Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 1 of 13

1 THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
11

12 Case No. 2:17-cv-01104-RSL
Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch,
13 Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez Underlying Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045 RFB-
and Kyle Kingsbury, on behalf of PAL (D. Nev.)
14
themselves and all others similarly
15 situated, PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT
HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS
16 Plaintiffs, PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH
17 NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
vs.
18 August 4, 2017
Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting
19 Championship and UFC,
20

21 Defendant.

22

23

24

25

26

27
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 2 of 13

1 I. INTRODUCTION
1
2 Plaintiffs oppose the Motion to Quash or Modify Subpoenas filed by third-parties Matt
2
3 Hume and Group One Holdings PTE Ltd (“One Championship”). The documents Plaintiffs seek
4 are directly relevant to Plaintiffs’ antitrust claims. Indeed, they go directly to specific facts
5 Plaintiffs plead in their complaint.
Indeed, Mr. Hume acknowledges the relevance of these facts having already offered
6
7 sworn testimony as to them in the form of a written declaration. Mr. Hume submitted a
8 declaration on behalf of Defendant Zuffa, LLC (“Zuffa”) in the Underlying Litigation. Among
9 the facts to which Hume testifies, he states that “Group One Holdings competes with Zuffa to
10 sign professional MMA fighters,” and “One Championship is not a minor league or feeder league
11 for the UFC.” Dkt. 3-5. These statements were submitted by Zuffa to controvert specific facts
12 Plaintiffs allege. See Dkt. 3-1 (Consolidated Amended Complaint (“CAC. ”)), ¶¶ 7, 135-136.
13 Mr. Hume has offered testimony against Plaintiffs and disputes facts alleged by Plaintiffs in their
14 Complaint. Because Mr. Hume has interposed himself and One Championship into the
15 Underlying Litigation, Plaintiffs have the right under Rule 45 to obtain his testimony and
16 documents within his possession, custody, or control.
In order to avoid complying with the request for relevant documents, Mr. Hume claims he
17
18 is “not an officer or director in Group One.” Dkt. 2 (Hume Motion to Quash) at 2. Yet his
19 declaration states that he is “Vice-President of Operations and Competition for Group One
20 Holdings Pte. Ltd.” Dkt. 3-5. As Vice President, Mr. Hume is part of the leadership structure of
21
22
23 1
Plaintiffs Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez and Kyle
Kingsbury are the individual and representative plaintiffs in the antitrust class action captioned
24 Cung Le, et al. v. Zuffa, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL (D. Nev.) (the “Underlying
Litigation”)
25 2
By their motion, Plaintiffs do not seek to enforce the subpoena they served on One
26 Championship. That subpoena is therefore not at issue.
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 1 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 3 of 13

1 Group One. 3 Under the Federal Rules, Plaintiffs are entitled to all evidence relevant to any claim
2 or defense in the Underlying Litigation. Mr. Hume has by his own actions made the facts in his
3 possession relevant and discoverable. Plaintiffs are entitled to this discovery. Even if the Court
4 were to hold that Group One is beyond the reach of the Court’s jurisdiction, Mr. Hume—who
5 resides within the Western District of Washington—is most certainly subject to the Court’s
6 jurisdiction, and any documents within his possession, custody, or control are discoverable.
7 II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
8 On June 13, 2017, Plaintiffs served third party Matt Hume with a subpoena duces tecum

9 and a subpoena ad testificandum in the Underlying Litigation. Plaintiffs also served one
10 Championship with a subpoena duces tecum on June 13. On July 19, Mr. Hume and third party
11 One Championship (Mr. Hume’s employer) with a subpoena duces tecum on June 13. Mr. Hume
12 and One Championship filed a motion to quash on July 17, 2017.
13 Plaintiffs refer the Court to Dkts. 1 (Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel) and 6 (Plaintiffs’

14 Motion to Transfer), incorporated herein by reference, for summaries of the relevant background
15 and description of the communications between the parties.
16 III. ARGUMENT
17 A. Legal Standard
18 “The scope of discovery a party may obtain through a subpoena is the same as that
19 applicable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b).” Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., 2016
20 WL 5870010, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016) (quotation omitted). “Parties may obtain discovery
21 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and
22 proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
23
24
3
25 Vice president is defined by Webster’s as “an officer next in rank to a president and usually
empowered to serve as president in that officer's absence or disability” or “any of several officers
26 serving as a president's deputies in charge of particular locations or functions.”
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 2 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 4 of 13

1 “The serve-and-volley of the federal discovery rules govern the resolution of a motion to

2 quash.” In re Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., 300 F.R.D. 234, 239 (E.D. Pa. 2014) (quotations
3 omitted). First, the subpoenaing party “must show that its requests are relevant to its claims or
4 defenses, within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).” Id. Second, the
5 subpoenaed nonparty must show that the documents or testimony sought are protected under
6 Rule 45(d)(3)(A) or (B), and that disclosure will cause it a “clearly defined and serious injury.”
7 Id. (quotation omitted). “This burden is particularly heavy to support a motion to quash as
8 contrasted to some more limited protection such as a protective order.” Id. (quotation omitted).
9 Third, the subpoenaing party must demonstrate a “a substantial need for the testimony or
10 material that cannot be otherwise met without undue hardship.” 4 Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
11 45(e(3)(C)(i)). Fourth, the Court “weighs the subpoenaing party's interest in disclosure and the
12 subpoenaed nonparty's interest in non-disclosure to determine whether the burden on the
13 subpoenaed nonparty is, in fact, undue.” “This balancing test requires a Court to weigh (1) the
14 relevance, (2) need, (3) and confidentiality of the requested materials, as well as (4) the harm that
15 compliance would cause the subpoenaed nonparty.” Id.
16 “What constitutes an ‘undue burden’ is the same when a nonparty is subpoenaed under

17 Rule 45 as when a party receives a request for production under Rule 34.” St. Jude Med. S.C.,
18 Inc. v. Janssen-Counotte (“St. Jude”), 305 F.R.D. 630, 637 (D. Or. 2015). See also, Mount Hope
19 Church v. Bash Back!, 705 F.3d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[W]e will not read ‘undue burden’
20 differently just because a non-party was subpoenaed.”).
21 “Trade secret or commercially sensitive information must be ‘important proprietary

22 information’ and the party challenging the subpoena must make ‘a strong showing that it has
23
24
4
25 Mr. Hume maintains that Plaintiffs must show that the discovery sought is “relevant and
necessary” to their claims, but courts in the Ninth circuit have only applied this standard in the
26 context of
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 3 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 5 of 13

1 historically sought to maintain the confidentiality of this information.’” Gonzales v. Google, Inc.,
2 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (“Gonzales”).
3 1. Mr. Hume Has Possession, Custody, or Control Over Relevant
Documents
4
5
5 Mr. Hume and One Championship assert that “the documents Plaintiffs’ seek are not Mr.
6 Hume’s --- they are confidential business records of Group One over which Mr. Hume exercises
7 no legal right.” See Motion to Quash at 7. Hume’s argument fails in at least two ways.
8 First, Hume appears to be an officer of One Championship. As Hume states, he is a Vice

9 President of One Championship. Dkt. 3-5 (Hume May 4 Declaration). Corporate officers are
10 obliged to produce documents in their possession, custody or control. See e.g., Herring v. Clark,
11 No. 1:05-cv-00079-LJO-SMS-PC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63332, at *14 (E.D. Cal. June 13,
12 2011) (a party may obtain documents from an officer or director of a corporation that are “in his
13 possession or those he has a legal right to obtain on demand”); 6 Meeks v. Parsons, No. 1:03-cv-
14 6700-LJO-GSA, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90283, at *7-8 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 18, 2009) (same).
15 Second, even Hume were not an officer, he must produce documents within his possession,
16 custody, or control under a straightforward application of Rule 45. See e.g. A. Farber & Ptnrs.,
17 Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 189 (C.D. Cal. 2006). This is not a case where the subpoena has
18 been served on a corporate entity. This subpoena was served on an individual. The individual
19 possesses the documents. This rule requiring production applies even if another maintains an
20 ownership in the documents or things subject to the subpoena. The plain language of Rule 45
21
22 5
Hume concedes that this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over him. Among other
things, Hume is a resident of this judicial District and conducts business here.
23 6
The Court in Herring acknowledges that the recipient of subpoena must produce “information
24 with his immediate knowledge or possession. “ Herring, at *15 (quoting Gray v. Faulkner, 148
F.R.D. 220. 225 (N.D. Ill. 1992, and 10A Federal Procedure Law Ed. §26:377 at 49 (1988)). The
25 Court goes on to note that, in addition, the recipient is also “under an affirmative duty to seek
information reasonably available to him from his employee, agents or others subject to his
26 control.” Id.
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 4 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 6 of 13

1 states that a person commanded by subpoena must produce relevant documents “in that person’s
2 possession, custody, or control.” Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). The Rule says nothing
3 about ownership—ownership is not a limitation or requirement. Possession, custody, or control
4 of relevant documents is sufficient to mandate their production. See Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co.,
5 P.A. v. Midland Bancor, 159 F.R.D. 562, 566 (D. Kan. 1994) (“Parties in possession of
6 documents forwarded to them by a federal agency which retains their ownership and restricts
7 their disclosure, nevertheless, have possession, custody, or control of such documents”)
8 (quotation and citation omitted).
9 Hume’s claim that the documents are subject to foreign privacy laws is unavailing.

10 Plaintiffs’ subpoena seeks documents located in this Judicial District, not abroad. The privacy
11 laws or discovery laws do not apply to documents located in the United States. Indeed, a federal
12 court may order the production of documents, even where the material is located abroad and
13 the production of that material may be a crime under the laws of a foreign country. For
14 example, in In re Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Uranium Contracts Litig., 563 F.2d 992, 997 (10th
15 Cir. 1977) , the Court considered foreign blocking statutes and ruled “a local [federal] court has
16 the power to order a party to produce foreign documents despite the fact that such production
17 may subject the party to criminal sanctions in the foreign country”.
18 Mr. Hume’s reliance on In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 646 F.2d 963, 969 (5th Cir. 1981), is

19 misplaced There, the court relied on the fact that the employer was a sole proprietor under
20 criminal investigation to hold that the documents were protected under the Fifth Amendment of
21 the Constitution: “The fifth amendment protection applicable to a sole proprietor's business
22 records is the same as the protection applicable to the records of an individual.” Both Lopez v.
23 Chertoff, No. CV 07-1566-LEW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50419, at *4-5 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2009),
24 and Lowe v. District of Columbia, 250 F.R.D. 36, 39 (D.D.C. 2008) involved subpoenas seeking
25 government agency documents from former employees who did not have possession of the
26
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 5 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 7 of 13

1 documents and, as former employees, did not have the legal right to demand them. In Joiner v.
2 Choicepoint Servs., No. 1:05CV321, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70239 at *13 (W.D.N.C. Sep. 15,
3 2006), the plaintiff subpoenaed low-level employees of the defendant corporation seeking
4 documents “possessed exclusively” by the defendant corporation. Similarly, in Solis v. Bruister,
5 Case No. 4:10-CV-77-DPJ-FKB, 2012, WL 12829683, at *9 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 26, 2012), the
6 defendant sought a government agency document from a low-level employee who did not have
7 the legal right obtain the document.
8 B. Plaintiffs’ Need For Mr. Hume’s Documents And Testimony Outweighs Any
Potential Harm To Mr. Hume And Group One.
9
1. The Discovery Sought Is Relevant to Plaintiffs’ Claims.
10
11 Contrary to Hume’s assertions, the materials Plaintiffs seek are directly relevant to
12 Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs allege that part of Zuffa’s anticompetitive scheme is to restrict rival
13 MMA promoters and limit their ability to compete in the relevant markets. “Without access to, or
14 the ability to compete for access to, the Elite Professional MMA Fighters, would-be UFC rivals
15 cannot hope to attract enough viewers (either live or via Internet, television or Pay-Per-View
16 broadcast) to make their promotions significantly profitable.” CAC ¶ 10. Documents and
17 information in Mr. Hume’s possession, custody, and control relating to One Championship’s
18 ability to compete in the market for the services of MMA fighters and the market for promoting
19 live professional MMA events is directly relevant to this claim. Among other things, the
20 materials seek evidence defining the nature and scope of the relevant markets and Zuffa’s
21 position in them, issues hotly contested in the Underlying Litigation . See Dkt. 3-10 (Plaintiffs
22 Document Subpoena to Hume), Request Nos. 3, 9, 14, and 16. The discovery is also relevant to
23 One Championship’s inability to challenge Zuffa’s market dominance. See CAC ¶¶ 7, 74. This
24 includes financial information relating to One Championship’s promotion of live MMA events
25 and the purses and other compensation it pays its fighters.
26
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 6 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 8 of 13

1 Even if the materials were not relevant on their face, they are relevant to the litigation

2 because they are directly relevant to factual averments Hume has submitted under oath in the
3 litigation. Hume voluntarily submitted a declaration which, among other things, states that
4 “Group One Holdings competes with Zuffa to sign professional MMA fighters” and “is not a
5 minor league or feeder league for the UFC.” Dkt. 3-5. This declaration contests Plaintiffs’ claims,
6 (see CAC ¶¶ 1, 135-136), and supports Zuffa’s defenses, (see Dkt. 3-3 (Zuffa Mot. to Dismiss)).
7 The facts upon which this testimony relies are therefore relevant as Hume admits by the
8 voluntary act of submitting of the Declaration.
9 Plaintiffs have a substantial need for Mr. Hume’s documents and testimony in order to

10 refute Mr. Hume’s assertion in his May 4 declaration that “Group One Holdings competes with
11 Zuffa to sign professional MMA fighters” and “is not a minor league or feeder league for the
12 UFC.” Dkt. 3-5. These statements stand in direct contravention to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and
13 would materially prejudice Plaintiffs’ ability to fully and fairly prosecute the claims in their case-
14 in-chief if denied facts and evidence to controvert them.
15 Moreover, Plaintiffs have alleged that Zuffa’s anticompetitive actions have had a direct

16 economic impact on other MMA promoters. Plaintiffs have a substantial need for financial
17 information from other MMA promoters, including Group One, to define the contours of the
18 relevant markets, to demonstrate that Zuffa holds a dominant position within those markets, and
19 to show that One Championship is not in a position to challenge Zuffa’s market dominance.
20 Plaintiff’s discovery is proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

21 As demonstrated above, the discovery sought is clearly relevant to the case. See also section
22 III.B.3., infra. And as Plaintiffs seek only documents within Mr. Hume’s possession, custody, or
23 control, the burden and expense of collecting and producing these documents will be minimal.
24 And this should come as no surprise to Hume, because it was he who voluntarily submitted the
25 Declaration.
26
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 7 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 9 of 13

1 Mr. Hume’s contentions to the contrary are unavailing. Mr. Hume contends that Plaintiffs’

2 subpoenas “impose and extraordinary and unjust burden on Mr. Hume” because Plaintiffs seek
3 documents they may “only obtain from Group One.” Opposition at 6. This make no sense.
4 Plaintiffs seek documents within Mr. Hume’s possession, custody, or control, not from Group
5 One. Producing documents within Hume’s possession, custody, or control presents no undue
6 burden. See e.g., Soto v. Castlerock Farming & Transp., Inc., 282 F.R.D. 492, 506-07 (E.D. Cal.
7 2012) (holding that a third party’s production of relevant documents it maintained did not impose
8 a significant burden). Further, Hume has failed, as he must, to show that the burden is significant
9 in any material respect. See id. at 504 (“The party seeking to quash a subpoena has the burden of
10 persuasion.”).
11 Mr. Hume contends that he should not have to bear the burden of producing

12 communications between himself or One Championship and Zuffa, and that such
13 communications should be obtained from Zuffa. Opposition at 12. While Plaintiffs have sought
14 such records from Zuffa, due to Zuffa’s document retention policy, many of its communications
15 no longer exist. Rayhill Decl. at ¶ 3.
16 Mr. Hume also contends that these communications “have no plausible bearing on the

17 merits of Plaintiffs’ case,” and then adds the boilerplate contention that Plaintiffs’ subpoena is a
18 “fishing expedition.” Opposition at 12. As noted above, these materials are relevant to this case,
19 as Hume has submitted a declaration testifying to them. 7
20 Plaintiffs seek discovery from Mr. Hume that is relevant to their claims and is

21 proportional to the needs of the case.
22
23
24 7
For example, it appears that One Championship has in the past offered to release its fighters to
25 Zuffa on at least one occasion. Rayhill Decl. at ¶ 4. This is the very definition of a “feeder”
promoter, (see CAC at ¶¶ 7, 135-136), and any such communications would bear directly on
26 Plaintiffs’ claims.
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 8 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 10 of 13

1 2. Mr. Hume And Group One Have Not Demonstrated They Will Suffer
A Clearly Defined And Serious Injury By Responding to Plaintiffs’
2 Discovery.

3 Mr. Hume contends that disclosure of its commercially sensitive information “would

4 harm Group One’s business interests and competitive standing,” “particularly in litigation
5 involving one of Group One's principal competitors.” Opposition at 11.
6 The Protective Order in this case specifically provides protection to Hume, like other

7 third parties. If appropriate, Hume may designate the materials Attorneys Eyes Only or
8 Confidential. In fact, on numerous occasions in this case courts have rejected this argument—and
9 enforced the subpoena—where the Protective Order provides robust protections for a third
10 party’s sensitive information, including a Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only provision,
11 including two decisions in the Underlying Litigation itself ordering production of confidential
12 information. See Cung Le v. Zuffa, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97746, at *16-17 (D. Nev. June
13 13, 2017) (ordering third party promoter Bellator Sport Worldwide, LLC to produce confidential
14 quarterly financial information subject to protective order); Cung Le v. Zuffa, LLC., Case No.
15 1:17-mc-00028-EPG, Slip Op. at 3 (C.D. Cal. July 26, 2017) (ordering third party Zinkin
16 Entertainment, LLC to produce confidential financial information subject to protective order).
17 See also Lilly v. Teva Pharm. USA Inc., No. C17-0267JLR, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38168, at
18 *10-11 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 16, 2017) (ordering production of a confidential agreement subject to
19 an Outside Counsel’s-Eyes-Only designation); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. C 11-1846
20 LHK (PSG), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166724, at *16 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2012) (ordering
21 production of confidential documents subject to an Attorneys-Eyes-Only designation); Capsugel
22 Belgium NV v. Bright Pharma Caps, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-321-PK, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130071,
23 at *17-18 (D. Or. Sep. 28, 2015) (same).
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 9 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 11 of 13

1 Hr. Hume and Group One have not carried their heavy burden of showing they will suffer

2 a clearly defined and serious injury by responding to Plaintiffs’ subpoenas. See In re Domestic
3 Drywall Antitrust Litig., 300 F.R.D. 234, 239 (E.D. Pa. 2014).
4
3. Plaintiffs’ Substantial Need For Mr. Hume’s Discovery Outweighs
5 Any Potential Burden To Mr. Hume.

6 Plaintiffs have demonstrated their substantial need for the discovery sought from Mr.

7 Hume, and that the burden on Mr. Hume of complying with Plaintiffs’ document subpoena will
8 be minimal. Nor will Mr. Hume will suffer undue burden by appearing for his deposition.
9 Plaintiffs have noticed the deposition to take place in Seattle, roughly eleven miles from Mr.
10 Hume’s hometown of Kirkland. Relative to the importance of the issues at stake, the deposition
11 does not impose an undue burden on Mr. Hume. The discovery sought is proportional to the
12 needs of the case, and a deposition is an efficient method of obtaining Mr. Hume’s discovery.
13 Mr. Hume argues that because his declaration is “so non-controversial, the discovery

14 Plaintiffs seek is not ‘sufficiently relevant and necessary’ to outweigh the harm to Mr. Hume and
15 Group One.” Opposition at 11. This claim is weak. First, it is not Hume’s place to judge whether
16 the facts are controversial or not. Second, Mr. Hume’s declaration borrows language directly
17 from Plaintiffs’ Complaint to refute one of Plaintiffs central claims—that Zuffa has, through its
18 anticompetitive actions, relegated other MMA promoters to the role of “minor league”
19 promoters. See CAC ¶¶ 7, 135-136; section III.B.1., supra. Surely, Plaintiffs should have the
20 right to the information upon which the Declaration is based and to obtain information in the
21 possession of the declaration, Mr. Hume, that controverts or contradicts those statements.
22 Accordingly, the declaration cannot be described as non-controversial. And in any event, Mr.
23 Hume has failed to demonstrate any harm that
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 10 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 12 of 13

1 C. The Hague Convention and International Comity are not a Bar to the
Document Subpoena
2
Mr. Hume and One Championship argue that Plaintiffs’ subpoena duces tecum is an
3
attempt to “shortcut” the Letter of Request to One Championship under the Hague Convention
4
and that this is a breach of international comity. See Motion to Quash at 6, citing Societe
5
Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v. United States Dist. Court for S. Dist., 482 U.S. 522, 546,
6
107 S. Ct. 2542, 2557 (1987) (“Societe”). This argument is misplaced. As noted above, Plaintiffs
7
only seek to obtain documents within Hume’s possession, custody or control, in the United
8
States. The Hague Convention does not apply. By its terms, Societe is limited to cases where a
9
United States Court is asked “to order a foreign national party before it to produce evidence
10
physically located within a signatory nation. . . .” Here the documents are in the United States
11
and the documents are in the possession, custody, or control of Mr. Hume, a United States citizen
12
resident in this judicial District and subject to in personam jurisdiction of the Court. See Societe,
13
8
482 U.S. 522, at 539-40 (1987).
14
15
16
17
18 8
Plaintiffs filed a Letter of Request, under the Hague Convention, for One
19 Championship’s relevant documents that are not in Mr. Hume’s possession, custody, or control.
Accordingly, the subpoena duces tecum is not “an impermissible duplication” of the Letter of
20 Request, nor does it “subvert” that process. See Motion to Quash at 6-7. The Letter of Request’s
aim was parallel and supplementary to the document subpoena of Mr. Hume. Plaintiffs do not
21 seek “unlimited access to Group One’s documents and information through Mr. Hume,” but
rather only those relevant documents that are within his possession, custody, or control. Id at 7.
22 Regardless, the Hague Convention is not a bar to the production of relevant documents in
this case, as the Convention is not mandatory nor the exclusive means for discovery but rather is
23 “a permissive supplement, not a pre-emptive replacement for other methods of obtaining
evidence.” See Societe, 482 U.S. 522, at 524 (1987). “Thus, both the Federal Rules and the
24 Convention are permissible vehicles by which a litigant in American courts may conduct civil
discovery internationally.” See St. Jude Med. S.C., Inc. v. Janssen-Counotte, 104 F. Supp. 3d
25 1150, 1150 (D. Or. 2015) (“St. Jude”) (granting plaintiff’s motion to compel documents stored by
defendant abroad).
26
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 11 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800
Case 2:17-cv-01104-RSL Document 21 Filed 08/04/17 Page 13 of 13

1 IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to deny Mr. Hume and
2
3 One Championship’s Motion to Quash.
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
4 Dated: August 4, 2017
By: /s/ Dan Drachler
5 Dan Drachler

6 Dan Drachler (SBN: 27728)
ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP
7 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030
8 Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 223-2053
9 Facsimile: (206) 343-9636

10 Local Counsel for the Classes and Individual and
Representative Plaintiffs Cung Le, Nathan Quarry,
11 Jon Fitch, Luis Javier Vazquez, Brandon Vera and
12 Kyle Kingsbury

13 Joseph R. Saveri (pro hac vice)
Joshua P. Davis (pro hac vice)
14 Kevin E. Rayhill (pro hac vice)
15 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
16 San Francisco, California 94111
Phone: (415) 500-6800
17 Fax: (415) 395-9940
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
18 jdavis@saverilawfirm.com
19 krayhill@saverilawfirm.com

20
Co-Lead Counsel for the Classes and Attorneys for
21 Individual and Representative Plaintiffs Cung Le,
22 Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Luis Javier Vazquez,
Brandon Vera and Kyle Kingsbury
23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MATT 12 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
27 HUME AND GROUP ONE HOLDINGS 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
PTE LTD.’S MOTION TO QUASH San Francisco, CA 94111
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01104-RSL (415) 500-6800