Perhaps the last hurdle between the UFC going to court this April in the Class Action lawsuit filed against them by Cung Le and other ex-fighters was decided on Thursday when Judge Richard Boulware denied the promotion’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
The Court found genuine issues of disputed fact in the case such that it denied Zuffa’s motion.
The opinion heavily relied on the Court’s Order Granting Class Certification this past August. Notably, it confirmed what it wrote in August’s Order stating that reliance on Dr. Hal Singer’s methodology in this case was “reasonable.” In its Motion, and a Motion to Exclude Dr. Singer’s testimony, Zuffa hammered on the accounting method which produced injury for the bout class of fighters. Judge Boulware wrote in today’s opinion that the weight of the evidence will be given to the jury to decide rather than for the Court to do prior to trial. This part was a big win for plaintiffs since Dr. Singer has been a central figure in the plaintiffs’ case and in Zuffa’s attack of it.
The Court noted that it “evaluated the full, well-developed record and found the opinions of Dr. Singer and Dr. Zimbalist satisfied the Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 702 standards.” Dr. Guy Davis’ expert opinion will be decided at a hearing held on January 19th. The Court stated in today’s opinion that it had evaluated the expert opinions at the Class Certification stage. Citing Olean (the Tuna case), the Court held that all evidentiary challenges were decided at that time. Despite Zuffa’s interpretation, the Court had decided evidentiary challenges in its August Order certifying the bout class. Thus, no expert opinions were invalidated at that time.
The Court noted that it considered the expert testimony “simply in the contest of establishing genuine issues of disputed fact.”
However, Judge Boulware did decide that Zuffa’s introduction of a new expert, Dr. Gregory Leonard, was late and would not be considered citing it as “untimely and unjustified.” The Court, in a footnote, indicated that it was Zuffa’s burden to prove that the disclosure of Dr. Leonard was justified or harmless. However, the Court found neither instance.
The Court concluded that while Zuffa argued its business had procompetitive benefits, it had failed to show “legitimate business justifications” as a matter of law. Additionally, the Court was not swayed by its argument that plaintiffs’ experts had contemplated the case (including damages) in terms of monopoly and monopsony and since it no longer pursued a monopoly claim its whole case must be dismissed.
Payout Perspective:
A clear win for the plaintiffs here as Zuffa did not win with its arguments, challenge of 2 of the 3 Le witnesses and the Court denied its late-notice expert. It seems clear that the Court did not want to make any decisions it deemed something that the a jury would decide. Thus, the fight over the inclusion of expert testimony was granted with the Court determining that it would be up to the jury to decide the weight of the evidence. Moreover, the Court did not seem persuaded with Zuffa’s arguments with respect to its strict adherence to Daubert and the Evidence Rule 702. In its motion, Zuffa had pointed out changes to the evidence rule which would make the Court more of a gatekeeper for the jury. But, the Court did not seem interested in entertaining such a challenge citing the changes as a “clarification” of the rule.
Trial is set for April 8, 2024 barring any delays. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply