The Plaintiffs in the Kajan Johnson antitrust lawsuit submitted a statement of materials it deems missing from Defendants’ production in the discovery process in the case. The detailed and contentious discovery continues into alleged missing documents in the Johnson case.
TKO/UFC/Zuffa (hereinafter Zuffa) responded to allegations that there were missing information in discovery in a filing on June 19th. In that declaration it reaffirmed that Dana White had no dealings with contract negotiations and it attached declarations from several of the biggest UFC athlete agents to corroborate the story.
Zuffa argued that it had done everything within the rules to preserve evidence. But, its job was not to “preserve and produce every single communication that occurred over a ten-plus year period.”
It also goes on to argue that not every text message in the phones of the likes of Dana White, Hunter Campbell, Tracey Long, etc. may have been provided to Zuffa attorneys, it does not mean that they are all relevant.
In its statement to the Court, Plaintiffs paint a broader picture which creates logical (and maybe realistic) doubt that certain communications were never reduced to a writing.
First, the Plaintiffs clarify what it is looking for and what it is lacking from Zuffa’s production. It is looking for the “actual negotiations correspondence that reflects how the bottom-line terms were derived…” This is what they are looking for as opposed to the final bottom-line number. “Communications that only evidence the final negotiated terms (without any of the negotiation that led to the final terms) are of no more evidentiary value than the final contract itself and deprive Plaintiffs and the Court of the evidence necessary to find critical facts.” This seems to be the issue that Plaintiffs are trying to get across while Zuffa argues that they have produced the final information on contracts. Its the context, the back and forth and the reason/rationale behind arriving at a fighter’s contract. Zuffa argued in its pleadings that many of the contracts are standard – meaning that fighters are slotted at a specific amount with all of the contracts being the same. Conversely, Plaintiffs argue that cannot be the case.
Plaintiffs also bring up the issue that there are no documents related to “UFC’s desire to retain fighters and/or the effects of UFC not retaining such fighters…” Plaintiffs specifically looked to any substantive documents related to “notice of offers [to fighters that were departing] from other promoters required by their PAR agreement’s “right-to-match” provisions.”
Plaintiffs also point out that there is “little correspondence” or documents regarding the “Department Budgets” at the UFC. The UFC has three “phases” for its budget each year. Phase 1 is preliminary budgets that are distributed to departments. Phase 2 budgets are circulated for review and Phase 3 are included in each department’s final budget. Plaintiffs note the “incompleteness of the productions.”
In addition, a footnote in Plaintiffs’ brief describes a group text identified as “Matchmaking” including Dana White, Mick Maynard, Hunter Campbell and Sean Shelby. The texts reveal that White was asked about a fighter’s contract and he said he would handle it. The text was from October 2020. White testified this past spring that the last time he was involved in fighter negotiations was 2017.
Plaintiffs also challenge the UFC claim that all matchmaking discussions occurred in the “war room” at UFC headquarters. However, in a footnote, they point to an American Top Team text string which seems to omit two texts between Sean Shelby and ATT about a fight. Plaintiffs write, “[a]s such, the production does not mitigate absence of these communications from Defendants’ production.” Basically, it is conspicuous that the actual text was not produced and one may assume that it was done on purpose to omit the texts.
Payout Perspective:
The above exchanges are indicative of what Plaintiffs are requesting. Information that should logically be available, but there’s scant evidence it exists. If it were to exist and Zuffa claimed privilege, it would have to be on a privilege log. So, we assume that since it was not on a privilege log. Obviously, Plaintiffs are persuasive in alleging that there should be more to Zuffa’s production, but its not there. On the other hand, Zuffa is making the case that they have produced a lot and what the Plaintiffs are looking for is simply not there. We will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply