Despite a hearing in early March to hash out discovery issues, the plaintiffs on behalf of Kajan Johnson have renewed its seeking sanctions against Dominance MMA for not complying with the Court order. In response Dominance denies any non-compliance and argues that plaintiffs have overblown the discovery dispute.
Dominance MMA, a non-party, to the lawsuit involving Johnson and other fighters suing the UFC was served with a subpoena for documents in January 2025. The subpoena requested information from the phone of Ali Abdelaziz among other relevant evidence related to the lawsuit. The reason for obtaining the information is that it is relevant to the antitrust lawsuit as it may reveal potential forcing fighters to accept coercive contracts. Also, any evidence that managers may have colluded with the UFC to tie fighters into contracts.
Previously, Plaintiffs filed an Order to Show Cause which included a detailed amount for sanctions in the amount of $270K. Dominance opposed the motion.
A hearing on March 3rd sided with Plaintiffs in requiring Dominance to produce responsive documents and continue to do so. It also indicated that it would grant a motion for sanctions which had to be filed with the Court.
However, it appears that the pipe-flow of documents did not occur as Plaintiffs have renewed its motion to require the production of documents.
From Plaintiffs’ recent brief:
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Dominance to immediately produce all nonprivileged
responsive documents in its possession, custody, or control, including all nonprivileged responsive
documents collected by HOLO, and to cease conducting linear relevance review of documents,
which Dominance continues to do in spite of the Court’s prior instruction that Dominance was not to
conduct linear relevance review.
Of the 126,000 documents that Plaintiffs claim that Dominance produced “less than 2,000 documents” on the date that it was suppose to provide the documents in April. Plaintiffs argue that Dominance is demanding payment for production of documents including the need to continue to conduct a linear relevancy review of documents in its possession.
Plaintiffs further state in its brief:
Dominance filed an opposition to the renewed motion. In it it argues “substantial compliance” with the Court order and downplaying contempt of court.
The Plaintiffs will file a Reply and rebut the arguments. But, it is clear that Plaintiffs are willing to doggedly seek documents from Dominance. Obviously, as non-party to a lawsuit, it is a drastic measure to seek sanctions. But plaintiffs believe that noncompliance would hurt its case. Moreover, if they are not dogged in attempting to obtain the evidence, they may never get it.
MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply