Minutes | Filed: September 03, 2026
| Entered: September 10, 2026
Kajan Johnson et al v. Zuffa, LLC dba Ultimate Fighting Championship et al
Anti-Trust | Nevada
Status Conference
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Status Conference held on 9/3/2026 before Judge Richard F. Boulware, II. Crtrm Administrator: D. Smith; Pla Counsel: Michael DellAngelo, Patrick Madden, Michael Gayan and Robert Maysey; Def Counsel: Aaron Chiu, Joseph Axelrad, Danielle Leneck, Sam Mickovich, Max Shapiro and Matt Kaminer for Zuffa/TKO and Rory Kay, Maaren Shah, Gabriel Rosenblum, and Kristen Tahler for Endeavor in all applicable matters; Court Reporter: P. Eaker; Time of Hearing: 12:08 1:14; 1:47 3:42; Courtroom: 7C
The Court makes preliminary remarks and hears from counsel regarding ongoing discovery and related spoliation issues. The Court advises that outstanding motions will be ruled on in due course.
First, the Court addresses Plaintiffs' mention of a previously-undisclosed device belonging to Mr. White, in their 15 filing. The Court has the following questions and concerns for Defendants:
1.Has this phone ever been imaged?
2. Is it Defendants' position that the device is a personal phone?
3.Are there carrier records for this phone?
4.Why was this phone not previously disclosed by Defendants?
5.Does Mr. White have physical possession of the phone?
6.What is the time frame during which Mr. White used the phone and/or the phone number?
7.Is the phone in active use?
Defendants shall supply this information to the Court no later than 9/11/2026 in a sworn declaration by Mr. White as to question nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 and a sworn declaration by a party representative with knowledge as to question no. 1, 2 and 3.
Second, the Court addresses the parties' proposed protocols for production of information related to the ongoing spoliation proceedings. The Court advises Defendants their 729 counter-proposal for reviewing device extractions was insufficient and did not comply with the Court's prior 736 Order.
Argument heard. The Court notes that Defendants' objections to the ongoing spoliation proceedings have been preserved for the record. Defendants are instructed not to submit repetitive filings.
Third, the Court turns to the timing of when Plaintiffs may file a spoliation motion. Parties dispute whether spoliation and/or sanctions motions should be filed by the substantial completion date, the close of fact discovery, or the close of expert discovery.
A brief recess was held to give parties time to meet and confer; upon their return to Court, parties advised they were not able to come to an agreement as to the date for the filing of sanctions and/or spoliation motions, or the proposals and counter proposals for reviewing extractions. Argument from parties is heard.
The Court finds that expert testimony is required on the issues of: (i) proposed production protocols; (ii) indicia of spoliation and/or intentional destruction of data; (iii) the severity of spoliation sanctions, if granted.
Thus, IT IS ORDERED this matter is set for hearing on October 8, 2026 and October 9, 2026, beginning at 9:00 a.m. both days. These hearings will just be for the forensic experts for the parties. The hearing will begin with the Defense expert and then move to the Plaintiffs expert if necessary.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED any potential exhibits for this spoliation hearing should be shared at least two weeks prior to the hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED these exhibits shall be loaded into the Court's Box one week prior to the hearing. A link shall be provided by the courtroom administrator.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties file a joint brief, no longer than 10 pages each, outlining their respective positions, one week prior to the hearing. The Court advises the parties that they should be come to the hearings in October prepared to discuss any witnesses for any future spoliation proceedings.
(no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)