Zuffa has filed a Motion to Exclude Le plaintiffs’ expert Guy Davis. Zuffa argues that Davis’ expert testimony is not relevant, does not include relevant factors and its testimony is with the understanding of the average lay person.
Davis is an accountant retained by the plaintiffs to determine whether the compa y could pay athletes higher compensation per Zuffa’s Motion.
Motion to Exclude Guy Davis by MMA Payout
According to the Motion, Davis opined that Zuffa could have increased its fighter pay “by as much as $706 million over the course of the Class Period” while remaining a “financially healthy” company. Davis provided two financial models for the lawsuit to show that Zuffa could have operated as a company while still providing higher compensation.
Zuffa argues that the opinion and models are not relevant because they do not go to whether or not Zuffa violated antitrust laws or the appropriate damages. Moreover, Zuffa claims that models which reallocate finances to increase fighter income does not have relevance either. As an evidentiary matter, the prejudicial affect of the expert testimony outweighs the probative effect. The reason behind this is that it would mislead a jury Zuffa argues.
The Motion argues that the analysis fails to address market power, anticompetitive effects, or damages. The analysis by Davis fails to include “aspects of economic reality. “
Based on the lacking information, Zuffa claims that Davis’s opinions are not within the ambit of expert testimony.
Also, Zuffa argues that Davis included new opinions regarding the redistribution of revenues to the fighters in his rebuttal report. In his initial report, he did not quantify the amount that Zuffa could have increased fighter compensation. In the rebuttal, he included new information.
In fact, Zuffa argues that the financial model provided by Davis uses the “benefit of perfect hindsight.” Zuffa states, “It is easy to say that money could have been reallocated in earlier years once you know you will succeed in later years.” This argues the impact of the opinion based on the knowledge that Zuffa would succeed. Zuffa claims that Davis does not factor in the possibility that the business does not take off,
Payout Perspective:
As with every filing, the persuasive writing leads the reader to the conclusion that it is correct. Certainly, Davis’s role as an expert was to show a jury that indeed, Zuffa could have increased fighter pay, without the demise of its business. Yet, Zuffa argues that the information should be exclusive due to holes with the testimony. The most compelling argument here is that the information does not get to the heart of the matter, which is whether Zuffa violated antitrust laws. The information is instructive as to the financial condition of the company. At the Class Certification state, Judge Boulware allowed the expert report in and one might conclude he does the same here at time of trial. However, Zuffa does provide persuasive arguments about prohibiting the information.
Leave a Reply