Earlier this month the Plaintiffs in the Misha Cirkunov antitrust lawsuit against Zuffa filed its Answering Brief of the organization’s interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The Plaintiffs argue that the appeal of one of Judge Boulware’s rulings regarding discovery.
Zuffa received an extension of time to file their appeal.
For those not familiar with the issue Zuffa sent to the Plaintiffs it deals with discovery in light of the allegations that the arbitration clauses in the Promotional Agreements signed by fighters were unsconsionable under Nevada state law.
Plaintiffs also argue that Zuffa’s appeal would foreclose the questions (according to Plaintiffs argument) whether Zuffa “destroyed evidence” or in the alternative they could appeal again “on the same issues” if the motion to compel arbitration is denied.
Plaintiffs point out that spoilation issues with discovery claiming, “…UFC CEO Dana White’s apparent destruction of many years of relevant communications…all while subject to litigation holds.”
The brief argues that Zuffa misused the Appellate Process citing that it did not move for reconsideration of the district court’s November 20 order and moved straight to appeal. At the November 20, 2025 status conference, Plaintiffs reported that the Court concluded that there had been “no production or meaningful production” of Zuffa’s relevant evidence with no justification. According to Plaintiffs it was to produce “arbitration-related documents” in discovery. Plaintiffs quote the Court at the November hearing:
Plaintiffs cite to Judge Boulware’s comments on the bench that it appeared as though Zuffa had not been forthright with the discovery process.
Basically, the issue according to Plaintiffs was the unconscionability of the arbitration clauses in the fighter contracts. Plaintiffs sought (what they describe as limited) discovery on the subject. Zuffa argued that the discovery was overbroad and not relevant. Also, it claimed that the information Plaintiffs sought was just not there. Per Plaintiffs, Zuffa argued that the Court did not issue findings of substantive unconscionability prior to ordering discovery on procedural unconscionability.
Payout Perspective:
Zuffa will have a chance to respond to the brief. But, the argument laid by Plaintiffs infers that Zuffa is trying to circumvent the discovery process on the issue of unconscionability to avoid the revelation that the company either destroyed, did not keep or did not provide discovery to Plaintiffs. In persuading the Court Plaintiffs argue that Zuffa is making a technical legal argument where there is none and rather than seeking its relief with Judge Boulware, its seeking another opinion in the Appeals Court. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply