© Reuters. File photo: A lawyer walks with a briefcase to federal courthouse in San Diego, California, June 22, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Blake
Alison Frankel
[Reuters]- Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp., New York, has been scrutinized as regulators investigate MSG’s policy barring plaintiffs’ attorneys suing the company from attending events at MSG venues. liquor licensing agency does not want to see an affidavit from Chairman and CEO James Dolan.
In the latest outburst from the controversial policies MSG has implemented using facial recognition technology, the company filed a petition in the New York State Supreme Court on Friday, which the agency has issued by the New York State Liquor Department. requested that the subpoena be dismissed. The company’s license to sell alcohol may be revoked.
The Liquor Licensing Commission will consider whether MSG’s banning of so-called adverse plaintiffs’ attorneys from nearly 90 law firms violates state regulations requiring liquor license holders to be open to the public. doing. Liquor Commission regulators announced on February 2 that the plaintiff company is suing his MSG company in Delaware state court over his 2021 restructuring of his MSG company under Dolan family control. issued a subpoena to one of his, Bernstein Littwitzberger and Grossman.
The agency commissioned Bernstein Litowitz to transcribe the full court depositions by James Dolan and former MSG executive Andrew Rustgarten.
The subpoena was returned on February 6th, the same day Dolan was scheduled to meet with Liquor Commission investigators. In a statement Monday afternoon, MSG said Dolan was interviewed by state regulators. The company said it “hopes” that “full and complete cooperation” with the Liquor Licensing Commission will “put an end to this investigation.”
On the day it received the Liquor Authority’s subpoena, Bernstein Litowitz notified the defense attorneys in the Grand Court action. The plaintiff’s firm said it contested the production of classified documents and testimony under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement in the Delaware lawsuit. However, Bernstein-Litowitz also said he did not believe Dolan’s deposition testimony was in fact confidential and would not be subject to sanctions if ordered to hand over the material.
In a series of emails exchanged last week between MSG counsel Randy Mastro of King & Spalding and Jeroen van Kwawegen of Bernstein Litowitz, Mastro said the subpoena was procedurally inappropriate and that MSG It claimed it would take immediate action to quell the Liquor Commission’s demands. (Emails are material from his MSG suppression petition.) MSG lawyers accused his firm of “colluding” with New York regulators and told Mr. Vankwawegen what was in the meantime. I warned them not to hand over. Legal Obligation. “
Bernstein Litowitz’s van Kwawegen countered that they were simply trying to comply with their legal obligations, respecting the constraints of Delaware’s non-disclosure agreements. “By contrast, you are trying to intimidate me with baseless threats and baseless assumptions,” he told Mastro. I can think of your client’s behavior of banning visits to the courts, enforced by facial recognition software developed to protect us from terrorists and violent hooligans. to see what it is.”
In Friday’s suppression petition, MSG said state liquor officials did not have subpoena powers in the early stages of the investigation, and that the confidential materials it seeks from the Delaware case were not included in the Liquor Board’s ban on plaintiffs’ attorneys. He claimed it had nothing to do with the investigation.
A MSG spokesperson responded to my question about the suppression petition: “These two issues have nothing to do with each other.” In a separate statement accompanying the petition to suppress, Mastro said that “in view of the growing media interest and political pressure surrounding MSG and its venue policies,” MSG has responded to requests from the Freedom of Information Act. He said he was concerned about protecting confidentiality.
Van Kwawegen declined to comment. Charles Stravalle, the New York Liquor Commission’s chief investigator on the MSG issue, did not respond to my e-mail. He said he wasn’t looking for information.
MSG’s positive response to the Liquor Authority’s subpoena should come as no surprise. The company, which owns the New York Knicks and Rangers, as well as venues that include Madison Square Garden and Radio City Music Hall, has banned plaintiffs’ attorneys since I first broke the news of the policy last June. has steadfastly refused to, despite a barrage of negative publicity. MSG has repeatedly stated that it is within its legal right to bar lawyers suing the company from accessing private locations.
In a Jan. 26 interview with a New York television station, Dolan was defiant about the Liquor Commission investigation. He refused to sell alcohol at a Knicks or Rangers game in response to “threats” of revoking the venue’s liquor license and directed angry fans to file complaints with state regulators. I’m thinking of doing
The ban on plaintiffs’ attorneys has already backfired in MSG’s Delaware lawsuit, with Prime Minister Kathleen McCormick (NYSE:) calling the policy “completely absurd” and “the most disgusting thing I’ve ever read.” It’s ridiculous,’ he said. She also said it strengthened shareholders’ portrayal of Dolan as a compelling bully.
New York Attorney General Letitia James announced last month that her office is investigating the ban as a possible violation of New York civil rights law. A ban on access could deter such attorneys from undertaking legitimate cases,” James warned MSG.
Davis, Saperstein & Salomon, a New Jersey plaintiffs firm on MSG’s banned list, denied one of its attorneys, Kelly Conlon, entry to Radio City Music Hall because he was accompanying his daughter’s girlfriend. After being rejected, I came up with the idea of challenging MSG’s liquor license. scout squad.
Name partner Samuel Davis said Tuesday that he was pleased to see the Liquor Commission seeking answers from MSG and CEO Dolan. “It’s clear from the way they prosecute the investigation that they’re not happy with the plaintiff’s attorney ban,” he said. We will have to file a disgruntled shareholder lawsuit.”