• 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

Judge Boulware denies Zuffa request to reopen discovery

November 19, 2023 by Jason Cruz Leave a Comment

On Friday, Judge Richard Boulware denied Zuffa’s request to reopen fact discovery. While the Motion for Summary Judgment is still pending, it did not appear that he would grant it. The trial date remains April 8, 2024.

For the background, you can see The Legal Submission 72:

Zuffa requested that the Court reopen discovery due to the post-2017 success of several MMA promotions.  It argued that the fact discovery would show that it did not have an anti-competitive monopsony in the marketplace.  But, the Court rebuked the arguments set forth by Zuffa.

Paul Gift was in the courtroom Friday:

No new discovery in UFC antitrust case. Case will only cover discovery through June 2017

— Paul Gift (@MMAanalytics) November 17, 2023

John Nash includes the Order signed by Judge Boulware which accepts Plaintiffs form of notice.  This includes a fighters’ right to exclude themselves from the class.  This would mean that they would not receive any damages if an award was decided.

In Le v Zuffa, Judge today denied the Defendant's 2 motions to reopen discovery and approved the Plaintiffs' class notice plan. Also strongly hinted that Summary Judgment will not be granted. pic.twitter.com/CTiLo8uZOa

— John S. Nash (@heynottheface) November 18, 2023

Payout Perspective:

The denial to reopen fact discovery is a good sign for the Plaintiffs that Judge Boulware is now focused on getting this case closer to trial date.  Certainly, Judge Boulware will ask the parties about mediating this case prior to trial but with an actual deadline the parties will be motivated to come to some resolution or else go to trial.  While this is a win for the Plaintiffs, there has to be some impetus for them to prepare this case so that Zuffa will want to settle short of taking this trial.  There is always risk to trial, so while the Court has sided with Plaintiffs here, it does not mean that they will eventually win a jury verdict.

Filed Under: Antitrust Class Action, Featured, Le v. Zuffa, legal

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Your email address will not be published.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 😂

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 · MMA Payout: The Business of Combat Sports