The NFLPA's collusion claim against the NFL received a setback on Thursday after a federal judge denied the union's request to conduct discovery. The union has argued the league colluded in '10, and hid this conduct from the league to obtain the '11 CBA and settlement of the players' antitrust lawsuit. The union filed the lawsuit in '12. Minnesota Federal Court Judge Michael Davis said, "The NFLPA has not demonstrated a colorable claim that the NFL improperly forced it to settle, or misled it as to the legal effect of the settlement. Furthermore, the NFLPA’s proffered evidence highlights the real concern that the NFLPA may use the opportunity for ... discovery as an improper `fishing expedition' to investigate the merits of its alleged collusion claim." In other words, the issue according to Davis is not whether there was collusion, but whether the players were misled into agreeing to the CBA and lawsuit settlement. The case has already been thrown out once before, by Judge David Doty. The '11 CBA and lawsuit settlement contains strong language precluding collusion claims. The one area of wiggle room in the law is the argument that agreements were fraudulently induced. Last year, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the district court level, ruling the union should be allowed to argue fraudulent inducement. Doty stepped aside at that point and Davis took his place.
WHERE TO GO FROM HERE: It is unclear how the NFLPA can win its case, though, if it cannot depose league execs to determine what they were trying to do in crafting the language in the CBA and settlement that precluded collusion claims (in other words, if the owners knew there were guilty of '10 collusion and did not reveal it in order to secure the '11 terms). Nevertheless, Judge Davis did set a briefing schedule over the next two months. Davis seemed almost heavy-hearted to even grant the briefing. The judge also ruled there would be no oral arguments.
