The defendants want documents about any litigation funder to test what they call the fighters' David vs. Goliath trial theme. The fighters say the defense has promised to seek exclusion of that same theme. Nine document requests now sit before a federal court in Nevada.
On October 14 in Nevada, Kajan Johnson and two other former UFC fighters opposed nine defense requests concerning litigation funding and their arrangements with counsel. Their opposition in the United States District Court for Nevada attacks a motion to compel documents about actual or potential litigation funders. The fighters wrote: “Defendants cannot simultaneously maintain and agree that a theme is inadmissible and that they need intrusive discovery to rebut it.” The filed opposition asks for denial; the defendants seek production within fourteen days of an order. The docket shows no ruling on the motion through October 14.
The defendants are Zuffa, TKO Operating Company and Endeavor Group Holdings. The plaintiffs are Johnson, Clarence Dollaway and Tristan Connelly, suing on behalf of a proposed class. No funding arrangement has been shown. The dispute is over whether the defendants can demand documents about one, or require the fighters to say that responsive documents do not exist.
The 3 sources behind this story: 3 court records, each linked with what it shows. Free with the weekly Litigation Sentinel brief.
The defendants’ September 30 motion to compel says the fighters have sought to cultivate a “David vs. Goliath” account: a well-funded combat sports promoter facing fighters whose counsel, in an earlier UFC case cited by the defense, argued that without bout agreements they would not get paid and could not feed their children. The motion argues that funding documents could rebut that account at trial. It also argues that third-party payment of the named plaintiffs’ legal expenses could bear on witness bias, and that a funder’s control or veto rights could bear on whether the plaintiffs can adequately represent a class.
Then comes the footnote the fighters seized. The defendants’ motion says any reference to a purported resource disparity between the parties would be inappropriate at trial and promises a motion to prohibit it. The opposition asks why the defense needs broad discovery to rebut a theme it says the jury should never hear.
The fighters draw another line. Their opposition says the amended complaint’s allegations about UFC market power and fighter compensation concern bargaining power when the fighters provided their services. Those allegations, the fighters argue, do not turn on who might be paying to litigate years later. That is the split now before the court: whether a claim about power in the fighter market opens discovery into the plaintiffs’ resources for this lawsuit.
Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.
The defendants served requests for production 48 through 56 on March 2. The motion describes their aim as identifying any third-party funder, the terms of any arrangement, and any funder involvement or control. Its requested order goes further than a name: produce responsive documents within fourteen days, state when none exist, and log documents withheld on privilege or work-product grounds.
The opposition says the requests also reach communications with *potential* funders, pitch decks, budgets, case assessments, expert analyses, damages models and the fighters’ fee agreements with counsel. Its account of the requests’ definition of a litigation funder includes insurers, brokers, intermediaries and entities offering other financial support. The fighters argue that the definitions pull their lawyers’ work into the demand.
The defendants say they do not seek privileged material or attorney work product. The fighters answer that a request expressly naming case assessments and damages models cannot be separated so easily from counsel’s views of the case. **Analysis:** If responsive assessments or models exist and a court orders their production, the defendants could see how the fighters valued and planned the litigation before class certification has been briefed. Whether those materials exist, and which could be protected, remain open questions.
The defense offers two paths beyond the trial theme. Its motion argues that a payment connection to a competitor, if one exists, could affect a named plaintiff’s credibility as a witness. It also argues that a funder’s economic stake or veto rights could affect class representation. The fighters call both theories speculative at this stage. Their opposition says the defense has identified no funding arrangement or competitor connection, and that adequacy can be tested when class certification is briefed.
The timing supplies the fighters with a separate objection. Their opposition says the parties discussed the requests in April, the defendants revived them by letter on September 14, and the motion arrived on September 30, the substantial completion deadline. The fighters argue that the letter pressed different reasons for disclosure than the motion and did not mention the fee-agreement request. They ask the court to deny the motion for lack of a sufficient conference between counsel and for lateness, as well as on the merits.
The defendants’ motion takes a different view of the exchange. It says the plaintiffs refused to produce funding materials and made inadequate objections. If no funding documents exist, the defendants argue, the plaintiffs should say so. The fighters’ opposition quotes their certificate of interested parties as saying there are no known interested parties beyond those participating in the case and unnamed members of the proposed class. Neither that certificate nor the defense’s suspicion establishes whether a funder exists.
The District of Nevada docket lists Richard F. Boulware II as the assigned judge and Brenda Weksler as the referred magistrate judge. It records the September 30 motion and October 14 opposition; no hearing date appears for this dispute. The defense wants an answer or the files. The fighters ask the court to deny the motion to compel.
The Executive Briefing has five questions about your reported litigation practices. Use the summary to choose an operating question to explore.
Take the Executive Briefing →Free weekly intelligence for executives responsible for litigation exposure: the named decision-makers, dollar exposure, operating consequence, and next development.