St. Louis lawyers accuse NFL, Rams of delay tactics in relocation lawsuit

Tampa Bay Buccaneers at St. Louis Rams
Getty Images

The move of the Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles has sparked multiple pieces of litigation. The big one — brought by St. Louis, the county, and the regional convention and sports complex authority — remains active. However, it’s not moving forward fast enough for the liking of the St. Louis plaintiffs.

Via Ben Fredrickson of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a lengthy hearing on Thursday focused in part on allegations that the NFL and the Rams are dragging their feet.

For example, the plaintiffs have yet to question former NFL executive Eric Grubman. A motion to compel Grubman’s testimony and to sanction the NFL and the Rams for alleged delay tactics was presented to the court on Thursday.

“Since the case was filed, it has taken repeated motions and the Court’s Orders to compel Defendants to answer simple interrogatories and produce responsive documents,” the plaintiffs’ paperwork explains, via Fredrickson. “Even after the Court’s Orders, Defendants have repeatedly asserted frivolous challenges or simply refused to respond. Mr. Grubman’s unilateral refusal to appear for his deposition without explanation is only the latest in Defendants’ multi-year string of discovery abuses.”

Via the article in the Post-Dispatch, Rams owner Stan Kroenke and Chargers owner Dean Spanos have canceled their own depositions; one of the lawyers representing the NFL said that both had to reschedule due to COVID-19. (It’s unclear whether it was contended that either or both men contracted COVID-19.)

Thursday’s hearing also included more efforts by the NFL and the Rams to focus on the terms of the original lease that brought the Rams to St. Louis in 1995. That lease apparently isn’t part of the current litigation, which focuses on whether the league and the Rams adhered to the relocation guidelines, and whether St. Louis wasted time and money on an effort to keep the Rams in town.

Bottom line? The litigation isn’t going away. But it doesn’t seem to be on track for a trial date or any other resolution any time soon.

8 responses to “St. Louis lawyers accuse NFL, Rams of delay tactics in relocation lawsuit

  1. STL got to let it go. No win in this. If a team even wanted to move there, they are burning bridges big time.Settle, take what they give and move on.

  2. This is just a Don Quixote sort of fight that they will never win. Even if he’s a scumbag, and owner still gets to decide where his team is going to play. And it was St. Louis themselves that signed off on that horrible deal that didn’t guarantee the Rams would stay long term and gave them an out if the stadium didn’t stay in the top 1/3 of the league. (And does anybody actually believe that stadium was EVER in the top 1/3?)

  3. The city of St. Louis put itself in a bad situation by agreeing to a contract that they could not afford. When the Rams decided to play there, the City of St. Louis had to maintain a top-tier stadium, and if they did not, the Rams could opt out of the deal.

    Blaming the Rams for stalling on a last-minute stadium deal when the City of St. Louis failed to keep up their end of the agreement for years is nonsense.

  4. Thee is an old Country and Western Song. I robbed another man’s castle, now someone just stole her from me. First it was the Cardinals from Chicago and then it was the Rams from Los Angeles and now they have an empty house.

  5. The league’s best defense is the truth. Saint Louis saved millions of dollars in subsidies by not having them here. Making that argument is contrary to lie that sports subsidies pay for themselves.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.