• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

MMA Payout

The Business of Combat Sports

  • Home
  • MMA
    • UFC
    • Bellator
    • One
    • PFL
  • Boxing
  • Legal
  • Ratings
  • Payouts
  • Attendance
  • Gate

Plaintiffs in UFC Antitrust lawsuit file Emergency Motion to Compel

July 1, 2017 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

On Friday, Plaintiffs in the Zuffa Antitrust lawsuit filed an Emergency Motion to Compel citing the UFC’s withholding of 30,000 documents due to alleged privilege.  The Plaintiffs are requesting an expediting hearing on the matter for July 13, 2017 due to the pending fact discovery deadline of July 31, 2017.

The motion states that the UFC has withheld documents citing privilege which Plaintiffs deem are too broad.  The parties have “met and conferred,” a requisite process in which the opposing sides are to make a good faith effort to resolve their discovery disputes.  However, as likely predicted, the parties are at an impasse.

Central to the dispute is the fact that the privilege log of withheld documents provide vague descriptions from which Plaintiffs cannot assess whether it is truly a privileged document or not.  Plaintiffs contend that the privilege log is not per the rules of discovery.

The Plaintiffs are requesting that the UFC produced non-privileged documents within 5 court (business) days and a revised privilege log.

Payout Perspective:
Privilege logs are a list of documents that parties provide to the other side to let them know that they are withholding the information but there is a valid reason (i.e. attorney-client privilege).  Usually the key in determining if a document is privileged if its from an attorney to a client and it contains or provides legal advice.  The interpretation of this meaning is used narrowly by parties seeking documents and broadly by those seeking to protect the disclosure.  You can predict that the UFC will oppose this motion and will be upset due to the shorter time to respond.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Filed Under: Antitrust Class Action, Le v. Zuffa, legal, UFC, Zuffa

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Dominance responds to Plaintiffs’ Fee Request

Senate makes mockery of Ali Act hearing

Wrestlemania 42 attendance dips from 2025

How will WWE’s big weekend turn out?

UFC 327 attendance, gate and bonuses

Plaintiffs seeking $270K from Dominance MMA

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Plaintiffs have filed a reply in support of its motion for attorney fees. Notably right after motion was filed Dominance provided document responses. However, Plaintiffs claim the document responses are still not complete #Zuffa #TKO #UFC #antitrust #sportslaw

3

Dominance responds to Plaintiffs’ Fee Request #UFC #TKO #ZUFFA #Antitrust #MMA https://mmapayout.com/2026/04/28/dominance-responds-to-plaintiffs-fee-request/

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

TODAY, on the 59th anniversary of my grandfather taking a stand for what he believed in and refusing induction, we made meaningful progress with Senators on the Ali Revival Act.

Fighters, your rights are on the line. Speak up.

Uniform compliance pay?

Home of Fight @Home_of_Fight

😬💰 Arman Tsarukyan says the UFC randomly sent him $42,000 bonus recently:

"I don't know what is it for. Maybe for my social media work. But they never tell. Otherwise my manager would ask for percentage."

🎥 @PBDsPodcast

This rivals the Jon Jones 1 day in rehab

Adam @zandermercury

6 years of cheating fixed by missing 1 day of work

Load More

Copyright © 2026 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports