Mayweather Promotions, LLC v. PAC Entertainment Worldwide, LLC

Background

In September 2023, Judge Rearden referred outstanding discovery matters to Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis. The order addressed three disputes.

First Security Bank subpoena

Mayweather Promotions had sought a conference concerning an expected motion to quash PAC Entertainment’s subpoena to First Security Bank of Nevada. The subpoena sought all bank-account activity for accounts at that bank, which was the bank of Mayweather Promotions’ tax counsel and the bank designated for payment under the contract involved in the parties’ dispute.

In May 2023, Judge Rearden granted Mayweather Promotions’ request to move to quash the subpoena. But Mayweather Promotions never filed the expected motion. The court stated that it did not know whether PAC Entertainment withdrew the subpoena or whether the parties otherwise resolved the issue. The parties were ordered to submit a letter by January 21 updating the court on the subpoena’s status.

Deposition of Al Haymon

PAC Entertainment sought an order requiring non-party Al Haymon to appear for an in-person or video deposition. Counsel for Mayweather Promotions, acting on Haymon’s behalf, opposed that request and said Haymon did not own or operate a computer. The opposition proposed a telephone deposition.

The court explained that video depositions allow the questioning party to observe a witness’s demeanor. It distinguished the case relied on by Mayweather Promotions because, in that case, the party seeking the deposition was willing to conduct it by telephone. The court therefore ordered Haymon to sit for a deposition, but allowed him to choose whether to attend in person or by video.

Rule 30(b)(6) subpoena to ShowTime

The third dispute concerned a subpoena for a deposition of non-party ShowTime Networks, Inc. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), a corporation receiving a deposition notice must produce a knowledgeable person to testify about identified subjects when the topics are relevant, not unduly burdensome, and described with reasonable particularity.

ShowTime argued that discovery from other people affiliated with Mayweather Promotions should occur first and might eliminate the need for ShowTime’s deposition. PAC Entertainment argued that an email showed ShowTime had helped Mayweather Promotions revise a distribution agreement concerning the Floyd Mayweather, Jr.–Logan Paul fight, making ShowTime especially able to explain what happened.

The court found that the subpoena’s topics—communications and agreements related to the fight—were relevant and narrowly described. It therefore DENIED without prejudice ShowTime’s request for a conference in anticipation of a motion to quash the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. The court nevertheless ordered that ShowTime’s deposition occur after the depositions of non-parties Haymon, McNair, and Browne-Owens.

Other directives and disposition

The parties were ordered to submit a status update by January 21 concerning the schedule for any remaining document discovery or depositions. The clerk was respectfully requested to close Docket Nos. 112 and 120. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis.