In its latest filing, Zuffa has filed its reply in support of its motion to seal parts of the opposition brief filed by the plaintiffs in response to the company’s motion for summary judgment in the Antitrust lawsuit.
Zuffa filed a Motion to Seal certain documents that are being used in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. The promotion included justifications for sealing each of the documents it requests.
Zuffa Motion to Seal by on Scribd
Plaintiffs argue that the documents are not commercially sensitive information. In its brief, Plaintiffs cite testimony from Zuffa’s attorney Michael Mersch about a hypothetical contract, testimony related to Lorenzo Fertitta’s deposition concerning financial information and wage share. Plaintiffs argue that there is no confidential information contained in the testimony sought to be sealed. Zuffa also requests portions of expert reports to be redacted. This includes plaintiffs’ expert report from Hal Singer and its own expert Robert Topel.
Plaintiffs Opposition by on Scribd
Perhaps one of the more salient arguments in Plaintiffs argument is that many of the passages that Zuffa seeks to redact are old. Essentially, the information that Zuffa seeks to seal are remnants of the past and do not contain trade secrets because they no longer contain information that is subject to the current business landscape.
The Reply is its response to the Plaintiffs’ seeking to unseal certain documents filed in support of the brief filed by the fighters suing Zuffa. Plaintiffs’ opposed the motion for summary judgment filed by Zuffa seeking to dismiss the fighters’ claims against the promotion. But, although Zuffa has unsealed and unredacted certain documents, there still remains a giant portion still unavailable for viewing.
Zuffa Reply ISO Motion to Seal by on Scribd
In its Reply Brief it reaffirms that it properly identified documents that it was sealing and met the legal burden for documents needed to preclude.
Additionally, they claim that the documents sought to seal are specific and would pose competitive harm to the company as they would divulge confidential business information and strategy. Zuffa also rejects Plaintiffs argument that the information sought to seal is old and already public knowledge.
The Court will decide whether Zuffa carries its burden to show that the records it seeks to seal “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,” providing ‘articulable facts’ that favor secrecy and that those interests outweigh the presumption of public access to judicial records.
While it has been underscored in this briefing, the right of access by the media is a viable argument for the Court to look at the sealing of documents critically. The Reply includes several tweets from John Nash and articles for Paul Gift which discuss the Zuffa antitrust lawsuit. Certainly, the attorneys have taken just a survey of the reporting going on here as media here is just an afterthought from both legal sides.
The recent reversal in ruling in the Hunt-Zuffa lawsuit which sealed Bout Agreements. In the Order which granted the sealing of documents, the Court stated, “[D]efendants claim that the agreements contain proprietary information, and that competitive standing with MMA promoters. The court finds that defendants have identified compelling reasons that warrant sealing the exhibits…” This does not seem compelling at all.
How will this all shake out? If you take the Hunt ruling into consideration, it would seem that despite the “compelling” standard for sealing documents, the Courts skew toward finding any excuse to seal a document.
Leave a Reply