United States Sixth Circuit

In a suit brought by a county Board of Commissioners against the Cincinnati Bengals, the NFL and its other teams, alleging they violated the federal antitrust laws by using a monopoly over professional football to obtain a heavily subsidized lease for the Bengals' new stadium at the expense of the county and its taxpayers, summary judgment for the NFL defendants is affirmed where: 1) the county filed the suit after the four-year limitations period had run; 2) the county failed to demonstrate that tolling should apply due to defendants' allegedly fraudulent concealment of material information regarding the antitrust claim; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying county's motion for additional discovery.

Appellate Information

• Decided 06/19/2007
• Published 06/19/2007

Judges

• Before:  SUHRHEINRICH, SUTTON, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  Arthur R. Miller, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, for Appellant.  Gregg H. Levy, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  Arthur R. Miller, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Stanley M. Chesley, Paul M. De Marco, Fay E. Stilz, W.B. Markovits, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, Robert R. Furnier, Furnier Simonds, LLC, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellant.  Gregg H. Levy, James M. Garland, Steven E. Fagell, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C., Robert A. Pitcairn, Jr., Katz, Teller, Brant & Hild, Cincinnati, Ohio, Kenneth F. Seibel, Jacobs, Kleinman, Seibel & McNally, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.