Essentially, DiBella is being offered as an expert who will testify as follows:
Based upon the business realities, as well as the customs and practices of the MMA/boxing professional unarmed combat pay-per-view industry, no competent promoter intent upon making a profit, or at least minimizing losses, would have done anything other than cancel the Fedor/Barnett Bout.
A couple of interesting points from the report. First, DiBella states (in the "assumed facts" section and then in the opinion section) that after the January 2009 Affliction event, "Fedor and Barnett were considered by many MMA fans, as well as the MMA-focused media, as the two best MMA fighters in the world."
Really, the best two MMA fighters in the world? I will let the other "MMA-focused media" take this issue up.
Second, the report states that Affliction agreed to pay Fedor and M-1 $1.5M collectively for participation in the Barnett bout, Affliction would net approximately $20 per ppv buy, and Affliction's pro forma "estimated a small profit for the August 1, 2009 Event based upon a projection of 200,000 'buys' and a net gate of $1 million."
DiBella's report acknowledges that MMA and boxing are different sports with different rules, but he believes that he is qualified to give an expert opinion because "they both involve unarmed combat, are governed by the same athletic commission regulations in states where MMA is legal, and the business model for pay-per-view events is the same for boxing and MMA."
For those of you that are interested, the relevant rules governing expert opinions are set forth in Rules 702 and 703 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The judge will ultimately evaluate whether DiBella should be an expert under this standard.
Rule 702 provides as follows:
Testimony by Experts
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
Fight Lawyer
