LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — "It's time for this case to move forward."
That was the argument attorney Adam Hosmer-Henner made before Clark County District Court Judge Joe Hardy on Tuesday. Hosmer-Henner is representing former Las Vegas Raiders head coach Jon Gruden in his lawsuit against the NFL.
This case originally began after emails Gruden sent were allegedly leaked to the press during the NFL's investigation into the Washington Commanders over workplace harassment.
A previous complaint stated the NFL gathered more than 650,000 emails as part of the investigation, including Gruden's, which were originally sent between 2011 and 2018 and included racist, misogynist, and homophobic comments.
Ultimately, Gruden resigned from the Raiders on Oct. 11, 2021. He then filed a lawsuit against the NFL in November 2021 claiming the NFL carried out a "Soviet-style character assassination" in an attempt to take the heat off the NFL. Attorneys for the NFL have previously argued that Gruden has no one to blame for what happened but himself.
Over the past four years or so, the NFL has tried to get the case dismissed as well as make Gruden go through the league's arbitration process. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled the arbitration process does not apply to this case and it was sent back down to District Court.
On Tuesday, attorneys for Gruden and the NFL were in court to hear several motions.
Attorney Max Fetaz, representing the NFL, argued that under the state's anti-SLAPP statute, which protects against lawsuits intended to silence those exercising their First Amendment rights, the discovery process should be stayed.
However, Judge Hardy disagreed.
"Under your argument, you know, couldn't anybody, essentially, regardless of case posture/procedure, file an anti-SLAPP motion two years, three years into a case and then I automatically have to stay it," Hardy said. "That. seems to be a little bit of a stretch."
Attorney William Marks, also representing the NFL, argued the statute helps speed up cases and avoid the additional costs of litigation.
"Of course, if there's no stay of discovery pending the appeal, that kind of defeats that purpose of the statute," Marks said. "And, also, as we've requested an alternative in our motion, if the Court is inclined to deny the full stay, we would request that the Court enter a brief 14-day stay in order to allow defendants to seek a stay from the Nevada Supreme Court."
Hosmer-Henner told the court he anticipated the NFL trying to slow down proceedings again.
"This attempt by the NFL defendants was not unexpected. We anticipated it," Hosmer-Henner said. "The NFL defendants have felt things are not going well for a while now. Can you automatically file that anti-SLAPP motion and take it to the Nevada Supreme Court for a year or two? And the answer is yes. Under their interpretation, you can. And that's why the Legislature balanced these competing objectives, to encourage early resolution by requiring a 60-day time limit, and to have that done at the early stage, and to dispose of non-meritorious cases at the outside of the litigation, not to have an anti-SLAPP motion filed four years too late."
Hosmer-Henner also told the court he is concerned with how long things have been drawn out.
"We are extremely concerned about the proposed delay sought by the NFL defendants in this case, which is one — I think this is the third or fourth Motion to Stay Discovery they filed in this case. They've lost the Motion to Dismiss, they've lost the anti-SLAPP motion, they've lost the Motion to Compel Arbitration, and they've lost the Motion for Reconsideration of their Motion to Dismiss," Hosmer-Henner said. "We don't see any reason to provide a stay under the anti-SLAPP statutes. We think it would be a tactical misuse of those statutes and violate Nevada's policy in resolving cases expeditiously on the merits."
Judge Hardy sided with Gruden saying the NFL's anti-SLAPP motion was "not filed in good faith" and that at this stage, "there is no harm or prejudice to defendants from proceeding with discovery."
He also said issues affecting evidence in the case could come up due to how long it has taken to get to this point.
"This is a 2021 case. We're now in 2026. People forget things, evidence may be lost, not remembered, etc," Hardy said. "So there's certainly harm or prejudice to plaintiff if we don't move forward."
When it comes to discovery, attorneys said it would probably take 12 to 15 months, with a target date of finishing discovery by Feb. 26, 2027. When the matter goes to trial, attorneys believe it will be a 14-day trial.
As for next steps, a Rule 16 conference was set for March 25 at 9 a.m.