Mark Cuban’s quest to depose the corporate representative of Arena Development Intermediate is moving forward after a Dallas judge set a hearing for next month on the Rule 202 petition. Cuban’s filing claims the pre-suit deposition is aimed at uncovering details about how the Dallas Mavericks struck a deal to buy the Valley View Mall property.
Recently filed documents in the case indicate James C. Bookhout and Josh Lewis of Katten Muchin Rosenman have been hired to represent ADI, which is the entity created by current Mavericks ownership to pursue the new arena deal. Two entities associated with Cuban, the former longtime majority owner of the Mavericks, filed the lawsuit July 6, asking the court for the deposition that they claim will determine whether they have grounds to pursue a lawsuit. Cuban, who maintains an ownership interest in the American Airlines Center, is seeking information regarding how the deal may impact his contractual rights
Radical Hoops Ltd. and Radical Mavericks II filed notice July 15 that they are asking the court to seal “two limited partnership agreements governing petitioners’ opportunity rights and two pieces of confidential correspondence sent to the opposing side’s representative regarding alleged breaches of those agreements in addition to limited portions of the Rule 202 petition which cite them.”
The case has been assigned to Dallas County District Judge Dale Tillery, who granted a temporary sealing order the next day.
Judge Tillery has scheduled for Aug. 5 a hearing where the deposition request will be argued. At that hearing, lawyers for Cuban will also argue their request to permanently seal certain records in the case.
Cuban is represented by John Zavitsanos, Jason McManis, Warren McCarty, Justin Kenney, Emily Adler, Matthew Micik and Anders Huizenga of Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing and Collin D. Kennedy and Hastings Hanshaw of Hanshaw Kennedy Hafen.
On Friday, lawyers for the Cuban entities told the court they had tried to communicate with lawyers for ADI to find a suitable day for the hearing on the Rule 202 petition but had not been entirely successful. Noting that they reached out to Bookhout at the court’s request, the lawyers for Cuban said their original email July 13 received no response.
They followed up two days later, according to the certificate of conference filed with the court, and were informed a doctor’s appointment created a scheduling conflict with the Aug. 5 date.
“In an effort to accommodate his schedule, petitioners’ counsel asked him to provide alternative dates when he would be available,” the filing reads. “Mr. Bookhout responded only that he had conflict every other day the week of August 5 but declined to identify those conflicts or provide any meaningful availability. Despite petitioners’ repeated requests, ADI has not offered any reasonable alternative dates other than suggesting the hearing be delayed until late August or September.”
“Given the urgency created by the underlying facts of the 202 Petition, that is not workable.”
Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The case number is DC-26-12570.