The ongoing legal battle between bettor Steven Jacobs and DraftKings is not making much progress, and Jacobs contends it is because DraftKings’s counsel is purposefully delaying the discovery process.
Jacobs first filed suit in June, alleging that DraftKings provided his personal information to noted bettor Gadoon “Spanky” Kyrollos, which Kyrollos later used in order to violently threaten and attempt to extort him.
DraftKings quickly responded with a motion to dismiss, denying the allegations, which they labeled “nonsensical”. DraftKings also requested to stay discovery in the case, but the judge ruled in August that there were some papers and discovery DratKings were obliged to provide Jacobs,
In a letter to New York Eastern District Court Judge Natasha Merle dated Oct. 14, Jacobs detailed the disagreements between the two parties regarding the scope of discovery both in his letter and a series of emails attached as exhibits.
“DraftKings is severely delinquent in its discovery obligations and, since the commencement of this action, has fundamentally refused to follow applicable rules, laws, and even this Court’s Order,” Jacobs wrote to Merle.
He did concede that DraftKings has produced around 100 documents, however, he claimed most of them are documents he already has in possession. He is seeking more than 20 types of information, including information related to DraftKings CEO Jason Robins and Race and Sports Operations Director Johnny Avello.
Jacobs also contended that, even within the limited paperwork provided to DraftKings, he feels there is room to amend the complaint to include additional charges.
“Relatedly, DraftKings’ (meager) productions to date have revealed an astonishing lack of truthfulness on DraftKings’ part. For example, Plaintiff’s VIP hosts apparently lied to Plaintiff in essentially every conversation (about all subjects big and small) for a period of nearly a year. These hosts were Plaintiff’s sole points of contact with DraftKings, and their dishonesty was apparently at the explicit direction of their employer, DraftKings,” he stated.
In its motion to dismiss, DraftKings has previously argued that, even if Steven Jacobs’s claims were true and his VIP host divulged personal information to a stranger, that the company could not be held responsible for the rogue illegal behavior of a single employee.
DraftKings’s counsel denied there was any attempt to delay proceedings but also wrote to Jacobs stating they believed the scope of what he was asking for was out of bounds for what the court demanded. Counsel had also previously written a letter to court compelling Jacobs to adhere to confidentiality with any discovery material given to him.
Court records indicate that Jacobs filed his opposition to DraftKings’s motion to dismiss on Aug. 28 but that document has not been included in the court’s efiling system.
