• 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

Zuffa “Renews” its Motion to Seal in Mark Hunt case

August 12, 2018 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

Zuffa has “Renewed” its Motion to Seal Exhibits in its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Supplemental Complaint.  The Court originally denied Zuffa’s Motion to Seal but it now requests the Court once again.

Similar to a Motion for Reconsideration except Zuffa styles the Motion as a “Renewed” Motion.  In most instances, filing a Motion for Reconsideration requires new evidence not considered by the Court to prevail.   A “Renewed” Motion appears to be the same thing.

According to the Motion, it requests the Court to have the documents to remain sealed until the Court determines the results of it.  Originally, the Court was to release the documents on August 6.  Based upon a Pacer search, it appears that the Court is honoring this request.

The Court originally denied Zuffa’s Motion to Seal which included, among other things,  Hunt’s Bout Agreement for his fight with Derrick Lewis.  They also request to seal a Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreement and a Letter of Agreement between Zuffa and Hunt from August 8, 2014.  According to Zuffa, the agreements are predecessors to the 2016 Promotional Agreement.  Additionally, there are “three Bout Agreements for different events that took place pursuant to the terms of the parties’ 2016 Promotional Agreement.”  Zuffa claims that these are “sensitive commercial information of the parties, the disclosure of which would cause the parties harm and jeopardize their competitive standing in the professional MMA industry.”

Renewed Motion to Seal by JASONCRUZ206 on Scribd

Payout Perspective:

Remember when Demi Moore’s character in “A Few Good Men” ‘strenuously objected’ after the Judge’s objection was overruled.  This situation is the same thing.  There is no real reason that a Court would rethink a previous ruling unless something arose post-ruling.  But, that does not appear to be the case here.  If the Court were to rethink its ruling, one might expect an appeal from Hunt’s attorneys.  This will be a ruling that the plaintiffs’ attorneys in the Zuffa Antitrust Case will be looking at with interest as well as the lawyers in Leslie Smith’s NLRB case.  The reveal of contractual information as to how MMA fighters are paid is a secretive process and unlike wage scales in other sports, payouts in the UFC are held close to the vest.  MMA Payout will keep you posted.

Filed Under: Hunt v. Zuffa, legal, UFC

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Conor McGregor returns July 11th

Keane’s attorneys fire back at Top Rank based on undiscovered evidence

White writes letter to Trump requesting change to law

UFC Freedom 250 kits revealed

Dominance responds to Plaintiffs’ Fee Request

Senate makes mockery of Ali Act hearing

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

Pistons wyd

Agree with whole interaction 👍🏾

BaseballHistoryNut @nut_history

A fan to PCA: you suck

PCA: you suck my f**king d**k bit*h

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Been a big supporter of his, but I’ve seen enough. Heads need to roll to answer for the way this team is performing.

Fire Dan Wilson.

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

I don’t disagree with the criticism of the quality of the fights here but the amount of time spent rehashing old comments from Rousey & Carano in a sport where open bigots, accused rapist & friends of war criminals & cartel bosses regularly get top billing seems overboard.

One of my first big gets

K-Dub @MrKdub

Modern collectors will NEVER understand this… #TheHobby

Load More

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