Zuffa files Reply Brief supporting motion to exclude Plaintiffs docs including report from Golden Boy lawsuit

July 16, 2019

Zuffa has filed its Reply Brief in support of Objections to Plaintiffs’ Exhibit List.  In the pleading, they support their initial argument that reports in the Golden Boy Antitrust lawsuit are inadmissible.

Zuffa contends that the exhibits that Plaintiffs are attempting to use should not be admitted into evidence.  Specifically, the Deetz Expert Report from the Golden Boy lawsuit against Al Haymon it contends is unreliable.  Zuffa argues that the Plaintiffs failed to secure to include the data from Deetz because they did not subpoena the underlying data or depose him about it.

“Without the ability to test or verify the data in the Deetz Report, neither the parties nor the Court have any way to know whether that inconsistency is due to error, a deliberate decision (legitimate or otherwise) by Mr. Deetz to manipulate his data or some other reason entirely,” writes Zuffa in Reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to exclusion.

Zuffa states that Plaintiffs attempt to verify the data was stymied when its own expert, Prof. Andrew Zimbalist indicated at his deposition that he made no independent verification of the data in Deetz’ report.

Exhibit 1 by Jason Cruz on Scribd

The Deetz Report assessed damages on part of the boxing promotion after Al Haymon’s PBC entered the industry.  His report concluded that based on his analysis, that Golden Boy had suffered “significant damage” as a result of anticompetitive conduct of Al Haymon.  The monetary damages was redacted from the public report.  Deetz’s report is premised upon another report in the Golden Boy litigation, GB’s expert Robert Kneuper, Ph.D.  However, Deetz states that he did a “separate analysis of Golden Boy’s contracts with broadcast networks.”  The analysis concluded that Golden Boy’s financial conditions declined when Haymon entered into “exclusive broadcast network contracts.”  Essentially, Haymon’s alleged business strategy of blocking Golden Boy from access to broadcast networks due to exclusive contracts and thereby precluding them from the market caused monetary damages.

Zuffa Reply Brief by Jason Cruz on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

Zuffa’s reply stresses that certain exhibits that Plaintiff would like to include in its use at the evidentiary hearing should be excluded on the basis that they fail to provide sufficient reliability.  Although used in another lawsuit, Zuffa makes the argument that there has not been an independent verification of them.  Importantly, the expert report of Gene Deetz from the Golden Boy lawsuit is one of the documents Zuffa hopes to exclude.  Deetz’ report, which was in favor of Golden Boy as it claimed that Al Haymon violated antitrust laws, would similarly support Plaintiffs’ contention in this lawsuit.  Zuffa argues that the report should not be used to buttress Plaintiffs claims here.  The Court will have a chance to evaluate these arguments and make a decision before August’s hearing.


MMA Payout will continue to follow.

Got something to say?

You must be logged in to post a comment.