Parties in Antitrust Lawsuit agree to supplement expert reports

May 7, 2018

The parties in the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit have filed a Joint Motion to Supplement Expert Reports.  The motion, if granted by the Court, will allow the parties to supplement their expert reports as it relates to Dr. Hal Singer and Professor Robert Topel.

The motion states, that due to “the complex issues involved in this antitrust case, the substantial damages at issue, and the significant amount of documentary, deposition, and other party and non-party evidence that has been produced and elicited in this matter, the Parties seek to ensure, within the bounds of efficiency, fairness and practicality, that the expert report fairly and fully contains the parties’ experts’ respective opinions in this case.”

Zuffa’s expert, Professor Robert Topel filed a “Sur-Rebuttal” Expert Report dated February 12, 2018 which has not been filed.  A “sur” reply is an additional reply to another party’s motion.  It is not a scheduled filing but the Court and is usually filed to rebut previously brought up by the other party.  Usually they are not well-received by a Court since they are unplanned, additional filings that the Court must consider.

Zuffa contends the sur-rebuttal report was prepared because issues were raised for the first time in Dr. Singer’s rebuttal report it believed it did not have a chance to respond to in its original rebuttal.

The motion agrees to several concessions with Topel’s Declaration to Zuffa’s class certification opposition brief.  Plaintiffs have agreed that they will not object to the inclusion of the Topel Declaration and in return Zuffa agrees not to object to Plaintiffs’ inclusion with their upcoming class certification reply brief of a new declaration from Dr. Singer.

Joint Motion to Supplement Expert Reports by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

The joint motion is a way for the parties to hash out some evidentiary issues that each party has with their experts.  Also, a workaround the deadlines imposed by the Courts.  So long as the parties agree to the exchange of information are admissible as if the deadlines were met, the Court likely has no issue.  Concessions were made with respect to potential inclusion of evidence at trial and the agreement that there will not be an objection to it.  We will see more from Dr. Singer and Topel soon with respect to the Class Certification filing upcoming and their respective expert reports as those may be key.  Of course, there are motions to exclude testimony of each as well that are pending.

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.