Zuffa seeking to exclude Le plaintiffs expert Andrew Zimbalist

The final expert that Zuffa has sought to exclude in the Le Antitrust Lawsuit is Dr. Andrew Zimbalist. According to Zuffa, his testimony was to determine Zuffa’s anticompetitive conduct and whether there were potential pro-competitive justifications to the challenged conduct.  His job was also to comment on the damages theory set forth by defendants.

Andrew Zimbalist by MMA Payout

Zuffa attempts to discredit the opinion of Zimbalist as one of the damages expert in this case. 

Zuffa argues that Zimbalist’s approach to this case violates the seminal case Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.  The rule coming out of that case is that “[d]efendants in antitrust class actions are liable for damages resulting solely from their unlawful conduct.” Notably, Zimbalists expert report relies on the Complaint which includes monopolization as a Challenged Conduct.  Zuffa argues that since the Le plaintiffs have abandoned the monopolization theory, Dr. Zimbalist’s model fails as a way to measure damages from purported Challenged Conduct.  Zuffa supports this assertion by relying on deposition testimony from August 2019 which indicates that Dr. Zimbalist did not “isolate individual clauses and practice.”  This indicates that he did assume Zuffa had monopoly power.

They attempt to poke holes in his yardstick method approach.  In this argument, Zuffa points to deposition testimony to conclude that Dr. Zimbalist’s method is “junk science.”

Payout Perspective:

Of the three motions brought by Zuffa to exclude Le plaintffs expert this one may have the most bite to it.  Notably, pointing out that Dr. Zimbalist did not isolate monopoly and/or monopsony damages may be troublesome.  Considering that the Le plaintiffs have withdrawn its monopoly claim, calculating damages based on Dr. Zimbalist’s damage assessment may be unreliable. Obviously, Dr. Zimbalist could amend his report if allowed to by the court.  Still, Zuffa makes credible claims about the arbitrariness of Dr. Zimbalist’s method and puts the pressure on the Court to determine whether the expert information can be used.