Last week, the National Hockey League filed a counterclaim in the Southern District of New York, seeking permission to sanction Madison Square Garden, L.P. ("MSG") -- the parent company of the New York Rangers -- for violating the NHL Constitution by failing to follow league rules, including a rule against suing the league. According to an MSG spokesperson, the NHL's counterclaims are just "bullying tactics," intended to intimidate Rangers ownership into dropping its original lawsuit.

As some of you may remember, back on September 28, 2007, MSG -- through its attorneys, Jones Day -- filed a 35-page antitrust complaint, arguing that the NHL had acted anti-competitively by voting to implement a New Media Policy that required all teams to turn over control of their independent websites to the NHL. MSG contended that it uses the Rangers website "as a competitive tool to generate and maintain fan interest in the Rangers in competition with other NHL teams," and that by seeking to control competition in Internet and new media markets, "the NHL has become an illegal cartel."

Ironically, MSG has not sued the NBA, which for years has enforced a nearly identical policy. (Note: MSG also owns the NBA's New York Knickerbockers.)

MSG's antitrust lawsuit has already led to its share of rulings in favor of the NHL. First, on November 2, 2007, Judge Loretta Preska (S.D.N.Y.; the same judge from Cleary Gottlieb fame) rejected the Rangers' motion for a preliminary injunction against the NHL, finding that under antitrust law's Rule of Reason, "it is far from obvious that [the New Media Policy] has no redeeming value." On March 19, the Second Circuit affirmed her ruling. The Rangers have now proceeded toward a full trial on the merits.

This is not the first time that a professional sports club has sued a league under antitrust law for purportedly encroaching on club-based property rights. In the mid-1990s, the Dallas Cowboys, New York Yankees, and Chicago Bulls each brought separate antitrust lawsuits against their respective leagues for attempting to reallocate property rights. The Cowboys and Yankees claims involved the use of club trademarks for sponsorship purposes. Meanwhile, the Bulls' suit involved an attempt to limit the club's television broadcast rights. Ultimately all three cases settled out of court, although the Seventh Circuit first issued several rulings in the Bulls case. In none of these cases did the league then seek to punish the plaintiff club.

Here, the NHL is seeking the court's permission to vote on at least the following three sanctions: (1) fining Rangers ownership; (2) requiring MSG to sell the Rangers; and (3) terminating altogether the Rangers franchise. Although these remedies are purportedly each allowed by the NHL Constitution with a three-fourths vote of approval, actually enforcing the two latter sanctions would cross into nearly uncharted territory.

So, what are the NHL's chances of being allowed to impose these sanctions?

Find out, after the jump.

Last summer, we wrote about the stinging benchslap that Judge Loretta Preska (S.D.N.Y.; pictured), the highly regarded Manhattan trial judge, administered to Cleary Gottlieb, the highly regarded Manhattan law firm. Judge Preska sanctioned the firm for what she viewed as the improper attempt by one partner to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition. At the time, Cleary announced its intent to appeal.

And appeal it has. Writes Anthony Lin, in the New York Law Journal:

It was a matter of honor that brought Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday morning. Several lawyers from the firm, led by managing partner Mark Walker, were present in the ceremonial courtroom of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse.

A matter of honor. Will there be a duel? Guns all around, says SCOTUS.

Well, maybe not a literal duel. But Cleary's counsel, the distinguished Roy Reardon of Simpson Thacher, did mix it up with opposing counsel, Kevin Reed of Quinn Emanuel. As did the Second Circuit panel:

The 2nd Circuit judges asked [Reed] whether Kensington had been unreasonable in insisting that the deposition be held on Feb. 4 in Washington when a Paris deposition seemed a reasonable compromise.

"Everything would grind to a halt if lawyers couldn't accommodate each other," said Judge Miner.

"Everything would grind to a halt if everyone resorted to self-help as Cleary did here," Reed replied. He later added: "You don't go to the witness and say the sort of things [Cleary partner Jean-Pierre] Vignaud said, which can only have the effect of intimidating a witness and shaping his testimony."

So the alleged attempt by Cleary to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition arose out of a familiar dispute over depo location. Perhaps the parties should have taken a page from Judge James Nowlin's playbook, and taken it to midfield. Anyone up for a depo on a north Atlantic cruise ship?

Update: As noted over in the Community section, the sanctions against Clery Gottlieb were upheld by the Second Circuit. For more, see the New York Law Journal and the WSJ Law Blog.

Cleary Seeks Vindication in Appeal on Sanctions [New York Law Journal]

Earlier: Benchslap of the Day: Judge Preska Reprimands (Wait for It)... Cleary Gottlieb?

Judge Loretta K. Preska (S.D.N.Y.) has it all: a lifetime appointment to the federal bench, a rich husband, and killer shoes.

As well as, it appears, no patience for lawyers who play fast and loose with the rules. From the WSJ Law Blog:

Cleary Gottlieb conjures images of Ivy League bookishness and international savoir faire, not bare-knuckled litigation tactics. But last week a federal judge sanctioned the firm and found them to have acted in bad faith. “Civil litigation is not always civil,” began a ruling by Loretta Preska, a federal judge in Manhattan. Here’s the opinion (PDF).

The judge concluded that Cleary tried to dissuade a witness from attending a deposition, in part because of a concern the witness would testify adverse to the firm’s client. Preska ordered Cleary to pay the plaintiff’s attorneys fees and costs ─ an amount to be determined ─ and ruled that “the sanction is imposed as a formal reprimand and should be circulated to all attorneys at Cleary.”

And Cleary partner Jean-Pierre Vignaud was ordered to write "I will not interfere improperly with the discovery process," five hundred times, on a dry-erase board in a firm conference room.

Cleary Gottlieb -- which, by the way, picked fellow white-shoe law firm Simpson Thacher to represent it -- said in a statement that it intends to appeal.

Judge Sanctions Cleary: “Civil Litigation Is Not Always Civil” [WSJ Law Blog]
Kensington Intl., Ltd. v. Republic of Congo [WSJ Law Blog (PDF)]

As we previously mentioned, and as Lawrence Hurley of the Daily Journal reports here, Congress is considering a proposal that would raise federal judges' salaries by a significant margin. Here's what the new scale would look like (with current salaries indicated parenthetically):

District Court Judges: $247,800 (up from $165,200)
Court of Appeals Judges: $262,700 ($175,100)
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court: $304,500 ($203,000)
Chief Justice of the United States: $318,200 ($212,100)

This proposal would cost millions in taxpayer dollars. So we have a better solution to the problem of federal judicial pay, which Chief Justice John Roberts has dubbed a "constitutional crisis."

Here's our brilliant idea: Require all federal judges to marry rich!

Don't you just love couples in which one spouse is a judge, with all the power and prestige of judicial office, and the other spouse is rolling in dough? Off the top of our head, we can name a number of federal judges who have married well -- or at least wealthy. (Like Judge Kimba Wood, above right, with her well-heeled hubby, Frank Richardson.)

We list some judges who have married into money, and we invite additional examples from you, after the jump.

Congress Mulls Salary Raise for the Judiciary [Daily Journal via How Appealing Extra]

Earlier: Skaddenfreude: Chief Justice to $318,200?