Plaintiffs in the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit are opposing a Motion to Seal brought by Zuffa to seal documents in Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion to Certify Class and Related Materials. The opposition is the first in this litigation which has gone without any challenges to the redaction and/or sealing of documents.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Seal by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
Plaintiffs cite 4 points why the Court should deny Zuffa’s Motion to Seal:
- The materials Zuffa seeks to seal are not trade secrets, but rather largely, outdated aggregate data, and Zuffa would suffer no competitive harm if they were disclosed;
- Zuffa’s justifications for sealing do not satisfy the applicable “compelling reasons” standard;
- The right of the public, the press, the named Plaintiffs, and Class members to access judicial materials is especially robust….; and
- Zuffa is attempting to gain an advantage by overdesignating materials that support Plaintiffs’ claims and their motion for class certification, when Zuffa has selectively revealed similar information that served Zuffa’s purposes.
Plaintiffs argue that Zuffa’s claim that redacting certain section of its documents “could permit..competitors to gain unfair insights into Zuffa’s strategic business practices and gain an unearned advantage in competition” is a red herring. It contends that it is sealing information to control the flow of information to the public, the press, the named Plaintiffs’ and the class members, and prevent Plaintiffs from telling their side of the story to the public. It’s not that its protecting its trade secrets argues plaintiffs it is concerned about the public learning about its misconduct.
Focusing on the issue of unsealing documents for the media, John Nash of Bloody Elbow sent correspondence to the Judge Richard Boulware requesting access to certain documents including portions of the expert reports that were redacted. Nash pointed out inconsistencies with what was being redacted, withheld for public consumption with what was allegedly trade secrets. Zuffa’s counsel responded to the letter indicating that the likes of Nash, Paul Gift and yours truly had ample information to pontificate on the subject. It claimed that the information sealed was trade secrets and precluded from public consumption. Zuffa argued that the right to access of pleadings was not absolute. Nash responded with a detailed letter outlining the reasons why certain sections should not be redacted. The letter also cites a federal court judge order from last month in which it sanctioned attorneys for frivolous motions to seal. The pertinent section that is applicable is as follows with emphasis being ours:
At the hearing on the order to show cause, there was discussion of the fact that attorneys – particularly attorneys for corporate clients – are under great pressure to file motions to seal information that their clients would prefer to keep secret, even if there is no legitimate basis to keep the information secret. This is no doubt a significant issue for corporate lawyers, but the answer is not to file frivolous sealing requests. The answer is to firmly explain to their clients that litigation is a public process, and that the public has the right to know what the litigation is about, subject only to very limited exceptions. Mere embarrassment to a corporation is not one of those exceptions
In that case, the Judge fined the law firm filing frivolous sealing requests $500 per lawyer involved (which was 5) for a total of $2,500.
2018-06-10 S Grigsby Ltr to Judge Boulware Re J Nash Email by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
Response to Ms Grisby Jun 10 2018 Letter by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd
Payout Perspective:
According the plaintiffs’ motion, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming “a strong presumption in favor of access” by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. While the disclosure of information might prove embarrassing, incriminating or put the party in a false light, it is not a reason to seal information from a public court filing. From a media perspective, it is hard to be accurate if the information is not provided. One need only look to Zuffa’s attorney proclaiming an industry insider report that UFC 225’s buy rate was less than 150,000 was a “material misrepresentation” and off by six figures. But, the attorney did not correct the information with accurate data. A later report, noted that the buy rate including streaming and traditional PPV buys was 250,000.
The federal court order from last month is persuasive considering the overarching theory is that sealing documents has “very limited exceptions.” The burden is on Zuffa to show why they are allowed to redact certain sections. Previously in this lawsuit, these types of motions were not opposed and therefore the court did not really examine the information sealed. Now, it appears that the Court might review the redacted sections.
The motion creates more work for Zuffa and plaintiffs with another motion to handle. However, this is not a frivolous motion from the perspective of the media. There are a lot of instances where things like this go by without being questioned. Here, at least there will be some examination as to the veracity of what can and cannot be sealed.
Leave a Reply