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.
Leave a Reply