TKO filed its opposition to the Plaintiffs claim that there is missing information in discovery in the Kajan Johnson antitrust lawsuit.
Attached to its brief were declarations (see below) from several “prominent” MMA managers supporting the argument that they had no dealings with Dana White with respect to contract negotiations. They all confirmed that they did not utilize any apps such as Signal which deletes messages.
Declaration From Jason House by MMA Payout
Declartion From Malki Kawa by MMA Payout
Declaration From Dan Lambert by MMA Payout
Zuffa first argued that it had complied with its “preservation obligations.” This is in regard to Plaintiffs argument that there were gaps in production of documents. It notes the enormity of its production which includes reviewing “more than 11 million” documents, “including over 10.6 million individual text messages, and produced over 1.65 million documents amounting to approximately 6.5 million pages. Zuffa notes that “[p]arties who are trying to intentionally hide relevant evidence simply do not preserve and produce ESI of this magnitude.” It then posed the question: “Were Defendants trying to hide text messages involving Dana White, it would make no sense for them to preserve over 1.4 million texts involving Mr. White.”
Zuffa notes that its job was not to “preserve and produce every single communication that occurred over a ten-plus year period.” Zuffa contends its preservation, collection and production “more than satisfies” the federal rules of discovery.
Zuffa also dismisses Plaintiffs argument that there is a lack of “written contract negotiations.” They claim that Plaintiffs are just now making it an issue.
Zuffa then states that the absence of written negotiation does not show evidence of spoilation. It then argues that “many negotiations do not involve written “negotiations” as Plaintiffs appear to have defined that term.”
One thing that Zuffa infers from the response is that not every document is discoverable. Zuffa brings up the enormity of the production including the amount of preserved texts versus those that were produced. Obviously, the texts must be relevant. Some texts may not fit the requests and are just plain irrelevant.
“The figures above underscore that the vast majority of the text messages collected are not relevant,” wrote Zuffa attorneys.
The theme of the response is to show the Court that it has complied with Plaintiffs request as well as the rules of discovery. In addition, Zuffa wants to show that Plaintiffs request for documents are invalid and unfounded. Moreover, there’s nothing that they are hiding. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply