The California-based lawsuit and countersuit involving LIV Golf, the Public Investment Fund of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (PIF), PIF governor Yasir Othman Al-Rumayyan, Matt Jones, Bryson DeChambeau, Peter Uihlein and—on the other side—the PGA Tour will remain a single, all-encompassing case.
On Wednesday, Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied a motion by the golfers, LIV and the Saudi parties to divide the case so there would be separate trials for claims brought against the PGA Tour and for claims brought by the PGA Tour.
LIV and the golfers insist that PIF and Al-Rumayyan lack information relevant to their antitrust claims, which center on the portrayal of the PGA Tour as unlawfully suppressing competition in the market for hiring elite golfers.
The downplaying of PIF’s and Al-Rumayyan’s roles is strategic. PIF and Al-Rumayyan have been asked to provide sworn testimony and share emails, including with golfers, agents, broadcasters and TV networks, but they are challenging Judge Freeman’s order that they comply with those subpoenas.
PIF and Al-Rumayyan want the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to rule that, given their ties to the Saudi government, they aren’t obligated under U.S. law to participate in the litigation. Two federal judges (Freeman and U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen) disagreed with that position, stressing that PIF and Al-Rumayyan finance and promote LIV. When acting in those capacities, PIF and Al-Rumayyan are acting as business, rather than governmental, figures.
The elephant in the courtroom is the length of the litigation and the accompanying impact on LIV and the PGA Tour competing in golf.
Here’s why: Whether the Ninth Circuit agrees to hear PIF’s and Al-Rumayyan’s appeal and, if so, when the Ninth Circuit would issue a decision, are uncertain. The wait might last a couple of years. Meanwhile, the trial has already been pushed back to May 17, 2024, and could face additional delays.
Freeman reasoned that breaking the case into two could unduly prejudice the PGA Tour. PIF and Al-Rumayyan “may have information relevant to [LIV and golfers’] antitrust claims and the Tour’s defenses to those claims,” she reasoned.
Along those lines, PIF and Al-Rumayyan may be able to offer testimony or share emails related to LIV’s allegation that “the Tour has compromised LIV Golf’s ability to secure a television broadcast contract.” The PGA Tour disputes that assertion and insists PIF and Al-Rumayyan should explain their efforts to negotiate broadcast contracts on LIV’s behalf.
Freeman also found that splitting the case wouldn’t necessarily expedite the litigation. She believes the PGA Tour has made a “sufficient showing” that its ability to both defend claims and bring claims hinges on whether PIF and Al-Rumayyan participate.
Wednesday’s ruling is the latest sign that the litigation could remain unresolved for years to come. Whether LIV can effectively compete with the PGA Tour during that stretch remains to be seen. Ironically, LIV effectively competing would suggest the PGA Tour isn’t as competition-suppressing as the upstart golf league claims.
