Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION

DILLIAN WHYTE, )
)
Petitioner, ) Civil Case No. 1:21-MC-23271-DPG
)
v. )
)
WORLD BOXING COUNCIL, INC., )
)
Respondent. )
)
_____________________________________ )

APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING EVIDENCE FROM

WORLD BOXING COUNCIL, INC.FOR USE IN A FOREIGN ARBITRAL
PROCEEDING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1782,

Applicant Dillian Whyte, a highly ranked professional boxer, and the World Boxing Council,

Inc.’s (“WBC” or “Defendant”) Interim Champion in the heavyweight division, respectfully

submits this Application for an order for discovery pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1782 (“the

Application”) from WBC, which resides in this district, for the limited purpose of obtaining

information and evidence for use in an arbitration proceeding currently pending before the Court

of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”) in Lausanne, Switzerland concerning a contract between Mr.

Whyte and the WBC that the WBC has breached as well as in potential future proceedings between

the parties which are pending at a preliminary stage but may end with a CAS arbitration. Mr. Whyte

needs this relief on an expedited basis because of the pendency of deadlines in the CAS arbitration

proceeding. This application is supported by the accompanying memorandum of law and

declarations of Dillian Whyte, Nicolas Zbinden, and Victoria E. Brieant. 1

1
The factual background is set forth in the simultaneously submitted declarations of Mr. Whyte,
Mr. Whyte’s counsel in the CAS proceeding, Nicholas Zbinden, Esq., and Mr. Whyte’s counsel in
this Application, Victoria Brieant, Esq. The declarations of Messrs. Whyte and Zbinden and of Ms.
Page 1 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 2 of 16

The discovery requested is narrowly tailored. Mr. Whyte seeks two individual depositions of

WBC officers, and one Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the WBC. Mr. Whyte also seeks responses to

ten requests for production of documents. The WBC is found within this District so the Court has

jurisdiction over it and Mr. Whyte has otherwise met the requirements of the statute authorizing

this action, found at 28 U.S.C. section 1782.

THE PARTIES

Mr. Whyte

Mr. Whyte is a professional boxer of considerably high standing. He is one of the most

accomplished heavyweight boxers actively fighting in the world today and is consistently ranked

at the very top of the tables. See generally Whyte Decl. paras. 1-8.

Mr. Whyte is Jamaican by birth and moved to the United Kingdom at a young age. He used

combat sports as a way to deal with an economically challenged childhood living in rough

neighborhoods in Jamaica and South London. His dedication to this craft has proven fruitful; Mr.

Whyte is a successful combat athlete by any measure, whether as a boxer, a former kickboxer, or

a mixed martial artist. His professional boxing record is 28 wins (of which 19 were knockouts and

three were over former World Champions) and 2 losses, which followed a brief but successful

amateur career in which he won all seven of his fights, including, in his very first boxing match,

an emphatic victory over current unified world heavyweight champion, Anthony Joshua. He has

held the WBC interim world heavyweight title since March 2021, having previously held the title

from 2019 to 2020, prior to which he held the WBC silver world title from 2017.

At the regional level, he has held multiple heavyweight boxing titles, including all the other

Brieant will be referred to herein as “Whyte Decl.”, “Zbinden Decl.” and “Brieant Decl.”,
respectively, followed by the pertinent paragraph number of the cited declaration and the pertinent
exhibit attached to that declaration if appropriate.
Page 2 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 3 of 16

WBC titles which he was eligible for and, from 2016 to 2017, the prestigious British “Lonsdale

Belt”. Mr. Whyte has been continuously ranked as a top 10 heavyweight by Ring Magazine in

their widely respected rankings for over 240 weeks. Currently, Ring Magazine ranks him as the

number 3 heavyweight in the world, having previously ranked him as high as number 2. The

website www.boxrec.com, widely used by those in the boxing industry and in fact relied upon by

the WBC for its own rankings, has Mr. Whyte ranked as the number 2 heavyweight fighter in the

world, and has delisted Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder because of their failure to fight at all

since February 2020 (more on this later). The Transnational Boxing Rankings Board rates him the

number 3 heavyweight in the world. Although as a WBC champion, most of the other sanctioning

bodies do not currently include him within their rankings, the one such body that does, the

International Boxing Organization, has him at number one (pursuant to their “objective,

comprehensive, computerized rankings” which they maintain “are the most reliable in the sport”).

His knockout-to-win percentage stands at 68%. Mr. Whyte is also a former kickboxing champion,

having held the BIKMA British super-heavyweight title and the European K1 title, and he has

competed professionally and successfully in mixed martial arts.

In short, it is undisputed, and indisputable, that Mr. Whyte is a highly accomplished

professional athlete, a veteran pugilist, and a superior heavyweight boxer in the highest class and of

the highest caliber worldwide.

THE WBC

The WBC is one of several sanctioning bodies in professional boxing that offer titles and

belts in various weight classes and have assumed for themselves the ability to order fighters to

fight in accordance with their directives for the titles and belts that they offer. Mr. Whyte has been

a loyal fighter within the WBC system, relying on and adhering to the WBC Rules and

Regulations and the WBC Constitution, which is how he has achieved success and the WBC’s

Page 3 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 4 of 16

Interim Champion title.

The WBC, which claims to be a not-for-profit corporation, recognized as such by the

Internal Revenue Service, has its principal place of business, as listed in its annual publicly

available filing with the Internal Revenue Service (its required IRS Form 990), at 2688 SW 137th

Ave., Miami, FL 33175, which address is within this district. Brieant Decl. para. 2, and Exhibit

(“Ex.”) A. The WBC designates that same address as its principal place of business and as the

address for its registered agent for service of process on its corporate formation and annual report

documents on file with the Florida Secretary of State. Brieant Decl. para. 3, and Exs. B & C. For

all times relevant hereto, the WBC was and is found within this district.

In this Application, Mr. Whyte and the WBC shall be referred to singularly as “Party” and

collectively as “Parties”.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr. Whyte’s Grievance Proceeding Against the WBC

In June 2020, after many years of patiently waiting to be ordered as the mandatory fight for

the WBC heavyweight division, and watching the WBC act arbitrarily and capriciously with

respect to him despite his objective record, obvious success, and other facts, Mr. Whyte filed a

grievance against the WBC relating to its failure to order him, as the long-standing number one

ranked and designated mandatory challenger as well as the then interim champion of the WBC

heavyweight division, to be the mandatory fight for the then-WBC heavyweight champion (“the

June 2020 Grievance”). Under the WBC Rules and Regulations, Mr. Whyte was required to file

this as an internal grievance.

Mr. Whyte first became the number one ranked heavyweight in the WBC rankings in early

November 2017, which status should have afforded Mr. Whyte the opportunity to fight the

champion within a year. Instead, in highly irregular fashion, the WBC 1) leapfrogged Mr. Whyte

Page 4 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 5 of 16

in favour of a lesser contender in Dominic Breazeale, and then after finally confirming Mr. Whyte

as the mandatory challenger, sidelined Mr. Whyte by ceding his position to another less deserving

contender in Tyson Fury. Mr. Whyte alleged, among other things, that the WBC had improperly

refused to order the then heavyweight division champion of the WBC to fight Mr. Whyte over a

period of years in violation of the WBC’s Rules and Regulations.

As a result of his mistreatment by the WBC, Mr. Whyte sought the following relief in the

June 2020 Grievance:

a. That the decision of the WBC to not confirm Mr. Whyte’s rights and to suggest
bases for postponement, as set forth in the letter from Alberto Leon, Esq. . . ., dated
May 27, 2020, be annulled; and

b. That the relief requested in [the] letter to Mr. Sulaiman of May 15, 2020 be
granted, specifically that:

i. The WBC will promptly confirm in writing that Mr. Whyte shall have
his fight as mandatory challenger no later than February 2021;

ii. The WBC will notify the promoters involved in the speculated Fury,
Joshua, and Wilder fights that no WBC sanction will be granted for their fights
unless such a proposed bout occurs on or before October 31, 2020, is a voluntary
defense of the WBC title, and allows for no rematch;

iii. That the WBC will order that the then WBC champion must then fight
Mr. Whyte no later than February 28, 2021; and

iv. That the WBC will order that the then WBC Champion enter
negotiations for the mandatory defense against Mr. Whyte on November 1, 2020 to
be concluded by November 30, 2020 with purse bids to follow immediately after if
no agreement is reached, with such bid deadlines timed to ensure that Mr. Whyte’s
mandatory fight shall occur no later than February 2021.”

Brieant Decl. para. __ and Ex. __ (at p. __).

Mr. Whyte also sought copies of certain documents that were specifically identified in the

June 2020 Grievance (Mr. Whyte never received the requested documents and in fact as late as a

few weeks ago the WBC has insisted it has no obligation to provide the requested documents or

information). Brieant Decl.¶ 7.

Page 5 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 6 of 16

///

Page 6 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 7 of 16

The Agreement Settling the June 2020 Grievance

Before it went to a hearing or determination, the parties were able to settle the June 2020

Grievance on the basis of an agreement between them. That settlement agreement, dated 19 July

2020 (“the Settlement Agreement”), provides as follows:

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE WORLD BOXING COUNCIL AND

DILLIAN WHYTE

PREAMBLE

This document sets out the agreement between the World Boxing Council ("WBC")
and Mr. Dillian Whyte, and includes the Order that the WBC Board of Governors
will consider and vote upon in connection with the status of the WBC Heavyweight
Division.

BACKGROUND

A. During the open Mandatory Session at the 57th WBC Annual

Convention in October of 2019, the WBC Board of Governors:

1. Approved the WBC Heavyweight World Champion's rematch

between Champion Deontay Wilder and Tyson Fury to be held in February of
2020;
2. Approved the Wilder v. Fury fight as a mandatory defense; and

3. Ruled that if the then ongoing UKAD process was resolved

satisfactorily for Mr. Whyte, the WBC would continue to recognize him as
Interim Champion, and he would become the Mandatory Challenger for
February 2021.

B. On December 9, 2019, the WBC Board of Governors issued a Final

Ruling asfollows:

1. The WBC adopted UKAD's Findings and Conclusion that resulted

in UKAD withdrawing its charge against Mr. Whyte and closed the WBC's
investigation and inquiry.

2. The WBC withdrew its provisional suspension of its recognition of

Mr. Whyte as WBC Interim World Heavyweight Champion and recognized
Champion Whyte as such.

3. Interim Champion Whyte was reinstated as the Mandatory

Challenger of the division, with the mandatory defense of the then World
Champion being due by February 2021.

Page 7 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 8 of 16

C. On June 11, 2020, Interim Champion Whyte filed a Grievance with

the WBC requesting confirmation of his mandatory deadline and objecting to
the process and procedure that the WBC would follow in connection with the
Champion's and Challenger's mandatory defense obligations and rights. The
WBC has contested and denied the basis of the Grievance.

RULING

As a final resolution of Interim Champion Whyte's Grievance, and as a condition

of Mr. 'Whyte dismissing his Grievance and ceasing
all proceedings under the WBC Rules and Regulations, or otherwise, the WBC
hereby shall issue the following ruling:

1. The WBC shall recognize the contractual commitment of Champion

Fury to make a voluntary defense of the WBC World Championship against
Deontay Wilder, which fight must take place by or before December 19, 2020.

2. The day after the Fury v. Wilder III bout or, if this has not
occurred by then, on December 21, 2020, the WBC will issue an order
starting a 30-day free negotiation period for the mandatory bout between the
then WBC World Champion and the Mandatory Challenger Dillian Whyte,
consistent with Rule 2.8 of the WBC Rules & Regulations. The WBC shall
not grant any extension of any deadline set forth in that rule (or any other rule
in the Purse Offer Procedures section of the WBC Rules & Regulations)
without the express agreement in writing of the WBC World Champion and
the Mandatory Challenger.

3. In the event that the free negotiations referenced above do not

result in signed bout contracts or an agreement for the bout being filed with
the WBC within the 30-day free negotiations period, then the WBC will
proceed with a purse bid auction process between the WBC World
Champion and the Mandatory Challenger governed by the applicable WBC
Rules & Regulations with the purse split being negotiable between the WBC
World Champion and Mr. Whyte. If the Champion and Mr. Whyte fail to
agree on a purse split during the free negotiations period, the WBC shall
establish it according to the discretion provided by the WBC Rules &
Regulations.

4. The purse offer ceremony shall be held within 5 days of the

expiration of the free negotiations period.

5. The promoter who earns the right to promote the mandatory bout
as a result of the purse offer shall adhere strictly to the post-purse offer
ceremony activities and deadlines set forth in the WBC Rules & Regulations.

6. In the event that the then WBC World Champion fails to obey, or

Page 8 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 9 of 16

takes any steps inconsistent with, the WBC order to fulfill his mandatory
obligation as set forth herein and in the WBC Rules & Regulations, then the
WBC shall (1) determine that the WBC World Champion has automatically
forfeited his title, which title shall become vacant, and (2) immediately name
Mr. Whyte as the WBC World Heavyweight Champion.

7. In the event that Mr. Whyte becomes WBC World Champion

through a victory in his bout against the then World Champion, Mr. Whyte
shall have 1 year from the date of his victory in which to make voluntary
defenses before having to fulfill his mandatory obligation in accordance
with the WBC Rules & Regulations. In the event that Mr. Whyte becomes
WBC World Champion in accordance with the stipulations in paragraph 6
immediately above, Mr. Whyte will be granted one voluntary defense to be
made within 6 months of winning the title, followed by a Mandatory defense
against the then Mandatory Challenger of the division as designated by the
WBC.

8. The WBC will honor its public position that it will not consider
a request to designate anyone in the Heavyweight Division as Franchise
Champion before the division's current mandatory obligations are met.

9. Interim World Champion Whyte and the WBC have agreed to

hold this Order confidential and neither party will disclose any of its
contents to the media, unless there is written agreement by both sides on
disclosure or agreement between them on a joint press release.

10. The WBC and Mr. Whyte have agreed to take all available
reasonable steps to ensure that the contents of this Order of the Board of
Governors agreement is fulfilled and followed as written, failing which each side
reserves all rights, including, in the case of Mr. Whyte, the right to reinstate his
grievance without needing to pay the fee set out in rule 5.2 again.”

Brieant Decl. para. __ and Ex. __. The effect of the Settlement Agreement was to bestow the next

mandatory fight on Mr. Whyte come what may in recognition of the poor treatment Mr. Whyte had

suffered at the hands of the WBC previously. Mr. Whyte spent over 1000 days at the top of the

WBC rankings, the highest ranked contender as unassailable number 1, without being afforded the

right to fight the champion. This was the context for and effect of the Settlement Agreement.

The First Povetkin Fight

In an effort to remain active as a fighter, and consistent with his spirit of not shying away

from fighting but always seeking new opportunities in the ring, Mr. Whyte agreed to fight

Page 9 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 10 of 16

Alexander Povetkin in August 2020 in England. Mr. Whyte was not required to do this fight, nor

was it contemplated to have any effect under the Settlement Agreement (it is not even mentioned).

This fight was known to the WBC well before Mr. Whyte filed his grievance, and certainly during

the Parties’ negotiations over the Settlement Agreement. This fight had been scheduled and

announced for May 2020 (before the filing of the grievance) but then had to be moved to a later

date as a result of the pandemic. The WBC was well-aware of the existence of this fight because

while the parties were negotiating the Settlement Agreement the WBC was inquiring of Mr.

Whyte’s team on the status of the promoter Matchroom Boxing’s request for the WBC sanction

for this fight. At no time was any condition placed in the Settlement Agreement, and Mr. Whyte’s

rights thereunder, relating to the Whyte-Povetkin fight or depending on its outcome. In fact, the

Settlement Agreement was silent on anything relating to the previously scheduled but later

occurring Whyte-Povetkin fight.

Mr. Whyte fought Mr. Povetkin in August 2020 and despite leading for the first 4 rounds (with

multiple knockdowns of Mr. Povetkin), Mr. Whyte was knocked out by a single punch from Mr.

Povetkin at the start of the fifth round, despite Mr. Whyte leading through the first four rounds.

The WBC’s Breach of the Settlement Agreement

Relying on this, the WBC later failed to honor the commitments it made in the Settlement

Agreement, when, in December 2020, on the dates set forth in the Settlement Agreement, it failed

to undertake the contractually required acts to initiate the mandatory fight between Mr. Whyte

and the then WBC heavyweight champion. Mr. Whyte later beat Mr. Povetkin in a brutal early

round knockout in Gibraltar in late March 2021.

Mr. Whyte brought the WBC’s breach of the Settlement Agreement to the attention of the

WBC in December 2020, and the parties engaged in efforts to attempt to resolve matters from then

until and through June 2, 2021, without success.

Page 10 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 11 of 16

The Court of Arbitration for Sport Proceedings

As a result of the Parties’ inability to resolve their dispute, the CAS, based in Switzerland,

is the dispute resolution mechanism identified for disputes with the WBC as recognized as such

in the WBC Rules and Regulations (the WBC has not disputed the CAS’ jurisdiction in the CAS

arbitration). Zbinden Decl. ¶ 6.

The three-person arbitration panel has been established by the CAS (the parties each were

able to select one and those two were able to select the third), and no objections to the panel’s

composition have been made. Zbinden Decl. ¶ 2. The CAS Code of Sport-related Arbitration

(“CAS Rules”) require the parties to maintain the confidentiality of proceedings before it (Zbinden

Decl. ¶ 11); as a result, Mr. Whyte is not filing here the CAS-filed documents of the parties but

would be pleased to provide them at an evidentiary hearing with the Court or to file those

documents under seal should the Court seek to review those documents.

The Further Grievance of Mr. Whyte Against the WBC

In addition, Mr. Whyte has filed a grievance with the WBC based on the WBC’s refusal to

grant his petition seeking that the WBC champion, Mr. Tyson Fury, be put in recess for not

fighting with the frequency required by the WBC Rules and Regulations and that Mr. Whyte be

elevated to either the champion status or to be ordered to a fight with Deontay Wilder to determine

the champion. Zbinden Decl. para. __ and Ex. __.

Article III of the WBC Rules and Regulations provides in pertinent part that:

3.1 Timing of Defenses. The WBC’s policy is to offer opportunities to boxers to

compete for its titles, and thus the WBC seeks to prevent titles from being frozen
due to inactivity by champions. Therefore, a WBC champion should strive to
defend the title in mandatory or voluntary defenses at least three (3) times a
year…. Therefore, a WBC champion should strive to defend his title at least
every one hundred twenty (120) days …. Upon winning a title, a WBC
champion must defend the title within 90 to 120 days or as otherwise ordered

Page 11 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 12 of 16

3.2 Recognition Subject to Forfeit. A champion who does not defend his title
within the periods set forth herein shall forfeit his title…. Further, the WBC may
also withdraw recognition of a mandatory or qualifying challenger for inactivity or
failure to engage in any bout ordered by the WBC. A WBC champion may not
compete for [or] hold a championship of another organization unless permitted by
the WBC in its sole discretion.” (emphasis added).

*Cite [Emphasis added.] In these sections of Article III, the clearly articulated WBC policy

provides that champions must keep fighting on a regular schedule at least 3 times per year, or every

120 days unless the WBC gives special dispensation. We have seen no evidence that the WBC has

apparently given that dispensation to Fury and can think of no legitimate reason why it would. The

second part of the rule makes clear that a champion who does not fight the requisite number of

times per year “shall forfeit his title”, unless the WBC otherwise permits. Mr. Fury has not fought

in nearly 17 months. By the time that the rescheduled Wilder-Fury III bout occurs, if it ever does

as currently projected, it will be over 20 months.

Article III goes on to address inactivity of a champion as follows:

3.20 Inactivity of a Champion. If a WBC Champion is or may become inactive

in a manner that may prevent or unduly delay him from fulfilling his voluntary
and mandatory defense obligations in the timeframe determined by the WBC
on a case by case basis, based upon the unique facts and circumstances existing at
that time in the division, the WBC may declare the championship vacant and
order one or more bouts to fill the vacant title. Such inactivity may be either (i)
a period of past and continuing inactivity or (ii) potential future inactivity that may
prevent a champion from defending his title in a timely manner as required under
these Rules. The WBC may make such a determination based upon special
circumstances, which may include, but not be limited to:

(a) medical issues or injury;

(b) legal issues or contractual impediments;

(c) personal or family issues; or

(d) other controversy or circumstances whether or not beyond the control of the
boxer or the WBC.

It is the sole responsibility of a WBC Champion to notify the WBC in writing in a

timely manner of any circumstances that may prevent him from complying with his

Page 12 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 13 of 16

title defense obligations. In the event that a champion fails to notify the WBC in a
timely manner of such circumstances, the WBC may take appropriate actions
including vacating the title or imposing other penalties.” (emphasis added).

*CITE* In sum, this rule empowers – if not effectively, particularly in view of numerous

precedents (discussed in detail below), obliges - the WBC to declare the championship vacant and

order a bout or bouts to fill the newly vacant title, or in the particular circumstances of this case to

elevate Interim Champion Mr. Whyte to Champion.

Article III continues, providing an alternate designation for a champion who is unable to

fulfil their mandatory fight obligations:

3.21 Champion in Recess. In certain cases, under the preceding Rule, the WBC
may in its discretion designate a Champion as a “Champion in Recess,” such
that upon the boxer’s return, he will qualify to box for the championship as an elite
contender for the new champion, or as the returning champion. The WBC may order
or permit a returning Champion in Recess to box directly for the title in a mandatory
or voluntary contest, or to box one or more Qualified Challengers in order to retain
his status as Champion in Recess. A Champion in Recess may return as a mandatory
challenger, but only upon the specific determination and written approval of such
status by the WBC Board of Governors, which may approve or deny such request
in its sole discretion.” (emphasis added).

These rules are not merely words, they provide substantive rights to boxers upon which they come

to reasonably rely and upon which they expect to be able to rely, and upon which courts have found

they should be able to rely, in the conduct of their very limited, difficult, and dangerous careers.

In Duva v. WBA, 548 F. Supp 710 (D.N.J. 1982), a case which changed the playing field

entirely with respect to the mandatory rights of Boxers, the court wrote:

There is no question that a professional boxer like Ayala is entitled to rely on his ranking
and on the benefits that go with it under the WBA Regulations. Nothing can obscure the
fact that Ayala’s position as the third-ranked fighter in his weight class was earned only
after a grueling struggle. No court can be oblivious to the kind of day in and day out
punishment to which boxers subject themselves in order to become champions.
Demonstrating the most demanding kind of physical discipline, they literally pound away,
at great physical danger, in a single-minded effort to move up in the rankings. The WBA’s
ranking of plaintiff as the Number Three contender is its recognition of his dedication and
success in advancing within the ranks. In the truest sense, Ayala has earned his ranking by
sweat and blood.

Page 13 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 14 of 16

Regulation 6 of the WBA Regulations is a means of guaranteeing that the ranking that a
fighter has struggled to achieve means something. Regulation 6 is the WBA’s commitment
to the athletes it oversees that the road to the top will be fair; that, under the circumstances
under which Moore holds his title, mandatory title defenses will go to fighters in the order
in which they are ranked. This reading of Regulation 6 can come as no surprise to anyone,
and least of all to the WBA. The preamble to its Regulations dedicates itself to ensuring
that “all those boxers” who “by their contributions of time, effort, risk and resources sustain
the profession in existence” have the benefit of a ‘firm, intelligent and objectively
administered control of the World Championships of boxing.’ Regulations, Preamble, ¶¶ 3,
4.

The language of Regulation 6 is clear and unambiguous: it means that plaintiff Ayala should
be able to rely on the fact that as the third-ranked contender, two and only two men now
stand between him and his turn for the title. This Court has no doubt that Ayala has a
protectible property interest, as created by the WBA in Regulation 6, in having the
opportunity to fight for the championship before any lower-ranked boxer.” (emphasis
added).

The Duva court focused on the rights of boxers to their rankings and the rights, based on reliance

on the rule and expectancy coming from those rules, which come with those rankings. Just as Ayala

earned his ranking by “sweat and blood”, so too has Mr. Whyte, albeit far more compellingly.

In Schultz v. Botha, IBF, 105 F3rd 127 (1997), the rights of a mandatory contender where

a champion had taken steroids in the prior bout were at issue. That case held that there was a

common law right through the law of private associations for fighters to be treated fairly by ranking

organizations (this ruling based on US law is consistent with Swiss law principles, and numerous

Court of Arbitration for Sport precedents, on private associations and how those private

associations must relate to their athletes and members (and the WBC has adopted Swiss law and

the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s jurisdiction in the WBC Rules and Regulations as a result of

their apparent efforts to keep their disputes out of US courts).

As a result of these two cases, numerous, later champion, fighters got their title

opportunities when Courts (or arbitrators) upheld their rights, including Evander Holyfield, Lennox

Lewis, Michael Moorer, and many others.

Page 14 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 15 of 16

Mr. Whyte’s dispute is not the WBC’s first brush with the law as a result of it not following

its own rules. For example, in Rocchigiani v. World Boxing Council, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 2d 527

(S.D.N.Y. 2001), the court noted that, “Although the old adage is that one should roll with the

punches, the wholly arbitrary and unfair conduct of the defendant in this case would leave anyone

down for the proverbial count”, finding that the WBC, led by Jose Sulaiman the father of the

current WBC President, failed to apply its rules reasonably. The verdict in this case was so high

that it threatened to bankrupt the WBC until the WBC was able to reach a settlement with Mr.

Rocchigiani. See http://www.espn.com/boxing/news/2002/0921/1434892.html (accessed August

29, 2021); https://www.boxingscene.com/wbc-asks-rocchigiani-payment-grace--10203 (accessed

August 29, 2021).

RELIEF REQUESTED

Pursuant to 1782 of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Mr. Whyte respectfully requests that

this Court enter an Order compelling the issuance of subpoenas for the production of the

documents listed in Exhibit F to the Brieant Decl. within thirty (30) days of service of a

subpoena commanding the production of those documents by WBC; permitting the

deposition(s) requested in Exhibit E to the Brieant Decl. within ten (10) days after the

deadline for WBC’s production of the documents; and further ordering WBC to preserve

the evidence sought by Mr. Whyte in its original form in order to insure that the evidence

sought is not lost or destroyed in the interim.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, For the reasons set forth in this Petition and as explained in the

accompanying memorandum of law, supported by the declarations of Mr. Whyte, Mr.

Zbinden given that all of the relevant legal requirements have been met, Mr. Whyte

respectfully requests that the Court grant this Application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1782,

Page 15 of 16
Case 1:21-mc-23271-DPG Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/10/2021 Page 16 of 16

compelling the production of the documents listed in Exhibit F to the Brieant Decl., within

thirty (30) days of service of a subpoena commanding the production of documents by the

WBC, permitting the depositions requested in Exhibit E to the Brieant Decl., within eleven

(11) days after the deadline for the production of the documents by WBC; and directing WBC

to duly preserve all evidence related to the subject matter of this Application.

DATED: September 10, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICE OF VICTORIA E. BRIEANT, P.A.

By: /s/ Victoria E. Brieant
Victoria E. Brieant, FBN 632961
4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 470
Coral Gables, FL 33146
Tel.: 305-421-7200
Email: [email protected]

Attorney for Petitioner Dillian Whyte

Page 16 of 16