Le plaintiffs file opposition to MSJ

It also addressed the claim mad by Zuffa that plaintiffs represented under the Le class action do not have standing. It noted that Dr. Singer’s methodologies used in the expert report relied upon to conclude that fighters of the bout class could bring their claims as a certified class stated that they were approved by the case in the Olean (the Tuna case).  Similar to Olean, Dr. Singer’s expert report established that the fighters of the bout class were harmed, “including a regression and other statistical and qualitative analysis.”  Despite claims in the Tuna case that not all plaintiffs were harmed, the court granted class certification. Similarly, Judge Boulware denied claims that plaintiffs were not harmed citing Olean and granted certification.

Through the extensive use of previously disclosed (but redacted or sealed documents) fact and expert discovery the plaintiffs argue that Zuffa utilized anticompetitive tactics in order to suppress the buyers’ market for fighters.

It also rebutted Zuffa’s argument that it lost out on retaining UFC fighters which it argued was a competitive market and fighter mobility.  However, plaintiffs claim that the movement was due to “Fighters who no longer meet its standards.” 

The Le plaintiffs’ arguments center its opposition on 3 key arguments.  First, evidence established that Zuffa had substantial market power, the evidence established shows Zuffa engaged in exclusionary anticompetitive conduct and that summary judgment is not appropriate based on procompetitive justifications.

Specifically compelling were the emails and deposition testimony related to the anticompetitive behavior.  Plaintiffs hone into the inability for fighters to get out of contracts with the UFC due to its terms which locked them in to oppressive terms within the contract.  When it came time to negotiate a new deal, many fighters faced “take it or leave it” type deals or suffer the consequences. 

Due to the contracts, other organizations were unable to compete with the UFC. 

Also, the UFC’s procompetitive arguments for its conduct are not justified. Plaintiffs argue that once

All of these arguments, per plaintiffs create issues of fact not suitable for summary judgment. 

Payout Perspective:

What happens next is Zuffa’s reply to the opposition brief which will be a rebuttal based upon the information argued by Le plaintiffs.  In reply briefs, parties cannot bring in new evidence not previously brought up by its motion or opposition briefing so this will be strictly a rebuttal of the Le plaintiffs claims above.  What to look out for in the reply is how it responds to the issue of fighter mobility and the plaintiffs claim that the fighters that were able to move to other organizations were not wanted by the UFC.   Also focus on how Zuffa argues that its motives were procompetitive. MPO will continue to follow.