## Facts

- Ryan Kerwin, owner of Xtreme Caged Combat (Xtreme), filed a federal antitrust action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Kerwin sued Cage Fury Fighting Championships (CFFC) and Rob Haydak, along with other alleged co-conspirators (including certain casinos and other MMA event companies), claiming they worked together to keep rivals, including Xtreme, out of the Philadelphia MMA market.
- In discovery, Kerwin served interrogatories and document requests aimed at defendants’ business relationships and competitive conduct, including requests for information about business agreements with casinos/venues, non-compete agreements, relative market-share information, and the nature and structure of defendants’ businesses.
- Kerwin also sought a broad set of CFFC materials, including a roster of fighters and fighter contracts, financial documents and profit information, advertising and ticket materials, sponsor and employee lists, and videos of past MMA events.
- Kerwin further requested the financial terms and contracts for every venue where CFFC had staged an MMA event.
- Haydak and CFFC refused to provide much of the requested material, contending the requests were overbroad and sought confidential commercial information that a direct competitor could use for an unfair business advantage.
- Kerwin moved to compel responses to specific interrogatories and document requests.
- Haydak and CFFC moved for a protective order to block or limit the discovery.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), Kerwin’s requested discovery was within the allowable scope because it was relevant to the antitrust claims and proportional to the needs of the case.
2. Whether, under Rule 26(c), Haydak and CFFC showed good cause for a protective order based on confidentiality, competitive harm, and burden.
3. How the court should tailor any compelled production and any protective relief to balance case needs against the risk of competitive misuse.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part Kerwin’s motion to compel.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Haydak and CFFC’s motion for a protective order.
- The court required responses and production as to categories of information tied to the alleged exclusionary conduct and market conditions, including materials concerning agreements and other arrangements with casinos/venues and related competitive restrictions (such as non-compete-type terms), to the extent those materials bore on the antitrust theory.
- The court declined to require wholesale production of broad internal business materials where the requests were not shown to be justified by the needs of the case or were framed so broadly that they functioned as competitor business intelligence (including, as requested, wide-ranging fighter-related materials, detailed financial information, and other internal operational content), and it narrowed discovery accordingly.
- The court ordered protective treatment for sensitive commercial information, limiting how produced material could be used and shared in the litigation.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 26(b)(1), discovery extends to nonprivileged matter relevant to a party’s claims or defenses, but it is limited by proportionality, including the importance of the issues, the amount in controversy, access to information, party resources, and whether the burden outweighs likely benefit.
- In antitrust cases, discovery may properly include information about market structure, market power, competitive conditions, and agreements or practices alleged to exclude rivals, because such facts can bear on liability and damages.
- Rule 26 does not permit a party to demand sweeping disclosures of a competitor’s internal operations without tying the request to the pleaded theory and showing that the breadth of the request is justified by the needs of the case.
- Under Rule 26(c), the producing party must show good cause for a protective order; competitively sensitive commercial information can justify protection when disclosure risks business harm.
- Confidentiality concerns generally call for tailored protections (limits on use and disclosure) rather than a complete bar on otherwise proper discovery, and courts may narrow requests, phase discovery, or impose confidentiality restrictions to manage risk.

## Conclusion

Kerwin arose from cross-motions to compel and for a protective order in a Philadelphia-area MMA antitrust case. The court allowed discovery targeted to agreements and competitive restraints bearing on the alleged market exclusion, while limiting or conditioning broader requests for internal and competitively sensitive materials through narrowed production obligations and protective restrictions.


Kerwin v. Cage Fury Fighting Championships, 2015 WL 5092976 (2015)