The judge overseeing former Las Vegas Raiders coach Jon Gruden’s long-running lawsuit against the NFL was critical Monday of Gruden’s side after the league complained the ex-coach was dodging discovery.
“I remain concerned with Gruden’s, Gruden’s side’s delays and lack of cooperation, lack of compliance with the rules,” said District Judge Joe Hardy.
Gruden filed his lawsuit in 2021 against the NFL and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, arguing that the league leaked emails he wrote with racist, misogynistic and anti-LGBTQ language and pushed for the Raiders to fire him. He resigned from his coaching role after news reports emerged about the emails.
“No explanation was proffered by Gruden’s side that would address the court’s concern about the delays, particularly in light of months ago, when I said, in Gruden’s favor and against the NFL’s position, we’re going forward,” said Hardy. “Gruden understandably at least represented to me that their side wanted to proceed expeditiously and has done the opposite of that.”
The judge partially granted the NFL’s motion to compel discovery responses, ordering Gruden to produce documents and provide supplemental answers to interrogatories within seven days, but sided with Gruden on the phrasing of a protective order.
Gruden had previously provided some documents, like his settlement agreement with the Raiders and a compilation of news stories, according to the NFL, but the league said in a July filing that his discovery responses were deficient and that Gruden’s attorney was at times nonresponsive.
NFL attorney and former Nevada Lt. Gov. Mark Hutchison alleged in the filing that Gruden had failed to provide requested records.
“The NFL Parties did not leak any emails, and Gruden’s claims are baseless as a matter of both fact and law,” said NFL lawyers. “But the NFL Parties cannot defend this case with both hands tied behind their backs. Discovery is the mechanism by which litigants discover the truth, but Gruden does not want the truth discovered.”
Gruden attorney Adam Hosmer-Henner previously accused the league of stall tactics and opposed a request from the NFL to pause discovery.
NFL attorneys said there was a discrepancy between that prior stance and what they viewed as the subsequent reluctance to produce discovery.
“Discovery is the process by which the parties test claims like his against the evidence,” they wrote in court papers. “A plaintiff genuinely confident in his allegations produces his documents promptly and answers the questions put to him truthfully. Gruden has done neither.”
Hosmer-Henner and other attorneys for Gruden had objected to the NFL’s request to compel discovery, saying the league was making overly broad requests for records in an attempt to embarrass Gruden, while refusing to enter a protective order to consider disclosed documents confidential.
Gruden’s lawyers also complained about the NFL not producing records.
“Gruden has already produced the key endorsement and employment relationships in his interrogatory responses and disclosures, produced the Raiders settlement agreement, produced the Skechers agreement, and answered the Interrogatories on damages categories,” they wrote. “He will continue to participate on discovery in these matters but the Court should not order such over broad discovery.”
Hutchison said Gruden’s side never said their disclosures were deficient or demanded a protective order before providing records. They also did not serve a document request on the NFL, the league’s lawyers said, adding that there were discussions about a protective order, which stalled based on one proposed change.
Hosmer-Henner told the judge his side did respond to discovery requests and produce nonconfidential documents, but also took into account an ongoing appeal of a prior ruling.
The judge was skeptical.
“You’re saying you’re proceeding expeditiously, but clearly you’re not,” Hardy said.
NFL attorneys declined to comment after court. Hosmer-Henner — who appeared in court on Zoom — and other Gruden lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.
Hardy has previously criticized the NFL’s litigation tactics too.
Earlier this year, he refused to delay the discovery process and called a motion to dismiss filed by the league “without merit,” “not filed in good faith” and a “tactical misuse.”
Contact Noble Brigham at nbrigham@reviewjournal.com.
