• 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

Parties file joint motion on Michael Mersch depo testimony in Zuffa Antitrust Lawsuit

July 1, 2018 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

This past Friday, Plaintiffs a joint motion in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit filed a Motion to Seal Reply In Support of Its Motion to Seal Plaintiffs’ Class Certification Reply.  The motion, which includes both plaintiffs and defendants’ position seeks to seal certain deposition testimony from Michael Mersch as well as certain confidential information from his deposition.

Zuffa points out that the motion to seal is based on what’s included in its Reply Brief and unrelated to the merits of the case.  Zuffa is requesting to seal information in Mersch’s deposition testimony regarding the purse information of a UFC athlete based on privacy concerns expressed to Mersch.  It claims that evidentiary objections made by Plaintiffs are improper.

Plaintiff asserts that Zuffa has failed to meet its burden to seal portions of the Mersch deposition.  They believe that the earnings that fighters receive and Zuffa’s strategy of preventing its fighters from learning what others maker are not compelling reasons or good cause to seal the information.  The overarching argument is that there is no legal argument for the sealing of the information and the information (i.e., purse information) has been disclosed publicly by other sources.  Moreover, Plaintiffs argue that the information sought to seal is four years old and would have no trade secret value in present day.

Joint Motion Re Motion to Seal by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

It would seem that the parties are making more of a battle over sealed information.  The payouts appear to be over two fighters if you infer from the exhibits attached to this joint motion.  Wikipedia pages are attached regarding payouts for UFC heavyweights Ben Rothwell and Alistair Overeem. The declaration of the Plaintiff’s attorney states as much.  Clearly, Zuffa wants to seal the testimony because they believe there is something there that might influence the Court or is previously not publicly disclosed.  Plaintiffs would like this information unsealed because they believe it would be useful.

Filed Under: Antitrust Class Action, Featured, legal, UFC

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Primary Sidebar

Featured

The Legal Submission 109 takes a look at TKO Earnings

Plaintiffs in Johnson antitrust lawsuit file statement prior to status conference

Despite two big losses, TKO touts another solid quarter

Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act of 2026 introduced into Senate with minor changes

Plaintiffs file Answering Brief in Cirkunov Antitrust Appeal

Jai Opetaia files a lawsuit against IBF

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Dude just found a way to beat kids legally

They took him out three batters later

Ryan @RyanF786

THE GREATEST LL MOUND VISIT OF ALL TIME!!

“If you walk the next 5 batters Jesus is still lord,if you strikeout the next 5 batters Jesus is still lord”

🙏🏻 ✝️🙏🏻✝️ #llws #espn #patmcafee

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

"if this mf would have just shook my hand..."

And the Mariners tried to piggy back him

Chris Cochran @bestcoastbias

Castillo with 50% called strike + whiff rate today on his change up. Significant uptick in usage compared to his season totals.

Company line for Mackenzie.

MMA Junkie @MMAJunkie

"Traditional" Mackenzie Dern doesn't share #UFC330 headliner Ian Machado Garry's stance on women running the world.

"I like the man taking the lead."

Load More

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