Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 1 of 13

1 WILLIAM A. ISAACSON (Pro hac vice)

([email protected])
2 STACEY K. GRIGSBY (Pro hac vice)
([email protected])
3 NICHOLAS A. WIDNELL (Pro hac vice)
([email protected])
4 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005
5 Telephone: (202) 237-2727; Fax: (202) 237-6131
6 RICHARD J. POCKER #3568
([email protected])
7 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800, Las Vegas, NV 89101
8 Telephone: (702) 382-7300; Fax: (702) 382-2755
9 DONALD J. CAMPBELL #1216
([email protected])
10 J. COLBY WILLIAMS #5549
([email protected])
11 CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS
700 South 7th Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101
12 Telephone: (702) 382-5222; Fax: (702) 382-0540
13 Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a
Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC
14

15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
17

18 Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL)
Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle
19 Kingsbury on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, DEFENDANT ZUFFA, LLC’S
20 OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS’
Plaintiffs, EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
21 v.
22 Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting
Championship and UFC,
23
Defendant.
24

25

26

27

28

ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS

 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 2 of 13

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1

2 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 1 

3 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................... 1 

4 I.  Plaintiffs Improperly Seek to Use Expert Materials From an Unrelated Litigation That
are Either Unreliable or Were Not Timely Disclosed .................................................... 2 
5
II.  Plaintiffs improperly seek to use documents that are inherently unreliable .................. 5 
6
III.  Plaintiffs improperly seek to use a document that is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ experts’
7
opinions .......................................................................................................................... 7 
8
IV.  Plaintiffs Seek to Use Numerous Documents That Contain Hearsay That Should Not
9 be Admitted for the Truth of the Matter Asserted.......................................................... 7 

10 V.  Plaintiffs Improperly Seek to Include Documents that Have Not Been Timely
Disclosed ........................................................................................................................ 8 
11
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 9 
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 3 of 13

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
CASES 
2
Baskim Holdings, Inc. v. Two M, Inc.
3 2018 WL 4880758 (D. Nev. June 8, 2018) .................................................................................. 5
4 Doan v. Astrue
2010 WL 234935 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2010) ................................................................................. 3
5
Fosmire v. Progressive Max Ins. Co.
6 277 F.R.D. 625 (W.D. Wash. 2011) ............................................................................................ 2
Golden Boy Promotions., LLC v. Haymon
7 Case No. 2:15-cv-3378-JFW-MRW, in the Central District of California .......................... 2, 3, 4
8 In re ConAgra Foods, Inc.
302 F.R.D. 537 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ................................................................................................. 3
9
In re Imperial Credit Indus., Inc. Sec. Litig.
10 252 F. Supp. 2d 1005 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ....................................................................................... 3
Luke v. Family Care & Urgent Med. Clinics
11 323 F. App'x 496 (9th Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 4
12 Paddack v. Dave Christensen, Inc.
745 F.2d 1254 (9th Cir. 1984)...................................................................................................... 8
13
RULES 
14

15 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e) .................................................................................... 4, 5, 8

Federal Rules of Evidence 703 ........................................................................................................ 8
16
Federal Rules of Evidence 901 ........................................................................................................ 5
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ii
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 4 of 13

1 Defendant Zuffa, LLC (“Zuffa”) submits its objections to certain of the exhibits listed in

2 Plaintiffs’ exhibit list of documents to be used at the evidentiary hearings scheduled in this case

3 for August 26-30 and September 12-13, 2019 (the “Evidentiary Hearings”), and seeks to have the

4 below-described exhibits excluded from the Evidentiary Hearings.

5 BACKGROUND

6 On February 1, 2019, this Court held a Pre-Hearing Conference regarding the Evidentiary

7 Hearings, and ordered the parties to exchange exhibit lists, meet and confer regarding those

8 exhibit lists, and file any objections to the exhibit lists by June 14, 2019. ECF No. 649. On May

9 24, the parties exchanged exhibit lists, and participated in two meet and confer sessions regarding

10 those lists from May 28 to June 7. In preparation for the meet and confer sessions, Zuffa initially

11 objected to the use of 28 of Plaintiffs’ 771 exhibits as well as preserving its objections to

12 documents on the basis of hearsay. Twelve (12) of Zuffa’s initial objections related to Plaintiffs’

13 failure to list complete documents on their initial exhibit list. On June 6, Plaintiffs agreed to add

14 12 documents to their exhibit list to address Zuffa’s completeness objections.

15 Zuffa maintains objections to the admissibility of only a small group of documents listed

16 below. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit List currently contains 771 exhibits and Zuffa does not object to the
1
17 admissibility (in some cases for the appropriate limited purpose) of nearly 98% of those exhibits.

18 Zuffa’s limited outstanding objections fall into five categories: (1) documents from an unrelated

19 litigation that are inherently unreliable and/or untimely; (2) documents generated by third parties

20 that are inherently unreliable; (3) a document that is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions and

21 confuses the issues to be considered; (4) documents that are inadmissible on the basis of hearsay;

22 and (5) materials that were not timely disclosed.

23 ARGUMENT

24 During the Pre-Hearing Conference held on February 1, 2019, the Court stated that the

25

26 1
Zuffa does object to a large number of exhibits on the basis that they contain hearsay.
27 However, Zuffa objects to their admissibility only to the extent that Plaintiffs would attempt to
admit or use them otherwise to establish the truth of the matter asserted in the hearsay statements
28 they contain. See supra, § IV.

1
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 5 of 13

1 parties could object to documents that a party “views as so completely unreliable that the Court

2 really just should not consider it.” Transcript at 9:22-23. A list of the exhibits to which Zuffa

3 objects and Zuffa’s specific objections is attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Nicholas A.

4 Widnell (“Widnell Decl.”) in support of this motion.

5 I. Plaintiffs Improperly Seek to Use Expert Materials From an Unrelated Litigation

That are Either Unreliable or Were Not Timely Disclosed.
6

7 Zuffa initially objects to admission of two documents on Plaintiff’s exhibit list: (1) the

8 Expert Report of Gene Deetz, CPA/ABV, ASA, CFF (Sep. 6, 2016), which is an attachment to

9 the Declaration of Gene Deetz in Support of Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Summary

10 Judgment, Case No. 15-cv-3378, Dkt. No, 327-1 (Nov. 9, 2016); and (2) ECF No. 322-14, which

11 is an attachment to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Gene Deetz, Case No. 2:15-cv-003378-JFW-

12 MRW, Dkt. No. 322 (Jan. 6, 2017) (together, the “Deetz Report”). Widnell Decl., Ex. A, Decl. of

13 Brent K. Nakamura in Support of Zuffa’s Objections To Pls’ Ex. List Documents (“Nakamura
2
14 Decl.”), Exs. 1-2. The Deetz Report is a redacted expert report and excerpts of the data used in
3
15 that report, prepared by a third party for use in a separate and unrelated lawsuit.

16 In his opinion relating to revenue share paid to boxers, Dr. Andrew Zimbalist ignores the

17 data produced by boxing promoter Golden Boy in this matter and relies instead on data from the

18 Deetz Report. The data in the Deetz Report is directly contradicted by data produced by Golden

19 Boy in this case, which shows a drastically lower share of revenue paid to Golden Boy boxers.

20 Ex. 3, GBP000001 (“Golden Boy Promotions Profit & Loss – 2015”) (PTRR of 29%

21 ($11,613,960.46 / $40,113,787.29)); Ex. 4, GBP000002 (“Golden Boy Promotions Profit & Loss

22 – 2016”) (PTRR of 14% = ($7,800,365.90 / $55,195,256.93)).

23 In its Daubert Motion, Zuffa challenged Dr. Zimbalist’s use of this data as unreliable

24 because Dr. Zimbalist failed to independently verify the data. ECF No. 522, at 20-22; Fosmire v.

25 Progressive Max Ins. Co., 277 F.R.D. 625, 630 (W.D. Wash. 2011); Doan v. Astrue, 2010 WL

26
2
All numbered exhibits referenced are exhibits to the Nakamura Declaration.
27 3
The Deetz Report was used in Golden Boy Promotions., LLC v. Haymon, Case No. 2:15-cv-
28 3378-JFW-MRW, in the Central District of California (the “Golden Boy Litigation”).
2
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 6 of 13

1 234935 at *4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2010). Dr. Zimbalist admitted in his deposition that he “didn’t

2 take any steps to independently verify the data.” Ex. 20, Zimbalist Dep. 152:20-24.

3 Without verifying the data in the Deetz Report, Dr. Zimbalist had no way to determine

4 whether that information accurately reflected the underlying data or to what extent it may have

5 been manipulated for the purpose of the Golden Boy Litigation. Third-party expert reports are

6 disallowed because “an opinion which is generated solely for the purposes of litigation” does not

7 “bear independent indicia of reliability.” In re Imperial Credit Indus., Inc. Sec. Litig., 252 F.

8 Supp. 2d 1005, 1012 (C.D. Cal. 2003). Unverified third-party data must be excluded absent

9 “independent evaluation of that evidence.” In re ConAgra Foods, Inc., 302 F.R.D. 537, 556

10 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (excluding expert testimony regarding unverified third party data).

11 Zuffa also objects to the admission of eleven previously undisclosed documents on

12 Plaintiffs’ exhibit list from the Golden Boy Litigation. These additional materials are:

13  Declaration of Gene Deetz (Nov. 8, 2016) Case No. 15-cv-3378, Dkt. No. 237 (Nov.
9, 2016), Ex. 5;
14
 Defendants' Mot. To Exclude Gene Deetz, Case No. 15-cv-3378, Dkt. No. 322 (Jan. 6,
15
2017), Ex. 6;
16
 Excerpts of Deposition of Gene Deetz (Oct. 9, 2016), Case No. 15-cv-3378, Dkt. No.
17 322-3 (Jan. 6, 2017), Ex. 7;
18
 Excerpts of Unredacted Report of Gene Deetz (Sep. 6, 2016), Case No. 15-cv-3378,
19 Dkt. No. 322-2 (Jan. 6, 2017), Ex. 8;

20  Exhibit 35 Part 1, Case No. 15-cv-3378, Dkt. No. 237-2 (Nov. 9, 2016) (redacted
version of an exhibit to Golden Boy’s summary judgment filing including a list of
21 bouts from various boxing events), Ex. 9;
22
 Exhibit 35 Part 2, Case No. 15-cv-3378, Dkt. No. 237-3 (Nov. 9, 2016) (second
23 portion of the same exhibit as “Exhibit 35, Part 1” to Golden Boy’s summary
judgment filing including a list of bouts from various boxing events), Ex. 10;
24
 Redacted Expert Report of Gene Deetz (Sep. 6, 2016) Case No. 15-cv-3378, Dkt. No.
25
237-1 (Nov. 9, 2016), Ex. 11; and
26

27

28
3
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 7 of 13

4
 Sbardellati Declaration, Case No. 15-cv-3378, Dkt. No. 322-3 (Jan. 6, 2017), Ex. 12.
1

2 These documents suffer from the same unreliability issues that make the Deetz Report

3 inadmissible: they are unverified by Plaintiffs’ expert, contradicted by the data produced in this

4 lawsuit, and are third party information from a separate lawsuit without independent indicia of

5 reliability.

6 In addition, they come too late. These documents were readily available before the close

7 of the discovery period and the submission of Plaintiffs’ expert materials. Pursuant to Federal

8 Rules of Civil Procedure 26(e), a party “must supplement or correct its disclosures or response”

9 and it must be “in a timely manner…if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise

10 been made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

11 26. A party has a duty to supplement expert reports that “extends both to information included in

12 the report and to information given during the expert’s deposition.” Id. And supplementation

13 under these rules is limited to “correcting inaccuracies, or filling the interstices of an incomplete

14 report based on information that was not available at the time of the initial disclosure.” Luke v.

15 Family Care & Urgent Med. Clinics, 323 F. App'x 496, 500 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted;

16 emphasis added) (district court properly excluded expert materials submitted a few days before

17 close of discovery).

18 Plaintiffs’ new documents were filed at the same time or before the Deetz Report that was

19 used in Dr. Zimbalist’s original report; the most recent of these documents were added to the

20 Golden Boy Litigation docket in January of 2017, eight months before Dr. Zimbalist’s initial

21 expert report. There is thus no reason Dr. Zimbalist could not have used these materials in either

22 his original or rebuttal reports. The proper time to disclose these documents was when the expert

23 reports were disclosed, or failing that, in a FRCP 26(e) supplement. Plaintiffs do not have “the

24 right to update the report after the deadline with information and opinions that were available

25 before the deadline.” Baskim Holdings, Inc. v. Two M, Inc., 2018 WL 4880758, at *1 (D. Nev.

26
4
27 In their exhibit list, Plaintiffs described this document as Dkt. No. 322-3. Dkt. No 322-3 is not
the Declaration of Elizabeth Sbardellati. Zuffa believes Plaintiffs meant to list Dkt. No 322-11
28 and have attached that document as Ex. 12. Zuffa objects to both documents: 322-3 and 322-11.
4
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 8 of 13

1 June 8, 2018). Disclosing these documents more than two years after Plaintiffs were reasonably

2 aware of their existence is an untimely disclosure contrary to FRCP 26(e).

3 II. Plaintiffs improperly seek to use documents that are inherently unreliable.

4 Plaintiffs included on their exhibit list three other documents that are inherently unreliable
5 and inauthentic pursuant to FRE 901 because there is no evidence or information regarding how
6 the documents were prepared, the data or information used for their preparation, or any testimony
7 from the third parties regarding who prepared the documents. These documents are ZFL-
8 1241786; ZFL-2508355; and DB-ZUFFA-00007249. Exs. 13-15.
9 ZFL-1241786 is a presentation prepared by a third party, Banco BTG Pactual S.A. (“BTG
10 Pactual”), in connection with BTG Pactual’s interest in the potential acquisition of Zuffa’s
11 Brazilian operations in 2012. BTG Pactual was not subpoenaed for either documents or
12 testimony in this case, and no Zuffa witnesses were asked about this document. The summary of
13 the document indicates that BTG Pactual provided the document to Zuffa as part of its
14 “considerations about a potential sale of a minority stake of its operations in Brazil.” Id. at -787.
15 The document, which is commonly referred to as a “pitch deck” because a third party business
16 pitches itself to a company, contains unverified statements with no supporting data or citations,
17 including statements regarding Zuffa’s market share that Dr. Hal Singer cites in his report. ECF
18 No. 524-3, August 31, 2017 Expert Report of Dr. Hal J. Singer (“Singer I”) ¶ 130. Dr. Singer
19 should not be allowed to rely on a document – particularly to support his statements regarding the
20 relevant antitrust market in this case – which is unauthenticated and for which no foundation has
21 been laid. This third-party pitch document is inherently unreliable and should be excluded.
22 ZFL-2508355 is another third-party pitch document. This presentation was created by
23 Vinci Partners (“Vinci”) and titled, “A View on a Zuffa’s Strategy Toward Brazil.” As the title
24 suggests, the document appears to be Vinci’s views about Zuffa, and is not based on any reliable
25 data or information.
26 Plaintiffs attempted to authenticate or lay a foundation for this document’s use through the
27 depositions of Zuffa executives, but the executives confirmed only that the document is
28
5
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 9 of 13

1 inherently unreliable and not based on any vetted data or information. Zuffa’s former Chief

2 Financial Officer, Nakisa Bidarian, testified that he did not ask Vinci to prepare the presentation,

3 that he and others at Zuffa had not met with them, and said: “I don’t think we’d shared much

4 information with Vinci at that point, so I couldn’t determine whether they were going to be an

5 investor or not.” Ex. 16, Bidarian Dep. 66:19-67:2, 67:21-68:2. Mr. Bidarian further testified

6 that the UFC had not yet met with Vinci at the time the presentation was emailed to it. Id. at

7 69:9-18. When asked about specific information in the document, Mr. Bidarian noted that certain

8 information in the document was incorrect, and testified, “This is a document created by Vinci. I

9 mean, I have no idea where they got their thought process from or what they were thinking when

10 they wrote that, so it's not possible for me to kind of make any statement to anything they

11 presented in this presentation. I'm not even sure I understand the logic of the page, so . . . .” Id.

12 at 72:2-21. Other Zuffa executives mirrored Mr. Bidarian’s concerns about the substance of the
5
13 document.

14 Plaintiffs chose not to subpoena Vinci for either documents or testimony and, accordingly,

15 no foundation has been laid for its use. Yet, Dr. Singer nonetheless relied on the document to

16 support his opinions regarding the effect of Zuffa’s contracts with athletes, falsely describing it as

17 an “internal strategy presentation.” Singer I ¶ 162. The record evidence unequivocally shows

18 that this third party pitch document is inherently unreliable and should be excluded.

19 DB-ZUFFA-00007249 was produced by third party Deutsche Bank, and appears to be a

20 partial document, without a cover page or anything identifying its date or purpose, regarding the

21 UFC’s international operations. It appears to have been created by another third party – one who

22 was not subpoenaed for either documents or testimony in this case – named Futures Sport &

23 Entertainment. DB-ZUFFA-00007249 at -7284. The producing party, Deutsche Bank, was not

24 asked about this document during the company’s 30(b)(6)deposition, and there is no foundation

25
5
Zuffa’s Senior Vice-President of Strategy, Denitza Batchvarova, testified that she had no
26 conversations with Vinci, had no input into the presentation, and testified, “I don’t believe this
27 was a presentation that I was put to verify or any collaboration with them. It seems like it was a
presentation that they did develop by themselves.” Ex. 17, Batchvarova Dep. 199:5-11. Zuffa’s
28 former Chief Legal Officer had no recollection of Vinci. Ex. 18, Hendrick Dep. 137:3-138:2.
6
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 10 of 13

1 upon which to admit this document as evidence. Without evidence of the document’s purpose or

2 the underlying data, the document is inherently unreliable and should be excluded.

3 III. Plaintiffs improperly seek to use a document that is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ experts’
opinions.
4

5 Plaintiffs included on their exhibit list a document that contains sensitive personal

6 information but is irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ experts’ opinions and should be excluded. Pursuant to

7 FRE 403, the court may exclude evidence “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a

8 danger of . . . confusing the issues . . . or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” The

9 document, ZUF-00096950, Ex. 19, is an internal document regarding Zuffa employee

10 compensation, and includes personal salary, bonus, and Employee Participation Plan information

11 regarding Zuffa executives and employees. Dr. Singer cites this document solely to list the names

12 and titles of certain Zuffa executives. Singer I ¶ 24. Information relating to Zuffa executives’

13 names and titles is available throughout other documentary evidence as well as in the deposition

14 transcripts of the listed executives, each of whom was deposed on at least one occasion in this

15 case. The substantive compensation information contained in the document is irrelevant to Dr.

16 Singer’s opinions and needlessly seeks to use evidence regarding undisputed issues (Zuffa

17 executives’ names and titles) while putting irrelevant information regarding Zuffa executives’

18 compensation to confuse the issues to be considered by the Court. As a result, this document

19 should be excluded from use at the Evidentiary Hearings.

20 IV. Plaintiffs Seek to Use Numerous Documents That Contain Hearsay That Should Not
be Admitted for the Truth of the Matter Asserted.
21

22 Zuffa understands the purpose of the evidentiary hearing is to provide the Court an
23 opportunity to hear testimony from the experts in this case to better understand their opinions and
24 decide whether the proposed class can be certified based on those expert opinions. Dec. 14, 2018
25 Hrg. Tr., ECF No. 627, 11:12-13:10. Zuffa recognizes that experts may consider inadmissible
26 evidence when forming their opinions. As a result, Zuffa does not object to the admission of
27 documents containing inadmissible hearsay being used at this hearing to establish the basis for an
28
7
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 11 of 13

1 expert’s opinion. Zuffa only objects to the admission of such exhibits for their truth. Fed. R.

2 Evid. 703; Paddack v. Dave Christensen, Inc., 745 F.2d 1254, 1261-62 (9th Cir. 1984) (hearsay

3 evidence was inadmissible to prove existence of deficiencies in contributions to funds but was

4 admissible for limited purpose of explaining basis of auditor's opinion alleging deficiencies).

5 To address this concern, Zuffa proposed the following stipulation to Plaintiffs during the

6 meet and confer process, which they rejected:

7 The Parties agree that exhibits identified as containing hearsay statements may be
used during the hearing to the extent an expert has considered that exhibit in
8 forming an opinion, but not to establish the truth of the matter asserted by the
hearsay statement.
9
Widnell Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.
10

11 Zuffa now requests the Court hold that, along the lines of its proposed stipulation, any

12 exhibit containing hearsay statements that is admitted at the evidentiary only be admitted for the

13 purpose of establishing that an expert relied on the document containing the hearsay statement.

14 Zuffa has identified the documents on Plaintiffs’ exhibit list that contain such hearsay statements

15 and attached it as Ex. C to this motion. Zuffa objects to the admission of any of the identified

16 exhibits to the extent they are admitted for the truth of the matter asserted in the hearsay

17 statements therein.

18 V. Plaintiffs Improperly Seek to Include Documents that Have Not Been Timely
Disclosed.
19

20 Plaintiffs seek to include three other documents that pre-date all expert reports and were

21 not included in a FRCP 26(e) supplement: American Bar Association, Telecom Antitrust

22 Handbook (2nd ed. 2013); John M. Connor, Forensic Economics: An Introduction with a Special

23 Emphasis on Price Fixing, 4(1) Journal of Competition Law and Economics 31 (2007); and Justin

24 McCrary & Daniel Rubinfeld, Measuring Benchmark Damages in Antitrust Litigation, 3 Journal
6
25 of Econometric Methods 1 (2014). Exs. 20-21. In addition to their untimely disclosure,

26
6
27 As the ABA Telecomm Antitrust Handbook is a large textbook, Zuffa has not filed a copy of the
book on the docket. At the Court’s request, Zuffa will provide the Court with a copy of the
28 textbook.
8
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 12 of 13

1 Plaintiffs lack all foundation to introduce these documents, as any explanation will require expert

2 testimony.

3 CONCLUSION

4 For the foregoing reasons, Zuffa objects to the admissibility of the documents listed on

5 Exhibit A the Declaration of Nicholas A. Widnell and respectfully requests that the Court exclude

6 the use of such documents from the Evidentiary Hearings.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
9
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS
 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW Document 664 Filed 06/15/19 Page 13 of 13

1 Dated: June 14, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,

2
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
3

4
By: /s/ William A. Isaacson
5 William A. Isaacson
Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a
6
Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC
7
William A. Isaacson (Pro Hac Vice)
8 Stacey K. Grigsby (Pro Hac Vice)
Nicholas A. Widnell (Pro Hac Vice)
9 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
1401 New York Ave., NW
10
Washington, DC 20005
11 Tel: (202) 237-2727
Fax: (202) 237-6131
12 Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
13 [email protected]
14
Donald J. Campbell #1216
15 J. Colby Williams #5549
CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS
16 700 South 7th Street
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
17 Tel: (702) 382-5222
Fax: (702) 382-0540
18
Email: [email protected]
19 [email protected]

20
Richard J. Pocker #3568
21 BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800
22 Las Vegas, NV 89101
Tel: (702) 382 7300
23 Fax: (702) 382 2755
Email: [email protected]
24

25 Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate

Fighting Championship and UFC
26

27

28

10
ZUFFA’S OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBIT LIST DOCUMENTS