• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

MMA Payout

The Business of Combat Sports

  • Home
  • MMA
    • UFC
    • Bellator
    • One
    • PFL
  • Boxing
  • Legal
  • Ratings
  • Payouts
  • Attendance
  • Gate

Plaintiffs in UFC Antitrust lawsuit seek status conference to decide outstanding issues

May 7, 2017 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

Attorneys representing the Plaintiffs in the UFC antitrust lawsuit have requested a status conference with the federal magistrate to discuss outstanding issues that may impact the prosecution of its class action lawsuit.  The letter with the Court was filed on Friday, May 5th.

The Plaintiffs list several issues as to request a hearing with the Federal Magistrate, the judge that decides discovery issues.

Statement to Court by Plaintiffs by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Among the outstanding issues Plaintiffs would like to discuss include:

  • Plaintiffs’ Emergence Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline and Case Management Schedule;
  • Plaintiffs’ Motion to Challenge Work Product Designation;
  • Non-Party Bellator’s Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas;
  • Third Party AXS TV LLC’s Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoenas of Mark Cuban (Plaintiffs’ response is due on May 8, 2017 according to the letter and similar to the Bellator issue, would like to move them to the District of Nevada.

As of the date of the letter, the Court has not ruled on any of the above motions.  Also, it has yet to hear the Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff Nate Quarry.

Plaintiffs claim that these issues coupled with issues of preservation regarding obtaining text messages from Dana White’s four separate telephone numbers (and likely the same number of phones) as well as other documents not produced for key Zuffa witnesses have blocked the prosecution of the case.

Payout Perspective:

The need for all the information possible prior to a deposition is because Plaintiffs know they get one shot at deposing the witness and if they do not have the documents prior to the deposition they will not be prepared to ask questions related to the documents that may relate to their case.  In addition, Plaintiffs’ dilemma with non-parties is having the possibility of needing to litigate those matters as well.  Zuffa will likely respond to the letter and the Court will need to make a decision on whether to hold a hearing, decide the above issues or go forward with the current court deadlines.

Filed Under: Antitrust Class Action, Featured, Le v. Zuffa, legal, UFC, Zuffa

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Court moves Ortiz case to arbitration

Dominance responds to Motion to Compel

Pac-May II set for September

Judge hears arguments in Golden Boy TRO request

Golden Boy files Reply Brief in support of TRO

Ortiz files opposition to TRO

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout
Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Better Watch zuffa boxing

UW comes all the way back from 21 to lead by 3 and give up a 4 point play at the end of the game. UW loses ball with 2 secs left, Sprinkle gets T and lose by 6

Zhang-Joanna UFC 248 makes UFC HOF Fight Wing https://mmapayout.com/2026/03/07/zhang-joanna-ufc-248-makes-ufc-hof-fight-wing/

What happened to this guy? 🤣

ACD MMA @acdmma_

bro this man is the biggest attention seeker i’ve ever seen in my life

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Might be the worst day ufc has had in a long time. Dogshit card, bad main event that we expected to be good, paramount crashed and white house announce went over badly.

Load More

Copyright © 2026 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports