Motion To Compel Depo of Matt Hume

Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 1 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 17
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
9 AT SEATTLE
10 In Re Subpoenas Of Case No. 2:17-mc-00074 RSL
11
MATT HUME Underlying Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045 RFB-
12 PAL (D. Nev.)
13 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL

Related Case:
DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF
14
Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, DOCUMENTS BY THIRD PARTY
15 Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez MATT HUME AND MOTION FOR
and Kyle Kingsbury, on behalf of SANCTIONS
16 themselves and all others similarly
situated, NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
17
July 28, 2017
18 Plaintiffs,
19 vs.
20
Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting
21 Championship and UFC,
22
Defendant.
23
24
25
26
27
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

DEPOSITION AND PRODUCTION OF 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
DOCUMENTS BY THIRD PARTY MATT HUME Seattle, WA 98101
Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page(s)
3 I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
4 II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................ 2
5 A. The Underlying Litigation and Plaintiffs Allegations That Other MMA
Promoters Function as Minor Leagues or Feeder Leagues for the UFC. ............... 2
6
B. Procedural History. ................................................................................................ 4
7
III. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................... 5
8
A. Legal Standard ....................................................................................................... 5
9
B. This Court Should Order Mr. Hume to Appear for his Deposition........................ 6
10
1. Mr. Hume Possesses Information That is Relevant and Necessary
11 to Plaintiffs Class Action Allegations. ....................................................... 6
12 2. Plaintiffs Will Be Prejudiced if the Scope of Mr. Humes
Deposition is Limited in Contravention of the Federal Rules of
13 Civil Procedure. ......................................................................................... 7
14 C. This Court Should Order Mr. Hume to Comply Fully With Plaintiffs
Document Subpoena. ............................................................................................ 8
15
1. Plaintiffs Document Subpoena Seeks Relevant Information and is
16 Narrowly Tailored and Proportional to the Needs of the Case. .................. 8
17 2. Mr. Hume and One Championship Will Suffer No Harm Because
Their Confidential Commercial Information Is Safeguarded By The
18 Protective Order....................................................................................... 10
19 3. Mr. Hume Will Not Be Subject To Undue Burden By Producing
One Championships Event-Level Financial Information. ........................ 11
20
D. Mr. Hume Must Pay Plaintiffs Reasonable Expenses Incurred While
21 Bringing This Motion. ......................................................................................... 12
22 E. Mr. Hume Is In Contempt Of A Court Order And Should Be Sanctioned. .......... 12
23 IV. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................. 12
24
25
26
27
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL i ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page(s)
3 Cases
4 A. Farber & Ptnrs., Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186 (C.D. Cal. 2006) ........................................... 2, 9
5 Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. C 11-1846 LHK (PSG), 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 166724 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) ............................................................................... 11
6
Capsugel Belgium NV v. Bright Pharma Caps, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-321-PK, 2015 U.S.
7 Dist. LEXIS 130071 (D. Or. Sep. 28, 2015) ............................................................................ 11
8 CH2E Nev. LLC v. Mahjoob (CH2E), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167442 (D. Nev.
Dec. 5, 2016) ......................................................................................................................... 10
9
Cung Le v. Zuffa, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97746 (D. Nev. June 13, 2017) ............................ 12
10
Cung Le, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL (D. Nev.)................................... 1
11
Fed. Open Mkt. Comm. of the Fed. Reserve v. Merrill, 443 U.S. 340 (1979)....................................... 11
12
Herring v. Clark, No. 1:05-cv-00079-LJO-SMS-PC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63332
13 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2011) ......................................................................................................... 9
14 ICG Communs., Inc. v. Allegiance Telecom, 211 F.R.D. 610 (N.D. Cal. 2002) .................................11
15 In re Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Uranium Contracts Litig., 563 F.2d 992 (10th Cir.
1977) ...................................................................................................................................... 10
16
Lilly v. Teva Pharm. USA Inc., No. C17-0267JLR, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38168
17 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2017) ................................................................................................... 11
18 Meeks v. Parsons, No. 1:03-cv-6700-LJO-GSA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90283 (E.D.
Cal. Sep. 18, 2009) .................................................................................................................. 9
19
Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., 2016 WL 5870010 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) ..................................... 6
20
Natl Union Fire Ins. Co., P.A. v. Midland Bancor, 159 F.R.D. 562 (D. Kan. 1994) .......................... 9
21
Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ............................................................ 6, 8
22
Warren v. Bastyr Univ., No. 2:11-cv-01800-RSL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50408
23 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 8, 2013)..................................................................................................... 12
24 Other Authorities
25 Advisory Comm. Notes (1991) .................................................................................................... 12

26 Rules
27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) .................................................................................................................. 6
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL ii ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) ........................................................................................................... 12

2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 ......................................................................................................................... 12
3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i)......................................................................................................... 5
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL iii ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Plaintiffs Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez and
3 Kyle Kingsbury (collectively Plaintiffs), individual and representative plaintiffs in the antitrust
4 class action captioned Cung Le, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL (D. Nev.)
5 (the Underlying Litigation), move this Court to compel third party Matt Hume1 to appear for
6 his deposition and to produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs subpoena duces tecum. See
7 Declaration of Kevin E. Rayhill (Rayhill Decl.), Exhs. 9, 10 (Deposition Subpoena; Document
8 Subpoena, respectively). Despite having been duly served with valid subpoenas, as specifically
9 authorized by the court in the Underlying Litigation, and despite being ordered by that court to
10 accept service of the subpoenas, Mr. Hume continues to refuse to appear for his deposition or to
11 produce documents responsive to Plaintiffs subpoena duces tecum. See Rayhill Decl., Exhs. 6, 14
12 ( June 1 Hearing Tr.; June 29, 2017 Order, respectively).
13 Mr. Humes testimony and documents are directly relevant to disputed issues in
14 Plaintiffs class action case. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Defendant Zuffa, LLC
15 (Zuffa) denied other promoters access to necessary resources and opportunities, including top-
16 ranked fighters, top venues, and the best sponsors. The purpose and effect of Zuffas scheme was
17 to relegate rival promoters to minor league or feeder league status. See Rayhill Decl., Ex. 1
18 (Consolidated Amended Complaint (CAC)) at 135-140. One Championship is one such
19 promoter. Plaintiffs seek documents from Mr. Hume relevant to these allegations.
20 Mr. Hume has stated in a declaration voluntarily provided to Zuffa in the Underlying
21 Litigation that One Championship is not a minor league or feeder league for the UFC and
22 competes with Zuffa to sign professional MMA fighters. Rayhill Decl., Exh 5. The purpose of
23 these averments, made on One Championships behalf, is to controvert elements of Plaintiffs
24 claims and to support Zuffas defenses. They are directly relevant.
25
26 1
Mr. Hume is Vice President for Operations and Competition for Group One Holdings Pte. Ltd.,
27 which runs a mixed martial arts (MMA) promotion known as One Championship. Mr. Hume
is a resident of Washington State. Group One Holdings is headquartered in Singapore.
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 1 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 Mr. Hume tries to dodge the subpoena in a number of ways. He asserts, for example, that
2 he is not authorized to comment on behalf of One Championship or that he lacks personal

3 knowledge. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 16 p. 2. (Morley letter, June 30, 2017). This is inconsistent with
4 the Declaration he has submitted. Plaintiffs are entitled to cross-examine Hume on this topic.
5 Nor can Hume claim that Plaintiffs subpoena to Mr. Hume is an impermissible attempt
6 to obtain documents belonging to a corporation by serving an employee who may have access to
7 those documents. Id. The subpoena seeks documents in Mr. Humes possession, custody, or
8 control, including One Championships financial data relating to its promotion of live MMA
9 events. See A. Farber & Ptnrs., Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 189 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (a party must
10 produce or permit inspection of documents responsive to a request for production of documents
11 when such documents are in the partys possession, custody or control.) (quotation and citation
12 omitted). Mr. Hume is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court, and cannot withhold
13 nonprivileged responsive documents in his possession, custody or control. Moreover, Hume has
14 voluntarily submitted a declaration on One Championships behalf which puts the question of
15 One Championships status as a competitor of Zuffa at issue.
16 Plaintiffs and counsel have met and conferred extensively, including telephone calls on
17 June 7 and 20, and July 5, 6, and 11, and the exchange of multiple letters and emails. The parties
18 are now at an impasse. Pursuant to Rule 45, Plaintiffs seek an order from this Court compelling
19 Mr. Humes appearance for deposition and the production of responsive documents in his
20 possession, custody or control. Plaintiffs also ask this Court to order Mr. Hume to reimburse
21 Plaintiffs for their reasonable expenses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A),
22 and to sanction Mr. Hume for his flagrant defiance of the Courts order authorizing the discovery.
23 II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
24 A. The Underlying Litigation and Plaintiffs Allegations That Other MMA

Promoters Function as Minor Leagues or Feeder Leagues for the UFC.
25
Plaintiffs allege that Zuffa, which promotes live professional MMA events under the name
26
Ultimate Fighting Championship or UFC, illegally suppressed compensation of two classes of
27

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 professional MMA fighters. See generally Rayhill Decl., Exh. 1 (CAC) at 1-21. Zuffa
2 accomplished this in part by eliminating competition in the market for promoting live professional
3 MMA events by acquiring its top competitors and blocking other promoters access to necessary
4 inputs for staging MMA promotions, such as top MMA fighters (whom Zuffa locked into
5 exclusive long-term contracts), the best venues, and valuable sponsorships. Id at 128-129.
6 Consequently, those other promoters are either fringe competitors that cannot successfully
7 compete directly with the UFC, or so-called minor leagues or feeder leagues, which develop
8 talent for Zuffa but do not compete with it directly. See id. at 7, 128-129, 135-140, 145.
9 By eliminating or impairing potential competitors, Zuffa acquired monopsony power in
10 the market for the services of professional MMA fighters: because there are no other MMA
11 promoters with Zuffas resources and opportunities for advancement, Zuffa is the only game in
12 town for professional MMA fighters. Id. at 5. Zuffa exploits this monopsony power to force
13 fighters to accept restrictive and exclusionary contract provisions, locking up the fighters with
14 long-term contracts. Id. at 109-115. Zuffas exclusive hold on the input market for fighters
15 services only strengthens its power in the output market for promoting live MMA events, a
16 mutually reinforcing spiral that benefits Zuffa at the expense of its potential rivals and at the
17 expense of the professional MMA fighters who comprise the two classes of plaintiffs.
18 Zuffa denies these allegations. See Rayhill Decl., Exh. 2 at 7, 128-129, 135-140, 145
19 (Zuffas Answer to CAC). Indeed, Zuffa has specifically stated that [n]otwithstanding assertions
20 that the acquisitions left only fringe and minor league rivals to the UFC, the Complaints and
21 state athletic commission records demonstrate that Zuffa continues to face well-funded
22 competitors that can attract prominent fighters and television distribution. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 3
23 at 24 (Zuffas Motion to Dismiss).2
24
25
26
27
2
The motion to dismiss was denied. ECF No. 314
Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 B. Procedural History.
2 On June 1, the court in the Underlying Litigation approved a sixty-day extension to the
3 discovery period and specifically authorized new discovery to be issued to Mr. Hume and One
4 Championship on the basis of new documents Mr. Hume produced on or around May 4, 2017.
5 See Rayhill Decl., Exh. 7 ( June 1 Minute Order). Plaintiffs spoke with counsel for Mr. Hume on
6 June 7, 2017, advising him of the courts order and requesting that he accept service of subpoenas
7 on Mr. Humes behalf. Counsel responded that the text order did not authorize either a
3
8 deposition subpoena or a document subpoena to be issued to Mr. Hume. Rayhill Decl., 10.
9 On June 13, Plaintiffs sent counsel portions of the hearing transcript showing that the
10 court had authorized Plaintiffs to pursue deposition and document discovery from Mr. Hume and
11 One Championship. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 8 (Rayhill Email, June 13, 2017). On June 14, despite
12 having received evidence to the contrary, counsel responded that the courts order does not
13 permit Plaintiffs to serve a deposition subpoena on Mr. Hume, and stated that Plaintiffs needed
14 to seek clarification from the court. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 11 (Morley Email, June 14, 2017).
15 On June 29, the court issued a strongly worded order stating that plaintiffs are
16 authorized to serve a subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to secure the testimony of Matt
17 Hume, and obtain discoverable documents, and that [i]f necessary, the court will grant
18 plaintiffs an extension of time to obtain this discovery. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 14, p.2 (Order).
19 Plaintiffs sent counsel a copy of this order on June 29. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 15 (Rayhill Email, June
20 29, 2017).
21 Undeterred, Hume refused to comply with the subpoena. On June 30, counsel again
22 stated that Mr. Hume will neither produce documents in response to the subpoena, nor appear
23 for a deposition on July 10. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 16 p. 3 (Morley Letter, June 30, 2017). Counsel
24
25
3
26 Counsel also stated that he would not accept service of a document subpoena on behalf of One
Championship, a foreign corporation with its headquarters in Singapore. Plaintiffs subsequently
27 sought and received a letter of request issued to One Championship, which is being served on
One Championship in Singapore.
Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 for Hume took the position that the discovery should not proceed regarding One Championships
2 financial and other business information . . . [because those are] matters on which Mr. Hume is
3 not authorized to comment on behalf of One Championship and on which he lacks personal
4 knowledge. This position is puzzling because the deposition subpoena included no questions or
5 other indication of the subject matter of the deposition. Id.
6 On July 5, the parties conferred by telephone. Counsel stated that Mr. Hume would agree
7 to be deposed only if Plaintiffs agreed to accept limitations on the scope of the deposition and
8 withdraw the document subpoena. Rayhill Decl., 22. Because the court did not limit the
9 discovery and the discovery is permissible under Rule 45, Plaintiffs did not agree to these
10 conditions.
11 On July 6, the parties spoke again, but were unable to reach agreement as to Mr. Humes
12 deposition or the document subpoena. To address burden and scope concerns, the parties agreed
13 to narrow the requests in Plaintiffs document subpoena to Mr. Hume, withdrawing eight
14 document requests. Rayhill Decl., 23. On July 11, the parties spoke again. Plaintiffs withdrew
15 two more document requests, but the parties otherwise remained at an impasse. Rayhill Decl.,
16 24. In a follow-up letter to Mr. Humes counsel, Plaintiffs withdrew an additional three document
17 requests, leaving only four of the original sixteen requests at issue. Plaintiffs notified counsel of
18 their intent to seek the Courts assistance. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 17, p. 5.
19 III. ARGUMENT
20 A. Legal Standard
21 Once a nonparty objects to a subpoena, [a]t any time, on notice to the commanded
22 person, the serving party may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an
23 order compelling production or inspection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i).
24 The scope of discovery a party may obtain through a subpoena is the same as that
25 applicable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b). Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., 2016 WL
26 5870010, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016). Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
27 nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any partys claim or defense and proportional to the needs

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 of the case . . . . Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). A relevant matter is any matter that bears on, or that
2 reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.
3 Soto v. City of Concord (Soto), 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (quotation omitted).
4 B. This Court Should Order Mr. Hume to Appear for his Deposition.
5 1. Mr. Hume Possesses Information That is Relevant and Necessary to

Plaintiffs Class Action Allegations.
6
As discussed supra in section II.A, Mr. Hume possesses information relevant to Plaintiffs
7
class action allegations. As vice president of operations and competition at a rival MMA
8
promoter, Mr. Hume is likely to be knowledgeable about a number of relevant issues, including:
9
Zuffas dominant position in the market for promoting live MMA events and the
10
market for the service of professional MMA fighters (CAC 7, 70-74);
11
One Championships relative position in those markets (CAC 7, 135-140);
12
other MMA promoters relative positions in those markets (id.); and,
13
market conditions in the market for producing live MMA events, such as barriers
14
to entry for new MMA promoters (CAC 75, 94), co-promotion between MMA promoters
15
(CAC 17, 139), counter-programming against other MMA promoters (CAC 132, 150), and
16
competition for the services of MMA fighters (CAC 5-6, 90-94).
17
As Plaintiffs allege, Zuffas anticompetitive actions have a direct economic impact on
18
other MMA promoters and their ability to compete in the relevant markets: Without access to,
19
or the ability to compete for access to, the Elite Professional MMA Fighters, would-be UFC rivals
20
cannot hope to attract enough viewers (either live or via Internet, television or Pay-Per-View
21
broadcast) to make their promotions significantly profitable. CAC 10. Plaintiffs cannot develop
22
a full picture of Zuffas market dominance in a vacuum: financial information from other MMA
23
promoters is needed to establish the size and contours of the relevant market and Zuffas position
24
in it. See CAC 7, 74.
25
As noted, Mr. Hume has also come forward as a witness, submitting a declaration in this
26
case which states that One Championship is not a minor league or feeder league for the UFC.
27

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 Rayhill Decl. Exh. 5. This language mirrors with near exactitude allegations in Plaintiffs
2 complaint, (CAC 135, 145), and Zuffas defenses. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 3 at 24 (Zuffa Mot. to
3 Dismiss). By submitting this declaration on One Championships behalf, Mr. Hume has put One
4 Championships business and its relationship with Zuffa squarely at issue in the Underlying
5 Litigation. His statements require investigation and response by Plaintiffs. One Championships
6 revenues, the purse amounts it pays its fighters, and the quality of the fighters it signs are all
7 relevant. Mr. Hume cannot submit his declaration on the one hand, then maintain that he
8 possesses no relevant information on the other hand. Plaintiffs have the right under Rule 26 and
9 Rule 45 to depose Mr. Hume and receive all non-privileged responsive documents in his
10 possession, custody, or control.
11 Demands by Mr. Humes counsel to limit the scope of the deposition to Mr. Humes
12 declaration would potentially exclude relevant information material to Plaintiffs allegations,

13 prejudicing their right to fully and fairly prosecute their claims.
14 Mr. Hume will not suffer undue burden by appearing for his deposition. Plaintiffs have
15 noticed the deposition to take place in Seattle, roughly eleven miles from Mr. Humes hometown
16 of Kirkland. Relative to the importance of the issues at stake, the deposition does not impose an
17 undue burden on Mr. Hume. The discovery sought is proportional to the needs of the case, and a
18 deposition is an efficient method of obtaining Mr. Humes discovery. The discovery sought is
19 relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
20 2. Plaintiffs Will Be Prejudiced if the Scope of Mr. Humes Deposition is
Limited in Contravention of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
21
Counsel for Mr. Hume has refused to produce Mr. Hume for his deposition unless
22
Plaintiffs agree to limit the subject matter to only those topics broached in Mr. Humes
23
declaration. Rayhill Decl. 21-22. This limiting tactic would prejudice Plaintiffs ability to
24
obtain relevant and material discovery as authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil procedure, and
25
is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Soto, 162
26
F.R.D. at 610.
27

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 Counsels attempt to unilaterally restrict the scope of questions at Mr. Humes deposition
2 would gravely prejudice Plaintiffs ability to fully and fairly develop the record through discovery.
3 Plaintiffs are left with no choice but to seek this Courts assistance.
4 C. This Court Should Order Mr. Hume to Comply Fully With Plaintiffs
Document Subpoena.
5
1. Plaintiffs Document Subpoena Seeks Relevant Information and is
6 Narrowly Tailored and Proportional to the Needs of the Case.
7 To address burden and scope concerns, Plaintiffs have narrowed the scope of the
8 document requests in their subpoena duces tecum to Mr. Hume. Rayhill Decl., 23, 25, Exh. 17,
9 p. 1. Plaintiffs have withdrawn twelve of their requests. The subpoenas sixteen original requests
10 have been reduced to just four through the cooperative efforts of both parties. These requests
11 seek only documents in Mr. Humes possession, custody, or control, including all
12 communications between Mr. Hume or One Championship and Zuffa (Request No. 3), financial
13 information relating to One Championships promotion of live MMA events (Request No. 9),
14 competitive analyses (Request No. 14), and communications relating to the Underlying Litigation
15 (Request No. 16). See Rayhill Decl., Exh. 10, pp. 15, 18-19, 20, 21. (Document Subpoena).
16 Counsel objects that [t]he subpoenas are a transparent attempt to obtain discovery from
17 a foreign corporation not subject to personal jurisdiction in the United States. Rayhill Decl.,
18 Exh. 16, p. 1. This is untrue and does not comport with relevant case law. Mr. Hume is subject to
19 personal jurisdiction in the United States. Accordingly, he must answer questions based on his
20 personal knowledge and produce any nonprivileged responsive materials within his possession,
21 custody or control:
22 a party must produce or permit inspection of documents responsive to a
request for production of documents when such documents are in the partys
23 possession, custody or control. Federal courts have consistently held that
documents are deemed to be within a partys possession, custody or control
24 for purposes of Rule 34 if the party has actual possession, custody, or control,
or has the legal right to obtain the documents on demand.
25
26 A. Farber & Ptnrs., Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 189 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (quotations omitted).
27

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 There is no exception to this rule for One Championship documents in Mr. Humes
2 possession, custody, or control. See e.g., Herring v. Clark, No. 1:05-cv-00079-LJO-SMS-PC, 2011
3 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63332, at *14 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2011) (a party may obtain documents from an
4 officer or director of a corporation that are in his possession or those he has a legal right to
5 obtain on demand) (emphasis added); Meeks v. Parsons, No. 1:03-cv-6700-LJO-GSA, 2009 U.S.
6 Dist. LEXIS 90283, at *7-8 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2009) (Because a corporation is a distinct legal
7 entity, a party cannot require another party who is an officer or director of a corporation to
8 produce corporate documents other than those he has in his possession or those he has a legal
9 right to obtain on demand) (emphasis added).
10 Counsels objections that documents in Mr. Humes possession, custody, or control are
11 owned by a foreign corporation or subject to foreign privacy laws are also unavailing. See Natl
12 Union Fire Ins. Co., P.A. v. Midland Bancor, 159 F.R.D. 562, 566 (D. Kan. 1994) (The ability to
13 obtain documents on demand is not affected by the sources retention of ownership or its
14 unilaterally imposed restrictions on disclosure. Parties in possession of documents forwarded to
15 them by a federal agency which retains their ownership and restricts their disclosure,
16 nevertheless, have possession, custody, or control of such documents) (quotation and citation
17 omitted); In re Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Uranium Contracts Litig., 563 F.2d 992, 997 (10th Cir.
18 1977) (a local [federal] court has the power to order a party to produce foreign documents
19 despite the fact that such production may subject the party to criminal sanctions in the foreign
20 country).
21 Through his declaration, Hume has inserted himself as a witness in the Underlying
22 Litigation. He asserts that One Championship competes with Zuffa and is not a minor league
23 or feeder league for the UFC. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 5. This statement is a direct rebuttal of
24 Plaintiffs allegation that, those few fringe MMA Promoters that the UFC had not yet acquired
25 or put out of business . . . effectively functioned and continue to function as minor leagues for
26 the UFC. Rayhill Decl., Exh, 1 (CAC) at 135. It also supports Zuffas contention that other
27

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 MMA promoters are not fringe and minor league rivals to the UFC. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 3 at
2 24 (Zuffas Motion to Dismiss).
3 Mr. Hume is not a stranger to the Underlying Litigation. He has submitted evidence. It
4 would be inconsistent with Rule 45, and basic principles of due process and fairness, for him to
5 then refuse to produce documents that would support or rebut the assertions in his declaration.
6 This most certainly includes One Championships financial information, which would either
7 support or refute Mr. Humes assertion that Group One Holdings competes with Zuffa.
8 2. Mr. Hume and One Championship Will Suffer No Harm Because
Their Confidential Commercial Information Is Safeguarded By The
9 Protective Order.
10 Hume asserts that the discovery may not go forward because it concerns confidential
11 information. This is not well taken. [T]here is no absolute privilege for trade secrets and similar
12 confidential information. CH2E Nev. LLC v. Mahjoob (CH2E), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
13 167442, at *3 (D. Nev. Dec. 5, 2016) (quoting Fed. Open Mkt. Comm. of the Fed. Reserve, 443 U.S.
14 340, 362, (1979)). Indeed, courts generally eschew an absolute privilege for trade secrets and
15 similar confidential information in favor of a case-by-case approach that balances privacy against
16 the need for disclosure. Other confidential business information is generally afforded even less
17 protection than trade secrets. ICG Communs., Inc. v. Allegiance Telecom, 211 F.R.D. 610, 614
18 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (quotations and citations omitted). And the confidentiality concerns are
19 explicitly protected by the Protective Order entered in the Underlying Litigation.
20 Courts in the Ninth Circuit routinely order the production of confidential information
21 subject to a protective order with an attorneys eyes only provision. See e.g. Lilly v. Teva Pharm.
22 USA Inc., No. C17-0267JLR, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38168, at *10-11 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2017)
23 (ordering production of a confidential agreement subject to an Outside Counsels-Eyes-Only
24 designation); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. C 11-1846 LHK (PSG), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
25 166724, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) (ordering production of a confidential documents
26 subject to an Attorneys-Eyes-Only designation); Capsugel Belgium NV v. Bright Pharma Caps, Inc.,
27 No. 3:15-cv-321-PK, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130071, at *17-18 (D. Or. Sep. 28, 2015) (same).

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 Under the Revised Stipulation and Protective Order (the Protective Order) adopted by
2 the court in the Underlying Litigation, any document designated HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
3 ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY can be shared only with outside counsel for the parties. See Rayhill
4 Decl., Exh. 13 at p. 11 ( 7.3). The parties themselves, including in-house counsel, are prohibited
5 from viewing these documents.
6 The Protective Order provides robust protections that are similarif not identicalto
7 those found by courts to provide adequate protection for third parties sensitive commercial
8 information. Indeed, the court in the Underlying Litigation has ordered another third party to
9 produce their sensitive commercial information subject to the HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
10 ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY designation afforded by the Protective Order. See Cung Le v. Zuffa,
11 LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97746, at *16 (D. Nev. June 13, 2017). Accordingly, to the extent that
12 Mr. Hume has any documents containing One Championships sensitive commercial information
13 in his possession, custody, or control, he should be ordered to produce them, subject to the more
14 than adequate security provided by the Protective Order.
15 3. Mr. Hume Will Not Be Subject To Undue Burden By Producing One
Championships Event-Level Financial Information.
16
When considering undue burden Courts look at whether (a) the discovery is unreasonably
17
cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from other sources, (b) the party seeking discovery
18
has had opportunities to pursue the information through discovery, and (c) the burden or expense
19
of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Warren v. Bastyr Univ., No. 2:11-cv-01800-
20
RSL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50408, at *13-14 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 8, 2013). Here, Plaintiffs cannot
21
obtain One Championships documents and information from any other source, and the burden
22
to One Championship of procuring and producing it will be minimal. Plaintiffs seek only
23
documents in Mr. Humes possession, custody, or control. The Protective Order allows One
24
Championship to maintain the confidentiality of its financial data.
25
26
27

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 D. Mr. Hume Must Pay Plaintiffs Reasonable Expenses Incurred While

Bringing This Motion.
2
If a motion to compel cooperation in discovery is granted, courts are required to order the
3
opposing party to pay the movants reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees. Fed. R. Civ. P.
4
37(a)(5)(A). The court should not order payment if the movant failed to make a good faith effort
5
to obtain the discovery without the courts assistance, the opposing partys actions were justified,
6
or the award would be unjust. Id. If the motion is denied, the Court must award Mr. Hume his
7
reasonable expenses, including attorneys fees, incurred in defending against this motion, unless
8
the motion was substantially justified or awarding expenses would be unjust. Id.
9
Here, Plaintiffs have made sustained good faith efforts to reach an accommodation with
10
counsel but the parties are at an impasse. Mr. Humes unreasonable refusal to obey the Courts
11
Order authorizing the discovery and to comply with Plaintiffs valid subpoenas is not justified,
12
and is the reason Plaintiffs are filing this motion. Mr. Hume should be ordered to pay Plaintiffs
13
reasonable expenses in bringing this motion. To date, Plaintiffs have incurred $21,115 in
14
reasonable expenses and attorneys fees. Rayhill Decl., Exh. 18 (Billing Statement).
15
E. Mr. Hume Is In Contempt Of A Court Order And Should Be Sanctioned.
16
[D]efiance of a subpoena is . . . an act in defiance of a court order and exposes the defiant
17
witness to contempt sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, Advisory Comm. Notes (1991). Mr. Humes
18
refusal to comply with Plaintiffs valid subpoenas even after being shown proof that the court in
19
the Underlying Litigation had approved them, and even after receiving a strongly worded order
20
from that court rebuking counsel for being deliberately obstreperous and frankly
21
disrespectful, and explicitly ordering the discovery, can only be seen as contempt in the truest
22
sense of the word. Plaintiffs ask this Court to order sanctions against Mr. Hume and counsel for
23
their disrespectful and obstructionist behavior toward Plaintiffs and the court.
24
IV. CONCLUSION
25 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to order Mr. Hume to
26 appear for his deposition and to produce all nonprivileged responsive documents in his
27 possession, custody, or control. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order Mr. Hume to pay Plaintiffs

Case No.: (206) 223-2053
1 reasonable expenses incurred in bringing this motion and to order sanctions against Mr. Hume
2 and counsel.
3
4 Dated: July 19, 2017 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
5 By: /s/ Dan Drachler

6 Dan Drachler
7 Dan Drachler (WSBA No. 27728)

ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
8 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
Seattle, WA 98101
9
Telephone: (206) 223-2053
10 Facsimile: (206) 343-9636
11 Local Counsel for the Classes and Individual and

Representative Plaintiffs Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon
12 Fitch, Luis Javier Vazquez, Brandon Vera and Kyle
13 Kingsbury
14 Joseph R. Saveri (pro hac vice pending)

Joshua P. Davis (pro hac vice pending)
15 Kevin E. Rayhill (pro hac vice pending)
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
16
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
17 San Francisco, California 94111
Phone: (415) 500-6800
18 Fax: (415) 395-9940
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
19 jdavis@saverilawfirm.com
20 krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
21
Co-Lead Counsel for the Classes and Attorneys for
22 Individual and Representative Plaintiffs Cung Le,
Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Luis Javier Vazquez,
23
Brandon Vera and Kyle Kingsbury
24
25
26
27

Case No.: (206) 223-2053

Motion To Compel Depo of Matt Hume

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Motion To Compel Depo of Matt Hume

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 1 Filed 07/19/17 Page 1 of 17

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL i ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

25 Advisory Comm. Notes (1991) .................................................................................................... 12

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL ii ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) ........................................................................................................... 12

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL iii ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

2 he is not authorized to comment on behalf of One Championship or that he lacks personal

24 A. The Underlying Litigation and Plaintiffs Allegations That Other MMA

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 2 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 5 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

5 1. Mr. Hume Possesses Information That is Relevant and Necessary to

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 6 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

12 declaration would potentially exclude relevant information material to Plaintiffs allegations,

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 7 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 8 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 9 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 10 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 11 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

1 D. Mr. Hume Must Pay Plaintiffs Reasonable Expenses Incurred While

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 12 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

5 By: /s/ Dan Drachler

7 Dan Drachler (WSBA No. 27728)

11 Local Counsel for the Classes and Individual and

14 Joseph R. Saveri (pro hac vice pending)

PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL 13 ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP

You might also like