Court changes course, rules in favor of Zuffa to seal and redact docs in Mark Hunt case

August 21, 2018

The Court in the Mark Hunt lawsuit against Zuffa, Dana White and Brock Lesnar granted Zuffa’s Renewed Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal and To Redact a Portion of Their Reply Brief.

Notably, Plaintiff did not file a response to oppose the “renewed motion.”  Originally, the court denied Zuffa’s request which seeks to seal and redact portions of the 2017 Promotional Agreement with Hunt.  The Court ruled that since this is a dispositive motion (a motion that may bring an end to the lawsuit), the party seeking to seal the record “must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure…”  Included in the request to redact documents, the Zuffa Dana White attached Hunt’s Bout Agreement for UFC 200 and other Bout Agreements from previous fights on as exhibits to its Motion to Dismiss Hunt’s First Amended Complaint.  Denial of its Motion to Seal these documents presumptively means that they would be available for public viewing.

Order on Renewed Motion to Seal by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Zuffa “Renewed” its motion although it did not cite to specific and compelling reasons to seal or redact. It did argue that it was “sensitive commercial information of the parties, the disclosure of which would cause the parties harm and jeopardize their competitive standing in the professional MMA industry.”

In the only two sentences which enlightens the reader on the rationale for the decision, the Court states, “[D]efendants claim that the agreements contain proprietary information, and that competitive standing with MMA promoters.  The court finds that defendants have identified compelling reasons that warrant sealing the exhibits…”  This explanation does not seem compelling at all.

 Payout Perspective:

This is a surprising and disappointing ruling from the perspective that the Court rationale was limited and did not offer up an explanation as to what had changed from its original ruling.  It also promotes the further practice of sealing and redacting based on vague notions that the information is “sensitive commercial information.”  It also may impact the Zuffa Antitrust lawsuit as that case is also in a battle with redaction of Zuffa business information.

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.