Zuffa Reply Brief argues its provided Court with ample evidence for sealing requests

December 10, 2018

Zuffa has filed its Reply Brief in Support of its request to seal portion of its Reply Brief in its Motion for Summary Judgment.  Essentially, this reply brief is supporting its motion to seal portions in its Motion for Summary Judgment so that the public will not be able to see it.

Zuffa argues that while it provided detailed and “narrowly tailored” reasons for sealing requests, Plaintiffs argued with broad, “boiler-plate arguments” from other opposition briefs.  It also claims to have declarations including from Bellator to support its motion to seal whereas Plaintiffs do not.

In its Reply, Zuffa argues that the Court has found that the documents which included confidential business strategy information, including revenue and profit information regarding Zuffa’s Fight Pass product, Zuffa contracts and promotional agreements to be sealed.  Plaintiffs did not object at the time.  In Plaintiffs defense, they cite to the Order of the Court in this case which states there is no waiver if a party does not object.

It also argues that Plaintiffs’ Opposition does not address the “substantial evidence of the commercial sensitivity of its promotional agreements and negotiations regarding those agreements.”  Essentially, they suggest that Plaintiffs’ fail to meet their burden through extrinsic evidence such as declarations or cited testimony.  There is no rebuttal evidence to Zuffa’s declarations which is usually the tact in these motions.

Zuffa also contends that the information it seeks to seal is not public knowledge as claimed by Plaintiffs.  They try to make a distinction between the contract disclosed in the Eddie Alvarez litigation and widely written about versus its request to seal its contract.  Zuffa makes the argument that while some agreements may be public, the negotiations about those agreements and business strategy were properly filed under seal.

As for the argument that some of the information that Zuffa seeks to seal is too old, Zuffa claims that there would still be “highly sensitive information” that should be disclosed from public disclosure due to its commercial sensitivity.

Zuffa’s Reply Brief ISO… by on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

There are multiple motions to seal going on here so its kind of confusing to keep up but basically this Reply Brief supports its Motion for Summary Judgment.  It looks like that Zuffa attorneys are watching John and Paul’s twitter timeline for support for their brief to indicate that all is well with the disclosure of information since they have been able to access PACER for these documents.  Notably, they do not cite to John’s request for the court to unseal documents and the subsequent response by Zuffa. There seems to be an argument made here that the underlying issue of business strategy and confidential information that is seen underlies the reason for these documents to be sealed.  So, does that mean that due to the fact you can extrapolate a business decision based on the contents of a contract, it should not be disclosed to the public?  We shall see.

Plaintiffs in UFC Antitrust Lawsuit try to avoid “hot tubbing”

November 16, 2018

Plaintiffs in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit have filed a letter to the Court arguing that there should not be an evidentiary hearing on expert testimony.  The legal slang of “hot tubbing” where “concurrent expert evidence” is being offered and heard by the court at the same time.

Letter November 16 by on Scribd

Plaintiffs see a request by Zuffa to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the expert testimony as an end-around to exclude expert testimony.  The Court denied Zuffa’s Daubert motions without prejudice in late September per Plaintiffs. It’s the position of Plaintiffs that this is a way to ask for the Court to reconsider at this late date.  Plaintiffs also argues that the format of each side presenting its experts on direct and then cross examines the other side would take multiple days.  Notably, this would run into the rescheduled date for the Motion for Summary Judgment of Friday, December 14, 2018.  It would most certainly delay the hearing date once again if the Court were to entertain the hearings.

There is also the argument that evidentiary hearings on class certification are not required.  Plaintiffs cite cases where the Court suggests that evidentiary hearings for these types of complex cases are unnecessary.  Finally, Plaintiffs also argue that evidentiary hearings for summary judgment almost never happen and there’s no extraordinary reason brought up by Zuffa why one should take place now.

Notably, “hot tubbing” is not prohibited, but its not specifically addressed.  There are various opinions on its use and affect.  Judges have wide latitude when it comes to admitting expert witness testimony.  Of the factors a court may consider, the most important tends to be whether or not the testimony is a waste of the court’s time.

Payout Perspective:

And we are now introduced to the term of “hot tubbing” which is a term that originates from Australia according to some research.  It’s the “battle of the experts” and the purpose seems to be a way to flesh out some of the theories asserted by the parties in hopes of scaling down the arguments for the court at trial.  Plaintiffs believe that Zuffa is asking for this type of hearing as either a second bite at attempting to exclude their experts or stall.  I would think that it’s the former rather than the latter.  Zuffa likely believes that if they can knock out some of Plaintiffs experts, there will be little left of Plaintiffs claims.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

ShowMoney talks UFC Antitrust Lawsuit and ONE business

November 14, 2018

Show Money is back once again as I discuss the business of MMA with Bloody Elbow’s John Nash and Paul Gift (also of Forbes).

This show’s topics includes the upcoming Motion for Summary Judgment in the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit and the business moves made by ONE Championship.

Zuffa Reply Brief in support of dismissing antitrust lawsuit takes aim at Plaintiffs’ claims

November 5, 2018

On Friday, Zuffa filed its Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment in dismissing all claims against it by former fighters in the antitrust lawsuit.

In its Reply Brief, it argues that Plaintiffs have now changed its theory of liability since its original claims are no longer viable.  Zuffa argues that Plaintiffs have failed to define relevant markets and in turn have not proven its monopsony and monopoly claims.

In a more of a procedural argument, Zuffa argues that Plaintiffs failure to rebut certain Statement of Undisputed Facts in its Motion and are therefore admitted as true.  Alternatively, Zuffa states Plaintiffs have failed to raise any genuine factual disputes in its counterstatement of facts.

Zuffa argues that Plaintiffs’ Opposition to its Motion for Summary Judgment relies heavily on Dana White’s puffery.  But, as Zuffa argues, “strong statements praising your own business and demeaning your competitors are evidence of competition, not an antitrust case.”

This past September, Plaintiffs filed its Opposition Brief to Zuffa’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  The main argument by Plaintiffs is that the UFC is the “major league” of MMA and it has done so through anticompetitive behavior.  Plaintiffs claim that Zuffa used its market leverage to extend exclusivity over its fighters through coercion, intimidation and other means of forcible persuasion.  The claim is that the evidence supplied shows Zuffa abused its market power.

Zuffa claims that Plaintiffs have provided a new category for fighters: “marquee,” citing marquee fighters as the most important input for MMA promoters and that Zuffa violated the antitrust laws by preventing competitors from having a “critical mass” of the fighters.  Zuffa argues that this theory of the need to have a “critical mass” of “marquee” fighter does not appear in its Amended Complaint nor is there discussion of this theory in its discovery responses.  Moreover, Zuffa argues that Plaintiffs fail to define this term.

Moreover, Zuffa states that the relevant markets in which Plaintiffs allege Zuffa has power over have not been properly identified.  Zuffa notes that Plaintiffs failed to provide an evaluation of the “marquee” query and that their expert, Dr. Hal Singer, does not include the Significant Non-transitory Decrease in Price test.  Zuffa also takes issue with the lack of defining an output market for a monopoly claim.  This is due in part to its assertion that Dr. Singer failed to properly conduct a SSNIP test.  Zuffa cites to Singer’s admission that he did not test whether cable networks, broadcast networks and sponsors (the output market according to Dr. Singer) would switch to sports entertainment.

Zuffa also states that Plaintiffs cannot dispute that other promotions are viable competitors of the UFC.  They cannot dispute the testimony of the promoters which claim that the UFC has not been an obstacle to them signing fighters.  In this argument, they negate the testimony of Kurt Otto and Jeremy Lappen because they promoted MMA events before the class period and before Plaintiffs claim Zuffa had monopsony power which deems their testimony irrelevant for purposes of this lawsuit.

One of the other claims asserted by Zuffa in its Reply is that the Plaintiffs cannot show relevant direct evidence of lower compensation as a result of the claimed monopsony power.  Zuffa argues that Plaintiff cannot solely rely on their expert’s reports alleging the correlation.  Here, Zuffa argues that the practical market facts do not show that the company suppressed compensation due to its share of the market.  Zuffa also argues that Plaintiffs’ are making a “predatory hiring” claim as Plaintiffs describe a marketplace where the UFC retains fighters it does not need in order to keep them away from other promotions.  But, Zuffa argues it simply offered fighters more money.  This would seemingly fly in the face of Plaintiffs claim that wages were suppressed.

Furthermore, Zuffa states that Plaintiffs have failed to show its foreclosure theory based on the UFC’s use of exclusive contracts.  Basically, despite the inference, Plaintiffs cannot show intent that the contracts foreclosed competition.

These are the main arguments asserted in Zuffa’s Reply Brief which rebuts Plaintiffs’ Opposition and supports the promotion’s contention that the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit contains no general issues of material facts and as a result must be dismissed.  The strongest arguments in my opinion seem to be the argument that other promotions do not appear to be harmed by Zuffa’s business practices.  Plaintiffs point out how the purported scheme may still impact other MMA competitors.

It is clear that Plaintiffs do not respond to Zuffa’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“SUF”) in its Opposition.  Rather, they introduce their Counterstatement.  Procedurally Plaintiffs should have responded to Zuffa’s SUF.  If you do not, the statements are admitted as true.  Plaintiffs will likely argue that their Counterstatements are equivalent to a denial or rebuttal.  It would be up to the Court to determine this.  I would think that Plaintiffs would have been extra cautious with this filing and would have ensured that they would not deem anything admitted if they did not respond.  Notwithstanding this argument, the Court will need to decide this Motion.

Both sides have made strong arguments for why this case should go forward or be dismissed.  The question is whether there are material facts still to be decided with the lawsuit as it is currently framed for it to go forward to trial.  Zuffa makes strong arguments stating why it should be dismissed and premise Plaintiffs theories based on unverified assertions and a moving target of theories.  Plaintiffs maintain its basic argument that Zuffa’s market power dictated the rest of the industry and through its strategies, was able to suppress fighter rights and wages.

MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Reply Brief by on Scribd

Zuffa files Reply Brief supporting its right to seal docs in Antitrust case

October 29, 2018

In its latest filing, Zuffa has filed its reply in support of its motion to seal parts of the opposition brief filed by the plaintiffs in response to the company’s motion for summary judgment in the Antitrust lawsuit.

Zuffa filed a Motion to Seal certain documents that are being used in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment.  The promotion included justifications for sealing each of the documents it requests.

Zuffa Motion to Seal by on Scribd

Plaintiffs argue that the documents are not commercially sensitive information.  In its brief, Plaintiffs cite testimony from Zuffa’s attorney Michael Mersch about a hypothetical contract, testimony related to Lorenzo Fertitta’s deposition concerning financial information and wage share.  Plaintiffs argue that there is no confidential information contained in the testimony sought to be sealed. Zuffa also requests portions of expert reports to be redacted.  This includes plaintiffs’ expert report from Hal Singer and its own expert Robert Topel.

Plaintiffs Opposition by on Scribd

Perhaps one of the more salient arguments in Plaintiffs argument is that many of the passages that Zuffa seeks to redact are old.  Essentially, the information that Zuffa seeks to seal are remnants of the past and do not contain trade secrets because they no longer contain information that is subject to the current business landscape.

The Reply is its response to the Plaintiffs’ seeking to unseal certain documents filed in support of the brief filed by the fighters suing Zuffa. Plaintiffs’ opposed the motion for summary judgment filed by Zuffa seeking to dismiss the fighters’ claims against the promotion.  But, although Zuffa has unsealed and unredacted certain documents, there still remains a giant portion still unavailable for viewing.

Zuffa Reply ISO Motion to Seal by on Scribd

In its Reply Brief it reaffirms that it properly identified documents that it was sealing and met the legal burden for documents needed to preclude.

Additionally, they claim that the documents sought to seal are specific and would pose competitive harm to the company as they would divulge confidential business information and strategy.  Zuffa also rejects Plaintiffs argument that the information sought to seal is old and already public knowledge.

The Court will decide whether Zuffa carries its burden to show that the records it seeks to seal “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,” providing ‘articulable facts’ that favor secrecy and that those interests outweigh the presumption of public access to judicial records.

While it has been underscored in this briefing, the right of access by the media is a viable argument for the Court to look at the sealing of documents critically.  The Reply includes several tweets from John Nash and articles for Paul Gift which discuss the Zuffa antitrust lawsuit.  Certainly, the attorneys have taken just a survey of the reporting going on here as media here is just an afterthought from both legal sides.

The recent reversal in ruling in the Hunt-Zuffa lawsuit which sealed Bout Agreements.  In the Order which granted the sealing of documents, the Court stated, “[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 does not seem compelling at all.

How will this all shake out?  If you take the Hunt ruling into consideration, it would seem that despite the “compelling” standard for sealing documents, the Courts skew toward finding any excuse to seal a document.

Court in UFC Antitrust Lawsuit denies Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Experts

October 3, 2018

Late last week, the Court in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit denied Zuffa’s Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Guy Davis, Dr. Andrew Zimbalist and Dr. Hal Singer.

The Motions to Exclude were filed back in February.

The Court issued a minute order without further explanation:

Upon review of the record, the Court denies without prejudice the [517] Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Guy Davis, the [522] Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Dr. Andrew Zimbalist and the [524] Motion to Exclude Testimony of Dr. Hal Singer, as premature. The Court will consider the arguments in the Motions and Responses in its review of the [518] Motion to Certify Class, however, the Court is not required to determine the admissibility of evidence in ruling on the [518] Motion to Certify Class nor does such evidence have to be admissible for consideration by the Court. See Sali v. Corona Reg’l Med. Ctr., 889 F.3d 623, 631-32 (9th Cir. 2018).

Payout Perspective:

It would appear that the Court is pushing back its ultimate decision on the testimony of Plaintiffs’ expert when it decides the Motion for Class Cert.  If it had excluded the testimony, it would have crippled the case for Plaintiffs as they would be left without expert testimony.   Or, there would have been an appeal.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Details of Lorenzo Fertitta deposition in Zuffa Antitrust Lawsuit

September 28, 2018

The deposition of Lorenzo Fertitta was included in Plaintiffs’ Opposition Brief to Zuffa’s Motion for Summary Judgment to dismiss the antitrust lawsuit.  In contrast to the deposition of Dana White, Fertitta’s disclosed testimony offers a sobering recount of his old business.

Fertitta discussed the acquisition of the WEC:

Fertitta explains that he didn’t believe that the WEC was a competitor but a regional promotion that featured lighter weight divisions.  The testimony infers that Fertitta did not believe that the UFC was obtaining a rival but adding on to its offering by accessing lighter weight divisions.

Fertitta was asked about the Ali Act and the reasons why boxing adopted the legislation.  When asked about the glut of titles, he indicated that he was not concerned with the commissions regulating the sport but the consumer confusion with so many titles.  This infers the mindset Fertitta had with the business.  Rather than be concerned with any administrative issues, he was more concerned about the business side of the titles.

The attorney deposing Fertitta walked him through a text he received from Dana White regarding the negotiations they had with Gilbert Melendez.  You may recall these were contentious as Melendez was a contender in the lightweight division and the UFC had to match the rights offered by Bellator.

The pertinent section which is intriguing is a part of the text from White:

“….cut throat nasty business like you see in movies.  Good s—t homie.  Congrats.”

We are offered a bit of the text but the response from Fertitta is redacted.  After it was read, there was a break.

It would have been interesting to see the response from Fertitta.  Based on White’s text, we can infer whatever maneuvering executed by Fertitta worked.

Depo of Lorenzo Fertitta by on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

In contrast to Dana White’s deposition where he indicated he was a “genius,” Fertitta’s deposition seems mundane.  There is not a whole lot we can gather from the testimony that is not redacted.  From the information available, it does not look like Fertitta lost his cool or went off script.  He would make a good witness on behalf of Zuffa.  Fertitta’s dealings don’t address much of the detailed day-to-day work as White but it offers some information on behind the scenes of the company.

Dana White says he is a genius in deposition testimony

September 24, 2018

On Friday, Plaintiffs in the Zuffa Antitrust Lawsuit filed their Opposition Brief to the company’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Of the multitude of exhibits filed in support of the brief are three exhibits with excerpts from the deposition of Dana White.

White’s deposition took place in August 2017 in Las Vegas.

Deposition of Dana White – V 1 by on Scribd

Deposition of Dana White – V 2 by on Scribd

Deposition of Dana White – V 3 by on Scribd

Some of the deposition excerpts came highlighted which correlates with some of the points made in the brief.

As one might imagine, a lot of ground was covered during White’s deposition.  In the excerpts of the deposition that the public can view, the questions look at acquisitions of other organizations, his role as a fight promoter, contracts and other issues.  The fighter attorneys played videos during White’s videotaped deposition in which they played excerpts of interviews where is being interviewed.  The attorneys asked about the answers in the videos.

The deposition took place just a couple weeks prior to The Money Fight between Conor McGregor and Floyd Mayweather there was some discussion about him being a boxing promoter in light of the matchup.

Some interesting tidbits:

There was some interesting testimony for White where he agrees with a 2013 interview where he said that other promotions were AAA (i.e., minor leagues) to the UFC.  He affirmed this interview testimony as of 2017 (and likely today).

He gave a round-about answer to whether he was being truthful as a promoter.  The inference was that there is puffery when promoting fights although he did not want to make it sound that he was outright lying.  In this excerpt, he throws some shade at Bellator.

Dana White stated that he believed OneFC to be a grassroots promotion but has grown into a big-time organization.  He testified that he gets question when in Asia whether the UFC is like OneFC.  Perhaps with the news that Eddie Alvarez may be heading to OneFC, he might be correct.

 

Dana White is not a fan of Bloody Elbow.  When asked about the web site, he asked if it was the web site that doesn’t interview people.  He does not believe them to be credible.

When asked about distributions at the end of 2009, he did not really know the owners’ payout, of which he would receive a piece.  He thought it was $305,000 but he was corrected by the attorney as he was informed it was $305 million.  When he realized this, he stated, “Oh Awesome.”

When asked about how the company was paying for the contributions for which he was receiving millions, he stated he is the “fight genius” and the “promotion genius” but he did not know about the distributions.

Payout Perspective:

Certainly some of the more interesting subjects was likely redacted.  White was prepared for the deposition and did not waver when pushed on some questions.  In the testimony that we can see, he was careful on what he said and how he said it.  Perhaps the “genius” comments may have been over the top but also may have related to something earlier in testimony.

Plaintiffs file Opposition to UFC’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Antitrust lawsuit

September 21, 2018

Plaintiffs in the Zuffa Antitrust Lawsuit have filed their Opposition to UFC’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  The 47-page long opposition brief includes over 100 exhibits, many of which are redacted, or include deposition transcripts with redactions.

The main argument in the Plaintiffs’ Opposition is that the UFC is the “major league” of MMA and it has done so through predatory means.  The theory asserted is that it has become the top of the food chain in MMA through its retention of top-level fighters.  It argues that “a critical mass” of elite fighters is necessary to compete with the UFC.  But, the UFC’s scheme has foreclosed this opportunity.

Despite the fact Zuffa argued in its motion that there was ample competition within the industry as evidenced through testimony of rival MMA promoters and fighters that left the organization, Plaintiffs argue that the “supposed evidence of Fighter mobility merely reflects that the UFC is the “major league” of MMA and cuts Fighters who do not meet its standard.”

Plaintiffs argue in their brief that Zuffa’s anticompetive scheme was “designed to lock in current and potential top fighters to exclusive contracts for the most valuable parts of their careers.”

Oppos to MSJ – Plaintiffs by on Scribd

It noted that Zuffa used its market leverage to extend exclusivity over its fighters. This was done through coercion, intimidation and other means of forcible persuasion.  This included four ways outlined by Plaintiffs and evidenced through deposition transcripts.  This included:

  • Move Fighters to unfavorable placement on the fight card for an event
  • Control the timing of a bout (refuse to off Fighters bouts)
  • Delay a Fighter from competing for another promoter through the Right to Match and Exclusive Negotiation clauses in its contract.
  • Deprive fighters of title opportunities

Plaintiffs argue that Zuffa’s scheme impaired competition through locking up the majority of top fighters, deprived rival promoters of the key input of top fighters and relegated other promoters to feeder or minor leagues.  It calls out other promoters cited in Zuffa’s motion that indicated that they could compete “are not credible and are disputed.”  In fact, Plaintiffs show why Bellator, OneFC and PFL’s statements indicating that they are on par with the UFC are false.  Also, noted in a footnote to the motion, Absolute Championship Berkut, also recognized as a direct competitor, noted the cancellation of three events due to “organizational and financial problems.”

The Plaintiffs cite Dr. Singer’s expert report regarding the input and output markets and its showing how Zuffa has suppressed fighters’ wages, restricted the output of fighter services and excluded rivals.  Plaintiffs also argue that the acquisitions of other organizations by the UFC stifled competition and restricted fighter mobility.

Payout Perspective:

There is a lot to digest here and MMA Payout will take a deeper dive into the opposition including the evidence used by Plaintiffs.  The crux of their opposition is that the UFC’s anticompetitive scheme is based upon the retention of top tier fighters through exclusive contracts.  It locked in top fighters during their “most valuable parts of their careers” and was to leverage its market power to extend exclusivity.  As a result, it impaired competition despite the views of rival promoters that indicated it had no problem signing fighters it wanted.  As a result of the scheme, the anticompetitive effects included suppression of fighters’ compensation, reduction of “quality” MMA events and it suppressed marketwide output of MMA Events and inflated prices.  Furthermore, Zuffa cannot show that the contractual exclusivity provided procompetitive benefits which may outweigh the anticompetitive effects.

Zuffa has a chance to offer a Reply to this Opposition which will be submitted on November 2nd.

Joe Silva explains UFC matchmaking in deposition excerpts

September 20, 2018

After a little bit away, MMA Payout takes a look at some of the depositions taken place in light of the Zuffa Antitrust lawsuit.  The depositions were attached to the motion papers in support of Zuffa’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

Joe Silva, former matchmaker for the UFC, was deposed regarding his role with the company.  The deposition took place in June 2017.

Exhibit 52 – Depo of Joe Silva by on Scribd

Silva was asked about the acquisition of Pride and whether after the acquisition did Zuffa have the vast majority of the world’s top fighters.  Silva stated, “I would say we had the most, but not all.”  He added, “As you see that even after the acquisition, we continued to bring in other fighters from other places in the world.  If we’d already acquired all the best fighters, then no more acquisitions would be necessary.”

Silva was asked about when a fighter may be ready for the UFC and the talented 155 division.

There is a back and forth regarding an email from Stipe Miocic’s ex-manager Greg Kalikas.  The email indicates Silva telling Kalikas: “Too many 170s under contract right now.  Keep Stipe winning and we’ll get him in.”

 

Silva explained, “…it was very important for us to not have too many people on the roster.  We wanted to be able to manage it.  We wanted to be able to fulfill all our contractual obligations, so you have to limit the amount of people that you sign at any one time.  So at this time, 170 was particularly full….To maintain a fight for a fighter who didn’t get injured, I will now go to other people on the roster, and go, hey, I’ve got a dropout, fight’s only two weeks away from now, can you do it.  And if they go, no, I can’t make weight in two weeks, I haven’t been training, I’ve got an injury, I go to everybody who is on the roster.  If nobody can do it, I still want to get a fight that other guys, so now that’s an opening…”

Silva testified about a “policy” he had in which he would not release a fighter if they had lost 2 in a row and then lost a third but the last match was taken on late notice.  He also stated that he “never put pressure on anybody to fight late notice…”

He also stated that he left contracts up to the legal department although he knew that they were revised through the years.

He was aware of the fact that there is a provision in Zuffa contracts that extend the terms of the contract if fighters turn down fights.

There is some criticism about former UFC fighter Melvin Guillard.  It was based on an email to Dana White which states, “In the press conference the day before he said he is an A level fighter fighting in a B level show.  Never was the smartest guy.”  Originally, plaintiffs’ attorney thought he was talking about Justin Gaethje.  But, it appears that there is some mistaken interpretation as Silva explains that Guillard was talking about World Series of Fighting.


There is a text where he makes fun of Bellator’s main event of Tito Ortiz versus Rampage Jackson.  He explains about a comment regarding Jackson criticizing Silva for putting him up against fighters with wrestling backgrounds.

He also points to the hypocrisy of Bellator which was tournament based but turned to Ortiz- Jackson to headline their show.

There is also an email show to Silva in which Monte Cox emails Silva about the potential to have one of his fighters on a UFC Winnipeg show.  Silva responds that he could not because “I have to cut a hundred guys.”  Obviously, Silva was exaggerating but he explained about the roster and at the time – March 2013 – he had “too many fighters under contract.”

Payout Perspective:

The deposition testimony reveals a little bit behind the thought making process of Silva as he made the bulk of the matches for the company until he left shortly after the sale of the UFC.  He came off as a reasonable individual and there was not much in testimony that presented red flags.  Plaintiffs’ counsel did discuss some controversial emails which Silva easily explained away.

Next Page »