Zuffa has filed its Reply Brief in its hopes of Judge Richard Boulware changing his mind with admitting testimony of Joe Silva in the UFC Antitrust Lawsuit.
During the evidentiary hearing of Joe Silva, Zuffa attorneys attempted to ask the former matchmaker about “wage share” but was shut down by Plaintiffs who objected to the testimony and Judge Boulware sided with them. As a result, Zuffa could not provide Silva’s testimony that he did not pay fighters based on event revenues. He also claimed in a Declaration submitted with Zuffa’s Motion for Reconsideration that indicated that he “did not know Zuffa’s event revenues” in negotiating athlete compensation. He also noted in his declaration that he was never told about whether had a budget for athlete compensation nor Zuffa’s event revenues when he negotiated athlete compensation.
Zuffa Reply by Jason Cruz on Scribd
Zuffa argues that Silva was asked to testify regarding “facts within his personal knowledge.” It did not ask Silva offer testimony regarding the economic concept of “wage share.” Here, Zuffa tries to parse the testimony and separate expert testimony versus fact testimony. Plaintiffs and the Court believed that Zuffa attempted to illicit expert testimony rather than factual information. The Reply Brief asserts, “Zuffa’s counsel…asked Mr. Silva factual questions about whether he was ever instructed, or tried, to meet any sort of wage share target or whether any athlete ever asked to be compensated based on revenue from an event.”
Declaration of Joe Silva by Jason Cruz on Scribd
Also, since it argues that Silva’s testimony was factual, there was no duty to disclose testimony he might state regard wage share. This rebuttal addresses Plaintiffs argument that Silva had not offered any testimony in his deposition on wage share. Zuffa also clarifies Plaintiffs claim that fighters would ask for a percentage of event revenue. The athletes that had PPV clauses would receive a portion of the “marginal pay-per-view purchases at a particular event.”
Payout Perspective:
While Zuffa’s reply to the opposition filed by Plaintiffs is persuasive, it is still facing an uphill battle since the motion to reconsider the court ruling goes back to the Judge to determine whether he made a mistake. Usually, to overturn a ruling, the moving party has to show that there was an error of law made by the Court and/or the Court did not consider legal precedent. Thus, the prospects of the Court overturning its original ruling appear slim. If the ruling does not go in Zuffa’s favor and the Court subsequently grants class certification, look for an appeal based on this potential denial of testimony.
Leave a Reply