The parties in the UFC Antitrust lawsuit have filed supplemental pleadings as the Order for Class Certification looms. The issue of the release of previously sealed records is at issue here as the parties take opposite views.
This week the Plaintiffs filed a Supplemental pleading addressing third-party Bellator’s objection to the release of records. Notably, the Viacom-owned company objected to the release of information relevant to the promotion. Plaintiffs indicated in its filing on January 26th that it had “no objection” to two pages that the company wanted to remain under seal.
In addition, Plaintiffs gave a subtle nudge to the court to issue its Class Certification opinion. It proposed issuance of the opinion “while temporarily withholding a ruling on any further unsealing of record evidence.”
The Court had notified interested parties of its intention to release sealed records at the time of the issuance of the Class Certification order. The Court has inferred that it is granting Class Cert status to the “Bout Class” but denying the class certification order pertaining to the “Identity Class.” While that notification occurred in early December, no further indication of when that order would be released. With the notification of the release of records in what is likely in conjunction with the order, interested parties were allowed to notified the Court of why or why not they should have the records released. Bellator filed a non-party objection to the release of records it was required to provide to the Court.
On Wednesday, Zuffa filed a Response to Plaintiffs Supplemental notice requesting the Court to issue the Order and holding the issue of sealing records for another time.
Zuffa’s argument to wait is based on having to brief on several issues as it outlines in its footnote.
Payout Perspective:
What this boils down to is the Plaintiffs wanting the Court to hurry up and issue its Order while Zuffa wanting the Court to take its time to consider whether it has to release all of the sealed documents. The inference is that the sealed documents would be release and redactions would be lifted (aside from personal or private information as well as attorney-client confidentiality). Obviously, there is a fight over what can and cannot be released to the public. Zuffa argues that the Court should take its time in considering these issues and should not issue the Order in haste which would essentially create more work for Zuffa. We will see what the Court does. Certainly, it has been some time since the Court indicated its opinion but has yet to release the information. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply