• 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

UFC seeks to reopen discovery in Le antitrust trial, Plaintiffs oppose

November 15, 2023 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

Zuffa has filed a motion to reopen discovery in the Le antitrust lawsuit and amend the scheduling order. The current trial date is set for April 8, 2024. However, Zuffa wants to delay the trial date 4-6 months.

In a filing on October 24th, Zuffa argued that discovery should be reopened because of “developments after the period of alleged misconduct can be considered-and are often highly relevant-in determining liability in Section 2 cases.”

Zuffa argues that the “low barriers to entry in the MMA industry meant that any market power Zuffa enjoyed during the Class Period was transient, and a function of Zuffa’s pioneering investments in developing the industry” which it contends was procompetitive conduct.

Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2017 but due to the changes in the industry, Zuffa contends that further discovery is warranted.

It argues that developments in the competitive landscape warrant the reopening of discovery. Zuffa highlights Bellator, PFL, Once and Invicta which reflects the success of other promotions despite the fact that Plaintiff contends a monopsony. They also highlight the fact fighters like Francis Ngannou have left the UFC for other organizations.

The standard cited by Zuffa includes six elements:

Of the elements, Zuffa states that all factors apply except that the Plaintiffs likely oppose the reopening.

Zuffa also cites a case which indicates that further discovery would lead to relevant evidence.

Also, it claims that it would be prejudice if it cannot show the success of other promotions.

However, the Le plaintiffs opposed the notion that Zuffa satisfies the six elements listed above. In fact, it argues Zuffa has a harder battle to prove to the court that discovery should be reopened. Specifically, it would prejudice the plaintiffs as they would not get the trial date they seek. Also, Le plaintiffs argue its mere speculation that they would find relevant evidence in post-2017 discovery.

The Le plaintiffs most salient argument is below. It would push the April trial date due to the enormous amount of discovery Zuffa intends to seek.

While Zuffa claims it has been diligent in seeking to reopen discovery the Le plaintiffs think otherwise:

Payout Perspective:

It is hard to believe that Judge Boulware would reopen discovery after a huge delay for the written Order on class certification to come out. Then again, this could be a means for Zuffa to get ready for an appeal if this motion is denied. Regardless, a footnote in the Motion to Reopen Discovery notes that there are conflicts for Zuffa counsel for the April 8, 2024 trial date.

Whether or not Judge Boulware entertains conflict requests is another issue. But the Zuffa motion at this late date seems to be a longshot at best.

Filed Under: Featured

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Primary Sidebar

Featured

Plaintiffs file Reply Brief in White House lawsuit

Government response to citizen lawsuit attempting to stop UFC White House

Lawsuit seeks to shutdown UFC White House event

Johnson plaintiffs take a renewed aim at Dominance in antitrust lawsuit

Scott Coker returns to MMA

Conor McGregor returns July 11th

Archives

MMA Payout Follow

MMAPayout

From the Judge's Order today denying the injunction. The Court states that plaintiffs did not have a specific harm to satisfy the threshold for an injunction #UFCWhiteHouse #TKO #UFC

Judge Amit Mehta, the judge that denied the #UFC White House injunction, was a Obama appointee. Just another reason to Blame Obama

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

Only 16% of Americans approve of Trump holding UFC event at White House.

Retweet on Twitter MMA Payout Retweeted

ALERT: Judge Amit Metha rules UFC event can proceed at White House, ruling harm to plaintiffs would only be "temporary" & that the challenge came too late

"Considerable time, labor & funding.. has gone into organizing the UFC fight and lead-up events"

Full contact 5 days a week ๐Ÿ˜‚

MMA Mania @mmamania

Mania Mailbag: Do we trane UFC? https://www.mmamania.com/mma-mailbag-questions-answers-ufc/449583/mania-mailbag-do-we-trane-ufc?utm_campaign=dhtwitter&utm_content=%3Cmedia_url%3E&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Load More

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