The very funny UFC is a 'business bystander' narrative
There's one common theme in a lot of post-UFC White House stories.
As I was listening to the latest Hey! Not the Face podcast with John Nash covering the new developments in the evidence spoliation hearings for the UFC antitrust case, I couldn’t help but laugh at the latest discovery. A bunch of UFC house managers declared, under oath, that they supposedly haven’t conducted any fighter negotiations or key business negotiations with Dana White since 2018.
These UFC managers, including Jason House (Iridium), Malki Kawa (First Round Management), and Dan Lambert (American Top Team) all magically claim a similar set of facts:
“I have never negotiated a UFC contract or bout agreement with Dana White” including text messages regarding fighter pay
“From 2018 forward, I do not recall any instance wherein I negotiated a UFC contract or bout agreement with Dana White, and I do not believe I exchanged any messages with him about negotiating UFC contracts, bout agreements, or fighter pay during this same time period.” At least Malki was smart enough to use the highlighted phrases for hedging.
These managers apparently don’t use auto-deleting apps like Signal in communication with UFC officials
Everything goes through matchmakers Sean Shelby & Mick Maynard and contracts are with Hunter Campbell
You get the picture. These same managers, who are fighting off multiple subpoena requests by the Plaintiffs for production of messages and documents in discovery, apparently found the time to submit one or two page declarations filed under their name in Federal court.
The funny part about UFC’s ongoing cat-and-mouse game in Judge Richard Boulware’s Las Vegas Federal courtroom is that a multi-billion dollar operation continues to legally argue that their most public, high-profile, and active executives at Wall Street financial conferences really don’t run the show.
Therefore, if individuals — hypothetically say Dana White — happened to delete years worth of text messages or wiped their phones or deleted emails, it’s not level two sanction worthy under Rule 37(e). Because Hunter Campbell apparently followed the rules and he’s running the UFC, so don’t look at Dana White or Ari Emanuel or Mark Shapiro. And when it comes to TKO business affairs, it is Sean Shelby and Mick Maynard who are empowered to make business decisions as matchmakers.
This was the premise for TKO’s legal strategy when Hunter Campbell and Dana White testified in front of Judge Boulware last February regarding who is really running the show at UFC.
Hunter Campbell Answers the Question: So What Does Dana White Do?
We’ve got full coverage of today’s evidence spoliation hearing in the Federal UFC antitrust civil suit, including comprehensive notes on today’s testimony by Hunter Campbell, Eric Yee, and Elliott Howard for paid subscribers. But first, Nate and Zach have got some commentary on the action.
Oh, and by the way, Endeavor should be treated separately from TKO in litigation because they’re supposedly firewalled from business affairs. Why, they’re hands off bystanders!
Despite years worth of critical data missing from the phones of top UFC officials, Endeavor and TKO are acting in court as separate entities.
Endeavor is represented by Big Law firm Quinn Emanuel.
TKO is represented by Latham and Watkins, the same law firm that TKO uses in other big court cases and was recently at the heart of a Delaware Rule 37(e) opinion as to whether or not Vince McMahon relied upon Ari Emanuel’s promises of legal support in exchange for transferring WWE over to Endeavor.
The dirty secrets on UFC White House & WWE Delaware sanctions
NEWS ALERT: Las Vegas Federal Judge Richard Boulware is expected to order UFC matchmakers Sean Shelby + Mick Maynard to testify in his courtroom at the end of June regarding Rule 37(e) evidence spoliation hearings. This is regarding missing and erased phones, e-mails, and other discovery not produced by TKO & Endeavor in current UFC antitrust litigation. These court hearings are anticipated to be in a similar format to the hearings
In recent UFC antitrust court filings, Endeavor cynically employed a delightfully haughty and defiant tone regarding multiple years worth of allegations regarding missing evidence.
“Plaintiffs have no credible allegation of spoliation regarding Endeavor. At most, Plaintiffs recite stale information and speculation that has no basis in the actual evidence and is, in many cases, demonstrably inaccurate.”
The funniest part about this statement from Endeavor is that they’re whistling right past the graveyard. The entire point of ongoing Rule 37(e) evidence spoliation hearings in the UFC antitrust case is that because there is years worth of missing ESI from UFC executives, it’s impossible for the Plaintiffs to truly find out what was happening behind the scenes with contract negotiations and fighter pay issues once Endeavor acquired UFC in 2017.
“Plaintiffs’ slapdash approach should cast serious doubt on Plaintiffs’ already groundless allegations of spoliation against Endeavor. The law and equity require far more before a Court can even entertain the drastic relief Plaintiffs seek against Endeavor, and Plaintiffs have fallen woefully short.”
It’s as if Quinn Emanuel never bothered reading any of the previous court transcripts and remarks made by Judge Boulware about missing evidence and missing timelines to produce evidence.
The Judge has a surprise waiting for Endeavor and TKO.
