How the Pac-12’s poaching penalty lawsuit against the Mountain West is progressing

The Pac-12’s poaching penalty lawsuit against the Mountain West inched forward recently with two rulings from U.S. magistrate judge Susan van Keulen.

One will impact the discovery phase. The other focused on counterclaims. When added to the growing list of rulings, her strategy is rapidly becoming clear.

van Keulen might as well be based in Switzerland, not the Northern District of California.

“She’s taking a very laissez-faire approach,” a source familiar with the filings told the Hotline this week. “She’s saying, ‘I’m not going to get heavily involved. I need to see more information.’”

That could impact the timing of a case that began in September 2024, when the Pac-12 sued the Mountain West over $55 million in poaching penalties that were included in a scheduling agreement between the conferences signed the previous year.

The agreement called for the Pac-12 to pay approximately $11 million for each Mountain West school that jumped to the Pac-12. Five ended up making the move: Boise State, Colorado State, Fresno State, San Diego State and Utah State.

There have been myriad filings and motions since the legal process began, including the Mountain West’s motion to dismiss (denied) counterclaims (mostly upheld).

But the case shows no signs of resolution after van Keulen ruled on two fronts:

• On March 27, she granted the Pac-12’s motion to dismiss one Mountain West counterclaim (fraud) but denied the motion to dismiss two others (tortious interference and quasi-contract).

• On March 31, she granted the Pac-12’s request and compelled the Mountain West to make communications (e.g., emails) by university presidents available in the discovery process:

“To the extent the MWC is claiming no control over the documents of a school’s Chief Executive Officer who was a member of the Board of Directors or an Officer during the relevant time period, that assertion is unsupportable given the significant role assigned these members in the Bylaws.

“During the relevant time period, the Board members and Officers were running the MWC and expressly empowered to act on MWC’s behalf; they were the agents of the MWC, and for this purpose, MWC has control over their responsive documents.”

That decision probably wasn’t well received in the Ivory Towers across the Mountain West footprint. But how will it impact the case? And how long might the saga last?

“What’s left is the two sides disputing the legal basis for a $55 million penalty,” said a second source familiar with the court filings.

(van Keulen also ruled the Mountain West wasn’t required to make communications by its athletic directors available for discovery, although the Pac-12 could seek those documents through subpoenas.)

The discovery process is expected to take the remainder of the calendar year, in part because antitrust claims were at the heart of the Pac-12’s original lawsuit.

“Antitrust cases take longer because you need a lot of economic evidence and analysis,” the first source said.

Private communications by Mountain West presidents could be placed under protective order, shielding them from public consumption. But the presidents themselves may be called for depositions. Will that accelerate a resolution?

Perhaps, but van Keulen’s approach – the second source termed it “very pragmatic” – seemingly leaves both the plaintiff (Pac-12) and defendant (Mountain West) unsure of their leverage.

A motion hearing is set for March 2027, with a pre-trial conference June 24 and a jury trial scheduled for July 6.

In football terms, the process is late in the first quarter of a night game that’s expected to last into the wee hours.