Zuffa responded to Plaintiffs statement of missing discovery in the Cirkunov antitrust lawsuit. Zuffa contends that some of the discovery that Plaintiffs seek have already been produced and/or is just not there.
Zuffa claims that the allegation that it has not provided Promotional Agreements is not true and counters that Plaintiffs’ requests are “riddled with errors.”
In addition to refuting Plaintiffs claims that there was no evidence regarding fighter negotiations, Zuffa highlights all of the time and expense it has done in discovery.
Zuffa points out that it had produced the documents that the Plaintiffs complain about. “This fact alone should give the Court tremendous pause,” writes Zuffa as it infers distrust and/or lack of paying attention to
Zuffa responds to the claim that it had no documentation memorializing discussions of when fighters were leaving (e.g., Francis Ngannou) or when they wanted to sign fighters. Plaintiffs’ failure to locate these materials is a function of their inability to search, not a deficiency in Defendant’s production.”
Zuffa goes on to point out that it had produced documents “reflecting communications about fighters’ moves to competing promotions…” This includes Ngannou, Anthony Pettis, Demetrious Johnson, Sage Northcutt and Eddie Alvarez.
The filing goes on to highlight its voluminous production as well as dismissing the claims that it has nor produced information. In addition to the above, it refutes omitting things such as loan documents, prospective analysis of other promotions, tv contracts, etc.
The purpose of discovery is to ascertain as much information as you can to prove your case. If the information is not there, its just not there. So the question is how much can the Plaintiffs’ prove that there is still information lacking? And, will the Court find its argument persuasive. MPO will continue to follow.
Leave a Reply