BGS Black Labels, Joe Clemons (eBay ID: wjc75056), and Illegitimate Grading - Page 148

speedyjg13 · 07-12-2019, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavaliercards

Here is the correct link

https://twitter.com/Paul_Lesko/statu...74267757502464

This link will give you this image below

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

From Upper Deck:

ThoseBackPages · 07-12-2019, 07:08 PM

ive not checked the floor plan, but how far apart are both companies in the corporate area?

pspa123 · 07-12-2019, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Looks like Upper Deck is very concerned — or convinced — about damage caused to its brand by Beckett in the Black Label scandal.

I thought Upper Deck was defunct?

pspa123 · 07-12-2019, 07:13 PM

https://www.cardboardconnection.com/...ck-v-leaf-2017

Is this the litigation?

pspa123 · 07-12-2019, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by T206Collector

Sorry if I missed this someplace else on BO, but it sure looks like civil claims are underway...

https://twitter.com/paul_lesko/statu...757502464?s=21

Why do you think this case involves doctored cards?

auburn35 · 07-12-2019, 07:21 PM

Awesome. It looks like the groups fact finding mission on the sorted Black Labels and the Leaf company was being watched by Upper Deck.

If Upper Deck needs another name to request documents/communication, I'd be happy to supply one, after double checking my research.

Onepocketj · 07-12-2019, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pspa123

https://www.cardboardconnection.com/...ck-v-leaf-2017

Is this the litigation?

No. That's from 2 years ago

boston12 · 07-12-2019, 07:26 PM

This is interesting

chezball · 07-12-2019, 07:54 PM

so what happened to that case from two years ago?

3124508 on COMC · 07-12-2019, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezball

so what happened to that case from two years ago?

My guess is that it is the same case.

Lonewolf · 07-12-2019, 07:57 PM

There are some issues with certain sections of the linked discovery doc. For starters, many of the requests are too broad (which may be objected to and burdensome to produce, and allow some wiggle room for lack of specificity). In at least the portion visible, this discovery request does not account for exhaustive means of other written or electronically transmitted productions unless the "DOCUMENTS" designation has a much more detailed key elsewhere in this particular document (which it probably does, I hope).

Regardless, it's nice to see that something seems to have started...

pspa123 · 07-12-2019, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

There are some issues with certain sections of the linked discovery doc. For starters, many of the requests are too broad (which may be objected to and burdensome to produce, and allow some wiggle room for lack of specificity). In at least the portion visible, this discovery request does not account for exhaustive means of other written or electronically transmitted productions unless the "DOCUMENTS" designation has a much more detailed key elsewhere in this particular document.

Regardless, it's nice to see that something seems to have started...

There doubtless is a definitions and instructions section in the beginning, there always is. I need more context here to be able to provide better insight into why these documents are being sought and how they might be relevant to the issues in the case. Seeing the caption of the case would help, might be able to find the docket.

It doesn't seem particularly well drafted, I would agree.

Onepocketj · 07-12-2019, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3124508 on COMC

My guess is that it is the same case.

I don't know. They seem to be two entirely different issues.

chezball · 07-12-2019, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

I don't know. They seem to be two entirely different issues.

the fact that they asked for joe C's e-mails seems that way. He wasn't on anyone's radar until recently.

3124508 on COMC · 07-12-2019, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezball

the fact that they asked for joe C's e-mails seems that way. He wasn't on anyone's radar until recently.

Replies on Twitter seem to suggest there is a Leaf antitrust suit this is related to?

Cavaliercards · 07-12-2019, 08:06 PM

Probably gets settled and everything sealed

KhalDrogo · 07-12-2019, 08:07 PM

The poster brings up the same question I had. What does this have to do with UD? Hopefully UD knows something more here.

pspa123 · 07-12-2019, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezball

the fact that they asked for joe C's e-mails seems that way. He wasn't on anyone's radar until recently.

Assuming Beckett isn't a party to the lawsuit it's a third party subpoena which can be served any time. Doesn't rule out that it's an older case. I am trying to figure out why the relationship between Beckett and Leaf would be relevant to claims by Upper Deck, but haven't yet. And I still don't know why this thread has doctored cards in the title, nothing in the Joe Clemons thread suggested he was doctoring cards, or that the Black Labels were being given to doctored cards, did it?

Chrisyork33 · 07-12-2019, 08:28 PM

Ish just got real

auburn35 · 07-12-2019, 08:30 PM

For the members who are lawyers, maybe this helps?

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/...r_Deck_Company

Or this

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...-deck-company/

pspa123 · 07-12-2019, 08:43 PM

Thanks. I hadn't checked PACER yet but that makes it easy. I'll look at it at some point.

AwesomeBrian · 07-12-2019, 08:48 PM

I know UD and Leaf were at odds over Leaf using game worn/used mem from guys like Jordan that were under a UD contract. Canadian breakers were kind of strong-armed by UD to stop breaking Leaf product, which was crap but UD hockey is their bread and butter for the most part. I don't think the case has been settled

pspa123 · 07-12-2019, 08:48 PM

So here's the intro to the original complaint.

Through exclusive contracts with the National Hockey League Players Association
(“NHLPA”) and illegal exclusive dealing arrangements with distributors, Upper Deck has managed to
throttle competition in the market for hockey player trading cards. Upper Deck’s stranglehold on this
market has excluded any potential competitor—including Leaf—from access to the necessary player
images and distributors to achieve the scale and efficiencies to compete in the market for hockey
player trading cards.

anusinha · 07-12-2019, 08:52 PM

Sounds like this doesnt have anything tomdo with current events

pspa123 · 07-12-2019, 08:55 PM

Wild guess until I feel more up to studying the docket, to the extent it's not sealed and they often are, Upper Deck may be exploring through a subpoena whether Leaf has some offsetting competitive advantage through its relationship with Beckett? Or maybe just exploring whether Leaf engaged in bad conduct, though hard to believe that would be considered relevant.

But the title of this thread appears to me to be misleading and this is not a case arising out of the doctored cards scandal, at least based on what I can tell to this point.

07-12-2019, 07:08 PM	#3677
ThoseBackPages Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Long Island Posts: 89,883 ThoseBackPages	ive not checked the floor plan, but how far apart are both companies in the corporate area? __________________ Pumpers Paradise #YouCryIBuy Four things that we cannot change each others minds about: Politics, Religion, Third Party Grading, and 2021 Bowman's Best Rookie Cards

07-12-2019, 07:21 PM	#3681
auburn35 Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 4,348	Awesome. It looks like the groups fact finding mission on the sorted Black Labels and the Leaf company was being watched by Upper Deck. If Upper Deck needs another name to request documents/communication, I'd be happy to supply one, after double checking my research. __________________ Ashley Lelie Rookie Collector, always looking for more. Last edited by auburn35; 07-12-2019 at 07:24 PM.

07-12-2019, 07:57 PM	#3686
Lonewolf Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: California Posts: 4,414	There are some issues with certain sections of the linked discovery doc. For starters, many of the requests are too broad (which may be objected to and burdensome to produce, and allow some wiggle room for lack of specificity). In at least the portion visible, this discovery request does not account for exhaustive means of other written or electronically transmitted productions unless the "DOCUMENTS" designation has a much more detailed key elsewhere in this particular document (which it probably does, I hope). Regardless, it's nice to see that something seems to have started... __________________ Money and Computers can't buy Championships

07-12-2019, 08:06 PM	#3691
Cavaliercards Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Charlottesville, VA Posts: 30,889 cavaliercards	Probably gets settled and everything sealed __________________ Always Buying: Vintage and Tobacco Cards Follow us on Twitter AND Instagram: @Cavaliercards

07-12-2019, 08:07 PM	#3692
KhalDrogo Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 41,194	The poster brings up the same question I had. What does this have to do with UD? Hopefully UD knows something more here. __________________ I love PSA!

07-12-2019, 07:13 PM	#3679
pspa123 Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 3,727	https://www.cardboardconnection.com/...ck-v-leaf-2017 Is this the litigation?

07-12-2019, 07:26 PM	#3683
boston12 Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 3,282	This is interesting

07-12-2019, 07:54 PM	#3684
chezball Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: North East Beatoff USA Posts: 21,679 jabber	so what happened to that case from two years ago?

07-12-2019, 08:28 PM	#3694
Chrisyork33 Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 2,470 Chrius_kskvk42sh Chrisyork33	Ish just got real

07-12-2019, 08:30 PM	#3695
auburn35 Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 4,348	For the members who are lawyers, maybe this helps? https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/...r_Deck_Company Or this https://www.courtlistener.com/docket...-deck-company/ __________________ Ashley Lelie Rookie Collector, always looking for more. Last edited by auburn35; 07-12-2019 at 08:34 PM.

07-12-2019, 08:43 PM	#3696
pspa123 Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 3,727	Thanks. I hadn't checked PACER yet but that makes it easy. I'll look at it at some point.

07-12-2019, 08:48 PM	#3697
AwesomeBrian Temporarily Suspended Join Date: Feb 2018 Location: NE O-H-I-O Posts: 6,011	I know UD and Leaf were at odds over Leaf using game worn/used mem from guys like Jordan that were under a UD contract. Canadian breakers were kind of strong-armed by UD to stop breaking Leaf product, which was crap but UD hockey is their bread and butter for the most part. I don't think the case has been settled

07-12-2019, 08:48 PM	#3698
pspa123 Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 3,727	So here's the intro to the original complaint. Through exclusive contracts with the National Hockey League Players Association (“NHLPA”) and illegal exclusive dealing arrangements with distributors, Upper Deck has managed to throttle competition in the market for hockey player trading cards. Upper Deck’s stranglehold on this market has excluded any potential competitor—including Leaf—from access to the necessary player images and distributors to achieve the scale and efficiencies to compete in the market for hockey player trading cards.

07-12-2019, 08:52 PM	#3699
anusinha Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 13,565	Sounds like this doesnt have anything tomdo with current events

07-12-2019, 08:55 PM	#3700
pspa123 Member Join Date: Jun 2017 Posts: 3,727	Wild guess until I feel more up to studying the docket, to the extent it's not sealed and they often are, Upper Deck may be exploring through a subpoena whether Leaf has some offsetting competitive advantage through its relationship with Beckett? Or maybe just exploring whether Leaf engaged in bad conduct, though hard to believe that would be considered relevant. But the title of this thread appears to me to be misleading and this is not a case arising out of the doctored cards scandal, at least based on what I can tell to this point.