This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
William Morris Endeavor Entertainment LLC, formerly known as the William Morris Agency, et al, Respondents
Interim Decision 3 (Interim Decisions 1 and 2 Incorporated by Reference Herein)
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Claimant asserts, and ultimately must prove, that Respondents unlawfully discriminated against him in his employment because he is African-American. The chronological synopses are set forth within Interim Decisions 1 (April 18, 2013) and 2 (July 12, 2013). For reasons of economy and efficiency, they will not be reiterated in their entirety here. Claimant filed a Motion dated July 26, 2013 seeking modification and clarification of Interim Decision 2. A conference call under AAA auspices was convened on July 30, 2013. A recording of the conference call was made. Although the recording is afflicted with numerous errata, it reflects the parties’
continuing express preference that I decide this entire matter on the parties’ Motions and cross-Motions for Summary Judgment and related Motions. Both parties filed additional papers following the July 30, 2013 conference call. On September 20, 2013, I confirmed my completion of receipt of all documents submitted by the parties via AAA auspices since the conference call. Following my study of all of the parties’ Motions submitted to date, including those seeking Summary Judgment, and proffered evidence, I FIND AND/OR ORDER: Exhibit A/aka Exhibit 31/the “N-word” document, in its various formats, is admitted into the evidence of record. Furthermore, I grant Claimant’s August 7 2013 Letter Motion in part and I ORDER that Respondent WME cooperate with the e-discovery expert of Claimant’s choice to facilitate access to and be permitted to retrieve the emails contained on WME’s 1998-1999 back up tapes, subject to the following conditions Precedent. I ORDER a cost shift to Respondent WME for the reasonable costs associated with this retrieval. Respondents shall first submit to me by Friday, October 4, 2013 a proposed protective order regarding any such emails that may be obtained by Claimant’s expert. The Protective Order prepared by Respondent shall be promptly executed by the parties, including Claimant.
Claimant shall first submit to me by Monday, October 7, 2013 an itemized list of the projected reasonable costs associated with this retrieval. These documents must be submitted and approved by me prior to any work performed by the ediscovery expert. I ORDER Respondent WME to bear $2,000 immediately in a cost shift of deposition costs reasonably incurred by Claimant, subject to the following conditions: By Monday, October7, 2013, the parties shall submit to me deposition dates and deponent and witness lists and estimated expenses itemized therewith. No depositions may be taken without my prior approval. I grant in part Respondents’ August 20, 2013 Letter Motion in Response to Claimant’s August 7, 2013 Submission. Attorneys Zweig, Carbone, and Gavaris, and WME Co-CEO Ari Emanuel shall not be deposed and shall not be called to testify by Claimant, in deference to their Fifth Amendment rights. Of course, if Respondent deposes or calls any of these persons as a witness, Claimant may conduct cross-examination. I FIND AND ORDER THAT Messrs. Raymond Heslin, Esq. and Leonard Rowe can be deposed and/or called to testify by any party.
I FIND that the arbitration agreements are not unconscionable. I FIND that I do not have jurisdiction over the quintessential political questions precisely because of the political question doctrine. Neither does any other court or arbitrator. Political questions of the magnitude alleged by Claimant can be resolved only by the legislative and executive popularly elected branches of government. The antitrust law elements of Claimant’s case are likewise not justiciable in this arbitration. They are too closely interwoven with Claimant’s repeated reiterations of alleged criminal conduct to be addressed in this arbitration. I ORDER that Claimant’s antitrust claims are dismissed.
Claimant appears to regard as part of a White Supremacist criminal conspiracy virtually every person he perceives as not in complete agreement with him, including distinguished federal judges Patterson and Castel. Claimant, taking issue with Interim Decision 2, surmises that I must have been “threatened” or “bribed” in order to have written such a “deceptive” Interim Decision 2. I can assure everyone, including Claimant, that I have never been bribed or threatened in my entire career. Respondents’ lawyers and employees have been subjected to a stream of invective from the inception. Every person, including Claimant, is entitled to their opinions. But, we are not each entitled to our own facts. As I
state at page 14 of Interim Opinion 2: “Respondents may draft and submit a proposed Protective Order for my consideration that both preserves and protects the rights of Respondents and their counsel while also protecting Claimant’s constitutional rights.” Respondents have not yet done so; Respondents, rather, plead that I “do something.” Before I arrived on the scene as the Arbitrator in the summer of 2012, Claimant had already crossed over the line from constitutionally protected First Amendment speech into unprotected torts of defamation, libel, and slander. I FIND that Claimant’s tortious speech continues substantially unabated. If Respondents have suffered damages, they now have the opportunity to set forth, inter alia, the amount of such damages, pursuant to my ORDER below.
I FIND AND ORDER that Interim Decision 2 will not be clarified or modified. Interim Decision 2 stands as is. By Friday, October 4, 2013, I ORDER each party to submit a complete itemized list of fees, damages, and costs that they seek through, and beyond, October 4, 2013. Claimant shall submit two lists, with one including Claimant returning to work for Respondent WME and the second list not including such a return to work. See, Ford Motor Company v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (1982).
Within thirty days of the date of this Interim Decision Three, or within thirty days from the date that concludes Claimant’s jury duty, whichever is later, a hearing will be scheduled and thereafter promptly convened on any and all remaining issues.
All document submissions shall continue to go to the AAA, and distributed by the AAA to me and to the parties. Claimant most recently indicated possible jury duty commencing September 26, 2013. This arbitration defers to jury obligations. I ask Claimant to notify AAA asap as to whether his possible jury duty is confirmed or relieved. If jury duty proceeds, time-contingent aspects of the attendant ORDERS set forth above will be adjusted to fully protect due process rights of all parties. If the parties come to agreement and stipulate that neither party wishes a hearing date, I can enter the balance of my forthcoming decision without a hearing.
David L. Gregory
I, David L. Gregory, affirm that this 25th day of September, 2013, I have executed this document as my Interim Decision 3 in this matter, with attendant pertinent Findings and Orders therein.
Interim decision 3 9.25.13