Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03958/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03958-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
San Francisco Baseball Associates L.P.
Plaintiff
San Francisco Giants
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, RULE 26(F) REPORT, AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-3958 JSW 016.369811.1 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

ONE MARITIME PLAZA, SIXTH FLOOR 

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111-3409 

TELEPHONE: 415.434.4484 

FACSIMILE: 415.434.4507 

THOMAS F. CARLUCCI, CA BAR NO. 135767 

ANDREA J. GORANSON, CA BAR NO. 215665 

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

777 EAST WISCONSIN AVENUE 

MILWAUKEE, WI 53202-5306 

TELEPHONE: 414.207-5537 

FACSIMILE: 414.297-4900 

PAUL BARGREN, WI BAR NO. 1023008, APPEARING PRO HAC VICE 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,

SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL ASSOCIATES, L.P. 

(A/K/A THE SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS), A CALIFORNIA 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

KEVIN V. RYAN, CA BAR NO. 118321 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

JAY R. WEILL, CA BAR NO. 75434 

ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

CHIEF, TAX DIVISION 

10TH FLOOR FEDERAL BUILDING 

450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, BOX 36055 

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 

TELEPHONE: 415.436.7017 

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL

ASSOCIATES L.P. (A/K/A THE

SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS), A 

CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

 PLAINTIFFS,

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 DEFENDANT.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. C 02-3958 JSW 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT,

RULE 26(F) REPORT, AND PROPOSED ORDER

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

DATE: SEPTEMBER 23, 2005

TIME: 1:30 P.M. PLACE: COURTROOM 2 (17TH FLOOR)

JUDGE: JEFFREY S. WHITE

///

Case 3:02-cv-03958 Document 35 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 1 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-03958-JSW Document 36 Filed 09/19/05 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, RULE 26(F) REPORT, AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-3958 JSW 016.369811.1 

Plaintiffs SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL ASSOCIATES L.P. (a/k/a/ THE SAN 

FRANCISCO GIANTS), a California Limited Partnership (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and 

Defendant UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (hereinafter “Defendant” and or “Government”) 

respectfully submit this Case Management Statement, Rule 26(f) Report1, and Proposed Order 

and request that the Court adopt it as its Case Management Order in this case. 

1. The basis for this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction and whether 

any issue exists regarding personal jurisdiction or venue:

This Court has jurisdiction because this action involves a federal question arising 

under the laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and because this action arises 

under the internal revenue laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 1346(a).

There is no issue with respect to this Court’s personal jurisdiction over the Defendant nor the 

venue of this action in this Court. 

2. A brief description of the case and defenses and description of any 

related proceeding, including any administrative proceedings:

This is a suit for refund of payroll taxes paid on certain awards received by former 

Major League Baseball players from a settlement fund created in 1990. Substantially similar 

legal issues were raised in suits for refund brought by other Major League Baseball Clubs before 

this Court and in several other venues. With respect to this Court, this case is related to Athletics 

Investment Group LLC, (a/k/a the Oakland Athletics), Trust U/W Walter A. Haas, Jr., Evelyn D. 

Haas, Walter J. Haas, and Elisabeth Haas Eisenhardt, Case No. C-02-3957-JSW, which involves 

substantially the same questions of fact and law. In all, 17 different Major League Baseball 

Clubs are or were involved in lawsuits in 16 courts on essentially identical issues. 

As noted in the previous status report, the Clubs and the Government reached a 

global Settlement Agreement as of February 9, 2005. To effectuate the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement, material regarding the claims at issue in each of the pending lawsuits was assembled 

for final review and approval by the Clubs and the Government. As of May 19, 2005, that 

1

 For purposes of efficiency, the parties have consolidated their Case Management 

Statement and Rule 26(f) Report. 

Case 3:02-cv-03958 Document 35 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 2 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-03958-JSW Document 36 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, RULE 26(F) REPORT, AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-3958 JSW 016.369811.1 

process was completed. All that remains is for the Internal Revenue Service to make credits or 

pay refunds. At the time of the May 27, 2005 Case Management Conference, it was anticipated 

that the credits or refunds would have been available by now, but the parties now expect this to 

take place within another 30 to 60 days. At that point, according to the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement, the Clubs will file the appropriate documentation necessary to dismiss their 

respective cases.

In light of the above, the parties respectfully request a continuance of the case 

management conference for 90 days to allow sufficient time for the credits or refund checks to be 

issued as described in the Settlement Agreement, which will be followed by a request for 

dismissal with prejudice. 

3. A brief summary of the proceedings to date, including whether there 

has been full and timely compliance with the initial disclosure requirements of Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 26:

This case was filed on August 15, 2002 contemporaneously with Athletics 

Investment Group LLC, (a/k/a the Oakland Athletics), Trust U/W Walter A. Haas, Jr., Evelyn D. 

Haas, Walter J. Haas, and Elisabeth Haas Eisenhardt, Case No. C-02-3957-JSW. Notices of 

Related Case were filed on August 19, 2002 and both cases were subsequently assigned to the 

Honorable William H. Alsup. The parties also filed in both cases joint motions to stay the cases 

pending settlement. These motions were denied by this Court on November 25, 2002.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), the parties participated in a 

meet and confer on January 8, 2003, again on May 16, 2003, and again on September 24, 2003. 

Given the resolution of claims through the Settlement Agreement, the parties 

agree that discovery is not necessary in this case. Therefore, the parties stipulate that initial 

disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) are not required. The parties have 

agreed upon a proposed schedule for this case as set forth in paragraph 7 below. 

4. A list of all pending motions and their current status:

There are no pending motions by either party. 

5. A description of all motions expected before trial:

If despite the Settlement Agreement this case is not settled, the parties anticipate 

Case 3:02-cv-03958 Document 35 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 3 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-03958-JSW Document 36 Filed 09/19/05 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, RULE 26(F) REPORT, AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-3958 JSW 016.369811.1 

that this case can be resolved on summary judgment. 

6. The extent to which evidentiary, claim-construction hearings, or class 

certification hearings are anticipated:

At this time, the parties do not anticipate that any evidentiary hearings will be 

required. Claim-construction or class certification hearings will not be required. 

7. The scope of discovery to date and, separately, the scope yet 

anticipated; what limits should be imposed on discovery; and what should be the proposed 

discovery plan:

The parties agree that discovery is not necessary in this case. The parties request 

90 days to allow completion of the refund claim process identified in the Settlement Agreement, 

to be followed by a request for dismissal with prejudice. If after 90 days the notice of refund or 

notice of credit has not been issued, the parties will meet and confer and provide the Court with a 

suggested approach. 

8. The extent to which any special discovery or other problems or issues 

have arisen or are expected:

At this time, the parties do not anticipate any special discovery concerns or 

problems. 

9. Proposed deadlines and court dates, including a trial date:

The parties’ proposed schedule for this case is set forth in paragraph 7 above. 

10. The expected length of trial, the approximate number of witnesses, 

experts, exhibits, and whether a jury was properly demanded:

The parties’ proposed schedule for this case is set forth in paragraph 7. 

11. What damages and other relief are sought and what method is used to 

compute damages:

Under the First Claim for Relief, Plaintiffs seek monetary damages in the amount 

of $14.40, plus interest as provided by law. Under the Second Claim for Relief, Plaintiffs seek 

$185,983.58, plus interest as provided by law. Plaintiff also seeks costs, disbursements, legal 

fees in this matter, and such other relief as this Court deems just and equitable. 

///

Case 3:02-cv-03958 Document 35 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 4 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-03958-JSW Document 36 Filed 09/19/05 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, RULE 26(F) REPORT, AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-3958 JSW 016.369811.1 

12. ADR efforts to date and a specific ADR plan for the case:

As set forth above, the extensive negotiations by the parties’ representatives have 

resulted in the Settlement Agreement. 

13. Whether all parties will consent to assignment of the case to a 

magistrate judge and, if so, whether additional parties are likely to be joined:

The parties do not consent to the assignment of this case to a magistrate judge at 

this time. 

14. A service list for all counsel that includes telephone and fax numbers:

(a) For Plaintiffs:

Thomas F. Carlucci, Esq., SBN 135767 

Andrea J. Goranson, Esq., SBN 215665 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

One Maritime Plaza, Sixth Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-3409 

Tel: 415.434.4484 

Fax: 415.434.4507 

Paul Bargren Esq., WI Bar No. 1023008 

Foley & Lardner LLP 

777 East Wisconsin Avenue, 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-5306 

Tel: 414.297.5537 

Fax: 414.297.4900 

(b) For Defendant:

Kevin V. Ryan, SBN 118321 

United States Attorney 

Jay R. Weill, SBN 75434 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Chief, Tax Division 

10th Floor Federal Building 

Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055 

San Francisco, California 94102 

Tel: 415.436.7017 

Fax: 415.436.6748 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:02-cv-03958 Document 35 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 5 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-03958-JSW Document 36 Filed 09/19/05 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, RULE 26(F) REPORT, AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-3958 JSW 016.369811.1 

15. To the extent not addressed above, all other items set forth in Local 

Rule 16-10:

The parties’ proposed schedule for this case is set forth in paragraph 7. 

DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP

THOMAS F. CARLUCCI

PAUL BARGREN

ANDREA J. GORANSON

BY: /S/ ANDREA GORANSON

ANDREA GORANSON

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SAN FRANCISCO 

BASEBALL ASSOCIATES L.P. (A/K/A THE SAN

FRANCISCO GIANTS), A CALIFORNIA 

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2005 KEVIN V. RYAN

OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY

BY: /S/ JAY WEILL

JAY WEILL

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA

Case 3:02-cv-03958 Document 35 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 6 of 7 Case 3:02-cv-03958-JSW Document 36 Filed 09/19/05 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, RULE 26(F) REPORT, AND PROPOSED ORDER 

CASE NO. C 02-3958 JSW 016.369811.1 

Case Management Order 

The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order is hereby adopted by the 

Court as the Case Management Order for the case and the matter is continued (for 90 days) to 

_______________________________ to allow the parties sufficient time to implement the terms 

of the Settlement Agreement. 

_______________________________ ________________________________________ 

Date The Honorable Jeffrey S. White 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:02-cv-03958 Document 35 Filed 09/15/2005 Page 7 of 7

January 6, 2005 at 1:30 p.m.

September 19, 2005

Case 3:02-cv-03958-JSW Document 36 Filed 09/19/05 Page 7 of 7