That Zuffa produced documents in connection with the litigation should not be a surprise if you have been following my coverage of the case because as you may recall from an earlier post, the deposition of Zuffa, LLC by its "30(b)(6) designees Dana White and Lawrence Epstein" had occurred. Generally, in connection with a third-party subpoena, a party to a litigation seeks documents and a subpoena from a non-party.
In connection with defendants filing on March 10, they argued why disclosure of the Zuffa documents would be detrimental.
Specifically, defendants' memorandum of law provides, inter alia, as follows:
However, importantly, this cannot extend to documents and testimony relating to Zuffa. Zuffa agreed to produce documents and provide testimony pursuant to subpoena on the condition that they would be designated as confidential. This information . . . is crucial to Zuffa's domination is the industry. Disclosure of this information would clearly threaten their [sic] economic position in the industry and strictly benefit only M-l and Strikeforce. . . . Strikeforce would enjoy nothing more than obtaining Zuffa's confidential and proprietary information for gaining an (unfair) advantage in this highly competitive industry.(emphasis added)
Given that Zuffa has now acquired Strikeforce, the concern of unfair advantage "in this highly competitive industry" -- at least as it relates to Strikeforce -- is obviously minimized.
The Court denied plaintiffs' application and plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is scheduled to be filed tomorrow.
I will continue to monitor.
Fight Lawyer
