On June 30, 2012, a North American Association of Sports Economists-sponsored symposium session entitled “Sports Economics on Trial” was held in conjunction with the 2012 Western Economics Association International conference in San Francisco, California. The foci of the symposium were two-fold. First, speakers discussed relevant evidentiary rules and recent legal cases that turned on sports economics issues and expert testimony related thereto. Second, the panel sought to collectively provide a primer that academics and professionals working in the sports economics realm could subsequently turn to as a guide when involved in litigation pertaining to their research. This article represents an outgrowth of the symposium, highlighting four recent legal cases under the sports economics umbrella and addressing discrete issues relevant to sports economics’ role in litigation.
Andrews v. Eli Lilly & Co., 97 F.R.D. 494 (N.D. Ill. 1983).
2.
American Needle v. National Football League, 130 S.Ct. 2201 (2010).
3.
AngnerE. (2006). Economists as experts: Overconfidence in theory and practice. Journal of Economic Methodology, 13, 1–24.
4.
Buchanan v. American Motors Corp., 697 F.2d 151 (6th Cir. 1983).
5.
CecilJ. S.BoruchR. (1988). Compelled disclosure of research data: An early warning and suggestions for psychologists. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 181–189.
6.
Championsworld v. United States Soccer Federation, Case No. 06 C 5724 (August 17, 2012).
7.
Chicago Professional Sports v. NBA, 95 F.3d 593 (7th Cir. 1996).
Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708 (1st Cir. 1998).
10.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
11.
Deutscher Tennis Bund v. ATP Tour, et al, 610 F.3d 820 (3rd Cir. 2010).
12.
Dow Chemical Co. v. Allen, 672 F.2d 1262 (7th Cir. 1982).
13.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure § 45 (2012).
14.
Federal Rules of Evidence § 702 (2012).
15.
GardnerW. (2004). Compelled disclosure of scientific research data. The Information Society, 20, 141–146.
16.
GillisA. M. (1992). The unwilling expert. BioScience, 42, 160–163.
17.
HawR. (2011). Amicus briefs and the Sherman Act: Why antitrust needs a new deal. Texas Law Review, 89, 1247–1291.
18.
HawR. (2012). Adversarial economics in antitrust litigation: Losing consensus in the battle of the experts. Northwestern University Law Review, 106, 1261–1305.
19.
HolderA. R. (1986). The biomedical researcher and subpoenas: Judicial protection of confidential medical data. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 12, 405–421.
20.
HolderA. R. (1989). Researchers and subpoenas: The troubling precedent of the Selikoff case. Ethics and Human Research, 11, 8–10.
21.
JasanoffS. (1996). Research subpoenas and the sociology of knowledge. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 95–118.
22.
JohnsonJ.DavidJ.TorelliP. (2010). Empirical evidence and class certification in labor market antitrust cases. Antitrust, 25, 60–64.
23.
KayeD. (2001). The dynamics of Daubert: Methodology, conclusions, and fit in statistical and econometric studies. Virginia Law Review, 87, 1933–2018.
24.
Kentucky Speedway v. NASCAR, et al., 410 F.Supp.2d 592 (2008).
25.
Kentucky Speedway v. NASCAR, et al., 588 F.3d 908 (6th Cir. 2009).
26.
KordanaK.O’ReillyT. (2001). Daubert and litigation-driven econometrics. Virginia Law Review, 87, 2019–2027.
27.
LabatonM. (1987). Discovery and testimony of unretained experts: Creating a clear and equitable standard to govern compliance with subpoenas. Duke Law Journal, 36, 140–156.
28.
MandelM. J. (1999). Going for the gold: Economists as expert witnesses. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13, 113–120.
29.
MatherneJ. G. (1984). Forced disclosure of academic research. Vanderbilt Law Review, 37, 585–620.
30.
MaurerV. G. (1984). Compelling the expert witness: Fairness and utility under the federal rules of civil procedure. Georgia Law Review, 19, 71–120.
31.
Mike’s Train House v. Lionel, 472 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2006).
32.
Nelson v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline, 243 F.3d 244 (6th Cir. 2001).
33.
O’NeilR. M. (1983). Scientific research and the first amendment: An academic privilege. U.C. Davis Law Review, 16, 837–855.
34.
PalysT.LowmanJ. (2002). Anticipating law: Research methods, ethics, and the law of privilege. Sociological Methodology, 32, 1–17.
35.
SolowJ.FletcherD. (2006). Doing good economics in the courtroom: Thoughts on Daubert and expert testimony in antitrust. Journal of Corporation Law, 31, 489–502.
36.
ShellingJ. (2000). A scholar’s privilege: In re Cusumano, Jurimetrics, 40, 517–526.
37.
TraynorM. (1996). Countering the excessive subpoena for scholarly research. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59, 119–148.
