Le et al v. Zuffa, Llc

MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on Statute of Limitations Grounds

D. Neb.February 1, 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEM. OF LAW ISO ZUFFA MSA Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) WILLIAM A. ISAACSON (Pro Hac Vice) STACEY K. GRIGSBY(Pro Hac Vice) NICHOLAS A. WIDNELL (Pro Hac Vice) (wisaacson@bsfllp.com) (sgrigsby@bsfllp.com) (nwidnell@bsfllp.com) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727; Fax: (202) 237-6131 RICHARD J. POCKER #3568 (rpocker@bsfllp.com) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800, Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-7300; Fax: (702) 382-2755 DONALD J. CAMPBELL #1216 (djc@campbellandwilliams.com) J. COLBY WILLIAMS #5549 (jcw@campbellandwilliams.com) CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 700 South 7th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-5222; Fax: (702) 382-0540 Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Defendant. No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) ZUFFA, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF NATHAN QUARRY ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW (HEARING REQUESTED) Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i MEM. OF LAW ISO ZUFFA MSA Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................... 3 I. Mr. Quarry’s Pre-Limitations Contracts with Zuffa. .......................................................... 3 A. Mr. Quarry’s Promotional Agreements ................................................................... 4 B. Mr. Quarry’s Bout Agreements ............................................................................... 5 C. Mr. Quarry’s Merchandise Rights Agreements ...................................................... 6 II. Mr. Quarry’s Allegations Against Zuffa. ............................................................................ 8 Legal Standard ................................................................................................................................ 8 Argument ........................................................................................................................................ 9 I. Mr. Quarry’s Antitrust Claim Is Barred by the Four-Year Statute of Limitations. ............ 9 II. The Continuing Violation Exception Does Not Apply to Mr. Quarry’s Untimely Claim. ................................................................................................................................ 11 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 14 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii MEM. OF LAW ISO ZUFFA MSA Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ................................................................................................................. 8, 9 Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337 (9th Cir. 1995).......................................................................................................... 9 Aurora Enterprises., Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 688 F.2d 689 (9th Cir. 1982)...................................................................................... 9, 11, 12, 13 Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) ..................................................................................................................... 9 Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 880 F.2d 149 (9th Cir. 1989).................................................................................................. 9, 12 FTC v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924 (9th Cir. 2009)........................................................................................................ 9 In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution, 591 F.2d 68 (9th Cir. 1979)........................................................................................................ 13 Joseph v. Amazon.com, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 3d 1095 (W.D. Wash. 2014) ..................................................................................... 9 MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 869 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ..................................................................................... 13 Pace Indus., Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co., 813 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1987)...................................................................................................... 12 Poster Exch., Inc. v. Nat’l Screen Serv. Corp., 517 F.2d 117 (5th Cir. 1975)...................................................................................................... 13 Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles O. Finley & Co., 512 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir. 1975).................................................................................................... 12 United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (1966) ..................................................................................................................... 2 Varner v. Peterson Farms, 371 F.3d 1011 (8th Cir. 2004).................................................................................................... 12 Witt Co. v. RISO, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 2d 1227 (D. Or. 2013) .......................................................................................... 13 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 iii MEM. OF LAW ISO ZUFFA MSA Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (1971) ..................................................................................................................... 9 STATUTES 15 U.S.C. § 15 .................................................................................................................................. 9 15 U.S.C. § 15b .............................................................................................................................. 11 RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ......................................................................................................................... 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ......................................................................................................................... 9 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 4 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) Defendant Zuffa, LLC (“Zuffa”) submits this Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on Statute Of Limitations Grounds And Supporting Memorandum Of Law (“Zuffa Motion”) and seeks judgment in its favor as to all of Plaintiff Quarry’s claims on the grounds that his claims are time-barred. In addition to its Motion, Zuffa submits its Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of the Zuffa Motion (“SUF”) and the Declaration of Kirk D. Hendrick In Support Of Zuffa, LLC’s Motion For Summary Judgment As To Plaintiff Nathan Quarry On Statute Of Limitations Grounds.1 INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs allege that Zuffa has monopolized an “output” market for “promoting live, elite, professional MMA [(mixed martial arts)] bouts” by foreclosing other MMA promoters from access to “elite MMA fighters,” “key sponsors,” and “premier venues,” and, in doing so, became a monopsonist in the “input” market for purchasing “live, elite, professional MMA fighter services.” Consolidated Am. Compl. (“CAC”) (ECF No. 208) ¶¶ 55, 76, 107, 116, 122. In short, Plaintiffs’ proposed theory is that Zuffa succeeded because potential rivals could not compete when Zuffa denied them access to the relationships that Zuffa had developed for itself, i.e. when rival promoters did not have access to the same fighters, the same venues (for the same time periods), and the same sponsors as Zuffa, those promoters were incapable of competing. In actuality, Zuffa rose to prominence because it created a product and then was a better competitor than its rivals. Zuffa was formed to purchase the failing Ultimate Fighting Championship® (“UFC”) brand in 2001. Id. ¶ 28. At the time of purchase, the future success of UFC was by no means guaranteed, as evidenced by its $ 2 million price tag. Id. Indeed, from 2001 to 2004, Zuffa struggled and lost millions of dollars. Yet, in less than a decade, Zuffa transformed the UFC from a struggling business to a successful MMA promoter through its investments in the UFC and in 1 Exhibits to Hendrick Declaration are referenced herein as “Zuffa Mot. Ex.” Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 5 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) growing the sport of MMA as a whole. Many of Zuffa’s business decisions enabled this transformation to occur—Zuffa had to invest in lobbying for rules and regulations at the state level for fair and safe bouts; Zuffa had to attract top athletes by paying them as much or more than other promoters were willing to pay; and Zuffa had to create a better experience for the athletes to compete and the fans to enjoy the competition. Ultimately, these business decisions allowed Zuffa to offer athletes the best promotional opportunities and, as a result, athletes stayed with Zuffa. Plaintiffs’ case is flawed in many respects,2 but first and foremost, Plaintiffs’ allegations run afoul of the well-established principle that antitrust liability cannot arise from “growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 570 (1966). Although the broader flaws with Plaintiffs’ case await full discovery before they can be resolved, one issue does not raise any disputed facts. Mr. Quarry’s claim that his “Identity was expropriated and his payments for appearing in UFC Licensed Merchandise and UFC Promotional Materials was artificially suppressed” arises solely out of the express terms of his agreements with Zuffa, all of which were executed outside the applicable four-year statute of limitations period that began to run on December 16, 2010. All the terms to which Plaintiffs object were set before that date. As a result, his December 16, 2014 claim based on the alleged “expropriation” and “exploitation” of his identity rights is time-barred, and none of the recognized exceptions to the statute of limitations excuse Mr. Quarry’s failure to bring his claim in a timely fashion. 2 Although insufficient to overcome “the fairly forgiving standard” on a motion to dismiss, Mot. to Dismiss Hearing Tr. 13:9-13, Sept. 25, 2015, Zuffa has identified a number of issues with Plaintiffs’ market definition and the implausible basis for asserting that Zuffa foreclosed competitors from inputs necessary to compete. See generally ECF Nos. 64, 82. Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 6 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND Zuffa promotes live professional MMA bouts in the U.S. and elsewhere, under the trade names of the Ultimate Fighting Championship® and UFC®. 3 CAC ¶ 30. 4 As part of this business, Zuffa contracts with athletes to participate in live bouts and to allow Zuffa the right to use their identities — including an athlete’s “name, sobriquet, voice, persona, signature, likeness, and/or biography” — in certain limited ways in connection with UFC promotions. CAC ¶ 27(f); SUF ¶ 2 (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. A, Art. 3.1) (collectively, “UFC Identity Rights”). Three categories of agreements govern the use of an athlete’s identity: (1) Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreements (“Promotional Agreement”), (2) Merchandise Rights Agreements, and (3) Bout Agreements. SUF ¶ 3. Each of these agreements defines the scope of the Identity Rights an athlete will grant and any services the athlete must perform, and specifies the payments Zuffa will make in exchange for those rights. The UFC Identity Rights do not limit These agreements allow Zuffa to E.g., SUF ¶ 8 (citing Zuffa Mot. Ex. A, Art. 3.1). The agreements also permit Zuffa to . E.g., SUF ¶ 31. I. Contracts Executed by Mr. Quarry and Zuffa Before the Statute-of-Limitations Period All the parties agree that Plaintiff Nathan Quarry is an athlete who contracted with Zuffa and competed in the UFC and received contractual payments in exchange for services to be performed and the use of his UFC Identity Rights. CAC ¶ 34; SUF ¶¶ 15-16, 29-30, 32. It is also undisputed that Mr. Quarry’s Promotional Agreement, Merchandise Rights Agreements, and Bout Agreements pre-date the first complaint filed in this action by more than four years. SUF ¶ 51. 3 As a defined term in Zuffa’s agreements, a “Bout” is a “ . E.g., SUF ¶ 16 (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. A, at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048763). 4 For purposes of this motion for summary judgment only, Zuffa accepts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs certain factual allegations in the Consolidated Amended Complaint. Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 7 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) A. Mr. Quarry’s Promotional Agreements Mr. Quarry’s first agreement with Zuffa, a Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreement, took effect on October 5, 2004 (“2004 Promotional Agreement”). SUF ¶ 5 (citing Zuffa Mot. Ex. D); see CAC ¶ 27(e) (defining “Exclusive Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreement”). 5 The 2004 Promotional Agreement provides Zuffa the right to use Mr. Quarry’s Identity “ ” E.g., SUF ¶ 8 (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. A, Art. 3.1). Among other terms, a provision for the “Grant of Ancillary Rights/Collective Rights,” (hereinafter, “Grant of Ancillary Rights”) in the 2004 Promotional Agreement defined the scope of Identity Rights that Mr. Quarry granted to Zuffa. The Grant of Ancillary Rights in the 2004 Promotional Agreement allowed Zuffa to have the “ ” SUF ¶ 9 (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. D) at Art. 5.1; see CAC ¶ 27(q) (defining “Promotional Rights and Ancillary Rights”); CAC ¶ 27 (t) (defining “UFC Licensed Merchandise”), ¶ 27(u) (defining “UFC Promotional Materials”). The Grant of Ancillary Rights also provided that Zuffa could use Mr. Quarry’s UFC Identity Rights “ SUF ¶ 11 (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. D, Art. 5.2, 5.4, 13.3 ( ); CAC ¶ 27(q), ¶ 113(d) (alleging the “Ancillary Rights Clause remains in effect in perpetuity,” including after the term of the contract). Finally, Article IX of the 2004 Promotional Agreement sets forth the total payments 5 The terms of the 2004 Promotional Agreement became effective upon , which Zuffa exercised on February 25, 2005. SUF ¶ 7. Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 8 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) Zuffa would make to Mr. Quarry for the services to be performed as well as all rights granted under the agreement. SUF ¶ 12 (citing Zuffa Mot. Ex. D, Art. 9.3). On November 14, 2005, Zuffa and Mr. Quarry executed a new and superseding Promotional Agreement (“2005 Promotional Agreement”), which contained a Grant of Ancillary Rights identical to the 2004 Promotional Agreement. SUF ¶ 13. In addition to providing for the scope and duration of the grant of Mr. Quarry’s Identity Rights, Article VII of the 2005 Promotional Agreement also sets forth the total payments Zuffa would make to Mr. Quarry for the services to be performed and the rights granted under the 2005 agreement. SUF ¶¶ 13-14 (“ ”) (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. F, Art. 7.3, at ZFL- 0003093). On October 13, 2008, a new and superseding Promotional Agreement between Zuffa and Mr. Quarry took effect (“2008 Promotional Agreement”). SUF ¶ 15. Article III of the 2008 Promotional Agreement was almost identical to the Grant of Ancillary Rights in the 2004 and 2005 Promotional Agreements, except it allowed Zuffa to use Mr. Quarry’s Identity: (1) ” SUF ¶ 18 (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. A, Art. 3.4(h), 3.4(i)). As with both the 2004 and 2005 agreements, Article VII of the 2008 Promotional Agreement set forth in express terms the total payments Zuffa would make to Mr. Quarry in exchange for the services to be performed and the rights granted under the agreement. SUF ¶¶ 14, 16, 19. B. Mr. Quarry’s Bout Agreements For each UFC bout in which Mr. Quarry participated, the Promotional Agreements provided that the parties would “ ” SUF ¶ 20 (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. A, Art. VI); see CAC ¶ 27(a) (defining “Bout Agreement”). In addition to such details as the date, location, weight class, and payments for the specified bout, Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 9 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) the Bout Agreement also included ancillary rights (“Bout Ancillary Rights”) correlated to the Grant of Ancillary Rights in the Promotional Agreement. E.g., SUF ¶ 21 (Zuffa Mot. Ex. C, at ZFL-0390586 (defining “Bout Ancillary Rights”)) and SUF ¶ 25 (enumerating “Bout Ancillary Rights”). The Bout Ancillary Rights include the rights to (a) Id. ¶ 22. Mr. Quarry’s last Bout Agreement with Zuffa took effect on January 13, 2010 (“2010 Bout Agreement”) in advance of a March 31, 2010 bout. Id. ¶ 23. Among other terms, the 2010 Bout Agreement contained a grant of Bout Ancillary Rights for the March 31, 2010 bout. Id. ¶ 25 (citing Zuffa Mot. Ex. C, at ZFL-0390586 and ZFL-0390592 ). The 2010 Bout Agreement also specified the total payments Zuffa would make to Mr. Quarry for the services to be performed and the grant of rights under the Agreement. Id. ¶ 26 (citing Zuffa Mot. Ex. C, at ZFL-0390586). On March 31, 2010, Mr. Quarry fought his last bout promoted by the UFC. CAC ¶ 34. The January 13, 2010 Bout Agreement is the most recent agreement of any kind between Mr. Quarry and Zuffa related to his Identity Rights. SUF ¶ 28. C. Mr. Quarry’s Merchandise Rights Agreements In 2008, Mr. Quarry and Zuffa executed a Merchandise Rights Agreement (“Merchandise Rights Agreement”), which took effect on October 13, 2008. SUF ¶ 30 (citing Zuffa Mot., Ex. B); see CAC ¶ 27(i) (defining “Merchandise Rights Agreement”). In that Agreement, Mr. Quarry granted Zuffa and its affiliates certain rights to use his identity in “Licensed Merchandise” in exchange for royalty payments fixed by the contract. SUF ¶ 31 (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. B, Art. I & Art. III); see CAC ¶ 27(h) (defining “Merchandise Rights”); ¶ 27(i) (defining “Merchandise Rights Agreement”). “Licensed Merchandise” includes Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 10 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) CAC ¶ 27(t); SUF ¶ 34 (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. B, Art. 1.3). The Merchandise Rights Agreement only addresses the use of an athlete’s Identity in connection with merchandise containing the UFC’s intellectual property. CAC ¶ 27(t); SUF ¶ 35 (citing Zuffa Mot. Ex. B, Art. 1.3 (defining “Licensed Merchandise)); CAC ¶ 27(t) (defining “UFC Licensed Merchandise”). The Merchandise Rights Agreement expressly sets forth the royalty rates that Zuffa will pay Mr. Quarry ” SUF ¶ 36 (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. B, Art. 3.1(a)- (b)). The term of the 2008 Merchandise Rights Agreements is SUF ¶ 38 (quoting Zuffa Mot. Ex. B, Art. 2.1-2.2). D. Mr. Quarry Understood the Obligations Under These Agreements It is undisputed that the provisions in the contracts form the basis for Mr. Quarry’s claims and that Mr. Quarry understood that the alleged harm he has claimed to suffer arose from his agreement to the terms in the contract. SUF ¶¶ 49-51. “Q: Okay. And while I understand you are not -- you are neither a lawyer, nor perhaps someone who understands all the legal terminology, when you're talking about the contracts that took your identity, are you referring to these promotional and ancillary rights agreements that you entered into with Zuffa? . . . THE WITNESS: I believe this was the start of such things, and there were further contracts to come.” Zuffa Mot., Ex. G, Quarry Dep. 118:17-21, 118:23-119:6, 119:9-18, 119:21. It is also undisputed that Mr. Quarry became aware of the effect of these agreements at least sometime before his last bout in March of 2010. Id. at 120:11-19, 121:25-122:12; SUF ¶¶ 50-51. In fact, Mr. Quarry recalls speaking to others about his concerns before his last bout: “Q And when I say that, at the time you would begin to speak out about your concern that your likeness rights were being used by the UFC, that's something Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 11 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) you might say to other fighters or if asked by the MMA media? . . . THE WITNESS: Well, specifically speaking about the UFC video game and talking to Joe Silva was that my likeness is being used in this video game. I am not being compensated whatsoever. So that is definitely a pinpoint in time where I was very unhappy about my likeness and other fighters' likenesses being used without any payments or the ability to negotiate for payments.” Zuffa Mot., Ex. G, Quarry Dep.122:19-23, 123:1-8, 123:10-15; SUF ¶ 51. II. Mr. Quarry’s Allegations Against Zuffa On December 16, 2014, more than four years after Mr. Quarry executed his last agreement with Zuffa, Mr. Quarry filed his Complaint. SUF ¶¶ 48, 52; ECF No. 1. Mr. Quarry alleges only: (1) that he “appeared in the UFC Undisputed 2010 video game that debuted on May 25, 2010, in North America, and is still sold today,” (2) that he “has also been featured in a number of trading cards manufactured and sold by Topps Trading Cards, including a series in 2010, which are still sold today,” CAC ¶ 34, and (3) that Zuffa has exploited and continues to exploit Mr. Quarry’s identity pursuant to the terms of his operative agreements during the “Class Period,” i.e., since December 16, 2010. CAC ¶ 3. Plaintiffs never allege that Mr. Quarry entered any agreement after December 16, 2010 that affected the scope or duration of his grants of Identity Rights to Zuffa or the payments Zuffa would pay Mr. Quarry for appearing in what Plaintiffs define as “UFC Licensed Merchandise” and “UFC Promotional Materials.” CAC ¶¶ 27(t), 27(u), 34. LEGAL STANDARD “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “[T]here is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. If the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986) (internal citations omitted). “In making such a determination, the Court must view the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and may consider extrinsic materials so long as they Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 12 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) would be admissible in evidence.” Joseph v. Amazon.com, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 3d 1095, 1100 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–50; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the summary judgment motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). “Once the moving party meets its initial burden, . . . the burden shifts to the non- moving party to set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” FTC v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 927-28 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Conclusory or speculative testimony is insufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact to defeat summary judgment. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Natural Beverage Distributors, 69 F.3d 337, 345 (9th Cir. 1995). ARGUMENT I. Mr. Quarry’s Antitrust Claim Is Barred by the Four-Year Statute of Limitations Mr. Quarry’s antitrust claim is time-barred because the terms he attacks in his agreements—the grants of Identity Rights to Zuffa and the payments he received—were fixed outside the four-year limitations period. Private antitrust claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations that begins “to run when a defendant commits an act that injures a plaintiff’s business.” Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 338 (1971) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 15) (emphasis added). As soon as a potential plaintiff is harmed, “a cause of action immediately accrues to him to recover all damages incurred by that date and all provable damages that will flow in the future from” those acts. Id. at 339. It necessarily follows that where an antitrust claim challenges an allegedly anticompetitive contract that causes immediate injury, a plaintiff must file suit within four years after executing that contract. See Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 880 F.2d 149, 160 (9th Cir. 1989) (statute of limitations barred antitrust claim when lease contract containing allegedly anticompetitive provisions was entered into outside the limitations period); Aurora Enterprises., Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co., 688 F.2d 689, 693 (9th Cir. 1982) (statute of limitations barred plaintiff’s claim where contract containing allegedly anticompetitive provision executed more than four years before complaint was filed). Distilled to its essence, Mr. Quarry’s claim challenges the scope of the UFC Identity Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 13 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) Rights he contractually granted to Zuffa, the duration of those grants, and the payments he received in return—all terms in his 2004, 2005, and 2008 Promotional Agreements; his 2008 Merchandise Rights Agreement; and his January 2010 Bout Agreement. Specifically, Mr. Quarry challenges the scope and duration in the Ancillary Rights Clauses in his agreements with Zuffa, i.e., the Grant of Ancillary Rights, the Bout Ancillary Rights, and the Grant of Merchandise Rights. Mr. Quarry argues that these clauses have led to the “expropriation” and “exploitation” of his Identity by “grant[ing] the UFC exclusive and perpetual worldwide personality and Identity rights not only of the UFC Fighter, but of ‘all persons associated with’ the athlete, in any medium, including merchandising, video games and broadcasts, and for all other commercial purposes.” CAC ¶¶ 34, 113(d). Yet, all of the terms that allegedly “expropriated” Mr. Quarry’s Identity appeared in his pre-limitations period agreements with Zuffa. The 2008 Promotional Agreement fixed the scope, duration, and payments that Mr. Quarry agreed to receive in exchange for participation in UFC bouts and for the use of his Identity Rights. SUF ¶¶16, 18. Mr. Quarry claims that he suffered injury because the perpetual duration of the Ancillary Rights Clauses of the Promotion Agreement prevent him and other fighters “from financially benefiting from the reputations that they built during their MMA careers even after death, and lock[s] UFC Fighters out of revenues generated by the exploitation of their Identities, including after the term of the contract.” CAC ¶¶ 34, 113(d). Mr. Quarry’s claims mischaracterize the terms of his agreement, but regardless, the agreements at issue lie outside the limitations period. The Bout Agreements, which incorporate by reference the Grant of Ancillary Rights from the Promotional Agreements, are equally clear about the scope, duration, and payments to be made for Mr. Quarry’s grant of Identity Rights contained therein. See, e.g., SUF ¶ 26 (citing Zuffa Mot. Ex. C, at ZFL-0390586 ( ). The same is true of Mr. Quarry’s claims as they relate to the use of his Identity in “UFC Licensed Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 14 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) Merchandise” because the scope, duration, and payments for Identity Rights are all expressly provided for in his 2008 Merchandise Rights Agreement. SUF ¶¶ 33, 34,37-38 (citing Zuffa Mot. Ex. B, Art. 1.1 (“ ”), Art. 1.2 (duration), Art. 1.3 (defining “Licensed Merchandise), Art. 3.2 ( ). These contract provisions demonstrate that Mr. Quarry had complete knowledge of the payments he would receive in exchange for granting Zuffa his Identity Rights for use in “UFC Promotional Materials” and “UFC Licensed Merchandise” at the time each of his agreements with Zuffa was executed—the latest of which was January 13, 2010. See SUF ¶ 23. This case is no different than Aurora Enterprises, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co. where the plaintiff was aware of the terms of the alleged anti-competitive contract in 1966 and then chose to file suit in 1981. 688 F.2d at 691-94. Mr. Quarry’s last relevant agreement with Zuffa was executed in January 2010, but he chose to file suit in December 2014. SUF ¶¶ 21, 26, 48. Because Mr. Quarry did not file his complaint until December 16, 2014, more than four years after his cause of action accrued, his antitrust claim is barred by the four-year statute of limitations applicable to private antitrust claims. 15 U.S.C. § 15b. II. The Continuing Violation Exception Does Not Apply to Mr. Quarry’s Untimely Claim. Plaintiffs have suggested that “Mr. Quarry’s identity was indeed exploited during the Class Period, for which he received payments (i.e., zero),” and, as a result, Mr. Quarry has alleged that a continuing antitrust violation occurred during the limitations period. ECF No. 206 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 15 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) at 23.6 This argument fails because Mr. Quarry cannot revive a time-barred claim based on allegations that, during the Class Period, Zuffa received benefits under pre-limitations period agreements. As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, to rule in Mr. Quarry’s favor would effectively render the statute of limitations meaningless in all instances where plaintiffs argue that defendants’ alleged conduct depressed the value of a contract related to intellectual property. Aurora Enter., 688 F.2d at 694 (“Any other holding would destroy the function of the statute, since parties may continue indefinitely to receive some benefit as a result of an illegal act performed in the distant past.”). “A continuing violation is one in which the plaintiff's interests are repeatedly invaded and a cause of action arises each time the plaintiff is injured.” Pace Indus., Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co., 813 F.2d 234, 237 (9th Cir. 1987). “However, even when a plaintiff alleges a continuing violation, an overt act by the defendant is required to restart the statute of limitations and the statute runs from the last overt act.” Id. To generate a new antitrust claim for limitations purposes, an “overt act” must meet two conditions: First, it must be a “new and independent act that is not merely a reaffirmation of a previous act” and second, it must “inflict new and accumulating injury on the plaintiff.” Id. at 237. “[N]ot every act by an antitrust defendant is sufficient to restart the statute of limitations.” Aurora Enters, 688 F.2d at 694; accord Varner v. Peterson Farms, 371 F.3d 1011, 1020 (8th Cir. 2004) (“Performance of the alleged anticompetitive contracts during the limitations period is not sufficient to restart the period”). The Ninth Circuit has held that a defendant’s continued receipt of benefits from pre- limitations period agreements does not trigger the continuing violation exception—squarely 6 Mr. Quarry could also argue that the statute of limitations is tolled by “active enforcement” by Zuffa. See, e.g., Eichman, 880 F.2d at 160 (citing Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles O. Finley & Co., 512 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir. 1975). Mr. Quarry has failed to make such an allegation in his complaint and Zuffa is aware of no action it has taken that would qualify as active enforcement as that term has been defined in Eichman. Id. (noting active enforcement in Finley applied when the litigation originated from “an action by the antitrust cross-defendant to enforce the contract” and “the plaintiff actively attempted to avoid being bound by the contract.”) Specifically, this matter does not arise in the context of Zuffa seeking to enforce its contractual rights and there are no allegations that Mr. Quarry attempted to avoid being bound by the contractual provisions during the statute-of-limitations period. Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 16 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) rejecting the argument that Plaintiffs rely upon. Aurora Enters., 688 F.2d at 694. For example, in Aurora, the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected an antitrust plaintiff’s argument that the continued receipt of benefits from a contract constituted an overt act sufficient to restart the statute of limitations. Id. “[T]he mere fact that defendants receive a benefit today as a result of a contract executed in 1966 in which Xanadu was purportedly coerced to part with syndication rights, is not enough to restart the statute of limitations.” Id. at 694. Mr. Quarry’s argument for applying the continuing violation exception in this case is indistinguishable from the one the Ninth Circuit rejected in Aurora. Mr. Quarry cannot dispute that all of the agreements granting his Identity Rights to Zuffa were executed outside the limitations period. As the plaintiff argued unsuccessfully in Aurora, Mr. Quarry claims that Zuffa “deprived [him] of revenues that [he] would have earned had [he] not been forced to part with [his Identity] rights.” 688 F.2d at 693. But, just as NBC’s right to benefit from Chapparal’s syndication rights was set in pre-limitations period agreements, Zuffa’s use of Mr. Quarry’s Identity under the terms and at the payments levels was set in the 2008 Promotional Agreement, 2008 Merchandise Rights Agreement, and pre-limitations period Bout Agreements. That Mr. Quarry has not received revenues from the exploitation of his Identity during the limitations period is not a new injury, “but unabated inertial consequences of some pre-limitations action” and cannot serve as the basis for his claims for damages. In re Multidistrict Vehicle Air Pollution, 591 F.2d 68, 72 (9th Cir. 1979) (quoting Poster Exch., Inc. v. Nat’l Screen Serv. Corp., 517 F.2d 117, 128 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1054 (1976)); see Witt Co. v. RISO, Inc., 948 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1236 (D. Or. 2013) (“any sales of digital duplicators and supplies pursuant to paragraph 3(a) of the 2007 Dealer Agreement and occurring during the limitations period do not amount to continuing violations because performance of an alleged illegal contractual tie-in provision does not satisfy the continuing violation requirements”); MedioStream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 869 F. Supp. 2d 1095, 1106 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“mere fulfillment of the terms of a permanent agreement executed outside the limitations period” does not trigger the continuing violation exception) (internal quotation marks omitted). Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 17 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) Because application of the continuing violation exception to Mr. Quarry’s claim contradicts binding Ninth Circuit law, this Court should reject Plaintiffs’ invitation to do so. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Zuffa respectfully submits that summary judgment should be entered against Mr. Quarry and all similarly situated members of the putative Identity Class because their claims are untimely under the governing four-year statute of limitations. Dated: February 1, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Nicholas A. Widnell Nicholas A. Widnell Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 18 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 ZUFFA MOT. FOR PARTIAL SUMM. J. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that service of the foregoing Defendant Zuffa, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on Statute Of Limitations Grounds And Supporting Memorandum Of Law was served on February 1, 2017 via the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system addressed to all parties on the e-service list. /s/ Michael Kim______________________ An employee of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347 Filed 02/01/17 Page 19 of 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ZUFFA SUF Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) WILLIAM A. ISAACSON (Pro Hac Vice) STACEY K. GRIGSBY(Pro Hac Vice) NICHOLAS A. WIDNELL (Pro Hac Vice) (wisaacson@bsfllp.com) (sgrigsby@bsfllp.com) (nwidnell@bsfllp.com) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727; Fax: (202) 237-6131 RICHARD J. POCKER #3568 (rpocker@bsfllp.com) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800, Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-7300; Fax: (702) 382-2755 DONALD J. CAMPBELL #1216 (djc@campbellandwilliams.com) J. COLBY WILLIAMS #5549 (jcw@campbellandwilliams.com) CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 700 South 7th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-5222; Fax: (702) 382-0540 Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Defendant. No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ZUFFA, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF NATHAN QUARRY ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ZUFFA SUF Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) Pursuant to Local Rule 56-1, Defendant Zuffa, LLC (“Zuffa”) hereby submits this concise statement setting forth each fact material to the disposition of the motion that Zuffa claims is not genuinely in issue, with citation to the particular portions of any relevant pleading or other evidence upon which Zuffa relies. This statement is submitted in support of Zuffa’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on Statute Of Limitations Grounds And Supporting Memorandum Of Law (“Zuffa Mot.”). DEFINITIONS 1. Complaint or Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC”) means the pleading filed in Le et al. v. Zuffa LLC, No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) as ECF No. 208. 2. “Defendant” means Zuffa, a mixed martial arts promoter doing business as the Ultimate Fighting Championship (“UFC”). 3. “Identity” means the name, sobriquet, voice, persona, signature, likeness and/or biography of an individual. 4. “Identity Rights” means the unrestricted worldwide right to use, edit, disseminate, display, reproduce, print, publish and make any other use of an individual’s “Identity” as defined above. 5. “Promotional Agreement” means an agreement between an individual and Zuffa in which, for good and valuable consideration, the individual provides certain enumerated rights to Zuffa in exchange for promoting the individual as a part of its mixed martial arts promotion business. 6. “Plaintiffs” mean the putative class representatives Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS Zuffa’s Agreements with Athletes to Use Their Identity Rights to Promote Its Business and Brand in Exchange for Compensation. Zuffa is in the business of, among other things, promoting live Professional MMA 1. bouts in the United States and elsewhere, under the trade names of the Ultimate Fighting Championship® or UFC®. CAC ¶ 30. As part of its business, Zuffa contracts with athletes to participate in live bouts and 2. to grant Zuffa “the unrestricted worldwide right to use, edit, disseminate, display, reproduce, Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 ZUFFA SUF Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) print, publish and make any other uses of the name, sobriquet, voice, persona, signature, likeness and/or biography” of an athlete, and “all persons associated with [that] Fighter,” “as it appears in [UFC] Bouts, or in connection with the advertising and promotion for [UFC] Bouts, or in connection with the advertising and promotion of the UFC.” CAC ¶ 27(f); Zuffa Mot., Ex. A, Art. 3.1, at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048763-764. In general and as is the case with Mr. Quarry, there are only three types of 3. agreements governing the grant of the right to use an athlete’s identity to Zuffa in exchange for compensation: (1) Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreements (“Promotional Agreement”) (CAC ¶ 27(e); e.g., Zuffa Mot., Ex. A); (2) Merchandise Rights Agreements (CAC ¶ 27 (i); e.g., Zuffa Mot., Ex. B); and (3) Bout Agreements (CAC ¶ 27(a); e.g., Zuffa Mot., Ex. C). Plaintiff Nathan Quarry is one athlete with whom Zuffa has contracted for the 4. grant of his Identity Rights. CAC ¶ 34; Zuffa Mot., Ex. A; Zuffa Mot., Ex. B. Quarry’s Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreements Quarry’s first agreement with Zuffa was a Promotional and Ancillary Rights 5. Agreement that took effect on October 5, 2004 (“2004 Promotional Agreement”). Zuffa Mot., Ex. D; see CAC ¶ 27(e) (defining “Exclusive Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreement”). The terms of the 2004 Promotional Agreement were effective 6. Zuffa Mot., Ex. D, Art. III, at ZFL-0003038. On February 25, 2005, 7. Zuffa Mot., Ex. E. A provision titled the “Grant of Ancillary Rights/Collective Rights,” (hereinafter, 8. “Grant of Ancillary Rights”) defines the scope of Identity Rights that Quarry granted to Zuffa, which provides Zuffa the right to use Quarry’s Identity “ ” E.g., Zuffa Mot., Ex. A, Art. 3.1, at LEPLAINTIFFS- 0048763-64. The Grant of Ancillary Rights in the 2004 Promotional Agreement grants Zuffa 9. the Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ZUFFA SUF Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) ” Zuffa Mot., Ex. D, Art. 5.1, at ZFL-0003038; compare CAC ¶ 27(q) (defining “Promotional Rights and Ancillary Rights”); CAC ¶ 27 (t) (defining “UFC Licensed Merchandise”), ¶ 27(u) (defining “UFC Promotional Materials”). Article 5.4 defined the ways in which Zuffa would be permitted to use Quarry’s 10. Identity and granted Zuffa ” these rights. Zuffa Mot., Ex. D, Art. 5.4(c), at ZFL-0003039. The Grant of Ancillary Rights also provided that the duration of Quarry’s grant of 11. Identity Rights to Zuffa would be Zuffa Mot., Ex. D, Art. 5.2, 5.4, 13.3, at ZFL-0003038-039, ZFL-0003045 ( ); CAC ¶ 27(q), ¶ 113(d) (alleging the “Ancillary Rights Clause remains in effect in perpetuity,” including after the term of the contract). Article IX of the 2004 Promotional Agreement sets forth the total compensation 12. Zuffa would pay to Quarry for all rights granted under the agreement, as well as for the services to be performed. Zuffa Mot., Ex. D, Art. 9.3, at ZFL-0003042 (“ ”). On November 14, 2005, Zuffa and Quarry executed a new and superseding 13. Promotional Agreement (“2005 Promotional Agreement”) that contained a Grant of Ancillary Rights identical to the 2004 Promotional Agreement. Zuffa Mot., Ex. F, Art. III, at ZFL- 0003088-89. Article VII of the 2005 Promotional Agreement also sets forth the total 14. compensation Zuffa would pay to Quarry for the rights granted, as well as for the services to be performed under the 2005 agreement. E.g., Zuffa Mot., Ex. F, Art. 7.3, at ZFL-0003093 (“ ”). Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 ZUFFA SUF Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) On October 13, 2008, a new and superseding Promotional Agreement between 15. Zuffa and Quarry took effect (“2008 Promotional Agreement”). Zuffa Mot., Ex. A. The 2008 Promotional Agreement provided compensation for Quarry in the form 16. of a Zuffa Mot., Ex. A, Art. 7.1 at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048767-69. The 2008 Promotional Agreement defined a “Bout” as a “mixed martial arts 17. contest” promoted by Zuffa. Zuffa Mot. Ex. A, Art. II, at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048763. Article III of the 2008 Promotional Agreement provided for a scope and duration 18. of the Grant of Ancillary Rights identical to those included in the 2004 and 2005 Promotional Agreements, except the 2008 Promotional Agreement Zuffa Mot., Ex. A, Art. 3.4(h), 3.4(i), at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048765. Article VII of the 2005 Promotional Agreement sets forth in express terms the total 19. compensation Zuffa would pay to Quarry for the rights granted and for services to be performed under the agreement. Zuffa Mot., Ex. F, Art. 7.3, at ZFL-0003093 Quarry’s Bout Agreements For each UFC bout in which Quarry participated, the Promotional Agreements 20. provided that the parties would Zuffa Mot., Ex. A, Art. VI, at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048767; see CAC ¶ 27(a) (defining “Bout Agreement”). The Bout Agreement sets forth a grant of ancillary rights (“Bout Ancillary 21. Rights”) that correlates with the Grant of Ancillary Rights in the Promotional Agreement. Zuffa Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 5 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 ZUFFA SUF Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) Mot., Ex. C, at ZFL-0390586 (defining “Bout Ancillary Rights”) and ZFL-0390592 (enumerating “Bout Ancillary Rights”). The Bout Ancillary Rights include the rights to 22. Zuffa Mot., Ex. C at ZFL-0390586 (defining “Bout Ancillary Rights”) and ZFL- 0390592 (enumerating “Bout Ancillary Rights”). Quarry’s last Bout Agreement with Zuffa took effect on January 13, 2010 (“2010 23. Bout Agreement”) in advance of a March 31, 2010 bout. Zuffa Mot., Ex. C; Zuffa Mot., Ex. K, Declaration Of Kirk D. Hendrick In Support Of Zuffa, LLC’s Motion For Summary Judgment As To Plaintiff Nathan Quarry On Statute Of Limitations Grounds (“Hendrick Decl.”) ¶ 6. The 2010 Bout Agreement specified the opponent, weight class, date, location, and 24. as well as (1) (2) and (3) Zuffa Mot., Ex. C, at ZFL- 0390591. The 2010 Agreement also contained a grant of Bout Ancillary Rights specifically 25. for the March 31, 2010 bout distinct from the Grant of Ancillary Rights provided for in the 2008 Promotional Agreement. Zuffa Mot., Ex. C, at ZFL-0390586, ZFL-0390592. The 2010 Bout Agreement also specified the total compensation Zuffa would pay 26. to Quarry for the grant of rights and for services to be performed under the Agreement. Zuffa 1 Zuffa Mot., Ex. C, at ZFL-0390591. Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 6 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 ZUFFA SUF Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) Mot., Ex. C, at ZFL-0390586 ( ). On March 31, 2010, Quarry fought his last bout promoted by the UFC. CAC ¶ 34. 27. The January 13, 2010 Bout Agreement, which is Quarry’s final bout agreement, is 28. the most recent agreement of any kind between Quarry and Zuffa related to Quarry’s Identity Rights. Zuffa Mot., Ex. C; Hendrick Decl. ¶ 6. Quarry participated in a bout against Jorge Rivera on March 31, 2010, which 29. Quarry lost, and for which he was paid a , Zuffa Mot., Ex. C, at ZFL-0390591, in full satisfaction of the compensation owed Quarry “ ,” id., at ZFL-0390586. Quarry’s Merchandise Rights Agreement In 2008, Quarry and Zuffa executed a Merchandise Rights Agreement 30. (“Merchandise Rights Agreement”), which took effect on October 13, 2008. Zuffa Mot., Ex. B; see CAC ¶ 27(i) (defining “Merchandise Rights Agreement”). In the Merchandise Rights Agreement, Quarry granted Zuffa and its affiliates 31. certain rights to use his identity in “Licensed Merchandise” in exchange for royalty payments fixed by the contract. Zuffa Mot., Ex. B, Art. I, at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048947-948 (“Grant of Merchandise Rights”); id. at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048948-949 (“Compensation”); see CAC ¶ 27(h) (defining “Merchandise Rights”); ¶ 27(i) (defining “Merchandise Rights Agreement”). Quarry executed the Merchandise Rights Agreement on September 30, 2008. 32. Zuffa Mot., Ex. B, at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048953. Article 1.1 of the Merchandise Rights Agreement permits Zuffa to 33. Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 7 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 ZUFFA SUF Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) ” Zuffa Mot., Ex. B, Art 1.1, LEPLAINTIFFS-0048947. “Licensed Merchandise” includes 34. CAC ¶ 27(t); Zuffa Mot., Ex. B, Art. 1.3, at LEPLAINTIFFS- 0048947. The Merchandise Rights Agreement addresses the use of an athlete’s Identity in 35. connection with merchandise containing the UFC’s intellectual property. CAC ¶ 27(t); Zuffa Mot., Ex. B, Art. 1.3) at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048947; CAC ¶ 27(t) (defining “UFC Licensed Merchandise”). The Merchandise Rights Agreement expressly sets forth the royalty rates that 36. Zuffa will pay Quarry “ Zuffa Mot., Ex. B, Art. 3.1(a)-(b), at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048948-949. The Merchandise Rights Agreement also expressly states that, except as set forth 37. in Article III of that agreement, Quarry “ ” Zuffa Mot., Ex. B, Art 3.2, at LEPLAINTIFFS-0048949. The term of the Merchandise Rights Agreements is 38. Zuffa Mot., Ex. B, Art. 2.1, 2.2, at Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 8 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 ZUFFA SUF Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) LEPLAINTIFFS-0048948. On March 5, 2009, Zuffa made a payment of 39. Zuffa Mot., Exs. H & I. October 22, 2010, Quarry received a payment of 40. Zuffa Mot., Ex. J. Quarry filed his Complaint on December 16, 2014, more than four years after his 41. last agreement with Zuffa was executed. ECF No. 1. Since December 16, 2010, Zuffa has not taken any action to modify the terms of 42. Quarry’s grants of Identity Rights to Zuffa or to enforce the terms of the grant of Identity Rights against Quarry. Hendrick Decl. ¶ 14. Quarry “appeared in the UFC Undisputed 2010 video game that debuted on May 43. 25, 2010, in North America, and is still sold today,” CAC ¶ 34. Quarry has “been featured in a number of trading cards manufactured and sold by 44. Topps Trading Cards, including a series in 2010,” CAC ¶ 34. Quarry has not entered into any agreement after December 16, 2010 that affected 45. the scope or duration of his grant of Identity Rights to Zuffa or the compensation to be paid by Zuffa to Quarry for appearing in what Plaintiffs define as “UFC Licensed Merchandise” and “UFC Promotional Materials.” CAC ¶¶ 27 (t), 27(u), 34. Quarry claims that through contracts containing an “Ancillary Rights Clause,” 46. Zuffa acquired his Identity Rights in perpetuity and was able to exploit those rights in exchange for paying Quarry no additional compensation each time his Identity was exploited— compensation that Quarry contends was below what would prevail in an otherwise allegedly competitive market. CAC ¶¶ 1 (alleging the UFC “expropriates the rights to [fighters’] names and likenesses in perpetuity”), 113(d) (alleging the “Ancillary Rights Clause . . . grants the UFC exclusive and perpetual worldwide personality and Identity rights of the UFC fighter” and associated persons “locking UFC fighters out of revenues generated by the exploitation of their Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 9 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 ZUFFA SUF Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) Identities”); ECF No. 206, at 23.2 Quarry claims that he has suffered injury during the limitations period because, as 47. a member of the Identity Class, “each time [during the limitations period] the UFC exploited the [his] identity rights . . . and [he] received zero dollars instead of actual dollars at the time of exploitation, [he] suffered harm and was injured.” ECF 206, at 23; see CAC ¶ 34 (“Quarry’s Identity was expropriated and his compensation for appearing in UFC Licensed Merchandise and UFC Promotional Materials was artificially suppressed due to the scheme alleged herein.”). Other Facts Quarry filed his Complaint in this action on December 16, 2014. ECF No. 1. 48. Quarry attributes the alleged “expropriation” of his identity, as that term is used in 49. the Consolidated Amendment Complaint, to the terms of his agreements with Zuffa. Zuffa Mot., Ex. G, Quarry Dep. 118:17-21, 118:23-119:6, 119:9-18, 119:21. Prior to his last UFC bout in March 2010, Quarry was aware of the scope and 50. duration of the identity rights that he granted to Zuffa in his agreements with Zuffa. Zuffa Mot., Ex. G, Quarry Dep. 120:11-19, 121:25-122:12. Prior to his last UFC bout in March 2010, Quarry was aware of Zuffa’s use of his 51. identity rights in UFC licensed merchandise and understood that he was receiving what he believed to be less than fair value for the use of identity in licensed merchandise. Zuffa Mot., Ex. G, Quarry Dep. 120:11-19, 121:25-122:12. Quarry’s 2008 Promotional Agreement, Merchandise Rights Agreement, and 2010 52. Bout Agreement all pre-date the first complaint filed in this action by more than four years. See ¶¶ 15, 23, 30, 49 supra. Zuffa has not taken any action to modify the terms of Quarry’s grant of his identity 53. rights to Zuffa or to enforce the terms of the grant of Identity Rights to Zuffa since prior to 2 See ECF No. 206, at 23 (“Because Quarry’s identity was indeed exploited during the Class Period, for which he received compensation (i.e., zero) below the higher levels that Plaintiffs claim would have prevailed absent the conduct, he was injured during the Class Period and thus he is appropriately pled as part of the Identity Class.”) (internal citation omitted). Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 10 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 ZUFFA SUF Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) December 16, 2010. Hendrick Decl. ¶ 14. Dated: February 1, 2017 Respectfully Submitted, BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By: /s/ Nicholas A. Widnell Nicholas A. Widnell Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 11 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ZUFFA, LLC’S MOTION WILLIAM A. ISAACSON (Pro Hac Vice) (wisaacson@bsfllp.com) STACEY K. GRIGSBY (Pro Hac Vice) (sgrigsby@bsfllp.com) NICHOLAS A. WIDNELL (Pro Hac Vice) (nwidnell@bsfllp.com) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727; Fax: (202) 237-6131 RICHARD J. POCKER #3568 (rpocker@bsfllp.com) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800, Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-7300; Fax: (702) 382-2755 DONALD J. CAMPBELL #1216 (djc@campbellandwilliams.com) J. COLBY WILLIAMS #5549 (jcw@campbellandwilliams.com) CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 700 South 7th Street, Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-5222; Fax: (702) 382-0540 Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Defendant. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ZUFFA, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF NATHAN QUARRY ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ZUFFA, LLC’S MOTION APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS Pursuant to Local Rule IA 10-3(d), Defendant Zuffa, LLC submits this Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Zuffa, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on Statute of Limitations Grounds. The Exhibits are attached as exhibits to the Declaration of Kirk D. Hendrick in Support of Zuffa, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on Statute of Limitations Grounds. Exhibit Description Date A 2008 Exclusive Promotional Ancillary Rights Agreement For N. Quarry 9/30/2008 B 2008 Merchandise Rights Agreement For N. Quarry 9/30/2008 C January 2010 Bout Agreement For N. Quarry For A March 31, 2010 Bout 1/13/2010 D 2004 Promotional And Ancillary Rights Agreement For N. Quarry 10/5/2004 E February 25, 2005 Letter from D. White to N. Quarry 2/25/2005 F 2005 Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreement for N. Quarry 9/30/2005 G Excerpts From Video Deposition Of N. Quarry, Taken On September 30, 2016 9/30/2016 H December 16, 2014 E-Mail From S. Tecci To J. Mulkey Re: Non-Event Fighter Payments 12/16/2014 I Microsoft Excel Attachment To December 16, 2014 E-Mail Detailing Non-Event Fighter Payments 12/16/2014 J Letter From L. Fertitta And D. White To N. Quarry Re: Video Game Payment 10/20/2010 K Declaration Of Kirk D. Hendrick in Support Of Zuffa, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on Statute Of Limitations Grounds 1/31/2017 DATED: February 1, 2017 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP By:/s/ Nicholas A. Widnell Nicholas A. Widnell Attorney for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-2 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A FILED UNDER SEAL Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-3 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT B FILED UNDER SEAL Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-4 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT C FILED UNDER SEAL Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-5 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT D FILED UNDER SEAL Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-6 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT E FILED UNDER SEAL Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-7 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT F FILED UNDER SEAL Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-8 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT G Excerpts from Quarry Video Deposition Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 10 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch )Case No: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB(PAL) Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez,) and Kyle Kingsbury on behalf of ) themselves and all others ) similarly situated, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate ) Fighting Championship and UFC, ) ) ) Defendants. ) VIDEO DEPOSITION OF NATHAN QUARRY taken at 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101, beginning at 9:09 A.M. and ending at 4:59 P.M. on Friday, September 30, 2016 Reported by: Sarah Padilla CCR NO. 929 Job No. 270538 1 Pages 1-297 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 10 2 (Pages 2 to 5) Page 2 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 3 FOR PLAINTIFFS: 4 BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. BY: ERIC C. CRAMER ATTORNEY AT LAW 5 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-6305 6 (215)875-3000 ecramer@bm.net 7 8 FOR PLAINTIFFS: 9 WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP BY: DON SPRINGMEYER, ATTORNEY AT LAW 10 3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor Las Vegas, Nevada 89120-2234 11 (702)341-5200 dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com 12 13 FOR DEFENDANT ZUFFA, LLC, d/b/a ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP and UFC: 14 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP 15 BY: WILLIAM A. ISAACSON, ATTORNEY AT LAW BY: PERRY GROSSMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 16 5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20015 17 (202)237-2727 wisaacson@bsfllp.com 18 19 FOR DEFENDANT ZUFFA, LLC: 20 LAW OFFICE OF KIRK HENDRICK BY: KIRK HENDRICK, ATTORNEY AT LAW 21 2960 W. Sahara Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89102 22 (702) 221-4757 23 24 Also Present: Alan Taggert, Legal Videographer 2 25 Page 3 1 I N D E X 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION PAGE 3 NATHAN QUARRY 4 5 BY: MR. ISAACSON 8 6 7 8 EXHIBITS 9 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE DESCRIPTION 10 Exhibit 1 - 101 Amended Antitrust Complaint 11 12 Exhibit 2 - 116 Agreement 13 14 Exhibit 3 - 124 E-mail 15 16 Exhibit 4 - 126 Bout Agreement 17 18 Exhibit 5 - 127 Agreement 19 20 Exhibit 6 - 131 Agreement 21 22 Exhibit 7 - 133 Merchandise Rights Agreement 23 24 Exhibit 8 - 134 E-mails 3 25 Page 4 1 EXHIBITS 2 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE DESCRIPTION 3 Exhibit 9 - 137 Agreement 4 5 Exhibit 10 - 139 E-mails 6 7 Exhibit 11 - 161 E-mail 8 9 Exhibit 12 - 165 E-mail 10 11 Exhibit 13 - 176 Mixedmartialarts.com Printout 12 13 Exhibit 14 - 191 BloodyElbow.com Article 14 15 Exhibit 15 - 202 Internet Post by Nathan Quarry 16 17 Exhibit 16 - 209 Internet Posts 18 19 Exhibit 17 - 229 January 1, 2012 Agreement 20 21 Exhibit 18 - 234 Bellator Agreement 22 23 Exhibit 19 - 243 On Camera Talent and Rights Agreement 24 4 25 Exhibit 20 - 246 WSOF Global Agreement Page 5 1 EXHIBITS 2 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE DESCRIPTION 3 4 Exhibit 21 - 247 WSOF Global Agreement 5 6 Exhibit 22 - 253 Text Messaging Printouts 7 8 Exhibit 23 - 254 E-mails 9 10 Exhibit 24 - 255 E-mails 11 12 Exhibit 25 - 258 E-mail 13 14 Exhibit 26 - 260 E-mail 15 16 Exhibit 27 - 262 Deal Memo, Promotional Services 17 18 Exhibit 28 - 263 Deal Memo Signature Page 19 20 Exhibit 29 - 265 Nathan Quarry Printout/Bio 21 22 Exhibit 30 - 266 Square Promotion Bout Agreement 23 24 Exhibit 31 - 268 Message Printout 5 25 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 10 3 (Pages 6 to 9) Page 6 1 EXHIBITS 2 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE DESCRIPTION 3 4 Exhibit 32 - 270 E-mails 5 6 Exhibit 33 - 276 E-mails 7 8 Exhibit 34 - 278 E-mails 9 10 Exhibit 35 - 289 E-mails 11 12 Exhibit 36 - 292 Nate Quarry Sponsor List 13 14 -oOo- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 6 25 Page 7 1 Las Vegas, Nevada, Friday, September 30, 2016 2 9:09 A.M. - 4:59 P.M. 3 -oOo- 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the 5 record. This begins videotape No. 1 in the 6 deposition of Nathan Quarry in the matter of Cung 7 Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis 8 Javier Vasquez, and Kyle Kingsbury on behalf of 9 themselves and all others similarly situated versus 10 Zuffa, LLC doing business as Ultimate Fighting 11 Championship and UFC. 12 This case is filed in the United States 13 District Court for the District of Arizona, case No. 14 2:15-CV-01045-RFB-PAL. 15 Today is September 30, 2016, and the time 16 is approximately 9:09 A.M. This deposition is being 17 taken in the office of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, 18 LLP of Las Vegas, Nevada. The videographer is Alan 19 Taggart of Magna Legal Services and the court 20 reporter is Sarah Padilla of Magna Legal Services. 21 Will all counsel please identify 22 themselves for the record. 23 MR. CRAMER: Eric Cramer for the witness 24 and the plaintiffs. 7 25 MR. SPRINGMEYER: Don Springmeyer for the Page 8 1 witness and the plaintiffs. 2 MR. HENDRICK: Kirk Hendrick, chief legal 3 officer for Zuffa, LLC. 4 MR. GROSSMAN: Perry Grossman for Zuffa. 5 MR. ISAACSON: Bill Isaacson, Boies, 6 Schiller & Flexner for Zuffa. 7 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Will the court reporter 8 please swear in the witness. 9 (Witness sworn.) 10 -oOo- 11 NATHAN QUARRY, 12 called as a witness on behalf of Defendants, 13 having been administered an oath, was examined 14 and testified as follows: 15 ---------------------------------- EXAMINATION 16 ---------------------------------- 17 BY MR. ISAACSON: 18 Q You all set there? 19 A Yes, sir. 20 Q Mr. Quarry, I'm Bill Isaacson. I'll be 21 asking you questions today. If you ever don't 22 understand something I am asking you, just ask me to 23 ask again or say it better. 24 A Yes, sir. 8 25 Q All right. Have you ever testified as a Page 9 1 witness in the deposition or in a hearing or a trail 2 before? 3 A I don't think I have. I don't recall 4 that. 5 Q Ever remember testifying under oath? 6 A I had a real estate issue ten or 12 years 7 ago. I may have testified during that actually here 8 in Nevada. I think that would be the only time. 9 Q Did you -- was your real estate issue, did 10 it actually result in a court proceeding? 11 A No. 12 Q Was there any sort of lawsuit involved 13 with your real estate issue? 14 A I was trying to get back the earnest money 15 that someone had put down on a house that they 16 didn't feel I should have. 17 Q Okay. And did you file a lawsuit? 18 A Well, I'm not sure if that's what we were 19 there for. I wanted to get that -- or he wanted to 20 get his money back, so I guess it would be him that 21 filed. 22 Q So did he -- the person that you had a 23 dispute over earnest money with someone. Do you 24 remember who that was? 9 25 A No. Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 4 of 10 31 (Pages 118 to 121) Page 118 1 calls for a legal conclusion. Form. You may answer 2 if the you understand the question. 3 THE WITNESS: I had no legal understanding 4 of this contract. 5 BY MR. ISAACSON: 6 Q All right. So you talked earlier today 7 about how, on your own behalf and on the behalf the 8 identity class, you feel the UFC has taken your 9 identity and that you didn't have the right to 10 negotiate for the value of your identity. Is this 11 contract an example of one of the contracts that you 12 thought was an improper taking of your identity? 13 MR. CRAMER: Objection to form. You may 14 answer if you understand. 15 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I don't really 16 understand the question. 17 BY MR. ISAACSON: 18 Q Okay. When you spoke earlier today about 19 how Zuffa has taken your identity and denied you the 20 right to negotiate a better deal for your identity, 21 was that something Zuffa did in contracts with you? 22 MR. CRAMER: Objection to form. 23 THE WITNESS: To my understanding, yes. 24 BY MR. ISAACSON: 118 25 Q Okay. And while I understand you are Page 119 1 not -- you are neither a lawyer, nor perhaps someone 2 who understands all the legal terminology, when 3 you're talking about the contracts that took your 4 identity, are you referring to these promotional and 5 ancillary rights agreements that you entered into 6 with Zuffa? 7 MR. CRAMER: Objection to form. You can 8 answer. 9 THE WITNESS: I believe this was the start 10 of such things, and there were further contracts to 11 come. 12 BY MR. ISAACSON: 13 Q Yes. We'll take a look at those. But 14 the -- it's those -- when you're talking about the 15 taking of your identity, are you talking about these 16 contracts that talk about ancillary rights that 17 started with this and continued with other 18 contracts? 19 MR. CRAMER: Objection form. Asked and 20 answered earlier about appropriation. 21 THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe so. 22 BY MR. ISAACSON: 23 Q Okay. And when -- to your recollection, 24 when did you first conclude that the contracts you 119 25 were entering were inappropriately taking your Page 120 1 identity or your rights? 2 MR. CRAMER: Objection to form. Assumes 3 facts not in evidence. Calls for a legal 4 conclusion. Answer if you understand the question. 5 THE WITNESS: It would be sometime in the 6 future when I realized how little control I had over 7 my own work, my own likeness. When I was presented 8 with this contract, I had no -- no idea of the 9 legalities of such. 10 BY MR. ISAACSON: 11 Q And in terms of when you first realized 12 how little control you had over your own work and 13 likeness, did that happen before your last fight? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And when you realized how little control 16 you had over your own work and your own likeness, 17 that was, at least in part, due to the contracts you 18 had interred; correct? 19 A Yes. 20 MR. CRAMER: Objection to the extent it 21 calls for a legal conclusion. You can answer. 22 THE WITNESS: That is my understanding. 23 BY MR. ISAACSON: 24 Q And you -- how long before your -- 120 25 generally, how long before your last fight did you Page 121 1 come to this realization that you, through your 2 contracts, had lost control of your own likeness? 3 MR. CRAMER: Objection to form. You may 4 answer. 5 THE WITNESS: I don't know. I don't know 6 when it was that I came to realization I couldn't 7 use my own fight photos or things like that. 8 BY MR. ISAACSON: 9 Q Was it more than a year before? Was it a 10 couple years? Can you give me some reasonable 11 estimate? 12 MR. CRAMER: Don't speculate. If you can 13 give him a reasonable estimate, you should. But 14 otherwise, you shouldn't speculate. 15 THE WITNESS: It was definitely a few 16 years after this. So if this was 2004, probably 17 closer to 2007, 2008. I am speculating against the 18 advice of my lawyer. 19 BY MR. ISAACSON: 20 Q Just to be clear, your lawyer -- we don't 21 want your lawyer to be accused of coaching. If you 22 don't know, don't answer. That is true of all of my 23 questions. 24 A Yes, sir. 121 25 Q If you don't know, just tell me you don't Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 5 of 10 32 (Pages 122 to 125) Page 122 1 know. And throughout, I am not asking you to 2 speculate. I will occasionally ask you if you can 3 give me a reasonable estimate. At some point I 4 think you have described yourself as someone who was 5 spoken out about things either to the media and to 6 other fighters. At some point did you begin to 7 speak out about the -- your concern that your 8 likeness rights were being used by the UFC? 9 A Yes. 10 Q And did that happen before your last fight 11 in March 2010? 12 A Yes. 13 Q That happened at least a few years before 14 your last fight in March of 2010? 15 A I don't know. 16 Q Okay. Would it have happened more than a 17 year before that fight? 18 A I don't know. 19 Q And when I say that, at the time you would 20 begin to speak out about your concern that your 21 likeness rights were being used by the UFC, that's 22 something you might say to other fighters or if 23 asked by the MMA media? 24 MR. CRAMER: Objection to form. You may 122 25 answer. Page 123 1 THE WITNESS: Well, specifically speaking 2 about the UFC video game and talking to Joe Silva 3 was that my likeness is being used in this video 4 game. I am not being compensated whatsoever. So 5 that is definitely a pinpoint in time where I was 6 very unhappy about my likeness and other fighters' 7 likenesses being used without any compensation or 8 the ability to negotiate for compensation. 9 BY MR. ISAACSON: 10 Q And so this conversation that you -- with 11 Mr. Silva about the UFC video game, did that take 12 place before your last fight? 13 A Yes. This was before the Seattle card 14 where I was trying to get fights, so I would have to 15 know when that Seattle card was. 16 MR. ISAACSON: Do you have that? Did we 17 print that out? 18 MR. HENDRICK: We did, but that Seattle 19 card was before his last fight. 20 MR. ISAACSON: Oh, okay. We may have two 21 Seattles. We'll try to get the answer to that for 22 you over lunch. 23 THE WITNESS: The Korean Zombie fought on 24 it, I believe. 123 25 Page 124 1 BY MR. ISAACSON: 2 Q That actually will be two. You mentioned 3 two -- you mentioned Seattle twice. 4 A Uh-huh. 5 Q Is it the same? 6 A It's the same time. 7 Q Same time. And so we can use the magical 8 tool of Google to locate the date. If you've got 9 any other clues -- 10 MR. HENDRICK: What did you say the 11 Zombie -- which Zombie? 12 MR. ISAACSON: Korean Zombie. Yeah, and 13 actually we've got printouts of this. Let's mark 14 this as Exhibit 3. 15 (Exhibit 3 was marked.) 16 BY MR. ISAACSON: 17 Q All right. I've handed you Quarry Exhibit 18 3, which is Bates stamped Ibarra 27454. 19 A This is a different event. 20 Q That's why we put these things in front of 21 you to ask. This is -- it says -- it makes 22 reference to a Seattle event and two tickets. 23 A Yeah, this is a different event. 24 Q Let me -- I think we're on the same page, 124 25 but it works better if I give you a question and you Page 125 1 give an answer. 2 You talked about a conversation with 3 Mr. Silva about getting tickets to a Seattle event. 4 Is it this event or a different one? 5 A I do not believe it was this event. 6 Around March 24, 2011. I believe it was a different 7 event before that time period. 8 Q So Quarry Exhibit 3, is -- for this 9 Seattle event, did you ask for two tickets to the 10 event and you received them? 11 A I did not ask for tickets to the event. 12 Q Did you receive two tickets to the event? 13 A I did not receive two tickets to the 14 event, because I did not go to the event. 15 Q Okay. The -- 16 A After the issue with -- 17 MR. CRAMER: There's no question. There's 18 no question pending. 19 BY MR. ISAACSON: 20 Q We're fine. So when you're talking about 21 a Seattle event, you were referring to a Seattle 22 event earlier than March 2011? 23 A I believe so. 24 Q Okay. We'll try and track that down. 125 25 MR. ISAACSON: All right. So next would Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 6 of 10 75 (Pages 294 to 297) Page 294 1 A I do not recognize Full Combat 2 Supplements, LaCrosse Footwear. 3 Q LaCrosse Footwear? 4 A I don't think so. I think I recognize the 5 rest. Gary Ibarra would definitely know more than I 6 would about sponsors. 7 Q And why would you be unfamiliar, or why 8 would Mr. Ibarra be more familiar with your sponsors 9 than you? 10 A Because he was my agent, and he would get 11 me the sponsors, and put them on my gear, and on my 12 banners, and then collect the funds, generally. So 13 I didn't have to have very much interaction with any 14 this. The sponsors just wanted to use me as 15 advertising space. 16 Q All right. So if you got a complete list 17 of your sponsors during your time of your fighting 18 career, you would not recognize all of the sponsors 19 on there? 20 A Most likely I would not. 21 MR. ISAACSON: All right. Thanks for your 22 time today, sir. 23 MR. CRAMER: We have no questions. 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This concludes the 294 25 video deposition of Nathan Quarry. We are now going Page 295 1 off the record. The time is approximately 4:59 P.M. 2 THE COURT REPORTER: Are you getting a 3 copy, Counsel? 4 MR. CRAMER: Yes. Read and sign. 5 (TIME NOTED: 4:59 P.M.) 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 295 25 Page 296 1 CERTIFICATE OF WITNESS 2 PAGE LINE CHANGE REASON 3 ____________________________________________________ 4 5 ____________________________________________________ 6 7 ____________________________________________________ 8 9 ____________________________________________________ 10 11 ____________________________________________________ 12 13 ____________________________________________________ 14 15 ____________________________________________________ 16 17 ____________________________________________________ 18 19 ____________________________________________________ 20 * * * * * 21 I, Nathan Quarry, witness herein, do hereby certify and declare under penalty of perjury the within 22 and foregoing transcription to be my deposition in said action; that I have read, corrected and do hereby affix 23 my signature to said deposition. 24 _________________________________ __________ Nathan Quarry 296 25 Witness Date Page 297 1 STATE OF NEVADA) ) Ss 2 COUNTY OF CLARK) 3 4 I, Sarah Padilla, a duly commissioned and 5 licensed court reporter, Clark County, State of Nevada, 6 do hereby certify: That I reported the taking of the 7 deposition of the witness, Nathan Quarry, commencing on 8 Friday, September 30, 201, at 9:09 A.M.; That prior to 9 being examined, the witness was, by me, duly sworn to 10 testify to the truth; That thereafter I transcribed my 11 shorthand notes into typewriting and that the typewritten 12 transcript of said deposition is a complete, true, and 13 accurate record of said shorthand notes. I further 14 certify that I am not a relative or employee of any 15 attorney or counsel of any of the parties nor a relative 16 or employee of an attorney or counsel involved in said 17 action, nor a person financially interested in the 18 action; that a request [x] has [] has not been made to 19 review the transcript. 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 21 hand in the County of Clark, State of Nevada, this __ day 22 of __________________. 23 ______________________ SARAH PADILLA, CCR 929 24 297 25 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 7 of 10 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 8 of 10 CORRECTIONS TO NATE QUARRY DEPOSTION TRANSCRIPT PAGE LINE CHANGE REASON 9 1‐2 should read “a trial before”. typographical error 10 23 should read “Rob Maysey”, not Rob Macy. misspelling 11 1, 5 & 15 should read “Mr. Maysey,” not Mr. Macy. misspelling 12 2, 9 & 24 should read “Mr. Maysey,” not Mr. Macy. misspelling 13 5, 13, 20 & 25 should read “Maysey,” not Macy. misspelling 14 7 & 24 should read “Maysey,” not Macy. misspelling 20 20 should read “Maysey,” not Macy. misspelling 21 5 & 11 should read “Maysey,” not Macy. misspelling 21 12 should read “the term antitrust lawsuit” typographical error 22 4, 12 & 16 should read “Maysey,” not Macy. misspelling 25 4 & 14 should read “Maysey,” not Macy. misspelling 25 10 should read “I am not sure” typographical error 41 9 should read “fighters under contract,” typographical error 55 8 should read “Maysey”, not Macy misspelling 59 23 should read “have you spoken to any of those” typographical error 76 6 should read “This makes no sense to me.” typographical error 95 5 should read “Fitch, Javier Vazquez especially.” typographical error 95 22 should read “Mr. Penn,” not Mr. Pen misspelling 96 12 should read “was not in the UFC” typographical error 104 5 should read “That was pretty much my understanding.” clarification 110 21 should read “What about Oren Hodak.” misspelling 111 17 should read “Mr. Roveta?” misspelling Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 9 of 10 112 3 should read “Mr. Roveta” misspelling 112 21 should read “And then Oren Hodak, would” misspelling 114 18 should read “to Robert Roveta. And Roveta was my” misspelling 115 7 & 12 should read “Mr. Maysey” misspelling 130 21 should read “bout?” misspelling 147 17 should read “to Elite XC” misspelling 157 7 should read “belittle” misspelling 161 3 should read “you, and this is what you should” clarification 161 16 should read “So to me, that is a pretty broad” clarification 167 1 should read “in getting me known” clarification 180 22 should read “How long were you the host” typographical error 182 2 should read “TUF.” misspelling 182 20 should read “I’m going to” typographical error 190 17 should read “Someone like Jon Jones,” misspelling 214 22 should read “became a free agent so he could” typographical error 267 25‐26 should read “couldn’t find him” clarification 289 12 should read “Starnes,” not Storms. misspelling 291 15 should read “was so boring,” typographical error 294 13‐14 should read “with any of this.” clarification Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-9 Filed 02/01/17 Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT H FILED UNDER SEAL Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-10 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT I FILED UNDER SEAL Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-11 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT J FILED UNDER SEAL Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-12 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT K Declaration of Kirk D. Hendrick Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-13 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF KIRK D. HENDRICK WILLIAM A. ISAACSON (Pro Hac Vice) (wisaacson@bsfllp.com) STACEY K. GRIGSBY (Pro Hac Vice) (sgrigsby@bsfllp.com) NICHOLAS A. WIDNELL (Pro Hac Vice) (nwidnell@bsfllp.com) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727; Fax: (202) 237-6131 RICHARD J. POCKER #3568 (rpocker@bsfllp.com) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800, Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-7300; Fax: (702) 382-2755 DONALD J. CAMPBELL #1216 (djc@campbellandwilliams.com) J. COLBY WILLIAMS #5549 (jcw@campbellandwilliams.com) CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 700 South 7th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-5222; Fax: (702) 382-0540 Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Defendant. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) DECLARATION OF KIRK D. HENDRICK IN SUPPORT OF ZUFFA, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF NATHAN QUARRY ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-13 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DECLARATION OF KIRK D. HENDRICK I, Kirk D. Hendrick, declare as follows: 1. I am over 21 years old and have personal knowledge of the information in this declaration. I have been employed by Zuffa, LLC (“Zuffa”) since 2002 and I am currently Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer for Zuffa. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this declaration and if called to testify, I would and could competently testify to those facts. 2. I make this declaration in support of Zuffa’s Motion for Summary Judgment As to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on Statute Of Limitations Grounds And Supporting Memorandum Of Law (“Zuffa’s Motion”). Based on my experience as an employee at Zuffa and my review of the files and records in this case, I have firsthand knowledge of the contents of this declaration and could testify thereto. 3. Exhibit A to Zuffa’s Motion is a true and correct copy of a signed and executed Exclusive Promotional Ancillary Rights Agreement signed by Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on September 30, 2008. This produced document bears Bates number LEPLAINTIFFS-0048763. 4. Exhibit B to Zuffa’s Motion is a true and correct copy of a signed and executed Merchandise Rights Agreement signed by Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on September 30, 2008. This Agreement took effect on October 13, 2008. In this Agreement, Mr. Quarry granted Zuffa and its affiliates certain rights to use his identity in “Licensed Merchandise” in exchange for royalty payments fixed by the contract. The Agreement also expressly sets forth the royalty rates that Zuffa is required to pay Mr. Quarry for the sale of “Licensed Merchandise” that contains his identity. This produced document bears Bates number LEPLAINTIFFS-0048947. 5. Exhibit C to Zuffa’s Motion is a true and correct copy of a signed Bout Agreement for “UFN 21” signed by Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on January 13, 2010 for a bout scheduled for March 31, 2010 in Charlotte, North Carolina against Jorge Rivera (“2010 Bout Agreement”). This Agreement contained a grant of Bout Ancillary Rights specifically for the March 31, 2010 bout. This produced document bears Bates number ZFL-0390586. Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-13 Filed 02/01/17 Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DECLARATION OF KIRK D. HENDRICK 6. The 2010 Bout Agreement is the most recent agreement of any kind between Mr. Quarry and Zuffa. Zuffa has not made any new agreements with Mr. Quarry subsequent to the 2010 Bout Agreement. 7. Exhibit D to Zuffa’s Motion is a true and correct copy of a signed and executed Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreement signed by Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on October 5, 2004. This produced document bears Bates number ZFL-0003037. 8. Exhibit E to Zuffa’s Motion is a true and correct copy of a February 25, 2005 letter from Dana White, President of Zuffa, to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry. This produced document bears Bates number ZFL-0003206. 9. Exhibit F to Zuffa’s Motion is a true and correct copy of a signed and executed Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreement signed by Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on September 30, 2005 (“2005 Promotional Agreement”). This produced document bears Bates number ZFL- 0003087. 10. Exhibit G to Zuffa’s Motion is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the certified video deposition of Plaintiff Nathan Quarry taken by Zuffa in Las Vegas, Nevada on September 30, 2016. 11. Exhibit H to Zuffa’s Motion is a true and correct copy of a December 16, 2014 e- mail from then-Chief Financial Officer (CFO) John Mulkey to Zuffa employee Stephen Tecci providing a detail on “Non-Event Payments” to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry. This produced document bears Bates number ZFL-1066550. 12. Exhibit I to Zuffa’s Motion is a true and correct copy of a sheet of a Microsoft Excel attachment labeled “Quarry” to the e-mail described in Exhibit H that details payments made to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry, including the payment made to Quarry on March 5, 2009. The Microsoft Excel sheet is a true and correct copy of the “Quarry” sheet that is a part of the native produced document bearing Bates number ZFL- 1066551. 13. Exhibit J to Zuffa’s Motion is a true and correct copy of an October 20, 2010 letter from Lorenzo Fertitta and Dana White of Zuffa to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry that describes a Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-13 Filed 02/01/17 Page 4 of 5 Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-13 Filed 02/01/17 Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ZUFFA’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT WILLIAM A. ISAACSON (Pro Hac Vice) (wisaacson@bsfllp.com) STACEY K. GRIGSBY (Pro Hac Vice) (sgrigsby@bsfllp.com) NICHOLAS A. WIDNELL (Pro Hac Vice) (nwidnell@bsfllp.com) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 237-2727; Fax: (202) 237-6131 RICHARD J. POCKER #3568 (rpocker@bsfllp.com) BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-7300; Fax: (702) 382-2755 DONALD J. CAMPBELL #1216 (djc@campbellandwilliams.com) J. COLBY WILLIAMS #5549 (jcw@campbellandwilliams.com) CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS 700 South 7th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Telephone: (702) 382-5222; Fax: (702) 382-0540 Attorneys for Defendant Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Defendant. Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ZUFFA, LLC’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFF NATHAN QUARRY ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND RELATED EXHIBITS Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-14 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ZUFFA’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [PROPOSED] ORDER Before this Court is Defendant Zuffa, LLC’s (“Zuffa”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Plaintiff Nathan Quarry on Statute of Limitations Grounds And Supporting Memorandum of Law (“Zuffa’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment”). As no genuine dispute of material fact remains and Zuffa is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to its statute of limitations defense: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Zuffa’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: _____________________ By: _______________________________ Hon. Richard F. Boulware II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL Document 347-14 Filed 02/01/17 Page 2 of 2