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.

Plaintiffs in UFC Antitrust Lawsuit request Court to file response to MMA Manager Declaration

August 30, 2018

The plaintiffs in the UFC antitrust lawsuit have requested that the Court review its Surreply Brief in opposition to Zuffa’s Motion to Seal Zuffa’s Summary Judgment Motion and Portions of Plaintiffs’ Class Certification Reply.

Specifically, the Surreply Brief addresses the Declaration of MMA Manager Ali Abdelaziz which was included in Zuffa’s Reply Brief.

A Surreply Brief is not automatically considered by the Court, in fact, it is usually disliked since its additionally work for an already overworked court.  These types of briefs must bring up new evidence, facts important to the case not brought up or another exigent reason.  Reiterating arguments that would have been contained in an opposition will likely get poor treatment.

Here, plaintiffs believe the need to address Abdelaziz’s Declaration which Zuffa used to aid its Reply Brief.  The argument in which Zuffa uses Abdelaziz’s testimony is based on the need to seal payout information of fighters.

The manager of many top fighters submitted this declaration on behalf of Zuffa.  He claims that public disclosure raises “legitimate safety concerns” for fighters and their families.  He also believes that public disclosure of terms and compensation of fighters’ agreements.

Declaration of Ali Abdelaziz by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

It is worthy to note that no current UFC fighter signed a Declaration in support.  But, Abdelaziz, who represents a huge swath of UFC fighters supports the sealing of documents.  Although Abdelaziz’s declaration supports the last argument in Zuffa’s brief (and usually the weakest), plaintiffs felt compelled to address it.  The declaration was torn apart by the plaintiffs in its Surreply Brief.

Motion to FIle Surreply by on Scribd

Plaintiffs’ list four reasons why Ali’s Declaration fails: 1) The rationale that disclosure of fighter compensation hinders rather than helps in obtaining negotiating athlete purses rings false lin light of evidence of salaries of players in other major leagues.  2) The Declaration contradicts Zuffa’s own arguments in favor of sealing since it argued that disclosure would put Zuffa in a strategic disadvantage whereas Abdelaziz says non-disclosure is advantageous. 3) The allegation that fighters would be put at risk of kidnapping or extortion is not supported by credible evidence.; and 4) Plaintiffs calls Abdelaziz credibility a question since he’s an MMA manager and alleged principal in the WSOF as a promoter.

Payout Perspective:

While the brief is damaging, its still up to the Court to decide whether or not to take it into consideration.  Of course, we know that Zuffa will file an opposition to this Surreply which means more filings.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Zuffa requests court to review Hunt ruling in antitrust case

August 29, 2018

Zuffa has filed a Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority regarding its Motion to Seal related materials in its Summary Judgment motion of Plaintiffs’ lawsuit in their antitrust case.

The supplemental authority is the recent ruling in the Mark Hunt case on Zuffa’s “Renewed” Motion to Seal Documents in that case.  The court previously denied the Motion to Seal but changed course in granting the “Renewed” Motion.  It should be noted that Hunt’s attorneys did not oppose the “Renewed” motion for some reason.

This Motion hopes to include this ruling in deciding the pending motion before the court in the Antitrust matter. They persuasively argue that Plaintiffs had referred to the previous Hunt ruling where the Court denied the sealing of records.  As Zuffa points out in this motion, the original order was “without prejudice” whereas the renewed motion was “with prejudice.”  The difference with or without prejudice is that “without” prejudice means that the ruling could be amended on a party’s motion.  With prejudice is the final ruling of the Court.

Supplemental Authority After Hunt by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

The Hunt ruling, although I disagree with the outcome, will likely be considered in the antitrust case as it relates to similar documents.  Thus, the motion will be granted, and the Court will consider it as persuasive authority when determining whether or not to unseal the redacted materials by Zuffa.

Egg whites and a UFC contract: Cung Le depo transcript reveals his signing with Zuffa

August 22, 2018

Cung Le met with Dana White and Lorenzo Fertitta in person to discuss signing with the UFC over egg whites at the UFC’s offices according to the released depo transcript attached to Zuffa’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  His testimony reveals that he was “stuck” in his UFC contract a year and a half after he retired.

The deposition took place in April 2017 in Las Vegas at the offices of the UFC’s lawyers, Boies, Schiller & Flexner.  Le testified that he negotiated his entrance into the UFC himself and was not represented by an agent or manager.  He indicated that he flew to the Bay Area to Vegas on his own and made his way to the UFC offices.  In the depo, he testified that he had an interest in the UFC and White and Fertitta were big fans of his from Strikeforce and when he competed on ESPN.

Exhibit 18 – Cung Le Depo by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

White and Fertitta had their chef cook Le egg whites and he was presented with a UFC contract.  Le stated that he wanted to look it over before signing.

It appears that they were discussion of his Identity Rights in the contract.  Since Le was doing movies, he was concerned about a conflict with his Zuffa contract.

Le testifies that he retired but was precluded from doing work with any other organization for a year and a half because he still had two fights left on his contract.  He stated he couldn’t do commentating and was not able to negotiate with Bellator.

For a look at our summary of the deposition of Ike Epstein, click here.

Payout Perspective:

There is a portion redacted where Le goes into who he contacted prior to filing the lawsuit.  It also may explain why he decided to file the lawsuit and become the named plaintiff in it.  Prior to this lawsuit, he had never been involved in any other legal proceeding.  The testimony on Identity Rights is interesting considering Le’s movie career and celebrity outside of the UFC.  What may be helpful for his cause his his testimony that he was “stuck” for a year and a half from doing anything because he was still under UFC contract.  This includes being foreclosed from doing commentary with another organization due to his contract with the UFC.  Le may be a perfect plaintiff for this case since he had an established MMA career prior to the UFC, negotiated his own deal and has a career outside of MMA.

Details of Zuffa exec deposition reveals questions on exclusivity provisions, right to match and toy deals

August 20, 2018

Zuffa filed its Motion for Summary Judgment in which it wishes to dismisses the antitrust lawsuit filed by ex-fighters.  MMA Payout takes a look at some of the deposition testimony attached as exhibits to the motion.  This is the first of a series.

In order to prove its case, Zuffa attaches portions of the deposition testimony it cites in its motion.  The depositions are not the full transcript but small snippets of pages from the depositions.  There are a portions that are redacted for the public so we cannot see the full transcript.

For instance, Sean Shelby’s deposition attached to the motion reveals nothing. The first question is visible, but the rest of the deposition is redacted.  The question posed to Shelby was an Exhibit which is a text completion between “multiple parties.”   One could only assume that the texts may be between Shelby and/or Dana White, Joe Silva or another UFC employee.

Depo of Sean Shelby by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

But, not all transcripts are like Shelby’s.  For instance, UFC Executive, Ike Epstein includes some interesting testimony.

Exhibit 8 – Depo of Ike Epstein by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Reason for Exclusivity

The snippets that were provided in the exhibit provide Epstein’s testimony with respect to the purpose of exclusivity provisions in athlete contracts.  He testified that the UFC were “putting on 40 fights per year, and in order to put on 40 plus fights per year, you have to know that fighters are available to put on those events.”  He added, “[i]f the fighters were not exclusive to us, we could never put on 40 plus events per year, and our output would significantly decrease.”

He stated that the provision was a benefit for all UFC fighters and that no one would be affected negatively by the clause.  He did qualify this statement by testifying “all fighters are different.”  Although lured into the trap that exclusivity prohibits fighters from finding other opportunities elsewhere, Epstein stated that the sole purpose of the provision was to ensure that the company could do 30-40 events per year.  He qualified his answer to the UFC lawyer’s “narrow question” by stating that he disagreed with the “underlying assumption” in the question that assumed there were more opportunities for an athlete but for the exclusivity provision in UFC contracts.

At this point in the testimony it seems to get contentious, as the parties fight over the semantics of the questions.  Here, the plaintiffs’ attorney would like Epstein to agree to the question that based on the UFC’s exclusivity provision, the fighters cannot seek opportunities to fight elsewhere.  However, Epstein is wary of the trap and will not cede to this admission.  He does note that the viewpoint of the question infers something that the UFC does not want to admit, but plaintiffs cannot provide.  And that is that if fighters were given an opportunity to freely contract with others, they would earn more money, find more fights and/or both.

When asked by plaintiffs’ attorney Joseph Saveri whether boxing has the “same sort of exclusivity problems,” Epstein said yes.

He also agrees that most fight contracts are for 4 fights or 20 months, whichever comes first.  However, some fighters have longer terms.

He also testifies about the negotiations surrounding the Gilbert Melendez contract and how they thought the matching offer given to the lightweight was unreasonable.

There is an interesting exchange where Epstein discusses the willingness to match the offer made to Cheick Kongo.  However, the company decided to let the heavyweight go and he signed with Bellator.

Jakks and Round 5

Epstein is questioned about a toy deal with toy makers  Jakks Pacific and Round 5.

The limited testimony addresses Round 5’s ability to sign exclusive agreements with certain fighters.  Epstein notes that Round 5 was able to secure exclusive contracts to do toy deals with UFC fighters and were paid directly.   Jakks Pacific had the official license to replicate UFC fighters but, for a time, were foreclosed from making certain UFC fighters due to an exclusive contract with Round 5.

In 2009, Jakks, the master toy licensee for the UFC sub-licensed with Round 5 Corp to share UFC and MMA talent in the selling and distribution of action figures.  This brought all of the UFC athletes under the same umbrella and all were paid the same.

The example underscored the limited freedom that athletes had to resource other forms of revenue.  Ultimately, this was consolidated within Zuffa.  This testimony also related to Identity Rights for fighters.

Who is this?

There is a snippet where they discuss an individual that is hard to decipher without more information.  All that can be gathered is that “he regularly reports on ratings of UFC events,” and Epstein viewed reports as “business intelligence.”

Payout Perspective:

We’ll take a look at other depo transcripts as we await the plaintiffs response to this motion.  Epstein, a lawyer, understands the depo process so its no surprise that his testimony did not illicit anything of substance aside from the fact he liked Cheick Kongo.

Plaintiffs in UFC Antitrust Lawsuit Oppose Sealing of Documents by Zuffa in latest legal filing

August 14, 2018

Plaintiffs in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit have filed an opposition to Zuffa’s request for a Motion to Seal documents in its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Plaintiffs argue that the documents requested by Zuffa to seal from public view do not contain trade secrets, commercially sensitive information, are of public knowledge and are too old to contain trade secrets.  As a result, it has failed to carry its burden that it will be harmed if it is disclosed by the public

Plaintiffs have filed its own Motion to Seal here premised upon Zuffa’s request to seal.  This is based upon the Protective Order previously agreed to and signed by the parties, the documents that they seek to seal have been designated as “Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”

According to Zuffa’s Motion to Seal, it places its requests in five categories: Financial Information, Business Communication and Strategy, Third Party Information and Expert Reports and Testimony.  Notably, Plaintiffs point out the vague notion of why Zuffa believes certain business communication and strategy should be sealed citing “public disclosure of this information would be likely to provide competitors with unfair and damaging insights into Zuffa’s business practices, including providing those competitors with unearned competitive advantages.”

The Motion notes that Zuffa would like to seal portions of deposition testimony from former Zuffa vice  president and assistant general counsel Michael Mersch about a hypothetical contract.  There is also a request to seal testimony from Lorenzo Fertitta but that portion of the motion has been sealed at this point pending a Court determination.

The Motion cites to certain MMA articles which are about the UFC contracts which display the fact that the information that the UFC seeks to seal is already of public information.

Oppo to Motion to Seal by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

Plaintiffs have just started to oppose the sealing of documents at this point.  They note that previously they have allowed Zuffa to seal info with the motion going unopposed.  Either Plaintiffs are recognizing a new strategy or someone was asleep at the wheel and didn’t realize that they should have opposed these motions all along.  It will be up to a Court to decide if a legal burden to seal the documents has been proven by Zuffa.  A Court could take a look at what is being sought to disclose and render that certain things may be disclosed while others may remain to be sealed.  But, the inference is that all filings should be for public view and its up to a party to prove legal harm from disclosure.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Next Page »