A sports talent agency told a Nevada federal judge that it can't be held in contempt for violating a discovery order when it has worked to address real challenges with providing information to fighters who accuse Ultimate Fighting Championship of suppressing wages.

Kajan Johnson and other fighters who sued the UFC have accused nonparty Dominance MMA LLC of refusing to comply with a discovery order issued in August. Yet the Las Vegas-based company said the fighters are trying to turn what was supposed to be a collaborative process into a contempt proceeding.

"Dominance is not a party to the underlying litigation and has no incentive to obstruct discovery," Dominance said in a filing on Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

"To the contrary, Dominance expended significant time and resources over several months attempting to comply with the subpoena and the court's order while safeguarding confidential information belonging to third parties who have vehemently objected to Dominance producing their confidential information," it added.

The fighters who have sued the UFC have asked the court to order Dominance to explain why it should not be held in contempt for discovery delays.

Dominance told the court that progress halted when questions arose over its lack of authority over confidential fighter information and its lack of control over independent contractors' personal devices, as well as the need to protect sensitive contractual and compensation information.

The company said concerns about the handling of sensitive information have been "reasonably heightened" by the plaintiffs' own actions.

According to Dominance, one of the plaintiffs recorded and shared a courthouse video announcing that it had been ordered to share documents for the litigation, generating substantial discussion and concern.

"This public amplification of a discovery ruling, particularly in a case that has received significant media attention, reasonably heightened concern about how sensitive information would be treated once disclosed," Dominance told the court.

Plaintiffs later filed an inventory list that contained personal information of nonparties, such as email addresses and phone numbers, on the court's docket without redaction, according to the company.

"Although the inventory list had not been formally designated confidential at the time of its disclosure, it was produced in furtherance of the court's meet-and-confer directive and plainly contained private information," Dominance said.

"Plaintiffs subsequently sought to seal the exhibit after Dominance objected, but the public posting reinforced the very concerns that had been raised (i.e., that nonparty confidential information could be exposed beyond the narrow confines of this litigation)," the company added.

According to Dominance, some fighters whose contracts and compensation information have been implicated have objected to disclosure.

"For some, particularly those residing or competing internationally, the disclosure of contractual and financial terms carries potential personal, professional, or regulatory consequences in their home countries," the company told the court.

"Dominance possesses this information solely by virtue of its representative relationship with these individuals. It does not own the underlying contractual interests, and it faces legitimate tension when those individuals object to disclosure of their private financial information," it added.

Dominance said it has taken reasonable steps to try to comply with the discovery order responsibly, and urged the court to reject the plaintiffs' push to have it held in contempt and recover fees.

"Plaintiffs' request improperly attempts to recast court-ordered discovery activity as sanctionable injury," the company said.

"The court expressly invited the parties to seek a status conference to address any issues arising during production. Plaintiffs elected instead to file this application for contempt," it added.

Defendants in the litigation, including TKO Operating Co. LLC, which does business as the UFC, and its majority owner, Endeavor Group Holdings Inc., and operator, Zuffa LLC, have fought a discovery order and recently persuaded a Ninth Circuit panel to temporarily pause it.

The fighters have accused Zuffa and UFC of running an anticompetitive scheme to maintain monopoly and monopsony power in the market for professional mixed martial arts bouts and fighters, leading to anticompetitive wages and other antitrust injuries and damages.

A representative for the plaintiffs declined to comment on Wednesday. Other parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph R. Saveri, Christopher K.L. Young, Kevin E. Rayhill, Itak Moradi and T. Brent Jordan of Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP, by Eric L. Cramer, Michael Dell'Angelo, Patrick F. Madden and Joshua P. Davis of Berger Montague PC, by Benjamin D. Brown, Richard A. Koffman and Daniel H. Silverman of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, by W. Joseph Bruckner, Brian D. Clark and Kyle Pozan of Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, and by Michael J. Gayan of Claggett & Sykes.

Dominance MMA is represented by Keely Perdue Chippoletti and Peter S. Christiansen of Christiansen Trial Lawyers.

Zuffa LLC, TKO Operating Co. LLC and Endeavor Group Holdings Inc. are represented by William A. Isaacson, Jessica Phillips and Agbeko Petty of Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP, by J. Colby Williams and Samuel R. Mirkovich of Campbell & Williams, and by Christopher S. Yates, Aaron T. Chiu, Sean M. Berkowitz, Laura Washington and Joseph Axelrad of Latham & Watkins LLP.

The case is Kajan Johnson et al. v. Zuffa LLC et al., case number 2:21-cv-01189, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.