Sullivan:
OK. I'll issue an order with
the schedule.
Jump cut to
November 20, 2024 after remand
from the Second Circuit, a
hearing on the loss of
Oakley's text message, from
the thread:
Judge: Five years
of text messages of Charles
Oakley are missing - correct?
Oakley's lawyer: Our 2017
retainer had a preservation
notice. He has handed in his
phone 3 times to get new ones
Judge: Can I see the retainer?
Oakley's
Wigdor firm lawyer: May I
approach? Judge: Yes.. (reads)
It doesn't says how to
preserve. Mr. Mastro, have you
seen this? Mastro: Since
Monday.
Judge: I'm
probably going to put Mr.
Oakley on the stand. This is
outrageous. Wigdor firm
lawyer: Well, the emails are
backed up on the AOL server
Judge: Is merely
not deleting the same thing as
preservation? What if Mr.
Oakley dropped his phone in
the bathtub? Or left it on
subway? I might send this
transcript to all the judges
you have cases before, so they
see your firm's view of
preservation Inner City Press
Wigdor: This is
about an assault and battery
that took place on February 8,
2017, not about text
messages... Except for the
security guards, who text. The
director of security of MSG
had a company issued phone. Is
it preserved?
Mastro:
They bring a lawsuit for a
basketball player - and they
don't image his phone? We have
an email from "LB Cigars,"
Oakley tells him "Text me."
That's how he communicates.
The texts are best evidence,
if he told them to go scr*w
themselves, excuse my French
Mastro: In
the draft of his own book he
says he tripped... He's just a
former basketball player
Judge: You're asking for
dismissal Mastro: Or adverse
inference, out costs, some
combination
Mastro:
He's a serial litigant, a
recidivist plaintiff Judge: Do
we need a hearing? Mastro:
Yes. With Oakley on the stand.
Judge: What would it look
like? Mastro: Me cross
examining Charles Oakley
Judge: You don't need the
Wigdor firm lawyer who spoke
today? No.
Wigdor firm
lawyer: Ask if they imaged
phones Judge: Maybe I need an
expert into the current state
of the practice... I need to
assess Mr. Oakley's
credibility. Mastro: All
will be revealed when Mr
Oakley takes the stand
Judge: Hearing when?
Mastro: I'm back
Dec 5. Judge: Week of Dec 16
for the hearing Wigdor firm
lawyer: I don't have my phone
with me. Judge: Why not?
Wigdor firm
lawyer: I didn't bring my bar
card
Judge: Write me.
Adjourned.
More on X for
Subscribers here
and Substack here
The case is
Oakley v. Dolan et al., 17-cv-6903
(Sullivan)
***
Your
support means a lot. As little as $5 a month
helps keep us going and grants you access to
exclusive bonus material on our Patreon
page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 130222 NY NY 10013
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2024 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
