Laumann v. Nat'l Hockey League

Citation907 F.Supp.2d 465
Decision Date05 December 2012
Docket NumberNos. 12 Civ. 1817 (SAS), 12 Civ. 3074 (SAS).,s. 12 Civ. 1817 (SAS), 12 Civ. 3074 (SAS).
PartiesThomas LAUMANN, Fernanda Garber, Robert Silver, Garrett Traub, David Dillon and Peter Herman, representing themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, et al., Defendants. Fernanda Garber, Marc Lerner, Derek Rasmussen, Robert Silver, Garrett Traub, and Peter Herman representing themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Kevin M. Costello, Esq., Gary E. Klein, Esq., Kevin R. Costello, Esq., Klein, Kavanagh, Costello, LLP, Boston, MA, Edward A. Diver, Esq., Howard I. Langer, Esq., Peter E. Leckman, Esq., Langer, Grogan & Diver, P.C., Robert LaRocca, Esq., Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, Michael Morris Buchman, Esq., John A. Ioannou, Esq., Pomerantz, Haudek, Block, Grossman & Gross LLP, Alex Schmidt, Esq., Mary Jane Fait, Esq., Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, J. Douglas Richards, Esq., Jeffrey Dubner, Esq., Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Bradley I. Ruskin, Esq., Carl Clyde Forbes, Esq., Helene Debra Jaffe, Esq., Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq., Robert Davis Forbes, Esq., Proskauer Rose LLP, Thomas J. Ostertag, Esq., Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, New York, NY, 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.L.P., Chicago White Sox, Ltd., Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., The Phillies, Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc., and San Francisco Baseball Associates, L.P.

Shepard Goldfein, Esq., James A. Keyte, Esq., Paul M. Eckles, Esq., Matthew M. Martino, Esq., Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants National Hockey League, NHL Enterprises, L.P., NHL Interactive

Cyberenterprises, LLC, Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc., Comcast–Spectacor, L.P., Hockey Western New York LLC, Lemieux Group, L.P., Lincoln Hockey LLC, New Jersey Devils LLC, New York Islanders Hockey Club, L.P. and San Jose Sharks, LLC.

Andrew E. Paris, Esq., Joann M. Wakana, Esq., Louis A. Karasik, Esq., Alston & Bird LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants 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.

Arthur J. Burke, Esq., James W. Haldin, Esq., Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, NY, for Defendants Comcast Corporation, Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia, L.P., Comcast SportsNet Mid–Atlantic L.P., Comcast SportsNet California, LLC, and Comcast SportsNet Chicago, LLC.

Jonathan D. Schiller, Esq., Alan Vickery, Esq., Christopher Duffy, Esq., Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY, for Yankees Entertainment and Sports Networks, LLC and New York Yankees Partnership.

Stephen R. Neuwirth, Esq., Richard I. Werder, Jr., Esq., Ben M. Harrington, Esq., Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver and Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants The Madison Square Garden Company and New York Rangers Hockey Club.

OPINION AND ORDER

SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs bring this consolidated putative class action against the National Hockey League (NHL) and Major League Baseball (“MLB”), various clubs within the Leagues, regional sports networks (“RSNs”) that televise the games, and Comcast and DirecTV, multichannel video programming distributors (“MVPDs”). 1 Plaintiffs challenge defendants' ... agreements to eliminate competition in the distribution of [baseball and hockey] games over the Internet and television [by] divid[ing] the live-game video presentation market into exclusive territories, which are protected by anticompetitive blackouts” and by “collud[ing] to sell the ‘out-of-market’ packages only through the League [which] exploit[s] [its] illegal monopoly by charging supra-competitive prices.” 2 Plaintiffs claim that these agreements “result in reduced output, diminished product quality, diminished choice and suppressed price competition” in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,3 and request statutory damages and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and the class. 4 Defendants jointly move to dismiss all claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).5

II. BACKGROUND6A. The Agreements to Telecast Baseball and Hockey

Plaintiffs are subscribers to television 7 and/or Internet 8 services that include live hockey and baseball telecasts. Defendant National Hockey League is an unincorporated association of thirty major league professional ice hockey clubs, nine of which are named as defendants in Laumann9 Defendant Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, doing business as Major League Baseball, is an unincorporated association of thirty professional baseball clubs, nine of which are named as defendants in Garber.10 The Complaints also name subsidiariesof the Leagues that pursue their commercial opportunities, including Internet operations (together with the NHL, MLB and the named individual clubs, the “League defendants).11 Plaintiffs allege that [p]ursuant to a series of agreements between and among Defendants, the League[s] ha[ve] obtained centralized control over distribution of live video programming of [hockey and baseball] games” and “the clubs have agreed not to compete in business matters related to the video presentation of live major-league men's professional [hockey and baseball] games.” 12

Both the NHL and MLB are “ultimately controlled by, and operate for the benefit of the clubs.” 13 “Though necessarily cooperating to produce inter-club games, each club operates as an independently owned and managed business, competing against each other in various markets.” 14 In both the NHL and MLB, each team owns the initial right to control telecasts of its home games, and keeps the revenues it generates from the sale of these rights. 15 The teams in each League have mutually agreed to permit the visiting team to produce a separate telecast of the games.16

1. “In–Market” Agreements

The vast majority of telecasts are produced by arrangement between individual teams and RSNs, a number of which are named as defendants. 17 RSNs are local television networks that negotiate contracts with individual NHL or MLB clubs to broadcast the majority of the local club's games within that club's telecast territory.18 Several defendant RSNs are owned and controlled by defendant Comcast,19 several are owned and controlled by defendant DirecTV,20 and two are independent of the MVPDs, but share ownership with an individual club.21

RSNs produce the games and sell their programming to MVPDs including Comcast, a cable distributor, and DirecTV, a satellite distributor (the upstream market).22 MVPDs, in turn, sell programming to consumers (the downstream market).23 Pursuant to agreements with the RSNs, MPVDs make RSN programming available as part of standard packages sold to consumers within the RSN's designated territory, and black out games in unauthorized territories, in accordance with the agreements between the RSNs and the Leagues.24 The Complaints allege that the “regional blackout agreements,” made “for the purpose of protecting the local television telecasters,” are [a]t the core of Defendants' restraint of competition.” 25 “But for these agreements,” plaintiffs allege, “MVPDs would facilitate ‘foreign’ RSN entry and other forms of competition.” 26 Plaintiffs argue that the “MVPDs also directly benefit from the blackout of Internet streams of local games, which requires that fans obtain this programming exclusively from the MVPDs.” 27

A small percentage of games are produced under national contracts between the Leagues (pursuant to rights granted by the individual teams) and national networks.28 These limited nationally televised games provide the only opportunity for fans to watch a game not involving a local team without purchasing an out-of-market package.

2. “Out–of–Market” Agreements

With the limited exception of nationally televised games, standard MVPD packages only televise “in-market” games (i.e., games played by the team in whose designated home territory the subscriber resides). For a consumer to obtain out-of-market games, there are only two options—television packages and Internet packages—both of which are controlled by the Leagues.29 Television packages—NHL Center Ice and MLB Extra Innings—are available for purchase from MVPDs, in accordance with agreements between the MVPDs and the Leagues. These packages require the purchase of all out-of-market games even if a consumer is only interested in viewing a particular game or games of one particular non-local team. They also require a subscription to the standard digital television package.30 Internet packages—NHL Gamecenter Live and MLB.tv—are available directly through the Leagues and also require the purchase of all out-of-market games. Neither local games nor nationally televised games are available through these packages.31 Thus, “there is no authorized method for viewing [local] games on the Internet.” 32 For example, an NHL Gamecenter Live subscriber in New York cannot watch New York Rangers games through any Internet source, but instead must subscribe to MSG through an MVPD. The alleged purpose of the limitation on Internet programming is to protect the RSNs' regional monopolies and insulate MVPDs that carry them from Internet competition.33

Plaintiffs allege that the market divisions and centralization of rights to distribute out-of-market games in the Leagues have “adversely affected and substantially lessened competition in the relevant markets” by reducing output of live MLB and NHL game presentations, raising prices, and rendering...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Mucky Duck v. Directv, LLC (In re Nat'l Football League's Sunday Ticket Antitrust Litig.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • August 13, 2019
    ...League and Major League Baseball, "each team owns the initial right to control telecasts of its home games." Laumann v. NHL , 907 F. Supp. 2d 465, 473, 485 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ; see also New Boston Television, Inc. v. ESPN , No. 81-1010-Z, 1981 WL 1374, at *1 (D. Mass. Aug. 3, 1981) ("The copyr......
  • Laumann v. Nat'l Hockey League
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 4, 2014
    ...jointly moved to dismiss the Complaints in both actions, Garber v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (“Garber”) and Laumann v. National Hockey League (“Laumann”). In an Opinion and Order dated December 5, 2012, I granted the motion in part and denied it in part.2 Plaintiffs Fernanda Ga......
  • Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • July 24, 2014
    ...heavily against judicial enforcement.’ ”) (quoting AGC, 459 U.S. at 545, internal citation omitted); Laumann v. Nat'l Hockey League, 907 F.Supp.2d 465 (S.D.N.Y.2012) (“The Second Circuit analyzes antitrust standing under a two part test. First, a “ ‘plaintiff must show ... injury of the typ......
  • Barry's Cut Rate Stores Inc. v. Visa, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • November 20, 2019
    ...to conspire.'" (first quoting Apple, 791 F.3d at 314, 320; and then quoting Apex Oil, 822 F.2d at 254)); Laumann v. Nat'l Hockey League, 907 F. Supp. 2d 465, 486-87 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("[W]here parties to vertical agreements have knowledge that other market participants are bound by identical ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 books & journal articles
  • Sherman Act Claims: Elements and Analytical Framework
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Sports and Antitrust Law
    • December 9, 2014
    ...(D. Minn. 2012). 75. Id. at 1007 (quoting Broadcast Music Inc. v. CBS, 441 U.S. 1, 23 (1979)). 76. Laumann v. Nat’l Hockey League, 907 F. Supp. 2d 465, 479 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 42 Sports and Antitrust Law essential if the product is to be available at all [such that] the agreement is likely to ......
  • Sherman Act: Common Issues and Recurring Subject Areas
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Sports and Antitrust Law
    • December 9, 2014
    ...their home territories in 82. Id. 83. 842 F.2d 1335 (2d Cir. 1988). 84. Id. at 1361. 85. Id. 86. Laumann v. Nat’l Hockey League, 907 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 87. Id. 88. Id. 89. Id. at 480-83. 90. Id. at 485. 62 Sports and Antitrust Law the first place.” 91 The court concluded that ......
  • Responses to the Illinois Brick Decision
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook. Second Edition
    • December 5, 2016
    ...Supp. 2d 136, 143 (D. Me. 2004) (recognizing exception but finding insufficient control to invoke it). Second Circuit: Laumann v. NHL, 907 F. Supp. 2d 465, 480-82 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). District of Columbia: In re G-Fees Antitrust Litig., 584 F. Supp. 2d 26, 33-34 (D.D.C. 2008). 70 . See, e.g., B......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Energy Antitrust Handbook
    • January 1, 2017
    ...118 Larry Pitt & Assocs. v. Lundy Law, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174607 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2013), 84 Laumann v. Nat’l Hockey League, 907 F. Supp. 2d 465 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), 143 Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP v. Bell Atl. Corp., 305 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2002), rev’d sub nom. Verizon Comm. v. Law ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT