Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.

1, Page 1 of 48

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Form 28. Response to Answering Briefs

9th Cir. Case Number(s) 23-3113

Case Name ZUFFA, LLC d/b/a ULTIMATE FIGHTING

CHAMPIONSHIP, a Nevada limited liability
Company; BROCK LESNAR, an individual;
and DANA WHITE, an individual.

1. Appellant Name MARK HUNT

2. Describe briefly the motion/s to which you are responding:

APPELLEES ZUFFA, LLC AND DANA

WHITE’S ANSWERING BRIEF

AND

APPELLEE BROCK LESNAR’S BRIEF

Date filed: May 8, 2024

3. What is your response?

As is typical in the filings of the Appellees, their answering briefs are littered

with narrative that rarely relies on fact, evidence or truth. Their replies are a

continuation of over eight years of collusion, misrepresentations and

falsifications designed to mislead, defraud, and cause harm whether negligently,

recklessly or intentionally, and are a persistent perpetuation of the

contraventions of the RICO Act. Disturbingly, the Appellees intensified their

harms by stalking and intimidating the Appellant’s partner and her 16year-old
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 2 of 48

Son, in the months prior to this reply1,2. Further, the Appellees rely on a bizarre

confidence where they dictate that any decision made earlier at the district

court, even if flawed, should not be allowed to be questioned via appeal. They

direct that Hunt should not have the opportunity to raise these flaws for fair and

just decision making to take place. This renders their entire answering briefs as

an ineffectual repetition of arguments already evidenced against them. However,

in an effort for completeness in assisting the court to examine the particulars in

the correct context, the Appellant replies to the purported issues raised for

review by the Appellees in their answering briefs, in the order they have been

written by the Appellees –

1. The Appellees raise their first issue that no evidence was presented of any

false or concealed factual representations 3. This theme is repeated often

and notably, is a statement not that the evidence does not exist and rather,

that for reasons unexplained, it was neither presented or relied on.

However, in this instance, there are many evidenced examples of false

and misleading representations and concealments and some of the

relevant examples include –

a) the text messages that demonstrate Dana White (“White”) and Brock

Lesnar (“Lesnar”) made the arrangement for him to fight in UFC 200

during March 21 to March 23, 20164;

1
DktEntry: 27.1, Motion that describes Hunt’s partner being stalked and intimidated over several weeks.
2
See Exhibit 1, Vehicle that followed Hunt’s partner and her son.
3
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 11, Line 5-6.
4
See Exhibit ZUFFA05720 at 59-62 (iPhone extraction report from Dana White) (sealed).
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 3 of 48

b) the text message from Lesnar to White on March 22, 2016 that confirmed

he had permission from Vince McMahon (“McMahon”) to proceed with

UFC 2005;

c) when USADA entered Lesnar’s details into the testing pool from April 1,

20166 and this was continually misrepresented as Lesnar not having

entered the testing pool until June 6, 2016;

d) on April 9, 2016 when Lesnar requests for White to send him UFC gear

“without letting on to anybody”7;

e) during May 2016, when the UFC 200 PR photoshoot was arranged with

Lesnar via text message8;

f) on May 21, 2016 when White and Lesnar text each other about the UFC

200 fight roster being placed on the internet and Lesnar states “...hopefully

we don’t let this cat out of the bag until we let it.”9;

g) on May 27, 2016 when Mark Hunt (“Hunt”) messages White on Twitter

and White misleads Hunt stating he has not found him an opponent yet10;

h) on June 6, 2016 when Jeff Novitzky (“Novitzky”) circulates an email with

three USADA staff11 directing how they should manage the optics around

the extraordinarily applied Lesnar exemption when it is announced;

i) between June 7 to June 9, 2016 when Hunt messages White on Twitter

requesting explanation for the extraordinary exemption granted to Lesnar

and White replies that he had to do so in order to “get the deal done” with

5
Id.
6
See Exhibit USADA000053 (Lesnar whereabouts filing) (sealed)
7
See Exhibit ZUFFA05720 (iPhone extraction report from Dana White) (sealed).
8
Id.
9
See Exhibit ZUFFA05720-ZUFFA05721, 93-97 (iPhone extraction report from Dana White) (sealed).
10
ECF No. 263-1 at 6.
11
See Exhibit ZUFFA02432-ZUFFA02449 (email thread between Novitzky and USADA) (sealed).
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 4 of 48

McMahon. Which is contradictory to the fact that the deal had been made

prior and confirmed via text between White and Lesnar in March 2016;

j) on June 8, 2016 when Lesnar directs the “It’s Time” podcast interviewer

Paul Heyman (“Heyman”) in an email thread, to not discuss that he has

been in training already12 and expresses himself with “lmao” when

discussing how they manipulated the narrative to suit the Appellees

agenda, to Hunts detriment;

k) on July 27, 2016 when Novitzky emails Christina Denning (“Denning”)

and Hunt13 to falsely declare that Lesnar had been subject to out of

competition and no-advance notice testing. He states this, despite having

granted Lesnar the extraordinary exemption from testing until June, and

even though the USADA discovery shows Lesnar was entered into the

testing pool on April 1, 2016 and in addition to the fact Lesnar made the

agreement to fight at UFC 200 in March 2016. Further, the fact that testing

was delayed until June, also equates to providing advance notice being

given to Lesnar;

l) on October 27, 2022 when White perjures himself during his video

deposition and states that he has no knowledge of Lesnar’s exemption14;

m) on December 7, 2022 when Lesnar perjures himself during his video

deposition and states that he has never used performance enhancing drugs

in breach of contract15;

12
See Exhibit BL00074-BL00082 (“It’s Time” podcast email thread) (sealed).
13
See Exhibit ZUFFA00943-ZUFFA00944 (email from Novitzky to Denning and Hunt) (sealed).
14
See Exhibit DanaWhiteJnr_PDFTran.pdf, 18-21. (Dana White deposition extract).
15
See Exhibit BL120722_FULL (deposition transcript of Lesnar).
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 5 of 48

n) when the Appellees routinely state that Lesnar tested clean six times prior

to UFC 200 and omit that two of Lesnars’ test results returned positive for

banned substances prior to UFC 20016;

o) the assertion by the Appellees in their answering brief on May 8, 2024 that

the new reason why there was a delay to announcing Lesnar for UFC 200

was that they apparently, awaited Lorenzo Fertitta’s (“Fertitta”)

oversight17.

2) The Appellees allege that there was no evidence of Hunt relying on the

misrepresentations to his detriment 18. Rather, it was very evident that

Hunt relied on the assurances of White when he queried about Lesnar’s

potential doping in their Twitter conversation19; when Hunt also relied on

the contracted Promotional and Ancillary Rights Agreement (PARA),

UFC 200 Bout Agreement (“BA”), and the Anti-Doping Policy that is

conditional to the agreements as assurances of a minimum standard of

expectation. That expectation was that his boss White and the company

he was contracted to, the UFC, would do everything in their power to

ensure that he was not put at risk against a doped fighter. The fact that he

relied on those assurances that were the equivalent to a volume of

misrepresentations that misled him, is the very basis of having relied on

the many falsehoods to his detriment.

16
See Exhibit USADA000311 (adverse findings lab report for Lesnar) (sealed).
17
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 38, Line 18.
18
Id. Line 6.
19
ECF No. 263-1 at 6.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 6 of 48

3) The Appellees allege that Hunt’s aiding and abetting claim that was

premised on the underlying battery claim had failed20. This is incorrect, as

is evidenced in the dialogue between Hunt and White in the Twitter

messages prior to the bout21. Obviously, Hunt repeatedly, overtly and

explicitly did not consent to fighting a doped opponent, and therefore the

element of battery, that is defined as any wilful and unlawful use of force

or violence upon the person of another without consent, has been met.

4) The Appellees allege that evidence was not presented to show that UFC

or White knew22 that Lesnar was using banned substances prior to the

bout or that evidence was not presented to show that they “substantially

assisted or encouraged him to do so.” This statement infers that it isn’t

that evidence doesn’t exist, rather that the evidence simply has not been

presented or relied upon yet. Fortunately, text messages remain forever23

and emails that are found in discovery are material evidence that

demonstrate a high likelihood that White, and White on behalf of UFC

(given that he is their CEO) was knowledgeable to Lesnar’s behaviour.

The text messages reveal this, when Lesnar has an urgent matter that he

needed to discuss privately with White, and thereafter, was put in touch

with Novitzky to ensure their plans would not be stifled. Appellees

20
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 32, Line 6-7.
21
ECF No. 263-1 at 6.
22
Id. Page 32, Line 10-11.
23
ECF No. 263-1
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 7 of 48

suggest that the baseline of how much UFC or White “substantially

assisted or encouraged” Lesnar’s use of banned substances should

determine how complicit they are. However creative the writing is, the

threshold isn’t how “much” UFC and White may or may not have

assisted Lesnar in his use or concealment of use of banned substances.

The threshold of liability for the harms committed, is whether it did or

didn’t occur. This statement of how much UFC or White “substantially

assisted or encouraged” Lesnar’s use, is an oxymoron that provides an

admission that Lesnar was assisted and encouraged to use banned

substances, and attempts to reduce culpability for the misrepresentations

and frauds that Hunt continually relied on to his detriment.

5) The Appellees allege that evidence wasn’t presented to demonstrate that

UFC or White knowingly and “substantially encouraged or assisted”24

Lesnar’s wrongful conduct. As to the previous reply at point 4, the text

messages25 and emails found in discovery are material evidence that

prove otherwise. From their arrangement of Lesnar competing from

March 2016, through to the timing and manipulation of information and

optics managed by Novitzky, when it came to finally announcing Lesnar

as Hunt’s opponent months later. Appellees again suggest that the

baseline of how much UFC or White knowingly “substantially

24
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 32, Line 11.
25
ECF No. 263-1
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 8 of 48

encouraged or assisted” in Lesnar’s wrongful conduct should determine

how complicit they are. Whether UFC and White are complicit is not

subjective and the threshold should not be how “much” UFC and White

may or may not have assisted Lesnar in his wrongful conduct, rather the

threshold is whether they did or did not. Carrying over from point 4, this

statement of how much UFC or White “substantially encouraged or

assisted” Lesnar’s wrongful conduct, is another oxymoron that provides

an admission that Lesnar was encouraged and assisted in his wrongful

conduct and attempts to reduce culpability for the misrepresentations and

frauds that Hunt continually relied on to his detriment.

6) The Appellees allege that Hunt’s civil conspiracy claim did not establish

an underlying intentional harm26 and that no civil conspiracy evidence

was presented. Again, another point where it is stipulated not that the

evidence does not exist, it was rather, not presented27. This is

understandably, one of the many relevant reasons that this appeal has

been lodged. Certainly, in all of the substantiated, material evidence

provided throughout, there has been a long term concerted and unlawful

objective that constitutes an intentional purpose to mislead and

misrepresent the facts to the detriment of Hunt, who has suffered the

ongoing harms resulting in almost eight years of damages. The colluding

26
DktEntry 34.1: Page 32, Line 14.
27
Id. Line 17.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 9 of 48

parties including UFC, White, Lesnar, Novitzky, USADA and NSAC all

playing roles in the initial frauds and now the ongoing false narrative

perpetuated against Hunt, is unmistakeably a civil conspiracy.

7) The Appellees allege that no evidence was presented that defendants

agreed upon an unlawful objective intended to harm28. The Appellees

stipulate that UFC, NSAC and USADA all agreed to permit the

extraordinary exemption for Lesnar29. This affirms that UFC, White,

NSAC, Lesnar and USADA were complicit in this arrangement. Whether

intentional or recklessly defined, the actions of the Appellees is a

collusion of stakeholders who have misrepresented the facts from the

moment Lesnar had made the agreement to fight at UFC 200 from March

2016; regarding the facts surrounding the application of the exemption

from testing, and is the causation of significant harm and damages to

Hunt as a result of the unlawful objectives.

8) The Appellees describe that evidence was not presented that Hunt was

damaged30, and highlight that this was that the district courts summary

judgement finding stipulated it had not reviewed that information yet.

This again, is another point where it is not that Hunt has not suffered

damages, rather he has not had opportunity for them to be adequately

presented or reviewed yet.

28
Id. Line 16.
29
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 39, Line 20 & Page 40, Line 1.
30
Id. Line 18.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 10 of 48

9) The Appellees paraphrase31 that in their opinion, given that Hunt signed

the PARA that outlines his pay for that period, that the PARA gave Hunt

“everything he wanted.” An acceptance of the PARA, and an acceptance

of the pay level, does not constitute an acceptance of any standard of

corruption of the agreement, or contract or policies for the UFC 200. It

certainly does not overturn Hunt’s many objections made to fighting a

doped Lesnar, nor does it equate to an acceptance for Hunt’s opponent

and employer to breach their contracts and obligations to the Anti-Doping

policy.

10) The Appellees allege that the Lesnar-Hunt bout announcement was

partially delayed due to UFC’s inability to finalise contractual terms 32

with Lesnar and obtain consents from World Wrestling Entertainment

(“WWE”). This is incorrect, as is evidenced in the text messages from

March 2016, that show the agreement was made between White and

Lesnar, and that consent was sought and given by McMahon. Further, this

argument is now null, given that the Appellees have a new assertion as of

May 8, 2024 where they suggest eight years later that actually, the delay

was caused not by McMahon, but by a need for Fertitta to have oversight.

11) The Appellees confirm that Lesnar could not enter the Anti-

Doping Program testing pool until he was under contract with UFC 33. The

31
Id. Page 14, line 4.
32
Id. Page 15, line 1-3.
33
Id. Line 9.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 11 of 48

fact that the USADA discovery shows Lesnar having been entered into

the testing pool from April 1, 2016, thereby also further confirms that he

was confirmed as participating in UFC 200 from March 2016.

12) The Appellees allege that Hunt did not detrimentally rely on any

statements about the timing or identity of his opponent34. Hunts trust in

Whites false replies on Twitter when he stated he didn’t know who Hunts

opponent would be, when he absolutely had known since March 2016;

Hunts reliance on Whites assurances via messaging on Twitter upon

finally learning who his opponent would be after many months delay;

Hunts further reliance on Whites misrepresentations when convincing

Hunt that Lesnar would be adequately tested, when Hunt had finally

learned who his opponent would be; in conjunction with his reliance on

the terms and conditions of the PARA, UFC 200 BA and the Anti-Doping

Policy, undeniably establishes that Hunt did detrimentally rely on the

statements related to the timing of the announcement of his opponent and

the identity of his opponent.

13) The Appellees allege that Hunt holds a philosophy that he would

fight any opponent, at any time if the price is right 35. This opinion is

taken out of context, and does not include an acceptance to fight drug

cheats. In fact, Hunt’s agreement was the opposite, and relied on the Anti-

34
Id. Line 12-13.
35
Id. Line 14.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 12 of 48

Doping Program, Anti-Doping Policy and Whites additional assurances

that his opponent would be clean.

14) The Appellees allege that Hunt was not contractually obligated to

fight at UFC 20036. It is well documented that when Hunt has tried to

refuse to fight opponents that he is suspect of doping, he has been coerced

by the UFC to fight irrespective. An exhibit is provided as video footage

of Hunt’s former counsel describing the letter he was served that forced

him to fight or be found in breach of contract37.

15) The Appellees allege that Hunt was free to decline the fight after

learning Lesnar was his opponent 38. In fact as evidenced in the messages

between White and Hunt, Hunt obviously and repeatedly sought

assurances that Lesnar wasn’t doping, as he did not want to take such a

risk against a doped up Lesnar. Further, an opponent that is much larger

and one that was extraordinarily enabled to have a private weigh in.

Furthermore, Hunt was not provided an option to decline the fight. In

fact, as in the previous point, it is iterated that Hunt was served a letter

that coerced him to fight on occasion when he tried to refuse 39.

16) The Appellees allege that should Hunt have had reservations about

fighting against a doped opponent, that he should have proposed revisions

36
Id. Line 18.
37
Exhibit 2, Video recording for former Counsel Christina Denning attesting to the letter received.
38
DktEntry 34.1: Page 15, Line 19.
39
Exhibit 2, Video recording of former Counsel Christina Denning attesting to the letter received.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 13 of 48

to address what would happen should Lesnar test positive to using banned

substances40. The Twitter messages produced between White and Hunt,

show that Hunt did attempt to have his boss, Mr White, to vary the

conditions should that be the case. Further, Hunt should have been able to

rely on the obligations outlined in the Anti-Doping Policy and Whites

assurances to ensure his safety.

17) The Appellees allege that Hunt didn’t rely on White’s statements

to mean that Lesnar would be clean41. Unfortunately, Hunt’s consistent

queries about Lesnar being clean, cannot be misconstrued to mean

anything else. Whites affirmative responses were an indication to assure

Hunt. Hunt should have also been able to rely on the covenant of good

faith when signing a contract, that the promoter would adhere to the very

protocols and standards that Hunt was signing on for. The very existence

of an Anti-Doping program meant that Hunt was led to believe that this

was the minimum standard that he could rely on.

18) The Appellees, take two sentences out of context from Hunt’s

deposition where they allege that as UFC and White cannot control what

Lesnar does42 in so far as to micromanage an individual, that this means

Hunt accepts a corrupted standard of operating from White and UFC. The

UFC and White, are responsible for ensuring that their contractors are

40
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 16, line 9-10.
41
Id. Page 17, line 1-3.
42
Id. Line 4-5.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 14 of 48

operating to the standard that they sign on to and to attempt to subvert

from their responsibilities and obligations to all contractors, is simply an

admission of negligence. UFC and White are obligated and have a duty to

provide a safe work environment and to adhere to the standards set by

them, in their contracts and Anti-Doping policy and program. If UFC and

White are suggesting that they had some kind of knowledge that led them

to understand that they didn’t think Lesnar would follow the rules and

that he could not be relied on to adhere to the standards of the contracts

they initiated, then this is an admission that they knowingly put Hunt at

risk against an opponent who they assumed was not going to uphold the

standards and be in breach of contract.

19) The Appellees further remove context in Hunt’s deposition when

they ask if he thinks UFC did anything wrong with respect to the testing

of Mr. Lesnar43. Hunt’s reply that he didn’t think so, was in the context

that he as a fighter has no knowledge of how laboratory testing works; he

couldn’t possibly know how their testing processes may or may not be

corrupted scientifically and couldn’t have an opinion on that. Hunts pre-

bout queries and continual insistence to understand if Lesnar was going to

be tested adequately, is the true perception of Hunts concern and position.

43
Id. Line 10.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 15 of 48

20) The Appellees utilise word-smithing to attempt to rearrange

language when arguing that Hunt’s evidence of White’s pre-UFC 200

assurances do not constitute false statements and omissions44. The

messages exist and do not require analysis to understand the explicit

meanings. Further, this false narrative continues by describing that Hunt

conceded there was no evidence that those statements were untruthful 45.

Unfortunately for the Appellees, to state the opposite of what is presented

in the factual, substantiated evidence found in discovery, does not negate

the reality. White stated he didn’t know who the opponent would be,

when he did know and had made the arrangements himself, directly with

Lesnar. White withheld this information for months, and pretended for

nearly eight years that the reason they delayed the announcement was that

they needed McMahons permission for Lesnar to fight. This was also

untrue, as Lesnar texted to tell White that McMahon had approved the

very next day, on March 22, 2016. Eight years later, on May 8, 2024, we

now have a different version presented that it was actually Fertitta who

they were waiting on. Hunt was irrefutably misled by false statements and

omissions by White, to his detriment, for nearly eight years.

21) The Appellees describe that Hunt had no evidence that UFC or

White knew prior to UFC 200 that Lesnar had used banned substances46.

44
Id. Line 12-13.
45
Id. Line 14.
46
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 17, line 15-16.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 16 of 48

However, as referenced in previous points, the text message exchanges

indicate otherwise. Specifically, when Lesnar requires a private chat with

White that leads to an arrangement with Novitzky, and certainly the

manipulation of information as to the date that Lesnar was entered into

the testing pool so as to delay his testing until merely weeks before UFC

200. Further, the USADA discovery shows that they did know Lesnar had

tested positive twice before UFC 200.

22) The Appellees allege that there is no evidence that UFC or White

delayed or concealed any of Lesnar’s test results 47. Rather, the evidence

points to a deliberate delay and concealment. Given that the USADA

discovery holds two positive results prior to the bout and the extensive

lengths that the stakeholders went to, to ensure that Lesnar wouldn’t be

tested until weeks before the fight, by granting the extraordinary

exemption and hiding that Lesnar was already in training for UFC 200

from March 2016.

23) The Appellees allege that there was no evidence that UFC or

White agreed with anyone to engage in unlawful conduct 48. Unlawful

conduct is the result of actions committed, whether or not the collusion

was overtly or covertly arranged. Rather, the thread of demonstrated

actions and choices made by the parties involved, and the substantiated

47
Id. Line 16-17.
48
Id. Page 18, line 1.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 17 of 48

material evidence in the form of text messages and emails, to perjury that

contradicts the paper evidence, make it plain to see that the collusion was

unlawful, and was conducted on purpose. The unlawful conduct has

continued for almost eight years, to the significant detriment of Hunt.

24) The Appellees allege that there was no genuinely disputed

evidence that Hunt would have declined or withdrawn from the fight with

Lesnar had he known he was juiced to the gills49, and had he known that

UFC would not enforce the Anti-Doping Policy. This is incorrect, and is

evidenced in Hunt’s messages to White via Twitter, where he seeks

assurances that Lesnar isn’t doping. It is also evidenced, that Hunt has

been coerced to fight when faced with a suspected doped opponent on

other occasions, when he has been served with a letter from Hunter

Campbell threatening that he would be in breach of contract if he did not

fight.

25) The Appellees again remove context from a reply during Hunt’s

deposition when asked if he had considered withdrawing from the fight50.

Hunt explicitly made his concerns known to White prior to the bout, and

made his decision to continue based on the Anti-Doping Policy that he

relied on, and Whites word that he also relied on to his detriment. Being

able to rely on the contract he signed, and the CEO of UFC’s assurances,

49
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 18, line 8-13.
50
Id. Line 15-20.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 18 of 48

is what led to Hunts decision making. Had information not been hidden

from Hunt as to who his opponent would be when it was known much

sooner in March 2016, prior to the PR campaign, its possible he may have

made a different decision.

26) The Appellees describe Hunt’s smack talk51, familiar in the lead up

to any bout as factual. Unfortunately, this common feature in professional

combat sports has always existed and cannot be argued as a feature that

did not exist in the UFC 200 promotional activities.

27) The Appellees incorrectly allege that Hunt’s humble character that

he is known for and had displayed throughout the promotion of the event

and after52, negates Hunts concerns that were raised with White prior and

after the bout. Hunts professionalism was maintained, and this does not

invalidate his genuine concerns that were raised with White.

28) The Appellees allege that Lesnar was registered by USADA into

the UFC’s Anti-Doping testing pool on June 6, 201653. Unfortunately, the

USADA discovery shows that Lesnar was in fact entered into the testing

pool on April 1, 201654.

29) The Appellees allege that the reason Lesnar was granted

exemption from the four months of testing, was that it would be

51
Id. Page 19, line 10.
52
Id. Line 18-20.
53
Id. Page 20, line 5.
54
See Exhibit USADA000322 (adverse finding lab report for Lesnar) (sealed).
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 19 of 48

manifestly unfair to the athlete. As described in the opening brief, the

four-month testing rule was designed for athletes who re-enter the UFC to

ensure that they cannot dope. Applying this exemption as the reason to

grant an athlete the ability to circumvent the testing phase as an athlete

who meets the criteria that the rule was created for, means that the

exemption was granted fraudulently. Further, the “manifestly unfair”

reason that was given to grant Lesnar the exemption, completely ignores

that to grant the exemption is to be “manifestly unfair” to his non-doping

opponent.

30) The Appellees allege that Lesnar did not control when he would

receive permission from WWE to compete in the UFC 200, and once he

received permission from WWE55 and finalised his contracts with UFC,

he immediately entered the testing program 56. As the USADA discovery

proves Lesnar entered the program on April 1, 201657, then this confirms

his permission to participate was granted prior to April and further, as is

evidenced, his agreement to fight in UFC 200 was made with White prior

to April, and McMahon had granted permission on March 22, 2016 as

confirmed by Lesnar in the text messages to White.

31) The Appellees confirm that UFC advised USADA and NSAC of

the exemption decision and that all three stakeholders were comfortable

55
See Exhibit ZUFFA05720 (iPhone extraction report from Dana White) (sealed).
56
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 21, line 5-7.
57
See Exhibit USADA00041 (Lesnar whereabouts filing) (sealed).
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 20 of 48

with this58. This affirms the parties as UFC, White, Novitzky, USADA,

NSAC, Fertitta and Lesnar as those in collusion.

32) The Appellees wrongly state that Hunt had no evidence to suggest

that UFC granted Lesnar the exemption to harm him59. In fact, the harm

was caused from the moment the colluders commenced their conspiracy

to hide pertinent information from Hunt, from the time that White and

Lesnar had made the agreement in March 2016, for him to join UFC 200.

The harm was caused when misrepresenting the facts, omitting

information, and misleading Hunt, so that he be coerced into fighting a

doped fighter when he had made it clear that he did not consent to that.

The exemption is only one attribute of the many harms committed. The

harms were exacerbated, when for almost eight years, the Appellees have

carried on with their collusion, misrepresentations, omissions, outright

perjury in their video depositions that are in contradiction to the paper

evidence in discovery, and now in 2024 to the stalking and intimidation

of Hunt’s partner and her child.

33) The Appellees allege that in deposition Hunt agreed it was fair for

UFC to assume that Lesnar probably was not doping given that his first

six drug tests prior to UFC 200 were negative60. In context, what Hunt

58
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 21, Line 9-10.
59
Id. Line 13.
60
Id. Line 13 and DktEntry: 34.1, Page 22, Line 1.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 21 of 48

agreed to, was that if those results were true, then it might be fair to

assume such.

34) The Appellees describe that when Lesnar tested positive to banned

substances, that the substances were a type that increases testosterone 61.

The banned substance, Clomiphene, is known as a type that athletes will

take to clear other steroids from their system. Alternatively, it is a

medicine for women suffering from poly-cystic ovary syndrome.

Therefore, unless Lesnar identifies as trans and is suffering from poly-

cystic ovaries, there is no other reason for this banned substance to be in

his system.

35) The Appellees allege that Lesnar was the most tested athlete on the

UFC 200 card based on when he entered the Anti-Doping Program62. This

incorrect statement relies on the misrepresented information that Lesnar

was entered into the testing pool in June when in fact, the USADA

discovery shows Lesnar was entered into the pool on April 1, 201663.

36) The Appellees describe that during the bout, there were punches

and kicks while standing and that these movements are a normal part of a

fight64. Certainly, Hunt agrees that these actions are ordinarily features of

a fight that is between two opponents who are equally not doped. Hunt

61
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 22, Line 6-9.
62
Id. Line 12-13.
63
See Exhibit USADA00041 (Lesnar whereabouts filing) (sealed).
64
DktEntry 34.1: Page 23, Line 1-3.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 22 of 48

did not agree that these movements when performed by a doped fighter,

are equivalent. Rather, as repeatedly evidenced, Hunt understands there to

be such a significant difference that he repeatedly sought assurances from

White that Lesnar wasn’t doping.

37) The Appellees mention that in the fight, Lesnar was never close to

knocking Hunt out or TKO 65. This is a statement and demonstration of

Hunt’s expertise, and should not be conflated to assume that he

contemporaneously accepts a corrupted standard of operation for the

fight, and doesn’t equate to Hunt agreeing to have fought a doped fighter

just because he didn’t die or get knocked out in the bout.

38) The Appellees allege that because Hunt didn’t suffer any

permanent physical injuries, that this means Hunt was not harmed 66.

Battery, is non-consensual touching or unlawful use of wilful violence

against another. Hunt did not consent to a bout with a doped fighter. Hunt

did not have to suffer permanent physical injuries to suffer a harm. He

was harmed when battered without consent, by a doped fighter. His harm

didn’t start there though – it commenced the moment that the parties

involved chose to hide information from him, and continued their false

narratives for nearly eight years now.

65
Id. Line 4.
66
Id. Line 8-10.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 23 of 48

39) The Appellees go on to conflate a comment Hunt has provided

where he has suggested one time that fighters could maintain fan levels 67

or gain fans even after a loss. This again is to conflate the statement, with

fact that is very different. There are eight years of negative portrayal,

commentary, news articles, social media – millions of character

assassinating media content about Hunt, driven by the Appellees false

narratives about him. Hunt has lost countless fans and is continually,

heavily trolled online by UFC, White and Lesnar fans who are none the

wiser to the reality of what has taken place.

40) The Appellees quote Lesnar’s comments that he had never taken

banned substances68. Unfortunately, the lab results are the factual

evidence69, and when Lesnar continues his lies by perjuring himself in the

video deposition, this does not change the substantiated facts.

41) The Appellees continue by suggesting that if Lesnar didn’t expect

to test positive70, that in his opinion, under those circumstances he

believed that meant that neither UFC or White to have been none the

wiser. Unfortunately, Lesnar’s opinion is not fact. Nor can it be fairly

relied upon in any part of this matter, given his propensity to be

untruthful before, during and for over seven years after the incident that

67
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 24, Line 1-2.
68
Id. Line 7.
69
See Exhibit USADA000322 (adverse finding lab report for Lesnar) (sealed).
70
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 24, Line 9-10.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 24 of 48

caused this law suit. Further, this opinion is contrary to the extensive

substantiated material evidence that shows otherwise.

42) The Appellees stipulate that White denied having any knowledge

that Lesnar was taking banned substances prior to UFC 200 71. White had

conversed on a “private matter” with Lesnar via text message, shortly

after making the agreement for him to join UFC 200. Lesnar’s

participation in UFC 200 was then hidden until they were ready to

announce in June. Whites’ denial of knowledge, is disputed by the

material evidence, mainly in the text messages that suggest otherwise.

43) The Appellees again mention that Hunt provided no evidence of

damages72. This is a stipulation not that damages don’t exist, rather they

were not shown. As described in the summary judgement, it is explained

that they were not yet reviewed.

44) The Appellees allege that Hunt did not suffer any emotional or

mental injuries caused by the bout73 and that the expert did not render any

diagnosis by Dr. Hastings74. As is the unrelenting tone of the Appellees

filings, this is factually incorrect. Dr. Hastings’ 2022 expert report found

that –

“Mr. Hunt …experiences anxiety that escalates to symptoms of panic when he

hears the name of the company. Mr. Hunt says that when triggered, his chest
feels tight, he has difficulty breathing, starts sweating, and has a fear of dying.

71
Id. Line 10-11.
72
Id. Page 25, Line 9.
73
Id. Line 11.
74
ECF 231-8 (Dr Hasting’s expert report)
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 25 of 48

As defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth

Edition (DSM-5), these are symptoms of a panic attack.

Mr. Hunt describes having had difficulty sleeping, as well. He states that his
active lawsuit against the UFC has prevented him from getting jobs, which
augments his stress.

Mr. Hunt explains the anger he has felt towards the UFC for arranging fights
between him and fighters who were proven to be doing steroids.

Mr. Hunt says that being forced to fight against them "took away the love for
what I do." So, when he gave up his future with the UFC because he had been
betrayed by its leaders, it resulted in significant emotional turmoil.

Mr. Hunt describes how symptoms of anxiety and depression ensued once he
stopped fighting and reflects on the unfairness of the fights arranged by the UFC.
After it was revealed that Lesnar had been using steroids at the time of their
fight, Mr. Hunt became “anti-social and depressed.”
Mr. Hunt also felt betrayed by Dana White, President of UFC, because Mr. Hunt
had asked Mr. White to make sure Lesnar was clean before the fight. Following
the Lesnar fight, Mr. Hunt was easily irritated and withdrew from family and
friends. He gained a significant amount of weight during that time.

According to the DSM-5, a noticeable change in eating habits and weight is a

diagnostic criterion for clinical depression when accompanied by depressive
features. Additional symptoms include loss of interest and pleasure in life events
and relationships, difficulty sleeping, lethargy, and feelings of worthlessness – all
which Mr. Hunt experienced.

Based on Mr. Hunt’s reported symptoms, he met criteria for Major Depressive
Disorder. When an individual experiences a maladaptive response to a specific
stressor, preventing him or her from going on with normal everyday life, a
diagnosis of an adjustment disorder must also be considered.

According to the DSM-5, Mr. Hunt has met criteria for Adjustment Disorder
with Anxiety since the aftermath of his rupture with the UFC.

A neuro-psychological assessment was administered by Roy Sugannan, Ph.D. in

October of 2017. Data which evaluated Mr. Hunt’s psychoemotional functioning
reflected “moderate depression, severe anxiety and mild stress.” The evaluation
was conducted the year following Mr. Hunt’s fight against Brock Lesnar.

During a discussion with Mr. Hunt, he stated that he continues to experience

symptoms of anxiety and depression due to the fallout between him and the
UFC. When forced to fight someone who had an unfair advantage (i.e., steroids)
in the ring, it was potentially a subconscious reminder of having to face his
biggest childhood opponent who had an unfair advantage – his father.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 26 of 48

To feel as though no one had his back gave him a sense of hopelessness – how
could he defeat someone armed with superficial dominance? He was being
sacrificed for others’ income and pleasure.

Once the unethical dynamics of the UFC were exposed to him, he “lost hope;
there was no point” in training or fighting. As Mark stated during one of our
conversations, when he felt like he was being set-up to lose, he questioned
whether he wanted to be alive anymore. He knew a fight was coming that he
couldn’t win. Research has shown that hopelessness is the number one precursor
to suicide.

45) The Appellees allege that Hunt failed to present any cognizable

evidence of economic harm to his career from fighting Lesnar75. This is

incorrect. The correct statement is that as per the summary judgement,

damages were not yet reviewed. Further, the almost eight years of

degrading, derogatory, defamatory media and anti-Hunt content driven by

the UFC narrative, has certainly caused significant impact and damages

to Hunt economically.

46) The Appellees allege that Hunt’s career was not impacted due to

the Lesnar bout76. This is also incorrect. Hunts character has been

assassinated by the UFC’s fraudulent narrative that they have carried on

for almost eight years. Hunt’s Juggernaut brand stopped trading, he has

been unable to secure new fight contracts, and there are millions of

articles, interviews, You Tube commentary videos and social media trolls

that have attacked him for his stance against the UFC’s practices. Hunt

75
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 25, Line 19-20.
76
Id. Page 26, Line 1-2.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 27 of 48

had fair and genuine career aspirations prior to the Lesnar fight and had

he not been defrauded by White who he trusted, and the entire group who

colluded to misrepresent facts and mislead him – he unquestionably

would not have suffered brand damage, character assassination or

hopelessness that led to his loss of motivation thereafter. Hunt would

have continued with his career, and undoubtably would have continued to

maintain his place in the top 10 worldwide.

47) The Appellees allege that Hunt’s claim of aspirational damages to

be defective77. Hunt was number four in the world prior to the Lesnar

fight. It is hardly far from reality for a top ten fighter to contend to

achieve their aspirations, especially when they have already achieved

world number one status in other titles. As in point 46, the many years of

public brand and character assassination by the UFC false narrative

against Hunt has unequivocally affected his ability to reach his career

goals. Further, the psychological harm as a result of his boss and

employer demonstrating scant care for his welfare when misleading him

and coercing him to fight a doped Lesnar has had ongoing significant

repercussions to his ability to be motivated.

48) The Appellees describe that Hunt declared and tried to

“wordsmith”78 his testimony that no-one at UFC had ever represented to

77
Id. Line 8-13.
78
Id. Page 27, Line 20.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 28 of 48

him prior to UFC 200 that Lesnar would be a clean fighter. Unfortunately,

Hunt is able to rely on the covenant of good faith and fair dealing where

he relied on the fact that the promoter who created the contract and the

opponent who signed on to the same conditions, in that was absolutely an

assurance of a minimum standard being set that Lesnar or any opponent

would be clean. As stated, many times over, White provided assurances to

Hunt via Twitter messages, when he expressed concerns about whether or

not Lesnar would be clean. Hunt relied on Whites assurances, and the

Anti-Doping policy, that Lesnar would be clean.

49) The Appellees stipulate that evidence was not highlighted at

district court to support that UFC and White knew anything about

Lesnar’s substance use79. If the evidence was not highlighted, perhaps

this points to an issue of lawyer incompetence and not a lack of evidence.

Certainly, the text messages provided and arrangements made between

the parties in collusion via email chains, and instructions issued as to how

to manage the messaging when the Lesnar exemption would be

announced, demonstrate it was likely to have been known.

50) The Appellees again describe that Hunt’s former counsel failed to

produce relevant damages evidence and specifically point to emotional

harm and that his counsel conceded that the psychological expert

79
Id. Page 28, Line 11-12.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 29 of 48

apparently did not offer a reasonable degree of medical probability 80. This

statement is important in two parts. Firstly, that it is entirely contradictory

to the actual report that states the emotional harm as described by Dr

Hastings at point 45. Secondly, in that it provides additional evidence of

malpractice, incompetence and criminal negligence on behalf of Denning

and further context that was formerly hidden from Hunt.

51) The Appellees paraphrase from the district courts summary

judgement and reiterate that the judgement outcome was due to evidence

not being presented, and not because the evidence did not exist81.

52) The Appellees repeat their former claims that Hunt could not

prove civil conspiracy82. To consistently repeat the same falsehood does

not change the reality. The exasperating degree of substantiated, material

evidence provided in the discovery and referenced throughout this reply,

without question provides the list of those in collusion to be UFC, White,

Fertitta, Lesnar, NSAC, USADA and Novitzky. The evidence also

demonstrates that the collusion, misrepresentations, omissions, and fraud

commenced from the moment in March 2016 that Lesnar had agreed to

fight in UFC 200, until now in 2024. Where we have a shift in the

Appellees arguments to suggest that it wasn’t that they were waiting for

McMahons approval – all of a sudden – we are informed that actually, it

80
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 29, Line 1-4.
81
Id. Line 16.
82
Id. Line 18.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 30 of 48

was Fertitta who they were waiting for to announce Lesnar’s return.

Further, the conspiracy has not ended and we have the insidious

intimidation and stalking that has occurred, targeting Hunt’s partner and

her teenage Son.

53) The Appellees continue to rewrite the meaning of Hunt’s enquiries

to White prior to the bout, that clearly demonstrate his unwillingness to

fight a doped opponent83. The Twitter messages undoubtably show that

Hunt is seeking assurances from White that Lesnar won’t be doped. Hunt

unambiguously accepts Whites assurances that Lesnar is being tested so

much that he would be clean. Hunt relies on Whites word, in addition to

relying on the Anti-Doping Policy that he holds with a covenant of good

faith that the promoter and opponent have also agreed to. These

assurances were relied on and Hunt did so, to his detriment.

54) The Appellees provide an absurd argument, whereby they state

that White never represented that Lesnar would be clean at UFC 200 84.

This is contradictory to the directives within the PARA, BA and the Anti-

Doping Policy that Hunt could and did rely on, that requires fighters to be

clean. This statement85 paradoxically affirms that should White continue

to attest that he did not provide a guarantee of Lesnar’s status of being

clean, then White, UFC and Lesnar are all in breach of contract for not

83
Id. Line 10-14.
84
Id. Line 15.
85
Id.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 31 of 48

adhering to the PARA and Anti-Doping Policy that forms part of the

agreement. Further, if White denies having knowledge of Lesnar doping,

this statement86 finds White et al, liable whether by affirmative

misrepresentation or omission, or negligence.

55) The Appellees allege that any agreement undertaken by UFC or

White cannot be proven as intended to harm87. This statement is

interesting, in that the Appellees seem to make admission here that an

agreement was made to collude, and that they simply want to argue that

maybe it can’t be proven that they meant to harm Hunt. However, the

harm is caused whether or not UFC or White stipulate that they did or

didn’t mean it. The harm is present from the moment the Appellees chose

to collude and hide information from Hunt. To provide false or

misleading information, is a corruption and fraud. The existence of these

elements equate to harms being caused. The argument is null, to suggest

that if UFC and White didn’t mean to harm Hunt, it does not remove from

the fact that their actions did harm him. Not just their actions from the

moment they negotiated with Lesnar to fight, but every misrepresentation

from March 2016, to now.

56) The Appellees allege that an act of fraudulent concealment does

not equate to damages unless they are shown88. As at previous points, if

86
Id.
87
Id. Line 13-14.
88
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 35, Line 12-14.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 32 of 48

the cognizable damages were not yet presented, this does not mean they

don’t exist. This statement is another oxymoron, whereby Appellees

admit to fraudulent concealment and attempt to invalidate the existence of

the attached harm that has been caused, simply due to the damages not

yet being reviewed. The many acts of fraudulent concealment certainly

are causation of damages to Hunt.

57) The Appellees, reiterate again that it isn’t that fraud, aiding and

abetting and civil conspiracy did not exist. They simply highlight that the

substantiated, material evidence was unfortunately not presented89.

58) The Appellees contradict themselves again, as they admit that

Hunt did rely on White’s statements to his detriment90,91,92 and affirm that

Hunt has suffered damages, and that they simply have not yet been

articulated93,94.

59) The Appellees continue to contradict themselves and go on to state

there has been no false statements or concealments of material facts95.

They state that the twitter messages produced in discovery cannot be

relied on as they are not amenable to verification. This is another

falsehood, as these messages can be verified and were accepted into

89
Id. Page 36, Line 1-2.
90
Id. Line 2.
91
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 45, Point 2.
92
Id.
93
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 36, Line 1-2
94
Id. Page 55, Point II.
95
Id. Page 36, Line 3.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 33 of 48

discovery. The Appellees unfortunately cannot rely on these messages in

earlier points, such as at point 18, and choose for the same messages not

to be relied on by Hunt.

60) The Appellees, continue to state incongruities in their answering

brief. They paraphrase and confirm that White replied to Hunt that he

didn’t know who his opponent would be, on 27 May 2016. This is despite

the fact that text messages and emails and the USADA testing pool

records illustrate that it was common knowledge amongst the group of

Appellee’s and stakeholders, that they knew Lesnar was the opponent

from March 2016, was in the testing pool from April and had expressed a

personal issue that required consultation with Novitzky.

61) The Appellees describe that UFC and Lesnar were still negotiating

terms with Fertitta96. This is the first mention of Fertitta having oversight

of the arrangements with Lesnar. The text messages show that White and

Lesnar confirmed the arrangement in March, and that Lesnar had

clearance from Vince McMahon.

62) The Appellees allege that as Hunt expressed excitement97 about

the upcoming bout, that this meant he was not affected by the corrupted

operation at play in the background, and that there is an assumption that

he ought to have agreed to that corrupted standard, irrespective of having

96
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 38, Line 18.
97
Id. Page 39, Line 4.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 34 of 48

an agreement, contract and Anti-Doping Policy to rely on. This is another

null argument that oddly assumes that the Appellees speak for Hunt and

how Hunt would or should feel.

63) The Appellees point to the evidence that was provided in

discovery that shows Lesnar having been entered into the testing pool on

April 1, 2016 and not June 6, 2016 as previously alleged. Appellees

provide a confusing explanation for Lesnar not being tested sooner than

June 6, that is that UFC staff member Novitzky provides a

“contemporaneous” assertion to USADA and NSAC that fighters cannot

enter the testing pool until under contract. It is confirmed here, that the

fighter was entered into the pool on April 1, 2016, as is evidenced by the

USADA discovery. Further, the text messages provided in exhibits from

discovery, certainly show the arrangement was confirmed in March 2016.

It appears then, that the Appellees are agreeing to the true date that Lesnar

was entered into the pool as April 1.

64) The Appellees state that in the opening brief, Hunt should not be

allowed to provide evidence that demonstrates a flawed decision at

district court, and calls this improper98. As Appellees have introduced

new information in their answering brief – such as the introduction of

Fertitta in their arguments - it is curious that they expect different

98
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 41, Line 10.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 35 of 48

standards from the victim/appellant. Moreover, Hunt rejects these claims

of new information. Everything relied on his opening brief was found in

the discovery and materials provided to him, and he has conducted his

responses as outlined by the ninth circuits guidebook.

65) The Appellees complain that they were never given the chance to

rebut materials. This is another falsehood. Defendants were given the

same amount of time as anybody else in this process.

66) The Appellees make mention of the fact that Lesnar’s test results

were not expedited99, and that this wasn’t a choice for UFC and White not

to do so. It then describes that Novitzky had explained the expedited

process, and that Novitzky gave that responsibility to USADA. This is

another unclear response and does not adequately address as to why

results were not expedited, especially when Lesnar had already at least

one positive result prior to the fight.

67) The Appellees suggest that nobody at UFC had represented that

Lesnar was going to be clean100. This argument confirms that the

Appellees did not intend to adhere to the covenant of good faith and fair

dealing in signing contracts and making agreements that relied on the

Anti-Doping Policy. This is a breach of contract, and further confirmation

that UFC misrepresented the facts that Hunt relied on to his detriment.

99
Id. Page 42, Line 5-13.
100
Id. Page 43, Line 4-12.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 36 of 48

Hunt absolutely relied on Whites assurances in the Twitter messages, the

contractual assurances in the PARA, and the Anti-Doping Program and

Policies as an extension to the agreement. If Whites explanation is that he

only represented that Lesnar be tested and not be clean, thereby is another

admission to the breach of contract, and misleading practices that equate

to frauds that Hunt relied on to his detriment.

68) The Appellees allege that Hunt did not show that any of White’s

statements were actually false101. In fact, the discovery that demonstrated

that Lesnar was confirmed and agreed to fight in UFC 200 in text

messages from March 2016, the USADA testing documents that confirm

he was entered into the testing pool from April 1, 2016, the Twitter

messages where White denies knowledge of knowing who the opponent

is, the emails with interviewers that request the writer not to disclose that

they know Lesnar is confirmed to fight prior to the announcement date,

and the seven to eight years following whereby White, UFC et al have

continued to peddle their false narrative, undeniably shows that White’s

statements Hunt relied on, were absolutely false.

69) The Appellees make an erroneous claim that White would have to

have been clairvoyant to understand Hunt’s direct questions in Twitter.

Hunt’s enquiries were explicit and did not require any special

101
Id. Line 16-17.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 37 of 48

interpretation to understand the meaning. Hunt specifically asked why

Lesnar was exempt from testing. This does not require any supernatural

abilities to understand.

70) The Appellees point to the PARA and UFC 200 BA and suggest

that as Hunt did not seek to rescind prior to the fight, that this constitutes

the parties having fully performed their obligations 102. This flawed

argument discards the fact that the obligations were not met and this is

why this law suit exists. By this rationale, the Appellees assert that they

should not be held accountable to the standards promised to their

contractors after a bout, and that they have no responsibilities thereafter.

If the promoter cannot guarantee a test result prior to a bout, or cannot

guarantee their safety obligations to fighters, or cannot provide the

standard described in their own contracts, or fail to implement the

policies in their agreements, and hereby stipulate they take no

responsibility for what result or injuries are as a result after a bout is

complete, they are admitting to providing fraudulent contracts that cannot

be relied on. Hunt and all UFC fighters who have ever held a contract

agreement with the UFC, therefore have ALL been misled and defrauded

into unlawful contracts, that are consequently the causation of harm and

damages.

102
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 44, Line 14-17.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 38 of 48

71) The Appellees attempt to narrow the scope of harm as to whether

or not Hunt lost the fight, and whether or not Lesnar was tested

adequately103. The harm is not the fact that Hunt lost the bout to Lesnar.

The harm is due to being placed at risk against a fighter who is juiced

with banned substances, and further, to Hunt’s career when he expressed

exasperation at having been misled by White and the UFC to be put in

danger in front of an opponent who was using performance

enhancements. Further, to have been manipulated to do so via the

assurances of White, after Hunt repeatedly expressed concern about the

fact the Lesnar looked to be juiced. The harm commenced from the

moment of collusion and misrepresentation, when it is evidenced that the

agreement for Lesnar was made in March 2016. The inadequate,

manipulated framework of testing Lesnar, is one attribute of the fraud via

misleading information. The harm caused to Hunt is irrespective of

whether or not he won the fight. The harm commenced when the parties

decided to withhold information from Hunt as to who his opponent was,

when the agreement was made in March 2016, when collusion took place

between UFC, USADA, White, Novitzky, NSAC and Lesnar when they

discussed and agreed to issue an extraordinary exemption from banned

substance testing with the falsehood that they didn’t know Lesnar was

103
Id. Line 8-15.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 39 of 48

fighting until June. Hunt absolutely had no choice but to rely on the

misrepresentations provided to him by White, and the contract agreement

and Anti-Doping Policy that he signed on for. The harm caused by the

actions of the Appellees have only been prolonged and exacerbated over

the almost eight years of collusion to perpetuate the falsehoods and

misrepresentations against Hunt.

72) The Appellees assert that as Hunt was informed of Lesnar’s

extraordinary exemption, that this means he agreed to it104. In fact, as

repeatedly referred to throughout, Hunt questioned the validity of the

exemption and was not happy about it.

73) The Appellees suggest that Hunt was not influenced by his

suspicions that Lesnar was using banned substances105. This is another

baffling assertion by the Appellees, when it has been evidenced that Hunt

continually questioned if Lesnar was juicing. He was clearly influenced,

and queried White repeatedly on the subject. On Whites assurances and

the reliance of the PARA and the BA and affiliated Anti-Doping Policy,

Hunt depended on these factors for his safety and to his detriment,

continually, for almost eight years causing damage to his career,

livelihood, brand, public image and character.

104
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 45, Line 20 & Page 46 Line 1.
105
Id. Page 47, Line 9.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 40 of 48

74) The Appellees describe that Hunt didn’t consider withdrawing

from UFC 200106. This statement draws a sentence out of context. Hunt

did not consider withdrawing under the circumstances, being that his boss

White repeatedly assured him that Lesnar would be tested so much that

he would have to be clean; that he had an Anti-Doping Policy to rely on;

that he believed his boss wouldn’t put him in such harms way that an

ordinary bout would be converted to the risk of a mortal combat; that on

his reliance of his boss’s words and his reliance on the agreement he

signed and that his reliance on his opponent having signed to agree to the

same standards; and that he could be threatened with a breach of contract

should he not fight – under those circumstances – Hunt continued with

the fight.

75) The Appellees despite earlier admissions in their answering brief

that they are knowledgeable of the damages caused to Hunt, suggest that

Lesnar’s test results were not known prior to the fight107. However, the

USADA discovery shows that he did test positive prior to the fight,

multiple times.

76) The Appellees suggest that Hunt presented no evidence to support

the aiding and abetting claim. However, as is stated throughout their

answering brief, it is not that evidence didn’t exist, that it simply was not

106
Id. Page 47, Line 17.
107
Id. Page 48, Line 1.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 41 of 48

presented. The text messages, email threads with interviewers, emails

from Novitzky directing media optics, USADA discovery that shows

when Lesnar entered the testing pool, the Appellees themselves asserting

that NSAC, UFC, USADA, Novitzky, White, and Lesnar were all a part

of the arrangement for an extraordinary exemption – are all actions taken

in complicity for a common purpose and therefore certainly demonstrates

aiding and abetting.

77) The Appellees suggest that the battery claim was not evidenced108

and that Hunt consented to be battered by a doped opponent. As repetitive

as it may be, Hunt clearly articulated that he did not consent to fighting a

doped opponent. He did this when he signed on to an agreement with an

Anti-Doping Policy; when he raised concerns with White and continued

to express his disdain and hurt for what he had been misled into, after the

test results were known. There is no other version of this incident. Hunt

categorically did not consent to being battered by a doped opponent, and

went into the bout believing in Whites assurances and relying on the Anti-

Doping Policy to his detriment.

78) The Appellees suggest that regardless of Hunt establishing the

battery claim against Lesnar109, that the derivative aiding and abetting

claim against UFC and White were not maintained. It is stated as is

108
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 50, Line 12-13.
109
Id. Page 51.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 42 of 48

throughout their answering brief, not that evidence didn’t exist, that it

simply was not presented. The text messages, email threads with

interviewers, emails from Novitzky directing media optics, USADA

discovery that shows when Lesnar entered the testing pool, the Appellees

themselves asserting that NSAC, UFC, USADA, Novitzky, White, and

Lesnar were all a part of the arrangement for an extraordinary exemption

– are all actions taken in complicity for a common purpose and therefore

certainly demonstrates derivative aiding and abetting.

79) The Appellees state that Lesnar confirmed that no one from UFC

had any role in his training camp110. Regrettably, Lesnar’s word counts

for nought when he has lied continually from the moment of agreeing to

the bout, throughout testing, after the bout, and almost eight years later.

This is also contradictory to the text messages that show otherwise,

particularly when he requested UFC branded gear be sent to him at the

training camp.

80) The Appellees allege that there is no evidence that White and UFC

substantially assisted or encouraged Lesnar’s banned substance use111.

This statement is contrary to the evidence in text messages where Lesnar

needs to discuss a matter privately; where the manipulation of facts is to

hide that Lesnar is in training already with UFC as is evidenced in emails

110
Id. Page 52, Line 2-3.
111
Id. Line 11.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 43 of 48

with an interviewer who is requested to ensure this fact isn’t disclosed in

print112; as is evidenced in the fact that Lesnar was entered into the testing

pool in April, however not tested until months later in June; as is also

evidenced in emails from UFC to management in how to manage the

optics when they announce the unprecedented, extraordinary move of

giving Lesnar an exemption from being tested in the same way as

everyone else. These evidenced actions undeniably and substantially

assisted Lesnar in committing frauds to withhold relevant information

prior to the bout, during the bout and after the bout for almost eight years

to Hunt’s extensive detriment.

81) The Appellees then describe that perhaps White didn’t know that

he was assisting in the frauds113. Alas, even if White didn’t know, this

does not remove Whites liability as CEO. It would also be difficult to

explain how he couldn’t have known, given that he himself texted and

arranged the agreement with Lesnar in March 2016.

82) The Appellees state that Hunt did not present damages114. Hunt not

having had an opportunity to present damages yet, does not remove from

damages being sustained.

112
See Exhibit BL00074-BL00082 (“It’s Time” podcast email thread) (sealed).
113
DktEntry: 34.1, Page 53, Line 9.
114
Id. Page 56, Line 3.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 44 of 48

83) The Appellees stipulate that Hunt suffered no damages115 though

this contradicts their former statement where they admit that damages

were simply not presented.

In summary, it is due to the foregoing reasons, Hunt respectfully requests that

the 9th Circuit of Appeals should grant in the Appellants favour.

115
Id. Line 16.
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 45 of 48

Form 28
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Form 15. Certificate of Service for Electronic Filing

9th Cir. Case Number(s) 23-3113

I hereby certify that I electronically file the foregoing/attached document(s) on

this date with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit using the Appellate Electronic Filing system.

Service on Case Participants Who Are Registered for Electronic Filing:

I certify that I served the foregoing/attached document(s) via email to all
registered case participants on this date because it is a sealed filing or is
submitted as an original petition or other original proceeding and therefore
cannot be served via the Appellate Electronic Filing System.

Description of Document(s):

Form 28. Reply to APPELLEES ZUFFA, LLC AND DANA WHITE’S

ANSWERING BRIEF

AND

APPELLEE BROCK LESNAR’S BRIEF

Form 15. Certificate of Service for Electronic Filing

Signature Date 29 May 2024

Form 15
Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 46 of 48

EXHIBIT 1
Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 47 of 48
 Case: 23-3113, 05/29/2024, DktEntry: 46.1, Page 48 of 48

This vehicle was noted at Hunt’s partners teenage Son, Milo Kellenbach’s running track at
around 5.45am on May 6th. The vehicle made him so uncomfortable that he ran an alternative
direction to get home through the bushes, to ensure that the vehicle couldn’t trace him home.
That evening, the same vehicle waited outside of Milo’s gym while he trained. When Hunt’s
partner, Ms Kellenbach arrived to collect Milo, it sat behind Ms Kellenbach’s vehicle while
she waited for around 15 minutes. When Milo arrived, he said it was the same vehicle that
was watching him at the track in the morning. Ms Kellenbach manoeuvred to be behind the
van to capture the number plate. These incidents were reported to Victoria Police and the
details were assigned to the CIU (detective area). It was confirmed that the number plates
were stolen and did not belong to this vehicle. This can be confirmed by checking
www.vicroads.com.au/registrationcheck
As the last filing by the defendant-appellees described extensive stalking of Ms Kellenbach to
the extent that they had even phoned her workplace - this incident felt like another version of
intimidation. We can’t prove who was in this van as the windows were very darkly tinted. But
we can tell you that this incident came after the previous intimidation and caused Ms
Kellenbach and her Son to feel unsafe. They have had to change their routine, not go out and
feel fearful that some unknown evil is attempting to track them, find them and do something
insidious.