NHL Motion To Compel Insurance Companies To Turn Over Documents

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/08/2022 06:13 PM INDEX NO.
653421/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 308 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
EXHIBIT C
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/08/2022 06:13 PM INDEX NO. 653421/2020
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________________________________Ç
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, NHL BOARD :
OF GOVERNORS and NHL ENTERPRISES, INC., :

. Index No.: 653421/2020
Hon. Melissa A. Crane
-v- :
JAMS No. 1425037315
Special Referee Hon. Henry Pitman
TIG INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a :
TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY;
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; CHUBB .
INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA;
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.; VIGILANT
INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN HOME
ASSURANCE COMPANY; AVIVA INSURANCE
COMPANY OF CANADA, as successor to :
COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO., LTD.; .
and ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., .
.
Defendants.
.
_________________________________________________________________Ç
PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE
Peter D. Luneau
Shaud G. Tavakoli
Rebekah J. Mott
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER

& FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, New York 10001
(212) 735-3000
-and-
Marc E. Rosenthal, admitted pro hac vice

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
70 West Madison, Suite 3800
Chicago, Illinois
(312) 962-3550
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................6
A. Former NHL Players and Their Estates Commence the Concussion

Litigation Covered by Policies Issued by the Insurers.............................................6
B. Chubb and AIG Each Accepts Its Duty To Defend.................................................7
C. TIG Files the Declaratory Judgment Action............................................................8
D. The NHL Successfully Defends the Concussion Litigation....................................9
E. Chubb and AIG Purport To Have Conducted Extensive Analyses of the

NHL's Invoices and Make Partial Payments Based on Those Analyses.................9
F. The NHL Commences This Action to Collect the Full Amount Due Under
the Policies and Makes Discovery Requests; the Insurers Provide
Inadequate Responses............................................................................................11
G. The Insurers Serve Deficient Privilege Logs.........................................................12
H. Non-Parties Hinshaw and Stuart Maue Refuse To Comply With

Subpoenas ..............................................................................................................13
Insurers'
I. The NHL Seeks Enforcement of the Discovery Obligations..................15
ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................15
I. THE INSURERS, HINSHAW AND STUART MAUE MUST PRODUCE THE

CLAIMS HANDLING DOCUMENTS ............................................................................16
Preparation"
A. The Claims Handling Documents Are Not "Trial Materials
Under CPLR 3101(d) Because They Were Not Prepared Solely for
Litigation................................................................................................................17
B. The Claims Handling Documents Are Not Privileged or Protected Under

the Work Product Doctrine....................................................................................20
Insurers'
C. The Insurers Cannot Withhold Documents Concerning the
Handling of Other Similar Claims and Other Attorney Rate Related

Documents .............................................................................................................22
II. CHUBB AND AVIVA'S INTERROGATORY RESPONSES ARE DEFICIENT..........25
ii
IH. THE INSURERS MUST PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THEIR

KNOWLEDGE-BASED DEFENSES...............................................................................28
IV. AVIVA AND ZURICH MUST PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO

"LOST"
THE POLICIES...................................................................................................29
INSURERS'
V. THE PRIVILEGE LOGS ARE DEFICIENT..............................................32
A. The Insurers Have Withheld Claims Handling Documents on Privilege

and Work Product Grounds Yet Admit They Have Not Reviewed Those
Documents To Assess Those Claims of Privilege or Protection...........................32
B. The Insurers Have Omitted Documents from their Privilege Logs Without
Explanation............................................................................................................32
Insurers'
C. The Privilege Designations Are Impermissibly Vague and
Ambiguous.............................................................................................................33
D. The Insurers Have Withheld Documents For Which They Identify No

Privilege or Protection...........................................................................................35
E. The Insurers Must Produce the Withheld Documents...........................................36
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................37
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co.,

21 N.Y.2d 403 (1968)........................................................................................................15
Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,

27 N.Y.3d 616 (2016)........................................................................................................32
American Precision Industries, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co.,

No. 14-CV-1050-1UA-HKS, 2018 WL 1046790 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2018)...................30
Arkwright Mutual Insurance Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh,
Pa.,
No. 90 Civ. 7811 (AGS), 1994 WL 698298 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 1994)............................22
Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. American Home Assurance Co.,

23 A.D.3d 190 (1st Dep't 2005)..................................................................................21, 22
Brown v. State Farm Insurance Co.,

237 A.D.2d 476 (2d Dep't 1997).......................................................................................28
Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.,

632 F. Supp. 1213 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)...................................................................................30
Burt Rigid Box, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp.,

302 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002).................................................................................................29
Diamond State Insurance Co. v. Utica First Insurance Co.,

37 A.D.3d 160 (1st Dep't 2007)........................................................................................23
Evanston Insurance Co. v. Oea, Inc.,

No. 02-1505-DFL-PAN, 2006 WL 1192737 (S.D.N.Y. May 4, 2006).............................21
Friend v. SDTC-Center for Discovery, Inc.,

13 A.D.3d 827 (3d Dep't 2004).........................................................................................18
Glew v. Cigna Group Insurance Co.,

590 F. Supp. 2d 395 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)...............................................................................30
Henderson-Jones v. City of New York,

87 A.D.3d 498 (1st Dep't 2011)..................................................................................30, 31
Herman v. Herman,
Index No. 650205/2011, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 31205(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. July
13, 2015, af d, 134 A.D.3d 442 (1st Dep't 2015).............................................................33
iV
In re Application of Aenergy, S.A.,

451 F. Supp. 3d 319 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)................................................................................33
Mariner's Cove Site B Associates v. Travelers Indemnity Co.,

No. 04Civ.1913(KMW)(RLE), 2005 WL 1075400 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2005)...................22
Melworm v. Encompass Indemnity Co.,

112 A.D.3d 794 (2d Dep't 2013).......................................................................................21
Millen Industries, Inc. v American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.,

37 A.D.2d 817 (1st Dep't 1971)........................................................................................22
New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. Lexington Insurance Co.,
160 A.D.2d 261 (1st Dep't 1990)......................................................................................15
National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Coinstar, Inc.,

No. C13-1014-JCC, 2014 WL 3396124 (W.D. Wash. July 10, 2014).......................22, 24
National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. TransCanada Energy USA, Inc.,
119 A.D.3d 492 (1st Dep't 2014)..................................................................................4, 21
Niesig v. Team I,
76 N.Y.2d 363 (1990)........................................................................................................21
O ‰alloran v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority,

169 A.D.3d 556 (1st Dep't 2019)......................................................................................15
Rosario v. North General Hospital,

40 A.D.3d 323 (1st Dep't 2007)....................................................................................3, 17
SEC v. Yorkville Advisors, LLC,

300 F.R.D. 152 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)...................................................................................5, 36
Stonewall Insurance Co. v. National Gypsum Co.,

No. 86 CIV. 9671 (SWK), 1988 WL 96159 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 1988).............................23
Twenty Four Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Hunter Ambulance Inc.,

226 A.D.2d 175 (1st Dep't 1996)......................................................................................24
U.S. Bank National Association v. Triaxx Asset Management,

No. 18-CV-4044 (BCM), 2021 WL 1968325 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021).........................33
Weber v. Paduano,
No. 02 Civ. 3392(GEL), 2003 WL 161340 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2003)..............................18
Westhampton Adult Home, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.,
105 A.D.2d 627 (1st Dep't 1984)..............................................................................2, 3, 17
Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co.,

No. 05 Civ. 9170 RMB JCF, 2006 WL 3771090 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2006) ..............22, 25
STATUTES
CPLR 3122.....................................................................................................................................33
CPLR 3122(b)............................................................................................................................5, 32
CPLR 3101(a)................................................................................................................................15
CPLR 3101(d)........................................................................................................................ passim
RULES
CD Rule 11-a(b).............................................................................................................................25
CD Rule 11-b.................................................................................................................................13
OTHER AUTHORITIES
6 Couch on Ins. § 84:7...................................................................................................................28
vi
Plaintiffs National Hockey League, NHL Board of Governors and NHL Enterprises, Inc.
(collectively, the "NHL") respectfully submit this motion, pursuant to CPLR 3124, to compel
disclosure by: (i) defendants Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, Federal Insurance Company
and Vigilant Insurance Company (collectively, "Chubb"), National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. and American Home Assurance Company (collectively, "AIG"),
("Zurich,"
Aviva Insurance Company of Canada ("Aviva") and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd
and collectively, the "Insurers") and (ii) non-parties (a) Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP ("Hinshaw")
and (b) Stuart Maue Ltd. ("Stuart Maue").
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The NHL filed this breach of contract action to recover defense and indemnity payments
the NHL made to defend and, ultimately, to settle what is referred to herein as the "Concussion
Litigation."
The Concussion Litigation comprises a series of lawsuits brought by and purportedly
on behalf of certain former NHL players alleging that they suffered bodily injuries allegedly caused
by impacts purportedly sustained during their NHL playing careers. The Insurers issued general
liability insurance policies to the NHL in the relevant timeframe and therefore owe a duty to defend
and the NHL for the Concussion Litigation. Two of the Insurers - Chubb and AIG -
indemnify
commenced.1
accepted their duty to defend shortly after the Concussion Litigation Nonetheless,
Chubb and AIG collectively have paid only approximately twenty cents on the dollar for the nearly
$100 million paid by the NHL in successfully defending the Concussion Litigation. Aviva and
1
A third insurer of the NHL, TIG Insurance Company f/k/a Transamerica Insurance Company
("TIG"), which issued one policy in the relevant period, likewise accepted its duty to defend. The
NHL and TIG have since executed a Settlement Agreement, and TIG has been dismissed from this
case.
Zurich have denied coverage entirely on the grounds that the parties have been unable to locate
issued.2
the policies they
Insurers'
This motion raises five fundamental deficiencies in the discovery responses and
disclosures to date3:
1. Claims Documents. The Insurers - and Chubb and AIG's

Handling third-party
Hinshaw and Stuart Maue - have withheld all documents to the

consultants, virtually relating
Insurers'
handling, adjusting and evaluation of the NHL's insurance claim (the "Claims Handling
materials" attorney-
Documents") on the bases that the documents are protected as "litigation or
product.4
client privileged and/or work (See infra Part I.)
There is no legal justification that would support such withholding. Under well-established
New York law, an insurer's claims handling, adjusting and evaluation materials are relevant and
discoverable in coverage disputes because they bear on the insurer's process in determining:
(i) whether to accept or reject an insurance claim; and (ii) how much to pay. See, e.g.,
Westhampton Adult Home, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 105 A.D.2d 627,
628 (1st Dep't 1984) (documents prepared "to assist [insurers] in determining whether to accept
loss"
or reject [insured's] claim and to evaluate the extent of [insured's] discoverable). Here, the
2
As set forth in more detail below, there is strong secondary evidence establishing the existence
and material terms of these policies. (See infra Background § B.)
3
The NHL reserves the right to compel compliance with all discovery obligations consistent with
the directives and orders of the Court and the Special Referee.
4 Insurers'
The withheld documents include: (i) the internal communications; (ii) communications
between and among the Insurers or other insurers of the NHL; (iii) communications involving
third-party consultants Hinshaw and Stuart Maue, who were retained by Chubb and AIG to assist
them in analyzing Concussion Litigation defense invoices; (iv) documents or reports reflecting the
Insurers'
own analyses, such as their evaluation of Concussion Litigation defense invoices or their
assessment of reasonable attorney rates; and (v) with limited exceptions, documents or reports
reflecting the analyses performed by Hinshaw and Stuart Maue.
2
Claims Handling Documents formed the basis for: (i) Chubb and AIG's purported grounds for
paying only a small fraction of the NHL's defense costs; and (ii) Aviva and Zurich's purported
grounds for altogether denying coverage.
A. The Insurers Do Not Meet Their Burden To Prove that the Claims Handling Documents
"
Are "Litigation Materials. The Insurers argue that they may withhold the Claims Handling
Documents under CPLR 3101(d), which provides for qualified protection of "litigation
materials."5
That argument fails because CPLR 3101(d) applies only to documents "prepared
litigation."
solely for See Rosario v. N. Gen. Hosp., 40 A.D.3d 323, 323-24 (1st Dep't 2007)
(emphasis added); see also Westhampton Adult Home, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
Pittsburgh, Pa., 105 A.D.2d 627, 628 (1st Dep't 1984) (reports prepared by insurer to determine
business"
extent of insured's loss and whether to accept claim created "in the ordinary course of
and hence not protected). None of the Claims Handling Documents the NHL seeks were prepared
solely for litigation. To the contrary, Chubb and AIG have admitted that they generated their
analyses as reflected in the Claims Handling Documents for a business purpose: to evaluate the
NHL's insurance claim in the context of the Concussion Litigation and to decide how much they
would pay. (See Ex. 1 (Email from AIG's counsel to NHL's counsel, dated Jan. 22, 2022)
(NYSCEF No. 258).) And Aviva and Zurich conducted their analyses as reflected in the Claims
Handling Documents to decide whether to deny the claim.
B. The Insurers Do Not Meet Their Burden To Prove that the Claims Handling Documents
Are Protected Under the Attorney-Client Privilege or the Work Product Doctrine. The Insurers
also argue that some or all of the Claims Handling Documents may be attorney-client privileged
5
Hinshaw and Stuart Maue have provided no basis for withholding documents that the NHL has
sought by subpoena.
3
or work product - the Insurers do not and instead admit that have not reviewed
specify which, they
Insurers'
the documents to make an assessment of privilege or protection. In any event, the
apparent contention that any document touched by an attorney is automatically either work
product, privileged, or both, is flatly contrary to New York law, which holds that claims handling,
adjusting and evaluation is a quintessential business function of insurance companies and hence
not protected from disclosure even if conducted by an attorney. See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of
Pittsburgh, Pa. v. TransCanada Energy USA, Inc., 119 A.D.3d 492, 493 (1st Dep't 2014).
2. Substantive Responses to Interrogatories. Chubb and Aviva have failed to provide
substantive responses to more than a dozen interrogatories seeking names of individuals with
Insurers'
knowledge of facts relevant to the NHL's claims and the counterclaims, such as persons
involved in underwriting the policies; with knowledge of the claim files; or who were involved in
claims handling, adjusting and evaluation with respect to the NHL's insurance claim. (See infra
Part II.) In an attempt to stave off a motion to compel, Chubb provided the names of a mere two
individuals purportedly involved in their claims handling, adjusting and evaluation process. But
Chubb failed to verify that this was the entire universe of relevant individuals. Aviva
supplemented only one interrogatory response and has failed to identify relevant individuals in
response to requests pertaining to their defenses in this action and their document retention policies
(a critical request given that they have not located their policies). Chubb and Aviva should be
ordered to provide complete responses to the NHL's interrogatories verified by intemal personnel.
Insurers'
3. Documents Concerning Knowledge of Insured Risks. In affirmative
defenses in this action, the Insurers contend that they are excused from their coverage obligations
because the NHL allegedly withheld from the Insurers the nature of the risk that the Insurers agreed
to accept. To establish this knowledge-based defense, the Insurers must establish that they
4
reasonably relied on the NHL's alleged deception. Yet all of the Insurers have withheld documents
Insurers'
related to the own knowledge of the risks of concussions and other sports-related bodily
injuries. (See infra Part HI.) These documents are plainly relevant to whether the Insurers
reasonably relied on any alleged deception and must be produced. (See infra Part HI.)
4. Documents the Existence and Terms The Insurers -

Confrming of the Lost Policies.
Aviva and Zurich - have failed to produce documents that would confirm the existence
principally
"lost"
and material terms of the policies. (See infra Part IV.)
" Aviva, for its part, has taken the unbelievable position that it has "no
documents"
relating to virtually every request for production propounded by
the NHL and has produced a grand total of only approximately twenty pages of
materials (excluding documents that the NHL provided to Aviva).
" Zurich has produced three form policies from the relevant timeframe and
only
has refused, without basis for doing so, to produce specimen or form policies
for several relevant years. Those documents may serve as key evidence as to
the terms of the lost policies.
Aviva and Zurich should be ordered to search for and produce, to the extent they have not
done so already, documents pertaining to the content and interpretation of their policies, their
document retention practices and the searches they conducted.
Insurers'
5. Defective Privilege Logs. The privilege logs are patently deficient. (See infra
Part V.) Under New York law, a privilege log must provide sufficient detail to permit the
requesting party and the court to determine the documents withheld and evaluate the basis for such
withholding. See CPLR 3122(b). Failure to serve timely privilege logs that meet these standards
causes a waiver of any privilege. See SEC v. Yorkville Advisors, LLC, 300 F.R.D. 152, 167
Insurers'
(S.D.N.Y. 2014) (citing cases). The logs do not meet these standards. They: (i) omit
large categories of documents, such as all communications between insurers; (ii) designate Claims
Handling Documents as protected under the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine
even though the Insurers admit they have not reviewed the documents to assess those claims of
5
privilege or protection; (iii) lump hundreds of documents together, claiming several grounds for
protection without specifying which basis applies to which documents; and (iv) categorically claim
privilege over documents involving outside counsel, including documents relating only to claims
handling, adjusting and evaluation, which cannot be privileged under binding New York law. In
light of these deficiencies, the Insurers should be ordered to produce all documents on their logs
(and all documents omitted without explanation from their logs).
For the foregoing reasons, the NHL respectfully requests that the Special Referee grant this
motion to compel disclosure by the Insurers, Hinshaw and Stuart Maue.
BACKGROUND
A. Former NHL Players and Their Estates Commence the Concussion Litigation
Covered by Policies Issued by the Insurers
On November 25, 2013, the first of the Concussion Litigation lawsuits was filed. (See
NYSCEF No. 2 ¶ 44.) Thereafter, twenty-nine lawsuits involving a total of 157 named plaintiffs
asserting similar allegations were filed in courts across the country by and on behalf of former
NHL players. The majority of these cases were ultimately consolidated for coordinated pre-trial
Players'
multidistrict litigation proceedings under the caption In Re: National Hockey League
Concussion Injury Litigation, No. 2551 (the "MDL"). (See id. ¶ 46.)
The plaintiffs in the Concussion Litigation sought recovery for alleged bodily injuries from
head hits sustained during their playing careers. For example, the master complaint in the MDL
alleged that:
" of the players, Plaintiffs, sustained repetitive brain

"Many [NHL] including
injuries while in the NHL and now suffer from latent or manifest
neurodegenerative disorders and diseases, all of which, in whole or in part, were
both."
caused by Defendant's acts, omissions, or (Ex. 2 ¶ 19.)
" "The concussive and subconcussive impacts suffered Plaintiffs and the
by
[putative] Class in their capacity as NHL players caused twisting, shearing, and
stretching of neuronal cells, and in turn caused the release of Tau protein, which
6
accumulates in the brain over time, and thus caused changes and damage within
level."
their brains on a cellular (Ex. 2 ¶ 386.)
" The players suffer from "present cellular and subcellular injuries sustained
NHL."
while playing in the (Ex. 2 ¶¶ 44, 51, 58, 69.)
evidence"
The plaintiffs further alleged that there was a "growing body of scientific linking
repetitive concussive events to long-term neurological numerous peer-

problems, including
reviewed scientific studies published "[i]n the last decade"; the NHL "knew or should have known
of"
this "mounting evidence"; and the NHL failed to warn plaintiffs of the risk of injury. (Ex. 2
¶¶ 5, 9, 200.)
B. Chubb and AIG Each Accepts Its Duty To Defend
The Insurers issued occurrence-based primary commercial general liability policies for the
benefit of the NHL spanning from 1970 to 2014, which provided the NHL with coverage for the
Concussion Litigation.
" ChubbandAIG. The Chubb and AIG policies (24 and 6, are
respectively)
available and have been produced in this action.
" Avive. The Aviva with number 123 C 713, issued predecessor
policy policy by
Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. (the "CU Policy") and spanning two
years, from September 1, 1974, to September 30, 1976, has not been located.
(Compl. ¶ 32.) Nonetheless, the existence of the CU Policy is confirmed
through, among other things, internal NHL litigation status reports and
correspondence between the NHL, on the one hand, and each of its insurance
brokers, the American Hockey League, the Central Hockey League, and the
Western Hockey League, on the other hand. (Id. ¶ 33.)
" Zurich. The Zurich policies with numbers 890-1503 and 8170635 (the
policy
"Zurich Policies") spanning three years, from October 1, 1977, to October 1979,
and October 1, 1981, to October 1, 1982, have also not been located. (Compl.
¶ 37.) The existence of the Zurich Policies is confirmed through, among other
things, correspondence between the NHL and its insurance brokers; internal
NHL litigation status reports; and commercial umbrella liability policy number
7927-7275 issued by Chubb Canada for the October 1, 1981, to October 1,
1982, period, which lists the 1981-1982 Zurich Policy with policy number
8170635 as underlying insurance. (Id. at 44.)
7
defend" -
The policies all contain a broad "duty to an indivisible obligation requiring the
suit"
Insurers to defend the NHL in "any that alleges any potentially covered damages. Between
late 2013 and mid-2014, Chubb and AIG expressly acknowledged and accepted their respective
duty to defend, subject to reservations of rights. (Ex. 3 at 2 (Ltr. from RiverStone to NHL, dated
Dec. 31, 2013) (NYSCEF No. 125); Ex. 4 at 30 at 1 (Ltr. from AIG to NHL, dated March 24,
2014) (NYSCEF No. 126); Ex. 5 at 25 (Ltr. from White & Williams to NHL, dated May 8, 2014)
(NYSCEF No. 127).) At that same time, Chubb expressly acknowledged that "the NHL has a right
Litigation],"
to obtain independent counsel to defend it in the [Concussion but then attempted to
improperly impose conditions on that right, including an attorney rate of $350/hour. (Ex. 5 at 25
(Ltr. from White & Williams to NHL, dated May 8, 2014) (NYSCEF No. 127).) AIG, too,
attempted to cap the NHL's blended attorney rate at $350/hour. In a decision and order dated June
24, 2022, addressing the NHL's motion for partial summary judgment on Chubb, AIG and TIG's
duty to defend (the "Summary Judgment Decision"), Justice Crane ruled that Chubb and AIG have
costs."
a duty to defend and "are required to pay reasonable defense (Ex. 6 at 11 (NYSCEF No.
290).)6
C. TIG Files the Declaratory Judgment Action
On April 15, 2014, TIG filed an action in the New York Supreme Court, New York County,
parties'
against the NHL, Chubb, AIG and others seeking declarations regarding the rights and
obligations with respect to insurance coverage for the Concussion Litigation (the "DJ Action").
See Comp1., TIG Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Hockey League, No. 651162/2014 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. filed
6
Chubb and AIG argued that they had no duty to defend because the NHL purportedly failed to
tender the defense to the Insurers. (Ex. 6 at 5-6.) The Court rejected that argument, reasoning that
Chubb and AIG waived the right to control the defense by failing to disclaim coverage timely and
by making partial payments toward the NHL's defense under a reservation of rights. (Id. at 6.)
8
Apr. 15, 2014) (Ex. 7.) As the Insurers have stated, "it merits note that immediately after [the DJ
Action] commenced the court granted a stay of all proceedings in accordance with a fully executed
conducted."
Stay and Tolling Agreement entered into between the parties and no discovery was
(Ex. 8 at 2 n.1 (Ltr. from M. Kassak to Justice Crane, dated June 4, 2021) (NYSCEF No. 55).)
The DJ Action was stayed for the vast majority of its six-year lifespan; Chubb and AIG never filed
responsive pleadings; and the NHL, Chubb and AIG remained defendants for the entirety of the
case. On June 24, 2020, TIG voluntarily dismissed the DJ Action without prejudice. (Ex. 9 (DJ
Action Dismissal Stipulation).)
D. The NHL Successfully Defends the Concussion Litigation
The defense of the Concussion Litigation required significant time, effort and skill in light
of the legal and factual issues and the scope and expedited nature of the proceedings. It included,
among other things: (i) voluminous discovery across the United States and Canada; (ii) complex
expert work (including 19 expert declarations and three additional declarations); (iii) discovery
directed to each putative class representative; (iv) opposition to class certification; and (v) motions
to exclude expert testimony. (See Ex. 10 (MDL Docket Sheet).)
plaintiffs'
The defense effort culminated in the denial of the MDL motion for class
2019.7
certification on July 13, 2018, and a settlement that became effective April 4, (See Compl.
¶¶ 56-60.)
E. Chubb and AIG Purport To Have Conducted Extensive Analyses of the NHL's
Invoices and Make Partial Payments Based on Those Analyses
As of February 2022, the NHL had incurred approximately $95 million in defense costs,
yet Chubb and AIG have paid only approximately $20 million, and Aviva and Zurich have paid
7
The Insurers have not reimbursed the NHL for any of the settlement costs.
9
nothing to the NHL pursuant to their respective insurance policies. Chubb and AIG based
approximately half of their drastic discount on: (i) their claim that the attorney rates charged by
the NHL's defense counsel and paid by the NHL were unreasonably high and (ii) various
billing,"
challenges to defense counsel's bills, such as alleged "block attorney billing for
"vague"
administrative or clerical tasks, time entries, billing in quarter and whole hour increments,
and billing for overhead charges, among others. (See Ex. 11 at 2-3 (Ltr. from White & Williams
to NHL, dated Oct. 6, 2017) (NYSCEF No. 255); Ex. 12 at 2-8 (Ltr. from AIG to NHL, dated Sept.
25, 2017) (NYSCEF No. 256).) Chubb and AIG based the remainder of their discount on their
non-coverage.8
contention that defense costs should be allocated to the NHL for years of
Aviva and Zurich have denied coverage entirely on the grounds that they have been unable to
locate their respective policies, notwithstanding evidence of the existence and terms of their
policies.
The NHL provided Chubb and AIG with the first round of defense invoices in 2017, after
the NHL and those Insurers entered into a confidentiality agreement. Chubb and AIG assert they
spent considerable time poring over the invoices in evaluating and adjusting the NHL's claim.
"months" review"
Chubb said that it took to "undertake[] a detailed of the NHL's defense invoices.
(Ex. 11 at 2 (Ltr. from White & Williams to NHL, dated Oct. 6, 2017) (NYSCEF No. 255).) AIG
"months" "documents"
stated that its claims affiliate spent reviewing provided by the NHL "to
determine what fees and costs are reasonable and necessary to the NHL's defense in the
Litigation."
Concussion (Ex. 12 at 2 (Ltr. from AIG to NHL, dated Sept. 25, 2017).) Chubb and
8
In the Summary Judgment Decision, the Court held that defense costs must be allocated to the
NHL for periods of non-coverage, but made no determination as to the method of allocation. (Ex.
6 at 7-9 (NYSCEF No. 290).) The NHL believes that allocation to the NHL is inconsistent with
New York law and the terms of the policies. Accordingly, the NHL intends to appeal that aspect
of the Summary Judgment decision.
10
AIG's reviews included the efforts of at least two third-parties - a forensic audit
purportedly firm,
Stuart and a law Hinshaw - that were retained Chubb and AIG in 2017 to prepare
Maue, firm, by
reports analyzing attorney billing rates and auditing invoices from the Concussion Litigation. (Ex.
1 at 1 (email from AIG's counsel to NHL's counsel, dated Jan. 22, 2022) (NYSCEF No. 258).)
F. The NHL Commences This Action to Collect the Full Amount Due Under the
Policies and Makes Discovery Requests; the Insurers Provide Inadequate Responses
On July 31, 2020, the NHL commenced this action to recover the remainder of the defense
Insurers' policies9
amounts and the entire indemnity amounts owed under the and thereaner made
Insurers'
tailored discovery requests to the Insurers for information relevant to its claims and the
defenses. Among other things, the NHL sought the following:
" Claims Handling Documents. The NHL has sought all documents regarding
Insurers'
the claims handling, adjusting and evaluation process (as defined
Insurers'
above, the Claims Handling Documents), including: (i) the claim files
in connection with the NHL's insurance claim; (ii) all documents used by the
Insurers to evaluate the NHL's insurance claim; (iii) all documents relating to
analyses of the NHL's defense costs or settlement payments in connection with
the Concussion Litigation and documents used in connection with those
Insurers'
analyses; (iv) all documents concerning the coverage obligations and
Insurers'
their interpretation of policy terms; (v) all documents concerning the
calculation or determination with respect to the partial payments made under
the Policies in connection with the Concussion Litigation; (vi) all documents
Insurers'
concerning the views as to the NHL's choice of outside counsel or
handling of the Concussion Litigation, including work performed and results
obtained; (vii) all documents concerning internal communications between

Insurers and between Insurers and brokers or other agents concerning claims
handling, the policies and the NHL's claims for coverage; and (viii) documents
relating to the attorney rates each of the Insurers has paid to defend similar
actions and actions brought against the Insurers. (First RFP Nos. 15-
3, 5-8, 10,
16, 24, 27-37 (Exs. 13, 14, 15, 16)10.) The Claims Handling Documents are
9
As discussed in more detail above, TIG filed the DJ Action seeking a declaration of TIG and
insurers'
other obligations with respect to the Concussion Litigation in April 2014. (Supra
Background § C.) TIG voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice before any defendant had
filed responsive pleadings or any substantive litigation had occurred. (Id.)
10
On October 8, 2020, the NHL served a substantively identical First Set of Requests for the
Production of Documents to each of the Insurers (the "First RFPs"). (Exs. 13, 14, 15, 16.)
11
undisputedly relevant because the Insurers have placed their coverage positions
at the core of this case. Yet the Insurers have withheld broad categories of these
documents, including virtually all responsive communications, internal analysis

and analysis by Chubb and AIG's retained consultants. (See infra Part I.)
" Interrogatories Seeking the Identity of Persons with Knowledge. The NHL
also served interrogatories to the Insurers seeking, among other things, the
names of individuals with knowledge of facts relevant to the claims and
defenses in this case. Chubb provided only two names of Chubb personnel in
response to such requests and could not verify on a follow-up meet and confer
whether those responses were comprehensive. (Ex. 17, Responses 1-5, 7-13,
15-18 (Chubb Responses to NHL Interrogatories, dated June 14, 2021); Ex. 18
(Ltr. from Chubb's counsel to NHL's counsel, dated Feb. 11, 2022).) Aviva
did not provide any names in response to numerous such requests. (See Ex. 19,
Responses 1, 9-12, 15 and 20 (Aviva Responses and Objections to NHL
Interrogatories, dated June 25, 2021).)
" Documents Concerning Knowledge-Based Defenses. The NHL requested

Insurers'
documents relating to the knowledge of the risks of concussions and
other sports-related bodily injuries. (First RFP Nos. 11-12, 40-47 (Exs. 13, 14,
15, 16).) These include claims files for concussion litigation previously brought
against the NFL and NCAA and similar sports and concussion-related insurance
claims. (Id.) The Insurers have refused to produce these documents.
"Lost"
"
Policy Discovery. The NHL also sought, principally from Aviva and
Zurich but also from the other Insurers, documents and other discovery to
"lost"
corroborate the existence and material terms of Aviva and Zurich's
policies. (First RFP Nos. 17-22 (Exs. 13, 14, 15, 16); NHL's Second Req. for
Prod. to Aviva Nos. 1-6 (Ex. 20); NHL's Second Req. for Prod. to Zurich Nos.
1-6 (Ex. 21).) Aviva and Zurich have not only failed to locate their policies,
but have also produced only four representative policies from the relevant
period. Aviva, for its part, has produced only a handful of documents and has
documents"
contended that it has "no with respect to almost every request the
NHL has propounded. (See Ex. 22, Responses 1, 2, 4-21, 23-52, 54-57 (Aviva
Responses and Objections to the NHL's First Request for Production, dated
Dec. 7, 2020); Ex. 23, Responses 1-7 (Aviva Responses and Objections to the
NHL's Second Request for Production, dated June 25, 2021).)
G. The Insurers Serve Deficient Privilege Logs
The Insurers have provided wholly deficient privilege logs and have failed to cure the
Insurers'
deficiencies despite notice from the NHL. (Ex. 24 (Ltr. from NHL's counsel to counsel,
dated Jan. 31, 2022); Ex. 25 (Ltr. from P. Luneau to Court, dated Feb. 2, 2022).)
12
As a preliminary matter, all of the Insurers have conceded in a letter to the Court that they
have not even assessed which of the Claims Handling Documents, if any, are work product or
attorney-client privileged, despite having claimed those grounds for protection with respect to
thousands of documents. (Ex. 26 at 3 n.2 (Ltr. from M. Kassak to Justice Crane, dated Feb. 2,
2022).)
In addition, although categorical privilege logs are permitted under the Commercial
appropriate,"
Division Rules ("CD Rules") "where CD Rule 11-b, Chubb and AIG's categorical
logs are replete with impermissibly overbroad categories and vague descriptions. For example,
Descriptions"
one of Chubb's "Category is "Intemal documents and/or communication containing
information prepared by, at the direction of, or on behalf of counsel in connection with the
action."
coverage dispute giving rise to this (Ex. 27 (Chubb Revised Privilege Log, dated Feb. 1,
2022) (NYSCEF No. 263).) It is impossible to determine, based on this generic description,
whether there is a valid basis for protection. (See infra Part V.C (discussing adequacy of
categorical privilege logs).)
Insurers'
The logs also claim multiple types of privilege or protection with respect to broad
materials"
categories of documents, such as: (i) "litigation protection; (ii) attorney-client privilege;
(iii) work product protection; and (iv) settlement communications, without specifying which
privilege or protection applies to each document.
H. Non-Parties Hinshaw and Stuart Maue Refuse To Comply With Subpoenas
Astonishingly, Chubb and/or AIG instructed non-party Stuart Maue to ignore the NHL's
subpoena that had been properly and appropriately served on it. (See Ex. 28 at 1 (Ltr. From J.
Jackson to M. Brychel, dated Feb. 17, 2022).) The NHL believes Chubb and/or AIG likewise
instructed Hinshaw not to respond to the NHL's subpoenas properly and appropriately served on
Hinshaw. These subpoenas seek material that is directly relevant to this case.
13
In particular, on January 21, 2022, the NHL served Hinshaw with a subpoena for
documents related to Hinshaw's analysis performed on behalf of the Insurers in connection with
the NHL's claim. (See Ex. 29 (Subpoena); Ex. 30, 31 (proof of service).) That same day, the NHL
served John Pierce, the individual who the Insurers have represented performed Hinshaw's
analysis, with a subpoena for testimony. (See Ex. 32 (Subpoena); Ex. 30, 31 (proof of service).)
On February 16, 2022, the NHL, through a process server, served Stuart Maue in St. Louis,
Missouri, with a subpoena for: (i) documents related to its analysis performed on behalf of the
Insurers in connection with the NHL's claim and (ii) testimony regarding that analysis. (See Ex.
service).)¹¹
33 (Subpoena); Ex. 28 (proof of Both Hinshaw and Stuart Maue have refused to
produce documents or offer a witness for testimony.
Although it appears that Chubb, MG, Stuart Maue and Hinshaw have now agreed to
comply with any order of the Special Referee and the Court regarding their discovery obligations
pursuant to the subpoenas, (stipulations to Your Honor memorializing that agreement are
forthcoming), their conduct in this regard is emblematic of the improper discovery roadblocks
Chubb and MG have erected in this case.
11
Notably, Stuart Maue attempted to refuse valid service of this subpoena at the behest of counsel
to Chubb and/or MG. (See Ex. 28 (Ltr. From J. Jackson to M. Brychel, dated Feb. 17, 2022)
(detailing how "one of Stuart Maue's clients that is a party to the New York litigation had
service'
instructed [Stuart Maue] not to 'accept of the subpoena").) More specifically, no
employees of Stuart Maue would permit the process server to hand the subpoena to them, and the
receptionist told the process server that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to "accept
service"
of the subpoena. (Id. at 1.) The individual who headed Stuart Maue's analysis on behalf
of Chubb and Michael Brychel - an attorney - told the process server that either Chubb or
MG,
service"
MG instructed his firm not to "accept of the subpoena. (Id.) The process server had to
resort to taping the subpoena to the front door of Stuart Maue's office. (Id.)
14
Insurers'
L The NHL Seeks Enforcement of the Discovery Obligations
On February 2, 2022, the NHL filed a letter raising the extensive deficiencies in the
Insurers' responses.12
discovery (Ex. 25 (NYSCEF 254).) On April 5, 2022, the Court entered an
order appointing Your Honor as private Special Referee to manage discovery disputes. (Ex. 34
(NYSCEF 286).) On April 13, 2022, Your Honor issued an order directing the parties to meet and
confer as soon as practicable in an effort to limit and to identify the discovery matters that are truly
in dispute. (Ex. 35 (Special Referee Order No. 1).) The order authorized the parties to make
applications regarding discovery disputes following that meet and confer. (Id.) The parties have
met and conferred regarding the NHL's discovery disputes and have been unable to resolve the
issues raised herein.
ARGUMENT
The CPLR provides that "[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and
action."
necessary in the prosecution or defense of an CPLR 3101(a). The phrase "material and
necessary"
is broadly interpreted. See Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ'g Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406
(1968). A party must disclose "any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation
prolixity."
for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and Id. A party is entitled to
discovery under CPLR 3101 so long as the requested discovery is "reasonably calculated to lead
information."
to the discovery of relevant O ‰alloran v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 169 A.D.3d 556,
557 (1st Dep't 2019). "[T]he burden of proving that an item should not be produced during
discovery."
discovery is placed upon the party seeking to avoid such N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp.
v. Lexington Ins. Co., 160 A.D.2d 261, 262 (1st Dep't 1990).
12
On April 14, 2022, the NHL sent Your Honor a hard copy of this letter and accompanying
exhibits, in addition to the NHL's briefs in support of their motion for partial summary judgment
on the duty to defend with respect to Chubb, AIG and TIG.
15
I. THE INSURERS, HINSHAW AND STUART MAUE MUST PRODUCE THE

CLAIMS HANDLING DOCUMENTS
The Insurers and Chubb and AIG's third-party consultants, Hinshaw and Stuart Maue, have
Documents.13
improperly withheld, and should be ordered to produce, the Claims Handling
Among other things, the Insurers have improperly withheld:
" internal communications and substantive internal analyses to the: defense

relating (i)
of the Concussion Litigation, (ii) reasonableness of the settlement in the Concussion
Litigation, (iii) reasonableness of rates or (iv) evaluation of invoices of the NHL's

defense counsel, experts or vendors;
" communications between the Insurers the NHL's insurance claim and the
regarding
Insurers'
respective claims handling/adjusting or reimbursements;
" communications between the Insurers and outside counsel the NHL's
regarding
Insurers'
insurance claim and the respective claims handling/adjusting or
reimbursements;
" documents and communications to analyses conducted firms

relating by third-party
papers"
retained by the Insurers, with the exception of "initial work prepared by one
such firm¹4; and
" documents rates approved and evaluation of the reasonableness of defense

reflecting
costs in connection with similar insurance claims (e.g., NFL and NCAA concussion
litigation insurance claims).
Hinshaw and Stuart Maue have likewise not produced any communications or analyses
Insurers.is
conducted by them for or on behalf of the Under well-settled New York law, the Claims
13
Hinshaw and Stuart Maue should be ordered to produce documents responsive to the subpoenas
and to supply witnesses (including, with respect to Hinshaw, John Pierce, and with respect to Stuart
Maue, Michael Brychel or another corporate representative) for a deposition as sought in the
subpoenas. (See Exs. 29, 33 (Subpoenas).)
14 papers"
Chubb and AIG have not advised whether these "initial work are complete. Moreover,
papers"
these "initial work appear to be exhibits to a report or reports, yet Chubb and AIG have
not provided copies of any report. Nor have Chubb or AIG produced any analysis or
papers."
communications related to the "initial work
15
Although the Insurers have produced certain claim notes, they have done so only with heavy
and unexplained redactions.
16
discoverable."
Handling Documents are highly relevant to this insurance coverage dispute and "are
Rosario, 40 A.D.3d at 323-24.
Preparation"
A. The Claims Handling Documents Are Not "Trial Materials Under
CPLR 3101(d) Because They Were Not Prepared Solely for Litigation
preparation"
The Insurers assert that all of the Claims Handling Documents constitute "trial
materials protected under CPLR 3101(d). However, that protection applies only where the
"prove" litigation."
withholding party can that the documents at issue were "prepared solely for
Rosario, 40 A.D.3d at 323 (emphasis added). The Insurers cannot make that showing with respect
to any of the documents the NHL seeks.
In fact, Chubb and AIG have admitted that they and their consultants prepared the withheld
claim analyses reflected in the Claims Handling Documents for the purpose of aiding them in
payments."
"mak[ing] [those] defense costs (Ex. 1 (Email from AIG's counsel to NHL's counsel,
dated Jan. 22, 2022) (NYSCEF No. 258); see also Exs. 11, 12 (NYSCEF Nos. 255-56).) That is
a quintessential non-litigation purpose. See Westhampton, 105 A.D.2d at 628 ("reports . . .
prepared, at least in part, to assist the defendants in determining whether to accept or reject
loss"
plaintiff's claim and to evaluate the extent of plaintiff's not prepared solely for litigation)
(emphasis added); Chem. Bank v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 70 A.D.2d 837,
litigation,'
837-38 (1st Dep't 1979) (documents prepared by insurer "'for possible use in with the
clear import that they were developed for other purposes as well, most importantly to help assess
liability,"
[insurer's] not prepared solely for litigation); see also Rosario, 40 A.D.3d at 323-24
burden"
(insurers "failed to sustain . . . to show that disclaimer documentation and related
litigation"
communications were "prepared solely for where "litigation may have been only one
of the motives for preparation of such disclaimer documentation").
17
The Insurers also assert that all documents created after TIG filed the DJ Action in April
preparation"
2014 are "litigation materials by virtue of that action alone. But the mere pendency
of a lawsuit is not sufficient grounds to withhold any document that may bear on the claims
asserted in the lawsuit. See Friend v. SDTC-The Center for Discovery, Inc., 13 A.D.3d 827 (3d
Dep't 2004) (rejecting argument that documents were protected because they were prepared after
litigation commenced and related to litigation); cf Weber v. Paduano, No. 02 Civ. 3392 (GEL),
2003 WL 161340, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2003) ("notes authored after the filing of [the] lawsuit
are not necessarily work product, since the institution of a lawsuit does not relieve the party
opposing production of its burden of demonstrating that the documents would not have been
prepared but for the litigation").
In Friend, for example, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that she was injured by an
employee of the defendant. 13 A.D.3d at 827-29. After the defendant received notice of the
litigation, it commissioned an investigation into the employee's alleged misconduct, culminating
in a report. Id. The defendant withheld the report under CPLR 3101(d) on the basis that the
investigation occurred after the defendant received notice of the litigation and thus constituted
litigation preparation materials. Id. at 829. The court rejected that superficial argument. The court
incident"
explained that, because "staff was required to report the details of [the] even in the
absence of litigation, the report reflected "part of [the defendant's] regular course of business
operations." "multi-motived" immunity"

Id. The report therefore did "not warrant[] under CPLR
3101(d). Id. (citations omitted).
The logic of Friend applies with equal force here. Although some of the withheld Claims
Handling Documents were created after TIG filed the DJ Action, the Insurers were required to
conduct their claim analyses and adjustment (including through communications and reports) as
18
Insurers'
part of their regular course of business even in the absence of litigation. Moreover, the
conduct during the course of the DJ Action further conñrms that Chubb and AIG continued to
discharge their ordinary business function claims handling, and to make payments under their
respective duties to defend, notwithstanding the pendency of that action. For example:
" In a letter dated a month after TIG Eled the DJ Action, Chubb
May
8, 2014, expressly
defend"
"acknowledge[d] a duty to and emphasized that it was not "attempt[ing] . . . to
NHL."
avoid its responsibilities to the (Ex. 5 at 3, 25.) Chubb further wrote that it
"appreciates and values its relationship with the NHL, and is committed to working
lawsuit."
with the NHL in the defense of this (Id. at 3.) Chubb noted only in passing
carrier"
in a footnote that "another insurance had filed a declaratory judgment action.
(Id. at 2 n.1.)
" In a similar letter dated September 15, 2014, sent from AIG's claims administrator
NHL"
afBliate (AIG Claims Inc.), AIG likewise "agree[d] to defend the subject to a
reservation of rights. (Ex. 36 at 1.) AIG's letter emphasized that it "appreciate[s] and
customer." -
value[s] the NHL as a (Ex. 36 at 1.) The letter, sent by a businessperson
the claims handler on the case - made no mention of the DJ Action. (Id.)
"experts"
" In April 2017, Chubb and AIG retained Hinshaw and Stuart Maue "to review
NHL,"
and opine on the invoices . . . submitted by the (Ex. 26 at 4 (Ltr. from M. Kassak
to Justice Crane, dated Feb. 2, 2022)), which the Insurers "considered in connection
payments,"
with making . . . defense cost (Ex. 1 at 1 (Email from AIG's counsel to
NHL's counsel, dated Jan. 22, 2022).)
"
Beginning in September 2017, after Chubb, AIG and the NHL negotiated a
confidentiality agreement pursuant to which the NHL provided its defense invoices,
Chubb and AIG made payments for certain defense costs for the Concussion Litigation
- albeit discounted payments - based on claims and
drastically handling, adjusting
evaluation analyses performed internally and with the assistance of outside counsel and
consultants Hinshaw and Stuart Maue. (See Exs. 5, 11)
AIG and the NHL remained defendants - on the same side of the
Meanwhile, Chubb, i.e.,
dispute - for the of the DJ Action. (See Ex. 7 (TIG Action Ex. 37 (DJ Action
entirety Complaint);
Docket).) Neither Chubb nor AIG Eled responsive pleadings or sought to cross-claim against the
NHL. And Aviva and Zurich, for their part, were not even parties to the DJ Action. TIG
voluntarily dismissed the DJ Action after a stay of almost six years. (See Ex. 37 (DJ Action
Docket); Ex. 9 (TIG Action Dismissal Stipulation).) This course of events dispels any notion that
19
"solely"
Chubb and AIG's claims handling, evaluation, and adjustment were prepared for the DJ
Action.
Notably, Chubb and AIG belatedly produced a subset of the Claims Handling Documents
"experts,"
prepared by their third-party a tacit concession that those documents are not protected
otherwise.16
under CPLR 3101(d) or However, this production is incomplete. Among other
things, Chubb and AIG have not produced any: (i) analyses by Hinshaw; (ii) communications
relating to the analyses performed by Hinshaw or Stuart Maue; or (iii) documents reflecting how
the Hinshaw or Stuart Maue analyses were employed in adjusting the NHL's claim. All of these
must be produced.
B. The Claims Handling Documents Are Not Privileged or Protected Under the Work
Product Doctrine
The Insurers have also withheld over 5,000 documents - Claims

including Handling
- "and/or"
Documents based on blanket assertions of privilege work product protection even
though the Insurers admit they have not reviewed these documents to assess those designations.
(Ex. 26 at 3 n.2 (Ltr. from M. Kassak to Justice Crane, dated Feb. 2, 2022) (admitting that they
have not and still need "to review their withheld documents to parse them for those that are
Insurers'
privileged and/or work product").) As set forth below, the failure to review or properly
identify these documents causes a waiver of any privilege or protection. (See infra Part V.)
Nor can the Insurers provide any valid basis for privilege or work product with respect to
Insurers'
the requested Claims Handling Documents in any event. The apparent contention is that
any document touched by an attorney is attorney-client privilege or work product. As the First
Department has repeatedly held, however, claims handling, adjusting and evaluation analyses
16
This production came long after the substantial completion deadline, and only after the NHL
Insurers'
identified the absence of these indisputably relevant analyses in the productions.
20
constitute ordinary business activity and are discoverable even if prepared by in-house or external
counsel. See, e.g., Nat'l Union v. TransCanada, 119 A.D.3d at 493 (afBrming order to produce
opinion"
documents relating to "coverage prepared by "retained counsel"); Brooklyn Union Gas
Co. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 23 A.D.3d 190, 191 (1st Dep't 2005) (affirming order to produce
investigators"
analysis of "attorneys . . . acting as claims to "investigat[e] the issue of whether
coverage should be provided and the cost of such coverage"); see also Melworm v. Encompass
Indem. Co., 112 A.D.3d 794, 795 (2d Dep't 2013) (affirming order to produce "letters from
[insurer's] counsel to [insurer]"). "An insurer cannot shield such documents from discovery by
litigation."
using the same lawyer to handle the coverage decision and any ensuing coverage
Evanston Ins. Co. v. Oea, Inc., No. 02-1505-DFL-PAN, 2006 WL 1192737, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May
4, 2006).
This conclusion flows from the principles underlying the attorney-client privilege and work
product doctrine. The attorney-client privilege applies only to communications conveying advice
character."
that is "primarily or predominantly . . . of a legal Brooklyn Union, 23 A.D.3d at 191.
"Documents prepared in the ordinary course of an insurance company's investigation . . . to
loss"
evaluate the extent of a claimant's do not comprise advice that is primarily of a legal
character, even if performed by attorneys. Id. Furthermore, the attorney-client privilege applies
only to communications and therefore could not cover other analyses or reports that the Insurers
have withheld. See Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363, 372 (1990) ("[T]he privilege applies only to
confdential communications with counsel.") (emphasis in original) (citing CPLR 4503).
Along similar lines, work product protection "applies only to documents prepared by
counsel acting as such, and to materials that are uniquely the product of a lawyer's learning and
professional skills, such as those reflecting an attorney's legal research, analysis, conclusions, legal
21
strategy."
theory or Brooklyn Union, 23 A.D.3d at 190-91 (emphasis added). Claims handling,
such"
adjusting and evaluation documents do not reflect the work of counsel "acting as or the
product of a lawyer's professional training. Id. And, as with the litigation protection under CPLR
the work product doctrine applies to documents made for the purpose of litigation -
3101(d), only
i.e., documents created after the rejection of a claim. Millen Indus., Inc. v Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co.,
37 A.D.2d 817, 817 (1st Dep't 1971). Chubb and AIG never rejected the NHL's claim and
continued to make payments until the NHL commenced this action in 2020. See, e.g., Arkwright
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 90 Civ. 7811 (AGS), 1994 WL
698298, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 1994) (no work product protection where "not only has [insurer]
Zurich never rejected [the insurance] claim, but it has actually made payment on the claim, albeit
with a reservation of rights"). Accordingly, no work product protection applies.
Insurers'
C. The Insurers Cannot Withhold Documents Concerning the Handling of
Other Similar Claims and Other Attorney Rate Related Documents
The Insurers have also withheld documents relating to their handling of claims similar to
the NHL's Concussion Litigation claim, including rates the Insurers paid to defend other similar
actions. These Claims Handling Documents must be collected and produced. Information
concerning rates paid by an insurer in defending other actions is discoverable where, as here, there
is a dispute as to the reasonableness of defense counsel's hourly rates under an insurance policy.
See Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Coinstar, Inc., No. C13-1014-JCC, 2014 WL
claims"
3396124 (W.D. Wash. July 10, 2014). Furthermore, an insurer's "handling of similar is
discoverable"
"relevant and because it "may well shed light on the meaning that the parties
issue."
ascribed to the terms that they incorporated into the policies at Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Ace
Am. Reinsurance Co., No. 05 Civ. 9170 RMB JCF, 2006 WL 3771090, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.
22, 2006); see also Mariner's Cove Site B Assocs. v. Travelers Indemn. Co., No. 04 Civ. 1913
22
(KMW) (RLE), 2005 WL 1075400, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 2, 2005) ("documents regarding similar
claims of other insureds . . . are relevant and discoverable in actions to recover insurance
reimbursement"); Stonewall Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Gypsum Co., No. 86 CIV. 9671 (SWK), 1988 WL
96159, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 6, 1988) (ordering claim file "discovery related to the policy of
insureds"
other because that information "would or could be useful in the interpretive process, and
[is] thus relevant and discoverable"); Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Utica First Ins. Co., 37 A.D.3d
160, 161 (1st Dep't 2007) (compelling insurer for construction company to produce documents
concerning claims against other insureds involving similar roofing operation exclusion).
Importantly, one or more of the Insurers have insured other sports organizations, including
the NFL, the NCAA, and helmet maker Riddell, and have been responsible for defending similar
concussion litigation. (See Ex. 38 (Compl., Discover Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Nat'l Football League,
No. 652933/2012 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2012)); Ex. 39 (Compl., Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass I v.
HG Ins. Co., No. 49DO2-1212-PL-048782 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2014)); Ex. 40 (Compl., Riddell, Inc.
v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., et al., No. BC482698 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2012)).) As such, the Insurers are
likely to have relevant information conceming reasonable rates to defend similar claims.
Insurers'
The discovery the NHL seeks bears directly on the contention that the fees the
unreasonable.17
NHL paid to defend the Concussion Litigation were Among other things, Chubb
and AIG take the arbitrary position that a blended attorney rate above $350 per hour is per se
unreasonable and need not be reimbursed. (See, e.g., Ex. 12 at 4 (Ltr. from AIG to NHL, dated
17
The policies provide that the Insurers have a duty to defend any suit asserting claims for covered
alleged damages. Chubb and AIG concede that covered damages were asserted in the Concussion
Litigation. They also concede that, because they reserved their rights with respect to
indemnification, the NHL was entitled to select independent counsel, giving rise to a
reimbursement obligation by the Insurers. The Court expressly held in the Summary Judgment
costs."
Decision that Chubb and AIG "are required to pay reasonable defense (Ex. 6 at 11.)
23
Insurers'
Sept. 25, 2017).) Discovery into the claims handling and payments in other cases
involving similar complex litigation may reveal that they have historically deemed much higher
"reasonable."
rates This discovery is plainly relevant.
AIG has lost this battle at least once before. In Coinstar, the court ordered AIG to disclose
historical attorney rates AIG paid to defend itself and policyholders, along with details concerning
the individuals retained and the matters for which they were retained. 2014 WL 3396124, at *1-4
& nn.2-4. The court held that this discovery was relevant "to determine whether the rates put
Defendants."
forward by [AIG] satisfy the duty it owes to Id. at *3. To that end, the court
reasoned, the policyholder must be able to "compare the rates paid by [AIG] in the underlying
complexity."
cases, to those paid by [AIG] to defend suits of comparable Id. The NHL must be
afforded that same opportunity.
The Insurers have posited that discovery concerning rates paid in other cases could
concerns."
implicate "privilege (Ex. 8 at 3 (Ltr. from M. Kassak to Justice Crane, dated June 4,
2021, NYSCEF No. 55).) As the Insurers have conceded elsewhere, however, "documents relating
privileged."
to [attorneys'] fees charged . . . are not (Ex. 41 at 2 (Ltr. from Chubb's counsel to
NHL's counsel, dated Sept. 17, 2021)) (citing Priest v. Hennessy, 51 N.Y.2d 62, 68 (1980)).
The Insurers have also argued that documents relating to other claim files constitute
confidential, proprietary and sensitive business information. That is not a valid basis for avoiding
discovery obligations where, as here, the parties have negotiated and the Court has entered a
comprehensive confidentiality order. See Twenty Four Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Hunter Ambulance
Inc., 226 A.D.2d 175, 176 (1st Dep't 1996) (confidentiality concems are "alleviated by a
24
confidentiality").18
stipulation of Where appropriate, the Insurers can also redact truly proprietary
information while still providing the NHL with discovery on rates.
H. CHUBB AND AVIVA'S INTERROGATORY RESPONSES ARE DEFICIENT
Chubb. Chubb's interrogatory responses are deficient and must be supplemented because
Chubb failed to disclose the names of individuals with knowledge pertinent to the NHL's claims
Insurers'
and the own counterclaims. Under the Commercial Division Rules, parties must disclose
in response to interrogatories, verified by the party, the "name of witnesses with knowledge of
action."
information material and necessary to the subject matter of the CD Rule 11-a(b). The
NHL propounded sixteen such interrogatories to Chubb. Yet Chubb did not identify a single
person in response to these requests. (Ex. 17, Interrogatory Nos. 1-5, 7-13, 15-18 (Chubb
Responses to Interrogatories).)
Counsel for Chubb and the NHL subsequently agreed to an informal exchange of
information in an effort to mutually resolve disputes regarding interrogatory responses, but Chubb
did not comply with that agreement, either. Specifically, the NHL agreed without prejudice to
seek disclosure with respect to only five of the sixteen interrogatories to which Chubb had failed
Insurers'
to respond, all of which sought the names of individuals involved in the claims handling,
18
Although Justice Crane suggested during a status conference early in the case and without the
benefit of full briefing or oral argument that she did not view documents pertaining to other claims
litigation,"
as "useful in this the Court nonetheless noted that the NHL was permitted to move to
compel that discovery. (Ex. 42 at 30 (Tr. of Aug. 10, 2021, Hr'g).) The Court also noted that this
discovery would be expensive and burdensome. However, such discovery can be tailored to avoid
undue burden. See, e.g., Zurich, 2006 WL 3771090, at *2 (recognizing potential burden and
holding that "[t]he parties shall . . . propose a protocol for sampling [the insurer's] claim files to
obtain examples of claims files in which issues of the allocation of policy limits has been
addressed"). To that point, the NHL has made clear in correspondence with the Insurers that the
universe of documents and information it seeks is appropriately tailored. (See Ex. 43 (Ltr. from
Insurers'
NHL's counsel to counsel, dated Apr. 8, 2021); Ex. 44 (accompanying spreadsheet).)
25
Insurers'
adjusting and evaluation process. (Ex. 45 (Email from NHL's counsel to counsel, dated
Feb. 2, 2022).) In response, Chubb's counsel identified only a single individual at Chubb who: (i)
conducted analyses with respect to defense costs; (ii) was involved in determining what defense
costs were reasonable with respect to the Concussion Litigation; (iii) had knowledge of the
calculation or determination of payments made by Chubb to date with respect to the Concussion
Litigation; and (iv) had knowledge conceming Chubb's claim that defense costs were
unreasonable, as set forth in Chubb's counterclaim. (Ex. 18 (Ltr. from Chubb's counsel to NHL's
counsel, dated Feb. 11, 2022).) Chubb's counsel identified only two individuals involved in
evaluating or handling the NHL's claim (one of whom was the individual identified with respect
to the four categories listed above). (Id.)
Further, under the CPLR, information in response to interrogatories must come from a
party itself, not its counsel. See CPLR 3133. Yet Chubb's counsel conceded on a meet and confer
that the two individuals listed were the individuals that - to be attorneys at White
merely they clear,
and Williams not Chubb - are aware who are responsive to the interrogatories. Chubb's
LLP,
responses are deficient for that reason alone.
Moreover, Chubb did not dispute when the parties met and conferred that other unidentified
individuals were involved. That stands to reason: It is inconceivable that only one or two
individuals at Chubb were involved in evaluating the NHL's claim for tens of millions of dollars
in defense costs and indemnity payments.
Chubb's counsel contends that the NHL should just ask questions in depositions about who
else was involved. This argument is antithetical to the concept of interrogatories. A core purpose
of interrogatories is to identify the appropriate custodians and witnesses before depositions.
26
Chubb should be ordered to produce supplemented responses to interrogatories 3, 7, 8, 9
and 15, verified by Chubb, identifying all relevant individuals, their titles and their respective roles.
Avive. Like Chubb's interrogatory responses, Aviva's interrogatory responses are
deficient and must be supplemented because Aviva refused to disclose the names of individuals
with knowledge with respect to numerous requests, including interrogatories 1, 9-12, 15 and 20.
(See Ex. 19 (Aviva Responses and Objections to NHL Interrogatories, dated June 25, 2021).)
Aviva should be ordered to provide substantive responses to each and every one of these requests.
Among other things, Aviva refused to identify a person with knowledge of Aviva's own
litigation guidelines on the basis that "Aviva's Litigation Guidelines are in writing and speak for
themselves."
(Ex. 19, Response 12.) This answer is not only non-responsive but completely
opposite to Aviva's assertion, in response to requests for production, that Aviva did not have any
Litigation Guidelines. (See Ex. 22, Response 30 (Aviva Responses and Objections to the NHL's
First Request for Production, dated Dec. 7, 2020).)
In addition, in response to interrogatory 16, which sought names of individuals with
knowledge of policies and policy terms employed in the years 1970 to 1982, Aviva responded that
it had not identified anyone with knowledge of the sole specific policy alleged in the Complaint.
(See id., Response 16.) That answer is almost entirely unresponsive because it fails to provide
names of persons with knowledge of any other policies and policy terms used in the relevant
period. These obvious and intentional attempts at misdirection should not be countenanced.
In addition, Aviva must also provide responses to interrogatories seeking information
regarding its claims handling, adjusting and evaluation process. (See Ex. 19, Responses 6-9 (Aviva
Responses and Objections to NHL Interrogatories, dated June 25, 2021).)
27
HL THE INSURERS MUST PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THEIR

KNOWLEDGE-BASED DEFENSES
The Insurers raise various coverage defenses based on allegations regarding the NHL's
purported knowledge of the risks that allegedly materialized and gave rise to the Concussion
Litigation. For example, certain of the Insurers assert that coverage is barred or limited to the
extent that: (i) the NHL failed to disclose, misrepresented or concealed facts material to the insured
risks; or (ii) the alleged underlying injuries were known to the NHL prior to the inception of its
policies. (See, e.g., Ex. 46 Aff. Defenses 6, 8, 10 (Chubb Answer) (NYSCEF No. 15); Ex. 47 Aff.
Defenses 7, 20 (AIG Answer) (NYSCEF No. 20).) Yet, at the same time, the Insurers have
Insurers'
withheld documents related to the reliance on any alleged deception and/or their own
knowledge and acceptance of the risks presented.
These documents are plainly relevant and discoverable. In order to establish defenses
based on allegations that the NHL failed to disclose material facts as to which it had knowledge at
the time it purchased its policies, the Insurers would need to prove that they reasonably relied on
alleged material omissions by the NHL when the Insurers issued the policies. See Brown v. State
Farm Ins. Co., 237 A.D.2d 476, 476-77 (2d Dep't 1997); 6 Couch on Ins. § 84:7 ("It is well-settled
that the insured is under no duty to disclose to the insurer what the insurer already knows or ought
to know."). As such, discovery on the issue of when the Insurers themselves first obtained
knowledge of the alleged risks neurological injuries suffered as a result of sports-

conceming
related head hits - information to similar insurance claims other

including pertaining involving
policyholders - is material and to the NHL's prosecution and defense of this action.
necessary
Insurers'
This discovery will: (i) rebut the claim that the NHL had superior knowledge of these
Insurers'
purported risks and (ii) reveal the lack of reasonable reliance on an alleged deception by
the NHL.
28
As noted above, one or more of the Insurers have insured other sports organizations
involved in concussion related litigation that was filed before the NHL concussion litigation. The
Insurers are therefore likely to possess extensive information regarding the risks of brain and other
Insurers'
sports-related injuries. Indeed, it is precisely the business to identify and assess risk in
connection with underwriting the insurance policies they sell.
IV. AVIVA AND ZURICH MUST PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE

"LOST"
POLICIES
As set forth above, Aviva and Zurich issued policies covering five years in the relevant
period, but the NHL has been unable to locate those policies. (Supra Background § B.) An insured
"may rely on secondary evidence (i.e., evidence other than the policy itself) to prove the existence
policy."
and terms of [a lost] insurance Burt Rigid Box, Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Corp., 302
F.3d 83, 91-93 (2d Cir. 2002) (alterations in original) (citations omitted). Relevant secondary
evidence may include business documents reflecting the coverage terms, accounting or other
financial records (e.g., those showing payment of premiums), correspondence or pleadings
evidencing claims under the policies and copies of other policies issued in the same general
timeframe, among other materials. Id.
Aviva and Zurich have each asserted that they also cannot find their respective policies,
but have not complied with their obligations to search for and produce relevant secondary evidence
or documents establishing where that secondary evidence may be found.
Avive. Aviva has produced only twenty pages of documents (excluding materials the NHL
produced to Aviva and that Aviva merely copied and produced back to the NHL) and has claimed
documents"
that it has "no responsive to sixty-one of the NHL's sixty-four requests for production.
(See Ex. 22, Responses 1, 2, 4-21, 23-52, 54-57 (Aviva Responses and Objections to the NHL's
First Request for Production, dated Dec. 7, 2020); Ex. 23, Responses 1-7 (Aviva Responses and
29
Objections to the NHL's Second Request for Production, dated June 25, 2021).) To take just one
documents"
example, Aviva claims it has "no concerning the defenses it intends to assert in this
action. (See Ex. 22, Response 55 (Aviva Responses and Objections to the NHL's First Request
for Production, dated Dec. 7, 2020).) Needless to say, it defies credulity that Aviva has no
documents pertaining to this request. Aviva should be ordered to produce documents responsive
to each and every one of these requests.
Moreover, Aviva's production is deficient with respect to the select few requests for which
"specimen"
it conceded that it had documents. Of particular note, the NHL requested or sample
policies from the period in which the lost policies were issued. (See Ex. 14, Request 3 (NHL First
Requests for Production to Aviva, dated Oct. 8, 2020).) As courts have repeatedly held, these
documents are evidence of the terms of the lost policies. See Am. Precision Indus., Inc. v. Fed.
Ins. Co., No. 14-CV-1050-RJA-HKS, 2018 WL 1046790, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2018)
'specimen'
(observing that courts have "relied on or standard policy forms as secondary evidence
terms"
of a lost or destroyed policy's and ordering production of specimen policies); Glew v. Cigna
Grp. Ins. Co., 590 F. Supp. 2d 395, 412-13 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (referring to specimen policy forms
as "a good example of reliable and competent secondary evidence"); Burroughs Wellcome Co. v.
Com. Union Ins. Co., 632 F. Supp. 1213, 1216-17 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (using policy forms to ascertain
"lost" policies'
scope of coverage). Yet Aviva has produced only a single specimen policy in
response to the NHL's request. Aviva should be ordered to search for and produce all relevant
control.19
specimen policies in its possession, custody or
19
Aviva has claimed that it has conducted a search but has found no policy forms or specimen
policies other than the single form it produced. (See Ex. 48 (Ltr. from Aviva's counsel to NHL's
counsel, dated Jan. 18, 2022).) Absent a supplement to its production, Aviva should be required,
at a minimum, to provide a comprehensive affidavit explaining the steps it took to locate such
30
Aviva's failure to produce documents is not limited to lost policies. For example, Aviva
documents"
claims it has "no concerning the defenses it intends to assert in this action. (See Ex.
22, Response 55 (Aviva Responses and Objections to the NHL's First Request for Production,
dated Dec. 7, 2020).) Needless to say, it defies credulity that Aviva has no documents pertaining
to this request.
Zurich. Zurich originally refused to produce any specimen policy forms, then later agreed
forms"
to produce "certain policy in use during the period from 1977-79 and 1981-82. (See Ex.
49, Response 22 (Zurich Responses and Objections to the NHL's First Request for Production,
dated Nov. 20, 2020); Ex. 50 (Email from Zurich's counsel to NHL's counsel, dated January 24,
2022); Ex. 51 (Ltr. from Zurich's counsel to NHL's counsel, dated Jan. 19, 2022).) To date, Zurich
has produced only three specimen policy forms and has refused to search for and produce policy
forms used in the years 1970-76 and 1980 on the ground that the missing policies were issued in
different years. (Ex. 51 at 3 n.4 (Ltr. from Zurich's counsel to NHL's counsel, dated Jan. 19,
2022).) But those forms may provide further evidence of the terms of the missing policies. As a
result, they are discoverable and must be produced.
policies or forms. See Henderson-Jones v. City of New York, 87 A.D.3d 498, 505 (1st Dep't 2011)
("An affidavit regarding the unavailability of documents that are the subject of a discovery order
must document a thorough search conducted in good faith. It should include details such as 'where
the subject records were likely to be kept, what efforts, if any, were made to preserve them, whether
such records were routinely destroyed, [and] whether a search [was] conducted in every location
where the records were likely to be found.'").
31
INSURERS'
V. THE PRIVILEGE LOGS ARE DEFICIENT
A. The Insurers Have Withheld Claims Handling Documents on Privilege and Work
Product Grounds Yet Admit They Have Not Reviewed Those Documents To Assess
Those Claims of Privilege or Protection
The Insurers have taken the position that some of the Claims Handling Documents may be
"and/or"
attorney-client privileged work product. This claim should be rejected because, as the
Insurers admit, they have not even reviewed those documents to assess any purported claim of
privilege or protection. (Ex. 26 at 3 n.2 (Ltr. from M. Kassak to Justice Crane, dated Feb. 2,
2022).) As such, the Insurers have necessarily failed to adequately identify the documents that
they have withheld on these grounds, as required under the CPLR. See CPLR 3122(b) (party must,
with respect to withheld documents, "indicate the legal ground for withholding each such
document, and . . . provide . . . information as to each such document [describing and identifying
the document]").
B. The Insurers Have Omitted Documents from their Privilege Logs Without
Explanation
Chubb and AIG's privilege logs are also deficient because they omit withheld documents
without explanation. See CPLR 3122(b). For example, although Chubb and AIG appear to claim
privilege over responsive communications between them and other of the insurers (they have
communications.20
produced no such communications), their privilege logs do not list any of these
20
The default rule is that privilege is broken where a communication is not between only a client
and her counsel but also involves a third-party. The common interest doctrine creates a narrow
exception to that rule applicable only to communications: (i) with a party that shares a common
legal interest (ii) made in connection with pending or reasonably anticipated litigation. See Ambac
Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 27 N.Y.3d 616, 620 (2016). The Insurers have
established no such common interest that could possibly entitle them to withhold the entirety of
their responsive communications. They may point to the DJ Action, but the Insurers interests were
not aligned in that case: one of the insurers, TIG, had sued Chubb, AIG and the NHL. And, as
explained above, it is highly unlikely that all communications between the Insurers (including their
32
(See Exs. 52, 53) In addition, AIG concedes that it omitted from its log all responsive
counsel."
communications involving certain in-house AIG lawyers that it deems "litigation (See
Ex. 26 at 3 n.2 (Ltr. from M. Kassak to Court, dated Feb. 2, 2022).) Moreover, the Insurers have
concerns,"
posited that discovery concerning rates paid in other cases could implicate "privilege
yet the Insurers do not appear to have logged those documents. Chubb and AIG should be ordered
to produce all of the documents omitted without explanation from their privilege logs or, at a
minimum, to promptly supplement their privilege logs to include these documents to enable the
NHL to test any claim of privilege or protection.
Insurers'
C. The Privilege Designations Are Impermissibly Vague and Ambiguous
Insurers'
The document descriptions in the privilege logs are so vague and ambiguous that
it is impossible to assess their claims of privilege or protection. A privilege log, even if categorical,
must "provide information about the nature of the withheld documents sufficient to enable the
receiving party to make an intelligent determination about the validity of the assertion of
privilege.'"
New York City Bar Guidance for Categorical Privilege Logs ("Guidance") at 2 (Ex.
54) (quoting Auto. Club of N.Y., Inc. v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 297 F.R.D. 55, 59 (S.D.N.Y.
2013)); see also U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass I v. Triaxx Asset Mgmt. LLC, No. 18-CV-4044 (BCM), 2021
WL 1968325 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (finding categorical privilege log inadequate because
repetitive"
descriptions "are vague and and "do little or nothing to assist the reader in determining
whether the underlying documents are or are not privileged."); In re Aenergy, S.A., 451 F. Supp.
3d 319, 325-26 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (holding that categorical privilege log must be revised because
categories were vague, overbroad, and "the Court can discem no rhyme or reason behind its chosen
agents) constituted attorney-client communications conveying advice primarily or predominantly

of a legal character.
33
groupings"). "Boilerplate claims of privilege that do not comply with CPLR 3122 are insufficient
law."
as a matter of See Herman v. Herman, Index No. 650205/2011, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op.
31205(U) , at *16 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. July 13, 2015) (citing Anonymous v. High Sch. for Env't
Stud., 32 A.D.3d 353, 359 (1st Dep't 2006)), aff'd, 134 A.D.3d 442 (1st Dep't 2015).
The Insurers flout these mandates. Their privilege logs lump hundreds, and in some cases
thousands, of documents into categories and then list various purported grounds for withholding
the entire category, without specifying which ground applies to which document. (See Exs. 52,
53, 55, 56.) This obfuscation is all the more egregious given that the Insurers admit elsewhere that
they have not even reviewed these documents for purposes of assessing whether and to what extent
any reflect privileged attorney-client communications or work product. (See Ex. 26 at 3 n.2 (Ltr.
from M. Kassak to Court, dated Feb. 2, 2022) ("If the NHL's . . . view of the trial preparation
protection were to prevail, the Insurers would have to review their withheld documents to parse
them for those that are privileged and/or work product, as opposed to privileged, work product
and/or protected as trial preparation materials.").)
Chubb has laid bare its efforts to obscure the basis for its designations. In its original
privilege log, Chubb claimed protection with respect to many documents on the grounds that they
involved work "in connection with NHL's claim and/or the coverage dispute giving rise to this
action." "and/or"
(Ex. 52 (emphasis added).) This conjunction is critical to showing Chubb's
intention to obscure the bases for its designations and to impermissibly avoid producing
discoverable materials because documents: (i) concerning the NHL's claim are clearly not
privileged or protected; (ii) concerning both the NHL's claim and coverage litigation are also not
privileged or protected; and (iii) solely conveying legal advice or mental impressions of lawyers
in connection with litigation may be privileged or protected. When asked to clarify which
34
claim" dispute,"
documents concemed the "NHL's and which concerned "the coverage (Ex. 24 at
and/or" -
2), Chubb produced an amended log that simply deleted "NHL's claim meaning that
Chubb now appears to take the position that none of these documents relate, even partially, to
evaluating the NHL's claim. (Ex. 57 (redline); Ex. 27 (Amended Log).) This alteration confirms
that Chubb is attempting to shield business-function claims handling documents as privileged or
protected.
Furthermore, in its original privilege log, Chubb did not log a single communication
involving its outside counsel. When the NHL raised this issue, the Insurers simply added two
categories to their privilege log asserting blanket protection with respect to thousands of
documents, including a single category of more than 5,500 documents involving White & Williams
LLP - more than ten times as many documents as in Chubb's original log. (See Ex. 24 at 1-2 (Ltr.
Insurers'
from NHL's counsel to counsel, dated Jan. 31, 2022); Ex. 27, Category 7.) However,
Chubb's outside counsel at White & Williams LLP, for example, also was involved in the handling,
adjustment and evaluation of the NHL's claim (see, e.g., Exs. 5, 11 (coverage letters)), and thus is
not solely litigation counsel as it relates to the instant action, rendering Chubb's designations
highly suspect.
With respect to Zurich, many of Zurich's redactions appear to cover basic information such
as the to/from lines, the date and the subject line. (See, e.g., Ex. 58, ZIC3155, 3157, 3304, 3312,
3573, 3583, 3594, 3599, 3681, 3684, 3820, 3946, 4359, 4574, 5394, 5508, 5631, 5854, 5857, 5862,
5962, 6011, 6709, 6725, 1244.)
D. The Insurers Have Withheld Documents For Which They Identify No Privilege or
Protection
The Insurers have also withheld documents on impermissible grounds. For example,
Zurich has withheld documents on grounds of relevance (Ex. 49), and Chubb has withheld
35
information"
documents as "Confidential and/or proprietary (Ex. 27), without further detail.
Because the Insurers do not claim a valid basis for withholding these documents, such as attorney-
client privilege or work product, they must be produced.
E. The Insurers Must Produce the Withheld Documents
Because the Insurers have failed to cure the defects in their privilege logs despite several
notices and opportunities to do so, they should be required to produce all of the withheld
documents. See Yorkville, 300 F.R.D. at 167 ("unjustified failure to serve indices of privileged
documents in a timely and proper manner operates as a waiver of any applicable privilege") (citing
cases); Herman, 2015 NY Slip Op 31205(U), at *16 ("failure to serve proper and timely privilege
logs"
effects waiver of the privilege) (citing Wilson v. Galicia Contr'g & Rest. Corp., 10 N.Y.3d
827, 830 (2008)). Alternatively, at a minimum, the Insurers should be ordered to promptly serve
amended privilege logs consistent with the rulings of the Special Referee on the issues herein.
36
CONCLUSION
The NHL respectfully requests that the Court grant NHL's motion to compel disclosure.
Dated: New York, New York
July 20, 2022
Respectfully submitted,

& FLOM LLP
By: /s/ Peter D. Luneau

Peter D. Luneau
Shaud G. Tavakoli
Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
Peter.Luneau@skadden.com
Shaud.Tavakoli@skadden.com
Rebekah.Mott@skadden.com
-and-
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

Marc Eric Rosenthal, admitted pro hac vice
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 962-3550
MRosenthal@proskauer.com
Attorneys for Plaints)fs
37

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________________________________Ç

. Index No.: 653421/2020
Hon. Melissa A. Crane
-v- :
JAMS No. 1425037315
Special Referee Hon. Henry Pitman
ASSURANCE COMPANY; AVIVA INSURANCE :

COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO., LTD.; .
.
Defendants.
.
_________________________________________________________________Ç
PLAINTIFFS'
EXHIBITS TO MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE
Exhibit No. Description
Exhibit 1 Email from C. Scibetta to S. Tavakoli, dated Jan. 22, 2022 (NYSCEF No.
258)
Players'
Exhibit 2 Complaint, In Re: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation, MDL No. 14-2551 (D. Minn.).
Exhibit 3 Letter from M. Stacchi to D. Zimmerman, dated Dec. 31, 2013 (NYSCEF
No. 125)
Exhibit 4 Letter from Z. Mengel to D. Zimmerman, dated March 24, 2014 (NYSCEF
No. 126)
Exhibit 5 Letter from M. Kassak to D. Zimmerman, dated May 8, 2014 (NYSCEF

No. 127)
Exhibit 6 Summary Judgment Decision, Nat'l Hockey League v. TIG Ins. Co., Index
No. 653421/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.) (NYSCEF No. 290)
Exhibit 7 Complaint, TIG Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Hockey League, Index No. 651162/2014
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.) (NYSCEF No. 1)
Exhibit 8 Letter from M. Kassak to Justice Crane, dated June 4, 2021 (NYSCEF No.
55)
Exhibit 9 Notice of Discontinuance, TIG Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Hockey League, Index No.
651162/2014 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.) (NYSCEF No. 45)
Players'
Exhibit 10 Docket, In Re: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation, MDL No. 14-2551 (D. Minn.)
Exhibit 11 Letter from M. Kassak to J. Grand, dated Oct. 6, 2017 (NYSCEF No. 255)
Exhibit 12 Letter from Z. Mengel to J. Grand, dated Sept. 25, 2017 (NYSCEF No. 48)
Exhibit 13 NHL's First Request for Production to AIG, dated Oct. 8, 2020
Exhibit 14 NHL's First Request for Production to Aviva, dated Oct. 8, 2020
Exhibit 15 NHL's First Request for Production to Chubb, dated Oct. 8, 2020
2
Exhibit 16 NHL's First Request for Production to Zurich, dated Oct. 8, 2020
Exhibit 17 Chubb's Responses and Objections to NHL's First Set of Interrogatories,

dated June 14, 2021
Exhibit 18 Letter from M. Kassak to NHL's counsel, dated Feb. 11, 2022
Exhibit 19 Aviva's Responses and Objections to NHL's First Set of Interrogatories,

dated June 25, 2021
Exhibit 20 NHL's Second Request for Production to Aviva, dated May 24, 2021
Exhibit 21 NHL's Second Request for Production to Zurich, dated May 24, 2021
Exhibit 22 Aviva Responses and Objections to the NHL's First Request for Production,
dated Dec. 7, 2020
Exhibit 23 Aviva Responses and Objections to the NHL's Second Request for
Production, dated June 25, 2021
Insurers'
Exhibit 24 Letter from P. Luneau to Counsel, dated Jan. 31, 2022
Exhibit 25 Letter from P. Luneau to Justice Crane Regarding Discovery Disputes,

dated February 2, 2022 (NYSCEF No. 254)
Exhibit 26 Letter from M. Kassak to Court, dated Feb. 2, 2022
Exhibit 27 Chubb Revised Privilege Log, dated Feb. 1, 2022 (NYSCEF No. 263)
Exhibit 28 Letter from J. Jackson to M. Brychel, dated Feb. 17, 2022
Exhibit 29 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP Subpoena from NHL, dated Jan. 20, 2022
Exhibit 30 Email from L. Haberman to J. Pierce, dated Jan. 21, 2022
Exhibit 31 Email from S. Puiszis to L. Haberman, dated Jan. 21, 2022
3
Exhibit 32 John S. Pierce Subpoena from NHL, dated Jan. 20, 2022
Exhibit 33 Stuart Maue Subpoena from NHL, dated Jan. 31, 2022
Exhibit 34 Order Appointing Special Referee, Nat'l Hockey League v. TIG Ins. Co.,
Index No. 653421/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.) (NYSCEF No. 286)
Exhibit 35 Special Referee Order No. 1, Nat'l Hockey League v. TIG Ins. Co., Index
No. 653421/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.), dated April 13, 2022
Exhibit 36 Letter from Z. Mengel to D. Zimmerman, dated Sept. 15, 2014
Exhibit 37 Docket, TIG Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Hockey League, Index No. 651162/2014 (Sup.
Ct. N.Y. Cnty.) (NYSCEF No. 1)
Exhibit 38 Complaint, Discover Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Nat't Football League, No.
652933/2012 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2012)
Exhibit 39 Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass I v. TIG Ins. No. 49D02-

Complaint, Co.,
1212-PL-048782 (Ind. Super. Ct. 2014)
Exhibit 40 Complaint, Riddell, Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., et al., No. BC482698 (Cal.
Super. Ct. 2012)
Exhibit 41 Letter from J. Fortescue to NHL's Counsel, dated Sept. 17, 2021
Exhibit 42 Aug. 10, 2021 Transcript, Nat'l Hockey League v. TIG Ins. Co., Index No.
653421/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.)
Insurers'
Exhibit 43 Letter from P. Luneau to Counsel, dated Apr. 8, 2021
Insurers'
Exhibit 44 Accompanying spreadsheet, Letter from P. Luneau to Counsel,
dated Apr. 8, 2021
Insurers'
Exhibit 45 Email from R. Mott to Counsel, dated Feb. 2, 2022
Exhibit 46 Federal Insurance Company, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada and

Vigilant Insurance Company's Answer to Complaint with Counterclaim
(NYSCEF No. 15).
4
Exhibit 47 Answer and Counterclaim by National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, Pa. and American Home Assurance Company (NYSCEF No.
20).
Exhibit 48 Letter from Aviva's Counsel to NHL's Counsel, dated Jan. 18, 2022
Exhibit 49 Zurich's Responses and Objections to NHL's First Set of Interrogatories,

dated Nov. 20, 2020
Exhibit 50 Email from J. Dozier to S. Tavakoli, dated Jan. 24, 2022
Exhibit 51 Letter from S. Cantarutti to NHL's Counsel, dated Jan. 19, 2022
Defendants'
Exhibit 52 Chubb Privilege Log, dated Jan. 28, 2022 (NYSCEF No. 269)
Insurers'
Exhibit 53 AIG Privilege Log, dated Jan. 28, 2022 (NYSCEF No. 265)
Exhibit 54 New York City Bar Guidance and Model for Categorical Privilege Logs
Exhibit 55 Aviva's Privilege Log, dated Dec. 10, 2020
Exhibit 56 Zurich Insurance Company Ltd.'s Privilege Log, dated January 31, 2022
(NYSCEF No. 268)
Defendants'
Exhibit 57 Redline of Chubb Original Privilege Log against Chubb
Defendants'
Revised Privileged Log (NYSCEF No. 270)
Exhibit 58 Documents produced by Defendant Zurich Insurance Company, Ltd. with the
Bates numbers ZIC3155, 3157, 3304, 3312, 3573, 3583, 3594, 3599,
3681, 3684, 3820, 3946, 4359, 4574, 5394, 5508, 5631, 5854, 5857, 5862,
5962, 6011, 6709, 6725, 1244
5
EXHIBIT 1
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
02/02/2022 06:13
11:40 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
258 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/02/2022
Mott, Rebekah J (NYC)
From: Charles Scibetta <Charles.Scibetta@chaffetzlindsey.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2022 8:40 PM

To: Tavakoli, Shaud G (NYC); 'kassakm@whiteandwilliams.com';
'berardia@whiteandwilliams.com'; Andrew Poplinger; Ted Debonis;
'heather.simpson@kennedyscmk.com'; 'mark.hamilton@kennedyscmk.com';
'kcoughlin@cmg.law'; 'scantarutti@cmg.law'; 'jdozier@cmg.Iaw';
'Vergarar@whiteandwilliams.com'
'gjacobson@agfjlaw.com'; 'tmaeglin@agfjlaw.com';
Eric'
Cc: Luneau, Peter (NYC); Mott, Rebekah J (NYC); 'Rosenthal, Marc
Subject: [Ext] RE: National Hockey League v. TlG Insurance Company, Index No. 653421/2020
Shaud: The Insurers respond to your below email and confirm our continuing requests from yesterday's meet and
confer. Zurich and Aviva may be writing separately as well.
1. RESPONSE TO NHL'S REQUESTS
Insurers'
This section includes the responses to your email below.
A. Claim-Related Documents
Claims Notes. The Insurers have produced or will produce this week claim notes that are not privileged or work-product
protected.
Third Party Analyses. In April 2017, through their coverage litigation counsel, AlG and Chubb engaged Jack Pierce, of
Hinshaw Culbertson, and Stuart Maue to provide expert services in connection with the dispute pending between NHL
and the Insurers. Stuart Maue prepared initial work papers that AlG and Chubb independently considered in connection
with making certain defense cost payments under a full reservation of rights. Chubb (on behalf of AlG and Chubb) will
produce these work papers on Monday. By producing these papers now, Chubb and AlG do not concede that their
production is due now, as opposed to during expert disclosures. They agree to produce them now to avoid a dispute on
that timing issue. To the extent other analyses performed by Mr. Pierce and/or Stuart Maue are disclosed, they will be
disclosed in connection with expert disclosures. Drafts and other related documents/communications with counsel are
privileged and work product protected.
Because Hinshaw and Stuart Maue are experts retained by the Insurers, NHL's requests for information concerning
those firms should be made at the appropriate time through litigation counsel for the Insurers. We are aware of
subpoenas issued to Hinshaw and Mr. Pierce. NHL should withdraw those subpoenas, and we ask for your immediate
confirmation of that withdrawal.
Insurers'
Internal Claims Handling. The NHL has not correctly stated the position. An insurance company may seek legal
advice to assist it in handling a claim, and confidential communications made in the course of requesting or providing
that legal advice are privileged, regardless of when made. Once litigation is anticipated or underway, then materials
prepared with an eye toward that litigation are protected (or further protected) as materials prepared for or in
anticipation of the litigation. The Insurers have agreed to search for and produce responsive documents outside of these
parties'
protected categories. Pursuant to the agreement, they will provide a privilege log supporting their privilege and
work product claims by January 28, 2022.
Communications between Insurers. The Insurers are withholding communications between them that are privileged and
work product protected, based on the common interest/joint defense protection. They are producing communications
that are not privileged or litigation materials.
1
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
02/02/2022 06:13
11:40 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
258 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/02/2022
Nixon Peabody and Rate Structure. By early next week, AlG will complete a re-review of its production to confirm that it
parties'
has produced all documents responsive to this request that have been collected pursuant to the previously
agreed search parameters. Further, in follow up to our recent communications, AlG is searching outside those collection
parameters for additional documents sufficient to show the Nixon rate arrangement and retention, as well as for
documents sufficient to show any relevant defense rate structure. AlG will advise next week whether and when any
additional documents will be produced.
Claims Manuals. AlG and TIG will produce claim manuals next week. Chubb is searching and will provide an update on
those search efforts next week.
B. Lost Policy Documents
2. Aviva. Aviva produced responsive documents in December of 2020 and timely responses to RFPs and
Interrogatories. Aviva will supplement its responses to Interrogatories 13 and 14 as previously stated in
correspondence of January 18.
2. Zurich. Zurich will respond separately.
C. Documents Related to Disputed Policy Provisions
Documents relating to prior policy drafting history and historical forms are irrelevant, and searching for such documents
unrelated to this claim would be unduly burdensome. However, with respect to documents collected from the agreed
search terms and custodians, the Insurers are not withholding any non-privileged or non-protected documents on the
basis of their objections to the NHL's request for this category of documents.
D. Interrogatories to Identify Relevant Persons
Chubb and AlG object to all of the 16 referenced Interrogatives on the grounds stated in their written responses.
However, they have been willing to provide further detail to the extent the NHL seeks reasonable information
Insurers'
concerning witnesses with knowledge relating to the handling of this claim. Specifically, it is our understanding
that all parties, including NHL, have identified document custodians based on their good faith investigation and
identification of those witnesses who are likely to be most knowledgeable concerning the material facts relevant to this
case. It was our understanding that the parties had resolved their mutual disputes over witness identification by
agreeing to further meet and confer prior to depositions concerning the roles of the various custodians. Our
understanding is that the NHL is now in agreement on this approach. If not, please let us know immediately.
E. Interrogatory Responses on Damages (Chubb and AIG)
Chubb and AlG have not "taken the position that the audit report(s) to be produced ... will reflect their respective
positions."
[damages] Chubb and AlG have confirmed that their primary claim for damages is a return of all amounts
paid, plus interest. Chubb and AlG also reserve the right to assert alternative damages calculations based on the fact and
expert evidence that is still subject to disclosure. Because fact and expert discovery is ongoing concerning the issues of
reasonableness of fees, and because much of the relevant fact evidence is in the NHL's possession, it is premature for
Chubb and AlG to present their alternative damages calculations.
Insurers'
F. Documents Relating to the Knowledge of Concussion Risks
Insurers'
The Insurers object to this request on the grounds that the knowledge concerning concussion risks is not
material to the issues in dispute. To the extent that there is information in the claims handling and underwriting
documents that relate to these policies and this claim, the Insurers have not withheld documents relating to their own
knowledge of concussion risks based on their relevance objections. But searching for additional documents concerning
other claims and general knowledge within the companies concerning concussion risks is unduly burdensome, especially
2
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
02/02/2022 06:13
11:40 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
258 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/ 02 / 2022
in light of the lack of relevance of this information, and in light of the confidentiality of documents relating to other
claims and policyholders.
G. Privilege Logs
The Insurers agree to exchange privilege logs by January 28, 2022.
INSURERS'
II. REQUESTS OF NHL AND THE LAW FIRMS
The items below address the issues we met and conferred on yesterday morning. If we have not accurately
characterized any steps that the Law Firms and NHL have agreed to take, please let us know immediately.
Law Firm Subpoenas and Litigation Management Documents
The law firms have not yet provided any documents in response to the subpoenas the Insurers served in May 2021. The
Insurers are reviewing the most recent search terms provided by the NHL and the firms yesterday morning. Once the
terms are agreed, the law firms will collect and review responsive documents and make their productions. In addition to
ESI searched through the search terms, the law firms will (i) search in their finance departments for documents relating
to any review of the NHL Invoices (eg, pre-bills or reports of write-offs or discounts), and (ii) confirm that no budgets or
case or project management plans or guidelines exist concerning the handling the Underlying Litigation (or if they exist
produce them).
The NHL has confirmed that it (as opposed to the law firms) does not have any budgets or case or project management
plans or guidelines to produce.
Insurers' attorneys'
The law firms have requested that the pay them fees for their time reviewing their productions. The
Insurers object and do not intend to pay those fees. The firms advised that they will proceed with production and meet
and confer thereafter with the insurers if they intend to press any fee request with the Court.
Document Productions Concerning Underlying Litigation
NHL and the law firms will determine whether any indices of the underlying record or of their prior productions exist,
and if they exist, NHL will produce them or log them if privileged.
Identification of Relevant Persons and Damages Calculations
As noted above, NHL has demanded that Chubb an AlG supplement their Interrogatory Responses concerning
Insurers'
identification of relevant witnesses and damages calculations. The NHL's objections to the Interrogatories are
inconsistent with these demands. Chubb and AlG ask for confirmation of agreement on a process for pre-
Above,
deposition meet and confer concerning custodians/potential witnesses. In addition, we propose that further damages
calculations for both sides should await the completion of fact and expert discovery. These proposals are reasonable and
consistent with the positions taken in NHL's interrogatory responses. If these proposals are not agreed or ordered by the
Court, the Insurers will demand that NHL supplement its responses to the same extent the Insurers are required to.
From: Tavakoli, Shaud G <Shaud.Tavakoli@skadden.com>

Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 5:58 PM
'kassakm@whiteandwilliams.com' 'berardia@whiteandwilliams.com'
To: <kassakm@whiteandwilliams.com>;
<berardia@whiteandwilliams.com>; Charles Scibetta <Charles.Scibetta@chaffetzlindsey.com>; Andrew Poplinger
<Andrew.Poplinger@chaffetzlindsey.com>; Ted Debonis <Ted.Debonis@chaffetzlindsey.com>;

'heather.simpson@kennedyscmk.com' 'mark.hamilton@kennedyscmk.com'
<heather.simpson@kennedyscmk.com>;
3
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
02/02/2022 06:13
11:40 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
258 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/02/2022
'kcoughlin@cmg.law' 'scantarutti@cmg.law'
<mark.hamilton@kennedyscmk.com>; <kcoughlin@cmg.law>;
'jdozier@cmg.law' 'gjacobson@agfjlaw.com'
<scantarutti@cmg.law>; <jdozier@cmg.Iaw>; <gjacobson@agfjlaw.com>;
'tmaeglin@agfjlaw.com' 'Vergarar@whiteandwilliams.com'
<tmaeglin@agfjlaw.com>;
<Vergarar@whiteandwilliams.com>
Cc: Luneau, Peter <Peter.Luneau@skadden.com>; Mott, Rebekah J <Rebekah.Mott@skadden.com>; 'Rosenthal, Marc
Eric'
<MRosenthal@proskauer.com>
Subject: National Hockey League v. TIG Insurance Company, Index No. 653421/2020
All,
We write to memorialize our meet and confer of this morning. Please advise by tomorrow, January 21, 2022, if the
Insurers'
below does not accurately reflect any of the positions.
A. Claims Handling Documents
Claims Notes. We understand that TIG and Chubb have not produced claims notes to date but will produce non-
privileged claims notes. Please confirm that you will make those productions by tomorrow, January 21, 2022. In
addition, AlG produced claims notes that are incomplete. Specifically, the only claims notes we located in AIG's
productions are those called out in your email from January 19, 2022: AIGNHLPROD38039 and AIGNHLPROD38105. As
we stated, these claims notes do not appear to be complete. For example, AIGNHLPROD38105 appears to cover only
file,"
one claim (with claim number 683-636773) while referencing other claims, including a "primary for which we do
not have claims notes. AIGNHLPROD38039 likewise references other related claims for which we do not have claims
notes. We understand that AlG will supplement its production with the remainder of its non-privileged claims notes
relating to the relevant claims. Please confirm that we can expect that production by tomorrow, January 21, 2022.
Third Party Analyses. We understand that by tomorrow, January 21, 2022, AlG will produce the audit report(s) and
related materials prepared by Stuart Maue. Counsel to AlG has further represented that they do not believe other third
parties conducted analyses in connection with claims handling or adjustments (e.g., allocation, reasonableness of fees
and rates) but that you will check. We ask that you confirm that by tomorrow, January 21, 2022, and if other third
parties did conduct analyses (e.g., Hinshaw Culbertson or RGL), we ask that you advise by when you will produce their
analyses. We understand your position is that drafts of third party claims analyses and related communications are
protected by the attorney work product doctrine regardless of the date when the communications occurred or the
drafts were prepared. We further understand your position that, to the extent these documents reflect communications
with counsel, they are also privileged. We understand that you are withholding these documents on the foregoing
grounds.
Internal Claims Handling. We understand your position to be that all substantive internal claims handling analysis (e.g.,
documents relating to your analysis of allocation and reasonableness of rates or billing) is privileged and protected by
the work product doctrine because either (i) these documents involve communications with outside counsel or (ii) the
work was conducted in anticipation of litigation, regardless of the date on which the analysis was performed. We
understand that you have withheld all of these documents on these grounds (and we have seen none in your
productions).
Communications between Insurers. We understand that you have likewise withheld communications between the
Insurers relating to claims handling analysis and decision-making on the foregoing privilege and work product grounds
(and we have seen no such communications in your productions).
Nixon Peabody and Rate Structure. We understand that AlG is checking to see whether there are other discoverable
documents that have not yet been produced relating to rate arrangements and the retention or contemplated retention
of Nixon Peabody in connection with the Concussion Litigation. We understand that search will include looking for
documents relating to any standing rate agreement(s) between AlG and Nixon Peabody. We further understand that AlG
4
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
02/02/2022 06:13
11:40 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
258 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02 / 02 / 2022
structure"
will look for additional documents relating to its "defense rate ( e.g., AIGNHLPROD 00008248). We understand
additional documents related to these inquiries will be produced by early next week.
Claims Manuals. Chubb, AlG and TIG have not produced claims manuals or other documents available internally for
evaluating claims as requested in the NHL's RFPs. We understand that these Insurers will search for these documents.
Please provide an update on that search and what you intend to produce (if anything) by tomorrow, January 21, 2022.
We understand that Aviva and Zurich have not searched for these documents but will consult with their respective
clients. Please provide an update by tomorrow, January 21, 2022, regarding this search.
B. Lost Policy Documents
1. Aviva
week"
We understand that Aviva will supplement its interrogatory responses "by early next to (i) explain the steps Aviva
took to locate any primary Liability Insurance Policy actually, allegedly or potentially issued to the NHL by Commercial
Union or Aviva from 1917 to 2013 and (ii) identify all persons who performed any such steps. We reiterate as indicated
on the meet and confer that these interrogatory responses were due months ago and you have provided no explanation
for your delay. We also note that your supplemental interrogatory responses must be verified by your client under the
applicable rules.
ongoing"
We further understand that Aviva is continuing to look for discoverable documents, that the "search is and
that counsel for Aviva will confer with their client about their document collection. As explained on the meet and confer,
we do not understand the basis for this delay given the Court-ordered deadline of December 16, 2021, for production of
documents in this case. We may be forced to move to compel in the face of your unexplained failures to meet that
deadline and your general lack of diligence.
2. Zurich
We understand that Zurich intends to supplement its production with specimen policies from the relevant timeframe by
the end of next week.
C. Documents Related to Disputed Policy Provisions
The Insurers state that they have produced non-privileged documents turned up from the agreed-upon ESI terms and
custodians relating to the interpretation of disputed policy provisions (we have seen none). We further understand that
Insurers'
the Insurers will not search for historical policy forms because those documents are in the view irrelevant and it
would be unduly burdensome to locate them.
D. Interrogatories to Identify Relevant Persons
Chubb and AlG acknowledge that they did not provide names of persons with knowledge in response to any of the
sixteen (16) interrogatories seeking such information. Although they initially took the position that they had provided us
with a custodian list for purposes of ESI searches, they did not agree to attest that those individuals are the complete set
of persons responsive to these interrogatories. Both Chubb and AlG stated that they would go back and look at their
interrogatory responses and re-evaluate. Please inform us by no later than tomorrow, January 21, 2022, which
interrogatory responses each of you will supplement.
E. Interrogatory Responses on Damages (Chubb and AIG)
Chubb and AlG have taken the position that their damages are the entirety of what they have paid to the NHL in defense
costs plus interest. They have acknowledged, however, that in the event the Court finds that there is a duty to defend,
their damages will be based on allocation and reasonableness of defense costs. Chubb and AlG have not provided
5
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
02/02/2022 06:13
11:40 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
258 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/02/2022
damages calculations in that scenario but have taken the position that the audit report(s) to be produced (as noted
above) will reflect their respective positions. We ask that you confirm by tomorrow, January 21, 2022, that the audit
report will constitute your response to these interrogatories and that you will memorialize that agreement in verified
supplemental interrogatory responses.
Insurers'
F. Documents Relating to the Knowledge of Concussion Risks
We understand that all Insurers have refused to produce documents relating to their respective knowledge of
concussion-related injuries involving sports other than hockey and sports leagues other than the NHL on relevance and
confidentiality grounds. We note, however, that AIG, TIG, Zurich and Aviva do not appear to have produced such
documents even with respect to hockey or the NHL.
G. Privilege Logs
The parties agreed to exchange privilege logs by January 28, 2022.
Regards,
Shaud
Shaud G. Tavakoli
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

One Manhattan West | New York | NY | 10001-8602
T: 212.735.3546 | F: 917.777.3546
shaud.tavakoli@skadden.com
______________________________________________________________________________
This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may
contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (and any attachments
thereto) is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) 735-3000
and permanently delete the original email (and any copy of any email) and any printout thereof.
Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided
upon request.
6
EXHIBIT 2
CASE3080:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM
NYSCEF DOC. NO. Document615 Filed 10/17/16 Page 1 ofNYSCEF:
RECEIVED 122 11/08/2022
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
IN RE: NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE ) MDL No. 14-2551 (SRN/JSM)

PLAYERS'
CONCUSSION INJURY ) PLAINTIFFS'
LITIGATION
SECOND AMENDED
)
CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION
)
COMPLAINT
)
This Document Relates To:
)
)
ALL ACTIONS
)
RECEIVED 122 11/08/2022
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE.......................................................................................... 8
PARTIES............................................................................................................................. 9
I. THE PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN

HARMED................................................................................................................. 9
A. Dan LaCouture .............................................................................................. 9
B. Gary Leeman............................................................................................... 12
C. Bernie Nicholls............................................................................................ 14
D. David Christian............................................................................................ 15
E. Reed Larson................................................................................................. 16
F. George M. Bradley, Representing the Estate of Lawrence (Lazarus)

Zeidel........................................................................................................... 18
G. Breach and Causation Allegations Applicable to Plaintiffs and the
Class ............................................................................................................ 20
II. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS TOLLED ............................................... 22
A. The NHL'S Duty to Plaintiffs Underscores the Propriety of
Equitable Tolling......................................................................................... 22
Plaintiffs'
B. Special Susceptibility to Reliance on NHL for
Information.................................................................................................. 29
III. DEFENDANT IS A RESIDENT OF THIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT..................... 35
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS .................................. 36
IV. THE NHL'S KNOWLEDGE AND FAILURE TO WARN.................................. 36
A. Brain Injuries, Concussions, and Neurological Damage ............................ 36
B. 85 year History of Medical Studies Related to Sports and
Concussion .................................................................................................. 40
.
-1-
NYSCEF DOC. NO. Document 615 Filed 10/17/16 Page 3 ofNYSCEF:
RECEIVED 122 11/08/2022
Players'
C. The Medical Community Has Focused on Hockey Brain
Injuries and the NHL Has Participated in or Attended Many of the
Symposia Regarding Brain Injuries in Sports............................................. 52
D. NHL's Knowledge of the Devastating Effects of Brain Trauma
Documented by Violent Incidents............................................................... 55
E. Contact in Training Camp and Practices Caused Repeated Exposure
to Concussive and Subconcussive Impacts ................................................. 66
V. THE NHL HAS PROMOTED UNNECESSARY BRUTALITY AND

VIOLENCE TO BECOME A DOMINANT ELEMENT OF THE GAME
AS PLAYED IN THE LEAGUE ........................................................................... 67
A. NHL Hockey Has Created an Fostered an Unnecessarily Violent
Sport ............................................................................................................ 67
B. Other Sports Are Violent Too, But Extreme Violence Is Unique to
NHL Hockey ............................................................................................... 73
VI. RATHER THAN USE ITS RESOURCES TO PROTECT PLAYERS

FROM DANGERS, ABOUT WHICH THE NHL KNEW OR SHOULD
HAVE KNOWN, IT CAPITALIZED ON VIOLENCE WHILE
DOWNPLAYING RISKS...................................................................................... 76
A. NHL Can Financially Fulfill Its Safety Duties to Its Players...................... 76
B. The NHL Admits It Profits from Extreme Violence................................... 76
C. Despite Its Knowledge the NHL Downplayed the Risks of Head
Trauma......................................................................................................... 82
VII. WHILE PROMOTING A CULTURE OF VIOLENCE BY WHICH IT
PROFITS AND DOWNPLAY1NG RISKS, THE NHL VOLUNTARILY

UNDERTOOK A DUTY OF CARE TO ITS PLAYERS ..................................... 84
VIII. INSTEAD OF PROTECTING ITS PLAYERS, THE NHL SAT ON THE

BENCH FOR ANOTHER 14 YEARS WHILE THE EVIDENCE KEPT
MOUNTING .......................................................................................................... 89
A. The Concussion Program Report Produced Nothing Until 2011................ 89
B. Between 1997 and 2011, the Concussions Just Kept Coming.................... 91
IX. NHL PLAYERS STILL FACE A RISK OF HEAD TRAUMA AND

DEVASTATING LONG-TERM EFFECTS.......................................................... 92
A. The NHL Has Insufficiently and Ineffectively Protected Its Players ......... 92
- ii -
RECEIVED 122 11/08/2022
B. The NHL Still Promotes Fighting and Violence......................................... 93
C. The NHL Has No Good Excuse for Its Failure to Act, Which Has
Harmed Its Players ...................................................................................... 95
D. Plaintiffs Have Suffered Damages and Require Medical Monitoring ........ 96
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS.................................................................................. 98
BASES FOR RELIEF ..................................................................................................... 102
COUNT I......................................................................................................................... 102
Action for Relief - Liability............................................................. 102

Declaratory
COUNT II........................................................................................................................ 103
Medical Monitoring.............................................................................................. 103
COUNT III ...................................................................................................................... 107
Negligence............................................................................................................ 107
COUNT IV ...................................................................................................................... 109
Negligent Misrepresentation by Omission........................................................... 109
COUNT V........................................................................................................................ 111
Fraudulent Concealment....................................................................................... 111
COUNT VI ...................................................................................................................... 112
Fraud by Omission / Failure to Warn................................................................... 112
PRAYER FOR RELIEF.................................................................................................. 114
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL....................................................................................... 115
...
-m-
RECEIVED 122 11/08/2022
Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs, by and through Co-Lead Counsel, Liaison Counsel, and
Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee, for their Second Amended Class Action Complaint sue
herein on their own behalf and on behalf of the Class and Subclasses defined below,
Defendant National Hockey League and its constituent entities, including, without limitation,
NHL Enterprises, Inc., and the National Hockey League Board of Governors (collectively
"Defendant," "NHL,"
or the "League") and, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b), allege upon
facts and information and belief, except for the allegations concerning each Plaintiff's own
actions, as follows.
INTRODUCTION
1. This lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of a Class of all retired NHL hockey players
and their representative claimants, with a subclass of living retired NHL hockey players who
have not yet been clinically diagnosed with a neurological disease, disorder, or condition,
and a subclass of retired NHL hockey players who have been clinically diagnosed with a
neurological disease, disorder, or condition. The lawsuit seeks medical monitoring from the
NHL, for all living retired NHL players, of present cellular and subcellular injuries caused by
Defendant's negligence, fraudulent concealment, fraud by omission, and failure to warn of
the enhanced, long-term risk of contracting a neurodegenerative disease, disorder, or
condition, or the symptoms thereof, from concussive and subconcussive impacts that
occurred when they played in the NHL. This lawsuit seeks both medical monitoring and
damages from the NHL for those living retired NHL players who have been clinically
diagnosed with a neurological disease, disorder, or condition, including cognitive, mood, or
behavioral conditions. Finally, this lawsuit seeks damages from the NHL for deceased
- 1 -
RECEIVED 122 11/08/2022
retired NHL players (and their representative claimants) who were clinically diagnosed with
a neurological disease, disorder, or condition, including cognitive, mood, or behavioral
conditions.
2. Former NHL players are united in their agreement that they signed up to play
hockey knowing that they might get injured, but they did not sign up for avoidable brain
damage. This action arises from the pathological and debilitating effects of brain injuries
caused by concussive and subconcussive impacts sustained by former NHL players during
their professional careers.
3. Every impact to the brain is dangerous. Both concussive and subconcussive
events cause permanent brain damage. During practice and games, an NHL player can
sustain close to one thousand or more hits to the head in one season without any documented
incapacitating concussion. Such repeated blows result in permanently-impaired brain
function.
4. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, scientific evidence has for decades linked brain
trauma to long-term neurological problems.
5. Defendant knew or should have known of this growing body of scientific
evidence and its compelling conclusion that persons who sustain repetitive concussive
events, subconcussive events, or other brain injuries are at significantly greater risk for
chronic neurodegenerative illness and disabilities both during their hockey careers and,
especially, later in life.
6. Although the NHL knew or should have known, as the Plaintiffs did not, about
this scientific evidence concerning concussions, subconcussive impacts, and brain disease,
- 2 -
RECEIVED 122 11/08/2022
the NHL never told Plaintiffs or any other member of the Class about the dangers of repeated
brain trauma.
7. Eighty-five years ago, pathologist Harrison Martland published his seminal
study in the Journal of the American Medical Association linking subconcussive impacts
suffered by boxers to injuries ranging from mild concussions to degenerative brain disease.
8. Scientists and doctors in the United States and across the world have since
published scores of peer-reviewed articles in well-established medical and scientific journals
conclusively establishing the link between brain injuries and subconcussive and concussive
impacts suffered by, among others, hockey players.
9. Despite this mounting evidence, for decades Defendant either took no steps to
protect and educate its players or took insufficient steps to make players aware of the real
risks of playing in the NHL, which would have protected players from unnecessary long
term effects of brain trauma.
10. Assuming a duty as a guardian against head-trauma in players, the League
instituted the helmet requirement in 1979. Similarly acting in accord with its duty to the
players, in 1997, the NHL created a concussion program (the "Concussion Program"),
ostensibly to research and study brain injuries affecting NHL players. Defendant, however,
failed to discharge its assumed duty non-negligently. Helmets do not protect against
concussion, giving players a false sense of protection, and the Concussion Program served
only to give the false impression that the NHL was providing players with accurate risk
analysis.
- 3 -
RECEIVED 122 11/08/2022
11. According to the Concussion Program's report, "NHL team physicians ... were
mandated by the league to document all concussions sustained during regular season games
2003-2004" forms."
from 1997-1998 to using "standardized injury report
12. In 1997, the first year of the Concussion Program, the NHL initiated baseline
brain testing for its players and required its team doctors and trainers to maintain records of
all players believed to have suffered concussions. This data was then used to study
concussions in the League from 1997 through 2004.
13. During this study period, the NHL voluntarily inserted itself on behalf of the
players into the scientific research and discussion concerning the link between brain injuries
sustained by NHL players on the one hand, and short-term and long-term impairment of the
brain on the other, by publicly maintaining that the Concussion Program was analyzing the
concussion data. Yet the NHL took no action to reduce the number and severity of
concussions among its players during that period and Plaintiffs relied on the NHL's silence
to their detriment.
14. By voluntarily inserting itself into this research and public discourse, the NHL
confirmed its duty of care toward the players and voluntarily undertook a responsibility: (a)
to cease glorifying the fist-fighting and violence that produces violent head trauma and, at
the high price of player health, advances the NHL's financial and political interests; and (b)
to inform all former players, and then-current players, of the material facts concerning the
risks of concussive events, subconcussive events, and other brain injuries.
15. Players and their families looked to the NHL for guidance on issues regarding
player health and safety, including head injuries, and expected the NHL to intervene in
- 4 -
RECEIVED 122 11/08/2022
matters of player safety, to recognize issues of player safety, and to be truthful on the issue
of player safety.
16. Having assumed a duty of care toward the players whose skill and dedication
permitted the NHL to prosper, expand, and ultimately become the billions-a-year business it
is today, and having voluntarily assumed a duty to investigate, study, and truthfully report to
the NHL players, including the Plaintiffs, the medical risks associated with hockey and brain
the Concussion Program did until 2011 - fourteen years after it started -
injuries, nothing
when it finally issued a report. That report, however, discussed only the number of
concussions in the NHL for the regular seasons from 1997-2004. Listing nine specific study
needed"
limitations, the report, fourteen years in the making, boiled down to a "more study is
dodge.
17. Despite the mountain of evidence connecting hockey to brain injuries, NHL
Commissioner Gary Bettman subsequently stated that more study on the issue is necessary.
In short, the NHL chooses to avoid rigorous scientific study of the concussion issue, dodges
even the implications of its own soft-pedaled and long-delayed report, and avoids grappling
with the clear medical findings of other sports or the general practice of medicine regarding
brain injuries and head hits.
18. Indeed, between 1996 and 2011 when the NHL was reportedly looking at the
Concussion Program data, many NHL players were forced to prematurely retire due to the
effects caused concussions received in the NHL. Some of them include: 1996 -
lingering by
Brett Lindros and Dean 1997 - Champion Nick Kypreos and

Chynoweth; Stanley Cup
Dennis 1998 - Hall of Famer Pat 1999 - Champions Geoff

Vaske; LaFontaine; Stanley Cup
- 5 -
NYSCEF DOC. NO. Document615 Filed 10/17/16 Page of 122
10 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
- - "Chief"
Courtnall and Jeff Beukeboom; 2001 Olympian Peter Svoboda; 2002 Gino or
Enforcer" -
"The Odjick; 2003 Stanley Cup Champion and Hall of Famer Mike Richter;
2004 - Steve who suffered injuries when attacked Todd

Moore, career-ending brutally by
and Hall of Famer and Conn Smythe Winner Scott 2005 -

Bertuzzi, Trophy Stevens;
Olympian and Champion Adam 2006 - All Star Keith

Stanley Cup Deadmarsh; Primeau;
2007 - Matthew and perennial All-Star and Hart Memorial winner Eric
Barnaby Trophy
and 2011 - Champion Marc Savard.

Lindros; Stanley Cup
19. Defendant's active and purposeful concealment of the severe risks of brain
injuries exposed players to unnecessary dangers they could have avoided had Defendant
provided them with truthful and accurate information and taken appropriate action to prevent
needless and avoidable harm. Many of the players, including Plaintiffs, sustained repetitive
brain injuries while in the NHL and now suffer from latent or manifest neurodegenerative
disorders and diseases, all of which, in whole or in part, were caused by Defendant's acts,
omissions, or both.
20. Defendant caused or contributed to the injuries and increased risks to Plaintiffs
through its acts and omissions by, among other things: (a) historically ignoring the true risks
of concussive events, subconcussive events, or brain injuries suffered by NHL hockey
players; (b) failing to disclose the true risks of repetitive brain injuries to NHL players; (c)
refusing meaningfully to address the issue of brain injuries despite a growing body of
medical opinion establishing such a linkage and their own study of the issue; and (d) refusing
to cease their patent glorification of, and profiting from, fist-fighting and violence in the
- 6 -
NYSCEF DOC. NO. Document615 Filed 10/17/16 Page 11 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
League, notwithstanding the uniqueness of such conduct to the NHL compared to other
hockey leagues, and the purposeless of fighting to winning the game.
21. Defendant persists in this conduct to date by, among other things, continuing to
promote violence and bare-knuckle fist fighting. Defendant's acceptance of and profiting
from violence and cranial mayhem stands in stark contrast to the Olympics and National
Collegiate Athletics Association ("NCAA") hockey, where fighting is not promoted and does
not take place.
22. The time has come for the NHL to not only care for those former players on
whose backs and brains the League reaped billions of but also to put long-
dollars, finally
term player safety over profit and demonstrably dangerous tradition, especially as neither the
nor the will suffer as a result. To quote the Ken former All-
NHL, game, legendary Dryden,
Star goalie for the Montreal Canadiens, six-time Stanley Cup champion, former president of
the Toronto Maple Leafs, former member of the Canadian Parliament, and NHL Hall of
reverse."
Famer: "Lose fighting, and you lose the fight in the game? No, it's the Dryden
also stated, "The model for an NHL without fighting is right there in front of us ... the
playoffs,"
in which "enforcers don't play [because] teams and coaches can't afford anything
unpredictable"
stupid and and players play their best, cleanest hockey. See Ken Dryden,
Case for Fighting in Hockey Continues to Get Weaker and Weaker, Globe & Mail, Nov. 2,
2013.
23. Indeed, recently, Mike Milbury, a former 12-year NHLer and current NHL
game analyst for NBC Sports, was asked what he thought about the fact that there were
fewer enforcers in the game than before. The entire hockey world took note of Milbury's
- 7 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
response: "It's telling me it's time to get rid of fighting. It's telling me it's over. As much as
I liked a good scrap in my day, there are too many issues here involving concussions, too
it."
many problems. Teams are going away from it. Let's grow up and get rid of See Greg
up'
Wyshynski, Mike Milbury says it's time to 'grow and ban fighting, Yahoo! Sports, Oct.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/mike-milbury-says-it-s-time-to--
8, 2014,
grow-up--and-ban-fighting--video-034233669.html.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24. This Court has jurisdiction over the instant lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1332(d)(2), because Plaintiffs and the Defendant herein are citizens of different states, there
are more than 100 members in each class and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds
attorneys'
$5,000,000, exclusive of fees, interest, and costs.
25. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because they conduct
substantial and continuous business in the State of Minnesota and other applicable transferor
fora.
26. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) and (b) because
a substantial part of the events or omissions that give rise to the claims occurred within the
State of Minnesota and other applicable transferor fora, the Defendant conducts a substantial
part of its business within this District and other applicable transferor fora, and the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has consolidated and transferred these cases to this Court.
- 8 -
13 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
PARTIES
L THE PROPOSED CLASS REPRESENTATIVES HAVE BEEN

HARMED
A. Dan LaCouture
27. Plaintiff and proposed Class representative Dan LaCouture is 39 years old and
a resident and citizen of the State of Massachusetts.
28. Mr. LaCouture played in the NHL from 1998 through 2008. Specifically, Mr.
LaCouture played from 1998-2001 for the Edmonton Oilers and its affiliate; from 2001-2003
for the Pittsburgh Penguins; from 2003-2004 for the New York Rangers; from 2005-2006 for
the Boston Bruins; from 2006-2007 for the New Jersey Devils and its affiliate; and in 2008
for the Carolina Hurricanes. Mr. LaCouture played in 337 NHL games as a forward.
29. Mr. LaCouture suffered close to 20 concussions while playing in the NHL, and
numerous subconcussive injuries and hits to the head.
30. In September 1998, while in training camp with the Edmonton Oilers, Mr.
LaCouture was hit by another player and knocked down. Mr. LaCouture fell backwards, hit
his head on the ice and suffered a concussion. After the concussion, Mr. LaCouture
experienced constant headaches, dizziness, and nausea to the point where he could not get in
a car and drive without severe nausea. He also had trouble eating due to the nausea. He was
out of play in the NHL for about a month because of the symptoms and was sent down to the
Oilers'
minors with the affiliate, the Hamilton Bulldogs, following the injury.
31. Mr. LaCouture returned to the Edmonton Oilers for the 2000-2001 season. In
December 2000 during a game, Mr. LaCouture was hit from behind and suffered a
concussion.
- 9 -
NYSCEF DOC. NO. Document 615 Filed 10/17/16 Page 14 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
32. In December 2002, while with the Pittsburgh Penguins and playing a game in
New Jersey against the New Jersey Devils, Mr. LaCouture was hit by an opposing player,
suffered a concussion, and blacked out. He was not seen by a team doctor. After the
concussion, Mr. LaCouture felt dizzy, light-headed, weak, and tired. He experienced
headaches, a lot of pressure in his head, and lights hurt his eyes. Sidelined for about four
games due to the symptoms, Mr. LaCouture then was pressured by the Penguins to return to
play as his team was going on a road trip for a string of games on the west coast.
33. On January 4, 2003, while still with the Penguins, Mr. LaCouture suffered
another concussion playing at home against the New York Islanders. Before the game, the
Penguins handed out hockey pucks to fans. During the game, a puck was thrown from the
stands after Alex Kovalev scored a hat-trick. Mr. LaCouture was sitting on the bench, and
the puck hit his right eye. He almost lost his right eye and suffered a concussion from this
incident. Mr. LaCouture sat out the remainder of the game, but then returned to play the
following game.
34. Mr. LaCouture was traded to the New York Rangers during the 2002-2003
season. While with the Rangers, in a January 5, 2004 home game at Madison Square Garden
against the Calgary Flames, Mr. LaCouture's helmet flew off during a fight with opposing
player Robyn Regehr, Regehr fell on top of him, and Mr. LaCouture hit his head on the ice,
and suffered a concussion, as depicted below:
- 10 -
NYSCEF DOC. NO. Document 615 Filed 10/17/16 Page of 122
15 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
viett t
35. Mr. LaCouture's head was split open, he was knocked unconscious, and had to
be carried to the trainer's room. The laceration to his head required sutures to close it. Mr.
LaCouture returned to play approximately six or seven days after the incident. However,
after his return, he only lasted two periods of the game due to relapse of concussion
symptoms. Mr. LaCouture removed himself from the game after experiencing intense
headaches, pressure in his head, and extreme nausea. Mr. LaCouture then missed
approximately one month of games due to these symptoms, and was experiencing insomnia
as well.
36. In the 2006-2007 season, Mr. LaCouture played with the New Jersey Devils.
Devils'
During that season, he was sent down to the Lowell Devils, the New Jersey minor
league team. Towards the ends of the 2006-2007, Mr. LaCouture suffered a concussion in a
game, causing him to miss the last few games of the season and the playoffs with the Lowell
Devils. During this time, Mr. LaCouture experienced headaches, dizziness, sensitivity to
light, motion sickness, pressure in his head, and nausea.
37. In the 2008-2009 season, Mr. LaCouture played with the Carolina Hurricanes.
In his last game with the Hurricanes on November 2, 2008, Mr. LaCouture was hit by
- 11 -
16 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
another player, jolting Mr. LaCouture's head into the glass and causing him to suffer a
concussion. He went back to the bench experiencing nausea, dizziness, and headaches.
However, he was encouraged to resume play for the remainder of the game. After the game,
Mr. LaCouture was sent down to the minors with the Albany River Rats.
38. Mr. LaCouture was, has been, and will continue to be damaged as a direct and
proximate result of the NHL's misconduct further described herein. Among other things,
due to the injuries he suffered while playing in the NHL and the NHL's failure to warn,
combined with the present cellular and subcellular injuries sustained while playing in the
NHL, Mr. LaCouture is at an increased risk of future harm for developing serious, latent
neurodegenerative disease or conditions, including, but not limited to, chronic traumatic
encephalopathy ("CTE"), dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ("ALS"), Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease, as well as any cognitive, mood, or behavioral conditions.
Moreover, due to the concussions and subconcussive impacts suffered by Mr. LaCouture
during his NHL career and the fact that Mr. LaCouture currently suffers on a daily basis
from headaches, irritability, sensitivity to light, change of personality, sleeping problems,
and severe depression, Mr. LaCouture has symptoms consistent with CTE.
B. Gary Leeman
39. Plaintiff and proposed Class representative Gary Leeman is a resident and
citizen of Ontario, Canada.
40. Mr. Leeman played defense and then forward for the Toronto Maple Leafs
from 1983-92, the Calgary Flames from 1992-93; the Montreal Canadians from 1993-94; the
Vancouver Canucks in 1994-95; and the St. Louis Blues in 1996.
- 12 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
41. Mr. Leeman played 667 regular season games in the NHL, scoring 199 goals
and tallying 267 assists. Mr. Leeman was a member of the 1993 Stanley Cup champion
Montreal Canadiens and participated in the 1989 NHL All Star Game.
42. During his career, Mr. Leeman suffered a fractured skull with accompanying
severe concussion, as well as numerous other concussions and subconcussive but nonetheless
violent hits to the head.
43. Since his retirement, Mr. Leeman has been diagnosed with mild cognitive
impairment as well as mood disorders such as anxiety and depression.
44. Mr. Leeman was, has been, and will continue to be damaged as a direct and
NHL, Mr. Leeman is at an increased risk of future harm for developing serious, latent
neurodegenerative disease or conditions, including, but not limited to, CTE, dementia, ALS,
Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, as well as any cognitive, mood, or behavioral
conditions. Moreover, due to the concussions and subconcussive impacts suffered by Mr.
Leeman during his NHL career and the fact that Mr. Leeman suffered and suffers on an
ongoing and lasting basis from headaches, memory loss, inability to concentrate, irritability,
balance problems, sensitivity to light, mood swings, anxiety, dizziness, problems managing
stress, fainting sensations, blurred vision, ringing in his ears, change of personality, sleeping
problems, and moderately severe depression, Mr. Leeman has symptoms consistent with
CTE.
- 13 -
18 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
C. Bernie Nicholls
45. Plaintiff and proposed class representative Bernie Nicholls is a resident and
citizen of Ontario, Canada.
46. Mr. Nicholls played center for the Los Angeles Kings from 1982 to 1990; New
York Rangers from 1991 to 1992; Edmonton Oilers in 1993; New Jersey Devils from 1993
to 1994; Chicago Blackhawks from 1994 to 1995, and San Jose Sharks from 1996 to 1999.
A three-time All-Star, Mr. Nicholls scored a total of 1209 points during his career. Mr.
Nicholls is one of only eight players in NHL history to score 70 goals in one season, and one
of only five NHL players to score 150 points in a season.
47. During his NHL career, Mr. Nicholls suffered at least three concussions and
numerous other then-undiagnosed concussions and subconcussive but nonetheless violent
hits to his head.
48. While playing for the Los Angeles Kings, Mr. Nicholls suffered a broken jaw,
leaving him disoriented and unable to focus, although he believes he returned to play in the
game, having received no medical advice to the contrary.
49. Mr. Nicholls suffered a concussion while playing with the San Jose Sharks on
January 9, 1997.
50. On October 29, 1998, also while centering a line for the San Jose Sharks, Mr.
Nicholls took a violent hit to the head when a stick hit him in the eye, leaving him
disoriented and necessitating some 25 stitches.
51. Mr. Nicholls was, has been, and will continue to be damaged as a direct and
- 14 -
19 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
NHL, Mr. Nicholls is at an increased risk of future harm for developing serious, latent
conditions. Moreover, due to the concussions and subconcussive impacts suffered by Mr.
Nicholls during his NHL career and the fact that Mr. Nicholls currently suffers on a daily
basis from post-traumatic post-

dizziness, disorientation, memory loss, tinnitus, headaches,
traumatic head syndrome, concentration difficulties, sleep disorder and cognitive deficit, Mr.
Nicholls has symptoms consistent with CTE.
D. David Christian
52. Plaintiff and proposed Class representative David Christian is a resident and
citizen of the State of Minnesota.
53. Mr. Christian played forward in the NHL from 1979-83 for the Winnipeg Jets;
from 1983-90 for the Washington from 1990-91 for the Boston from 1991-
Capitals; Bruins;
92 for the St. Louis Blues; and from 1992-94 for the Chicago Blackhawks.
54. Mr. Christian played 1009 regular season games in the NHL, scoring 340 goals
and tallying 433 assists.
55. During his career, Mr. Christian suffered numerous undiagnosed concussions
and subconcussive hits to the head that were not properly treated.
56. In one incident while playing for the Winnipeg Jets, Mr. Christian was struck
in the head and knocked unconscious during a game in Chicago. When he awoke, Mr.
- 15 -
20 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
Christian skated to the bench where he informed team personnel that he was unable to
continue playing. Mr. Christian sat out a few shifts but was sent back into the same game by
the coaching staff. Mr. Christian took ibuprofen after the game and received no other
attention or treatment for this injury.
57. In another incident while playing for the Washington Capitals, Mr. Christian
was struck in the head during a game in Montreal. Mr. Christian was struck so hard that he
immediately saw flashing lights and stars and fell to the ice. The next thing he remembered
was the trainer bent over him examining him. Mr. Christian made it to the bench and went
back to play in the same game. Mr. Christian missed no playing or practice time as a result
of this injury.
58. Mr. Christian was, has been, and will continue to be damaged as a direct and
due to the NHL's failure to warn of the long-term risks of repeated brain trauma, combined
with the present cellular and subcellular injuries sustained while playing in the NHL, Mr.
Christian is at an increased risk of future harm for developing serious, latent
conditions.
E. Reed Larson
59. Plaintiff and proposed Class representative Reed Larson is a resident and
citizen of the State of Minnesota.
- 16 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
60. Mr. Larson played defense in the NHL from 1977-87 for the Detroit Red
Wings; from 1987-89 for the Boston Bruins; from 1988-89 for the Edmonton Oilers, New
York Islanders, and Minnesota North Stars; and in 1989 for the Buffalo Sabres.
61. Mr. Larson played 904 regular season games in the NHL, scoring 224 goals
and tallying 465 assists.
62. During his career, Mr. Larson suffered numerous undiagnosed concussions and
subconcussive hits to the head that were not properly treated.
63. In one incident while playing for the Detroit Red Wings in 1977, Mr. Larson
was involved in a fight on the ice in which he suffered numerous blows to the head. One
blow was so fierce that it broke Mr. Larson's nasal cavity.
64. In another incident, while practicing for the Detroit Red Wings in 1983, Mr.
Larson's head was driven into a metal bar that supported the rink's plexiglass. The blow was
so severe that it broke Mr. Larson's nose and required stitches.
65. In another incident, while playing for the Boston Bruins in 1988, Mr. Larson
was checked from behind during a pre-season game in New Jersey and slid headfirst into the
boards. Mr. Larson was knocked unconscious.
66. In another incident, while playing for the New York Islanders, Mr. Larson was
struck in the head by a slap shot during practice. The blow was so severe that it required
fifty stitches and plastic surgery to correct the damage to Mr. Larson's face.
67. Mr. Larson was involved in numerous other incidents involving serious blows
to his head, including numerous fistfights on the ice.
- 17 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
68. Mr. Larson did not receive appropriate treatment for these and the other blows
to the head he suffered while an NHL player. Treatment was generally limited to checking
his pupils for dilation and his ears for blood. Mr. Larson did not miss any playing time
following any of these, or any other, concussion or subconcussive blow to the head while an
NHL player.
69. Mr. Larson was, has been, and will continue to be damaged as a direct and
due to the NHL's failure to warn of the long-term risks of repeated brain trauma, combined
with the present cellular and subcellular injuries sustained while playing in the NHL, Mr.
Larson is at an increased risk of future harm for developing serious, latent neurodegenerative
disease or conditions, including, but not limited to, CTE, dementia, ALS, Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease, as well as any cognitive, mood, or behavioral conditions.
F. George M. Bradley, Representing the Estate of Lawrence
(Lazarus) Zeidel
70. Plaintiff and proposed Class representative George M. Bradley, as the Personal
Representative of the Estate of Lawrence (Lazarus) Zeidel, is a resident and citizen of the
State of Pennsylvania. Mr. Zeidel died on June 17, 2014 after a battle with dementia.
Plaintiffs'
71. On September 7, 2016, the Court indicated it would grant motion to
amend the First Amended Class Action Complaint to add the Zeidel Estate as a class
representative. Mr. Bradley filed an action on behalf of the Estate of Lawrence Zeidel on
September 22, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Defendants
served discovery on the Zeidel Estate on September 22, 2016. On October 14, 2016, the
- 18 -
23 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
Plaintiffs'
Court issued its written order granting motion to amend the First Amended Class
Action Complaint.
72. Mr. Zeidel played defense in the NHL from 1951-53 for the Detroit Red
Wings, from 1953-54 for the Chicago Blackhawks, and from 1967-1969 for the Philadelphia
Flyers.
73. Mr. Zeidel played 158 regular season games in the NHL, scoring 3 goals and
tallying 16 assists.
74. During his NHL career, Mr. Zeidel suffered numerous undiagnosed
concussions and subconcussive hits to the head that were not properly treated.
75. In one instance, Mr. Zeidel was playing in the championship series with the
hit" -
Detroit Red Wings when he was given a "late a body-check after he no longer
possessed the puck - and suffered a concussion.
76. In another incident while playing for the Philadelphia Flyers in 1968, Mr.
Zeidel was involved in a stick-swinging fight on the ice in which he suffered numerous
blows to the head by opponent Eddie Shack.
77. Mr. Zeidel suffered numerous head injuries from stick fights and being speared
in the head with sticks. He recalled many incidents where he received stitches to his head in
baseball."
the locker room, describing it as being "sewed up like a
78. When he suffered a head injury, Mr. Zeidel said, teams generally told him to
off."
put ice on his head and "shake it Mr. Zeidel said he played most of his career while
hurt, and did not feel that he had control over his health.
- 19 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
79. Mr. Zeidel was damaged as a direct and proximate result of the NHL's
misconduct further described herein. Among other things, due to the NHL's failure to warn
of the long-term risks of repeated brain trauma, combined with the cellular and subcellular
injuries sustained while playing in the NHL, Mr. Zeidel was at an increased risk for
developing serious, latent neurodegenerative disease or conditions, including, but not limited
to, CTE, dementia, ALS, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, as well as any cognitive,
mood, or behavioral conditions. In fact, after Mr. Zeidel's death, an expert panel of
neurologists, neuropsychologists and researchers examined Mr. Zeidel's case in detail and
concluded Mr. Zeidel suffered from CTE.
G. Breach and Causation Allegations Applicable to Plaintiffs and
the Class
80. At no time during their respective NHL careers did any NHL personnel advise
these Plaintiffs or any other players, generally or specifically, of the negative long-term risks
of concussions and subconcussive impacts, including those associated with repeated
concussions and subconcussive impacts.
81. Plaintiffs and the Class had no familiarity with, nor knew they had any reason
to consult any medical literature concerning, concussions, mild traumatic brain injuries, other
subconcussive impacts, or any associated risks of attendant long-term neurodegenerative
diseases or conditions related thereto.
82. Never having been advised about the negative, long-term effects of sustaining
concussions, and with no knowledge of the medical literature concerning concussions, mild
traumatic brain injuries, other subconcussive impacts, or any associated risks related thereto,
- 20 -
25 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
Plaintiffs and the Class were never on notice that they needed to try to find and understand
such information.
83. Plaintiffs and the Class looked to the NHL, the controlling organization, which
prospered because of the skill and dedication of Plaintiffs and the Class for information
about health and safety.
84. With the NHL silent about the and the serious short- and long-
risks, dangers,
term effects of concussions and subconcussive impacts, as well as about the need for proper
treatment, evaluation and conservative return-to-play protocols, Plaintiffs and the Class
reasonably relied on that silence and believed that immediately returning to play in games
and practices was safe despite having suffered such injuries.
85. In light of the NHL's power over the game and its players, the NHL's revenue
being directly dependent on the players whose abilities filled arenas and generated TV
revenues, and the NHL's superior ability to gather and understand information about the
risks associated with concussions and subconcussive impacts, Plaintiffs and the Class
reasonably relied on the NHL's silence and downplaying of the seriousness of concussions
and subconcussive impacts.
86. In light of the relationship between the League and its players, Plaintiffs and
the Class reasonably understood the NHL's silence on the question of brain trauma as
meaning that continuing to play after a concussion or violent, subconcussive hit impacting
their brain, whether in the same game or the next one, was safe even if their symptoms had
not resolved.
- 21 -
26 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
87. Plaintiffs and the Class did not know and had no reason to know, that
continuing to play after suffering concussions and other concussive or subconcussive blows
substantially increased the risks of serious neurodegenerative diseases or conditions.
88. Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably relied on the League, whose revenue
depended upon the skill and dedication of Plaintiffs and class members.
89. The players relied on the NHL for information about safety and health,
including any serious increased health risks to which the players unwittingly subjected
themselves.
90. Worse than its silence was the NHL's minimization and attempts to hide the
risk. A hit impacting the head, no matter how violent, was, in League parlance, simply "a
ding" rung."
or "getting your bell In addition to the NHL's failure to warn, the NHL for
decades never implemented procedures requiring players to sit out or obtain proper
evaluations, treatments, clearances and advice before returning to action.
91. Had the NHL given Plaintiffs and the Class information about the increased
danger to which they subjected themselves by continuing to play after suffering concussions
and subconcussive impacts, or at least told players that such information existed, Plaintiffs
and the Class would have ensured that they received appropriate medical treatment and made
sure they had recovered before returning to practices and games.
II. THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS TOLLED
A. The NHL'S Duty to Plaintiffs Underscores the Propriety of
Equitable Tolling
92. The NHL undertook a duty of care to Plaintiffs. The NHL's fortunes depended
entirely on the skill, dedication, and courage of the League's players, including Plaintiffs.
- 22 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
Filling arenas with fans, generating licensing revenue through consumer products bearing
player names and likenesses, and driving the ever-increasing League revenues from TV
contracts the League negotiated, the players and their popularity were the NHL's primary
asset.
93. The NHL had vastly greater resources than Plaintiffs to obtain, analyze and
disseminate information about the dangers of concussions and subconcussive impacts.
94. Knowing that the League's fortunes depended on their play, Plaintiffs
reasonably relied on the NHL to inform them about safety and health information.
95. Plaintiffs relied on what NHL said - "concussions are

reasonably effectively
'dings," ringing"
just or "a little bell and "it's okay to go right back out on the ice after
one."
sustaining
96. Plaintiffs acted on what the NHL omitted - that concussions and
reasonably
subconcussive impacts are a big deal, and you should not go back to play or practice until
you have been properly evaluated, treated and cleared to play because the risks of long-term
damage are enormous - in to play after brutal hits to the

returning immediately taking head,
even after getting knocked out cold and being revived with smelling salts.
97. As a result of the NHL's special relationship with and assumed duty of care
toward Plaintiffs, its voluntary undertaking of the Concussion Program, and superior
knowledge about the causes, frequency, severity and proper treatment of concussions, mild
traumatic brain injuries ("MTBI"), and other subconcussive injuries and brain trauma,
Plaintiffs reposed trust and confidence in the NHL.
- 23 -
28 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
98. In light of the NHL's duty of care toward the Plaintiffs, the NHL's silence
about the dangers of concussions, MTBI and other brain injuries suffices to toll any
limitations or repose periods.
99. Beyond mere silence, the League affirmatively concealed facts required to put
Plaintiffs on notice of their claims.
100. To that end, during the seven-year period in which the Concussion Program
was underway (1997-2004), the NHL never told its players that suffering concussions and
subconcussive impacts without proper evaluations, treatments, clearances, and advice before
returning to action, would expose them to an increased risk of developing one or more
neurodegenerative diseases or conditions.
101. The NHL's silence about the dangers of concussions, subconcussive impacts,
and other brain trauma in the decades preceding the Concussion Program, and the NHL's
continued silence about those dangers during the 1997-2004 Concussion Program induced
Plaintiffs'
reasonable belief that they were not at any particular risk for post-retirement
neurodegenerative diseases or conditions.
102. The NHL's seven-year delay in publishing the Concussion Program report
further induced players not to perceive any increased risk or think they might need to
investigate whether they might have claims against the NHL.
103. Trusting the NHL to advise them of health issues and warn them of risks,
Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the NHL's second, seven-year silence to publish the
- 24 -
29 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
2011)¹
Concussion Program report (from 2004 to as meaning that no reason existed to
question whether they might have claims against the NHL, or to investigate underlying facts.
Plaintiffs, trusting the League, reasonably believed that the League would disclose news
relevant to their health.
104. Even when, at long last, the NHL finally disclosed the Concussion Program
needed."
report, it said nothing about MTBI and simply stated that "more study is
105. Fourteen years in the making, the Concussion Program report did not put
Plaintiffs on notice that they had, or should investigate the factual bases for, any claims
against the League.
106. According to the 2011 report, team physicians reported 559 concussions during
regular season games. The estimated incidence was 1.8 concussions per 1000 player-hours
and an alarming 5.8 concussions per 100 players per season.
107. The 2011 report also found that almost 20% of players returned to play during
the same game in which they suffered the concussion, and in nearly 10% of cases they
returned to play after seeing a team physician. Unquestionably, the same or worse conduct
toward the players by the NHL occurred for decades before the Concussion Program began
in 1997.
108. The 2011 report included the following findings that directly relate to how the
symptoms and circumstances of concussions contribute to health risks:
Brian W. Benson M.D. Ph.D., et al., A prospective study of concussions among

National Hockey League players during regular season games: the NHL-NHLPA
Concussion Program, 905-911, CMAJ (May 17, 2011),
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3091898/pdf/1830905.pdf
- 25 -
30 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
(a) Several symptoms "were found to be significant predictors of time loss
(headache, low energy or fatigue, amnesia, and abnormal neurologic
examination). These findings are of use to physicians, medical support staff,
players, coaches and management, given that they have prognostic utility for
injury."
assessing concussion severity at the time of
(b) "Time loss significantly increased for every subsequent (repeat) concussion
sustained during the study period, as well as for each increase in the number of
experienced."
postconcussion symptoms
(c) "In 27% percent of instances of concussion in which the player continued to
play without game-time medical evaluation, more than 10 days of time loss
resulted . . . . It is becoming more apparent that athletes with acute concussion
experience functional or cognitive impairment and reduced reaction times. It
is possible that continued exertion in the immediate postconcussion period
may exacerbate the injury or increase a player's susceptibility to further injury,

recovery."
which may ultimately increase severity and prolong
109. Despite these findings, the report quickly sought to downplay their
significance, concluding with the assurance that, essentially, no cause and effect relationship
could be found between concussions and other head hits and the problems the Plaintiffs now
experience: "[the] results suggest that more could be done to educate all involved with the
sport about the potential adverse effects associated with continuing to play while
symptomatic, failing to report symptoms to medical staff and failure to recognize or evaluate
concussion."
any suspected
110. Avoiding any clear findings, the Concussion Program report, after fourteen
years and despite an abundance of developing scientific and medical literature about head
effects"
hits and concussions, found only "potential adverse from "continuing to play while
concussion."
any suspected
- 26 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
111. Soft-pedaling the problem still further, the report said only that its "findings
also suggest that more conservative or precautionary measures should be taken in the
immediate post-concussion period, particularly when an athlete reports or experiences a post-
concussion headache, low energy or fatigue, amnesia, recurrent concussion or many different
examination"
post-concussion symptoms, or when the athlete has an abnormal neurologic
"Suggest" "conclude" "demonstrate" -

(emphasis added). is a long way from or in short, the
report constituted another NHL assurance that concussions were just not a big worry for
players.
112. Equally important, the report did not conclude that players were at increased
risk of developing a neurodegenerative disease or condition impairment as a result of brain
trauma suffered while playing.
113. Nor did the report put Plaintiffs on notice that the forgetfulness, mood swings,
"aging"
difficulties concentrating and other signs of what retired players chalked up to were
in fact the result of concussions and other brain injuries they suffered while playing.
114. All the report concluded, essentially, was that more education was needed
about potential adverse effects. That does not suffice to put retired players on notice that
they might possibly have claims against the NHL, particularly when the report did not link
concussions and other brain injuries to the League's own ongoing efforts to foster and
encourage a culture of violent play.
115. The Concussion Program and its belated report were also not independent.
investigator"
Brian Benson was the "principal for the Concussion Program's report and
analysis."
"takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data
- 27 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
data,"
116. Brian Benson "contributed to the analysis of the while another
contributor, Jian Kang "was responsible for technical aspects of the data analysis and
interpretation."
participated in data
manuscript."
117. Brian Benson, with Jian Kang, "contributed to the drafting of the
interests,"
118. Disclosing "competing the Concussion Program's report states:
"Brian Benson is on contract with the NHL as a concussion data analyst and publication
consultant."
Another author, Willem H. Meeuwisse, is described as "a medical consultant
(NHL)."
for the National Hockey League Another contributor, Charles Burke, "is a team
club."
physician for the Pittsburgh Penguins NHL Of the remaining two contributors, John
data" reviewed"
Rizos, who "had full access to all of the and "critically the report
Association."
manuscript, "is a medical consultant for the NHL Players Of all the
individuals contributing to the report, only one, Jian Kang, appears not to have had any
directly competing interests at the time of the report's publication.
119. Perhaps even more egregious, the NHL through its General Counsel reviewed
and edited Benson's draft Concussion Program report at least a dozen times before it was
published - never disclosed to the public.

something
120. To this day, after repeatedly informing its players and the public that it is the
"leader"
in concussion care, knowledge, and research, the NHL publicly denies and informs
all NHL players, present and former, that there is no proven scientific or statistical evidence
demonstrating the connection between repeated concussions or subconcussive impacts to the
head and long-term neurological diseases.
- 28 -
33 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
121. Likewise, the League's stock response to concussion questions boils down to:
conclusive."
"We need more data, more research, we cannot say anything In the face of the
concussion data from the lawsuit against the National Football League ("NFL"), which the
NFL itself, after similarly long and studied silence, admits that one in three retired NFL
players will develop brain and neurodegenerative diseases or conditions, the NHL's response
would be laughable were it not so tragic. For present purposes, though, that response
confirms the NHL's unwavering failure to say or do anything that would have put Plaintiffs
on notice that they should investigate claims.
122. Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably relied on the NHL to inform them about the
risks of concussions, MTBI, and other subconcussive injuries and brain trauma. With no
material information ever forthcoming, Plaintiffs and the Class had no reason to dig for
information they reasonably believed the NHL would share if it existed.
Plaintiffs'
B. Special Susceptibility to Reliance on NHL for
Information
Plaintiffs' Class'
123. and the reliance on the NHL for information about
concussions and other brain injuries was not just reasonable, but it was also foreseeable to
the NHL.
124. Hockey players, no different from anyone else, grow up believing that medical
personnel, such as League medical directors, supervisors, doctors and trainers, put the
patient-players'
interests first and foremost. Cleared to play immediately after getting
knocked out - such as Rangers goalie and putative class member Gilles Gratton was in a
1976-77 season game against the Bruins, having been propped up, administered smelling
go"
salts and being told "you're good to without even a rest on the bench, as shown in the
- 29 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
- go"
picture below players believed they were, in fact, "good to and not doing any lasting
harm to themselves:
125. Given the go-ahead by NHL-approved doctors and trainers at rinks home and
away, players went right back onto the ice after hard head hits, figuring that of course the
NHL-sanctioned say-so had to be true.
126. The NHL collects and keeps data on every player, from birthdate to
educational background to playing history to contract history to injury and retirement data.
127. The NHL knew that many of the Plaintiffs and members of the Class had little
education past high school, having focused their energies almost exclusively on hockey from
a very young age to reach the NHL.
128. In 1999-2000, only 20% of NHL players had played college hockey. In 2013-
14, 31% of the NHL's players had played college hockey. Both percentages, small as they
are, do not represent four-year degree earners, but rather NHLers who played some college
hockey.
- 30 -
35 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
129. Dedicated so completely to hockey, the vast majority of NHL players naturally
relied on the League, with its cadre of highly educated managerial, legal and medical
personnel, to monitor and disclose important medical risks.
130. The NHL had access to the boxing, football and other concussion studies
described herein. With the NHL's resources and highly-educated managerial, legal and
medical staff, it was uniquely positioned to inform NHL players of the increased risks those
NFL and other concussion studies clearly demonstrate.
131. But the NHL never told its players that these other studies demonstrated an
increased risk for NHL players, or had any implications for NHL players.
132. Knowing that the NHL had far greater information than they did, and was
much more advantageously positioned to obtain information, about the causes, prevention
and treatment of concussions and other head injuries, Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the NHL
to inform them fully and promptly about material information.
133. In refusing for decades to properly diagnose and treat concussions suffered by
its players, the NHL misled Plaintiffs into believing that returning quickly to play, often in
rung,"
the same game in which they were concussed or otherwise "had their bells was safe,
posing neither short-term nor long-term dangers of developing neurodegenerative diseases or
conditions.
134. From the time they are mites, at the lowest rung of organized hockey, through
the tiers of youth hockey, the progressions from high school and junior hockey to the minor
professional leagues and, finally, to the NHL, players are taught to trust their coaches and
team personnel, as well as League personnel who administer and run the games.
- 31 -
36 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
135. Based on a history of having been taught, and having deeply absorbed the
principle, that League personnel and team coaches, doctors and trainers know what is best
and their word could be trusted, Plaintiffs were highly susceptible to relying, and reasonably
did rely, on what the NHL did not say: that a concussion, or any brain impact, was
extremely serious, should be avoided, and required very careful evaluation and treatment
before a player should return to playing, whether in the same game or in the same season.
136. Apart from the hockey culture that deeply inculcates in players a trust and
confidence in their leagues and team personnel, the NHL understands the inherent
coerciveness that made Plaintiffs particularly susceptible to rely on the NHL's silence about
the concussion and brain injury risks the players were taking.
137. The League knows that the minor and junior leagues are full of talented players
desperately eager to reach the NHL.
138. The League also knows full well that, upon reaching the NHL (the holy grail
for any serious hockey player), a player wants to remain there.
139. Not informing these players, highly competitive people to begin with, that they
risk serious and possibly permanent and disabling degenerative brain diseases, along with
behavioral, mood, or cognitive symptoms, if they suffer a concussion or continue to play
after suffering a concussive or subconcussive impact, the League knew, or should have
known, the players would understand that silence is affirmation that they not only could, but
should, play in a violent manner and continue to play after a brain injury and that doing so
posed no danger to their health.
- 32 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
140. At no time, including during the seven year Concussion Program and in the
following seven year silence before publishing the Program's report, did the NHL warn
players that the data suggested at a minimum that greater attention to concussions and brain
injuries was necessary, that it was possible that playing in the same game, or soon after, a
brain injury was potentially dangerous, or any other such warning.
141. The League also knew that effects of concussions, subconcussive impacts, and
other brain injuries are frequently latent, developing and manifesting themselves only after a
player's NHL career has ended.
142. The League regularly collects game injury reports, becoming the repository of
substantial concussion and other head injury information.
143. The League's Office of Player Safety also obtains detailed information about
player brain and head injuries, often considering the severity of an injury in meting out
punishments. For example, in February 2012, the League's Senior Vice President of Player
Safety and Hockey Operations, Brendan Shanahan, after reviewing a head hit from Ottawa
Senator Kyle Turris on Boston Bruins Joe Corvo, stated, "After reviewing the video
Turris'
extensively as we heard explanation of how the play developed, we concluded that
the head was not targeted intentionally or even recklessly and that the circumstances
resulted."
surrounding the hit contributed significantly to the amount of head contact that
144. Mr. Shanahan admitted that whether an injury occurs plays a role in the meting
out of discipline.
145. With the League playing a central role in collecting concussion and brain
injury information, and in monitoring head hits, Plaintiffs had further reason to believe that
- 33 -
38 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
the League's silence about the extent and severity of potential concussion and brain injury
risks meant that continuing to play was safe, exposing them to no particular long-term
danger.
146. With the League involving itself in head injury data and discipline, the
Plaintiffs believed that the League's silence meant - to

reasonably safety continuing play
was naturally not conceived of as a threat to health.
147. Reasonably relying on the League for information, and knowing the League
was monitoring and keeping data for head hits, Plaintiffs reasonably believed that the League
would disclose to them any information material to their health, especially their
neurocognitive well-being.
148. In reasonably reposing trust and confidence in the NHL, with its superior
information and its direct involvement in monitoring and evaluating head hits, Plaintiffs
reasonably relied on the NHL's silence concerning the short and long-term dangers of
concussions.
149. Nothing the League said, or did, put Plaintiffs on notice that the League was
Plaintiffs'
sitting on information that could serve as the basis for claims or that Plaintiffs had
any need to try to find and interpret such information.
150. Because the League assumed a duty of care to Plaintiffs, assuming duties of
protection and disclosure while knowing Plaintiffs trusted and relied on the League to
provide any important information to them, and because the results of brain injuries are often
slow to develop and easily mistaken for deficits accompanying simple aging, Plaintiffs were
not on notice that they should investigate possible claims.
- 34 -
39 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
151. Even players who received medical treatment in retirement for post-concussion
syndrome or related maladies did not know that the League contemporaneously had
information about concussions material to player decisions to continue playing.
152. In the course of its business, with numerous financial, reputational, and legal
reasons not to disclose what it long knew - that NHL players were at serious risk from the
concussions and other head injuries sustained while - the NHL remained silent
they playing
about material key facts about the causes and effects of head injuries, preventing Plaintiffs
from discovering a link between their NHL playing days and their increased risk of
neurodegenerative diseases and conditions today.
153. Defendant was under, but breached, a continuing duty to disclose the true
character, quality, and nature of the after-effects of concussive events, subconcussive events,
and brain injuries. Because Defendant concealed the true character, quality, and nature of
these injuries, it is estopped from relying on any statute of limitations defense.
154. The applicable statute of limitations is tolled because Defendant's fraudulent
concealment of the dangers and adverse effects of brain injuries prevented Plaintiffs from
learning of or properly appreciating the hazards to their health.
III. DEFENDANT IS A RESIDENT OF THIS JUDICIAL DISTRICT
155. Defendant NHL, which maintains its offices at 1185 Avenue of the Americas,
New New is an unincorporated association of separately-

York, York, 10036, consisting
owned professional hockey teams that operate out of many different cities and states within
the United States and Canada. The NHL is engaged in interstate commerce in the business
- 35 -
40 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
of, among other things, promoting, operating, organizing, and regulating the major
professional hockey league in the United States.
156. As an unincorporated association of member teams, the NHL is a resident of
each state in which its member teams reside, including the District of Minnesota where the
NHL operates the Minnesota Wild.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
IV. THE NHL'S KNOWLEDGE AND FAILURE TO WARN
157. The robust body of medical and scientific studies and literature has, for many
decades, firmly established that repetitive and violent jarring of the head or impact to the
head can cause MTBI with a heightened risk of long term, chronic neurodegenerative
sequelae.
158. There is no way that Defendant, along with the expert medical personnel in its
Plaintiffs' members'
employ, did not know during and class careers that MTBI generally
occurs when the head either accelerates rapidly and then is stopped, or is rotated rapidly.
A. Brain Injuries, Concussions, and Neurological Damage
159. The medical community generally recognizes four types of sports-related brain
injuries: concussion and subconcussive post-concussive second-

(a) events; (b) syndrome; (c)
impact syndrome; and (d) long-term brain damage.
160. Concussion, the first type of injury, is a term used interchangeably with
"MTBI."
This injury consists of trauma to the brain and a resulting transient loss of normal
brain function. Loss of normal brain function can include dozens of symptoms, including
dizziness, confusion, headache, blurred vision, memory loss, nausea, and unconsciousness.
- 36 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
161. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons ("AANS") has defined a
concussion as "a clinical syndrome characterized by an immediate and transient alteration in
brain function, including an alteration of mental status and level of consciousness, resulting
trauma."
from mechanical force or The AANS defines traumatic brain injury ("TBI") as:
a blow or jolt to the head, or a penetrating head injury that disrupts the normal
function of the brain. TBI can result when the head suddenly and violently hits
an object, or when an object pierces the skull and enters brain tissue.
Symptoms of a TBI can be mild, moderate or severe, depending on the extent
of damage to the brain. Mild cases may result in a brief change of mental state
or consciousness, while severe cases may result in extended periods of
unconsciousness, coma or even death.
162. Medical evidence has shown that symptoms of a concussion can reappear
hours or days after the injury, indicating that the injured party has not healed from the initial
blow.
163. According to neurologists, once a person suffers a concussion, the person is up
to four (4) times more likely to sustain a second one and each successive concussion
increases the seriousness of health risks and the likelihood of future concussions.
Additionally, after suffering even a single concussion, a lesser blow may cause the injury,
and the injured person requires more time to recover.
164. Post-concussion syndrome, which may last days to years after someone suffers
a concussion, generally involves depression, irritation, poor concentration, memory loss,
mood swings, headaches, impaired speech or balance, dizziness, seizures, blurred vision, or
general malaise.
165. As with concussions/MTBI, only rest of both the brain and cognitive
functioning can resolve these symptoms.
- 37 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
166. Second-impact syndrome occurs when an athlete still healing from a prior
concussion experiences a second, force-related event to the brain. Second-impact syndrome
can lead to coma, permanent brain-function loss, or death.
167. Long-term effects of brain damage caused by repeated MTBI include
Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and CTE, among other serious disorders.
168. CTE, a catastrophic disease first associated with boxers long ago, results when
a toxic protein, Tau, accumulates in the brain, kills brain cells, and leads to symptoms such
as cognitive dysfunction, memory loss, sleeplessness, depression, diminished impulse
control, episodes of anger, and dementia, among others. Until recently, CTE could only be
confirmed through an autopsy. Tau proteins are released whenever concussion occurs.
169. CTE is found in athletes (and others) with a history of repetitive concussions.
Conclusive studies have shown this condition to be prevalent in retired professional hockey
players who have a history of brain injury.
170. Clinical and neuropathological studies by some of the nation's foremost
experts have demonstrated that multiple concussions sustained during an NHL player's
career can cause severe cognitive problems.
171. This trauma triggers progressive degeneration ofbrain tissue. Degeneration of
the brain can begin months, years, or even decades after the last concussion or the end of
active athletic involvement, and has been diagnosed in many NHL hockey players. The
brain degeneration is associated with memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment, paranoia,
impulse-control problems, aggression, depression, and eventually progressive dementia.
- 38 -
43 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
172. In January 2010, the Boston University School of Medicine Center for the
Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy ("BUSM") and the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare
System, in collaboration with the Sports Legacy Institute, neuropathologists confirmed for
the first time that a former hockey player, New York Ranger Reggie Fleming, had been
diagnosed with CTE.
Sabres'
173. Subsequently, Rick Martin, best known for being part of the Buffalo
Connection,"
"French was posthumously diagnosed with CTE. Martin was the first
documented case of a hockey player not known to be a fighter or enforcer to have developed
CTE. Martin is believed to have developed the disease from severe blows to his head while
not wearing a helmet.
174. Within months of Martin's death, four former hockey enforcers suffered
sudden and unexpected deaths: Derek Boogaard from a combination of painkillers and
alcohol; Rick Rypien of an apparent suicide; Wade Belak of an apparent suicide and who,
like Rypien, had reportedly suffered from depression; and Bob Probert, best known as one-
Brothers"
half of the "Bruise with then-Red Wing teammate Joey Kocur, of sudden cardiac
arrest. All four players had histories of fighting, blows to the head and concussions, which
led to more concerns about CTE and hockey. BUSM doctors subsequently confirmed that
Boogaard and Probert had CTE.
175. For almost a while brutal fist-

century, unnecessary violence, including
fighting, has permeated NHL games, the NHL has been on notice that multiple concussive
and subconcussive impacts can lead to long-term brain injury, including, but not limited to,
memory loss, dementia, depression, and CTE and its related symptoms. There have been
- 39 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
legions of studies throughout the eras proving these negative health consequences. Yet, the
NHL said nothing to its players about any of it.
B. 85 Year History of Medical Studies Related to Sports and
Concussion
1872,2
176. In an essay published in the foremost asylum superintendent and patron
of the pathophysiology of the nerves connected brain injuries to what he considered "moral
delinquency":
Moral delinquency, with its preponderance of the lower feelings and
propensities, is also an occasional consequence of cranial injuries; indeed there
are grounds for thinking that some who come within the pale of the law as
criminals, and who are incorrigible under all correction, have been plunged
into vice first, or have been confirmed in ill-doing, by cerebral weakness with
concussion, and more especially repeated concussion, engenders. A career of
dissipation exposes to injuries of the head - these cause a certain amount of
weakness and - and these again are aggravated a

irritability enormously by
continuance in dissipation, so that a total loss of self-control, and an
exaggerated activity of all the baser passions is soon reached.
177. In 1928, world renowned English neurologist, Charles P. Symonds, warned
permanent"
that "recovery [from concussions] should be complete and because "symptoms
contusion"
of minor can begin to appear after several weeks "[t]hus a patient who has been
concussed may seem to have made a complete recovery from his concussion and yet later
develop disabling symptoms. The three symptoms almost constantly complained of are
disability."
headache, giddiness, and mental Of these, Dr. Symonds explained, the
headaches could be crippling but "the mental complaints are of inability to concentrate,
defective memory, indecision, loss of emotional control, and rapid fatigability of the mental
processes. In severe cases this is associated with insomnia and nocturnal restlessness. There
2
J. Crighton-Browne, M.D., F.R.S.E., WEST RIDING LUNATIC ASYLUM MEDICAL
REPORTS 97-136 (J. & A. Churchill, eds., 1872).
- 40 -
45 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
may be some clouding of consciousness at night time, the condition then approximating to
contusion."
that of major Most prophetic, Dr. Symonds also warned of the risk of
deterioration" contusion."3
"permanent mental after a "history of major
178. Also in 1928, pathologist Harrison Martland published the first case of"Punch
Drunk"
syndrome in the Journal of the American Medical Association (the "Martland
study"). The Martland study also described the clinical spectrum of abnormalities found in
enough."
"almost 50 percent of fighters [boxers] . . . if they ke[pt] at the game long
179. The Martland study was the first to link subconcussive impacts and "mild
concussions"
to degenerative brain disease.
180. In 1937, the American Football Coaches Association published a report
warning that players who suffer a concussion should be removed from sports demanding
personal contact.
181. In 1948, the New York State Legislature created the Medical Advisory Board
of the New York Athletic Commission for the specific purpose of creating mandatory rules
for professional boxing designed to prevent or minimize the health risks to boxers. After a
three year study, the Medical Advisory Board recommended, among other things: (a) an
accident survey committee to study ongoing accidents and deaths in boxing rings; (b) two
physicians at ring-side for every bout; (c) post-bout medical follow-up exams; (d) a 30-day
period of no activity following a knockout and a medical follow up for the boxer, all of
syndrome,"
which was designed to avoid the development of "punch drunk also known at
3
Symonds, C. P., The Differential Diagnosis and Treatment of Cerebral States
Consequent Upon Head Injuries. BRITISH MED. J. 2 (3540): 829-832 (1928).
- 41 -
46 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
encephalopathy;"
the time as "traumatic (e) a physician's prerogative to recommend that a
boxer surrender temporarily his boxing license if the physician notes that the boxer suffered
significant injury or knockout; and (f) a medical investigation of boxers who suffer
knockouts numerous times.
182. The recommendations were codified as rules of the New York State Athletic
Commission.
183. In 1952, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study of
encephalopathic changes in professional boxers. That same year, an article published in the
New England Journal for in football -

of Medicine discussed a three-strike rule concussions
recommending that players cease to play football after receiving their third concussion.
184. In 1958, Dr. Arthur G. Gross looked at the dynamics of brain concussion and
brain injury, along with the use of protective headgear, and concluded that, "The well-known
drunk'
'punch effect suffered frequently by boxers who have taken too many hard blows to
the head indicates that the damage to the brain from these successive blows is cumulative in
nature. The sectioned brain of a punch-drunk fighter shows small areas of damage dispersed
throughout the brain. Such progressive damage may well be caused by minute cavities
blows."4
produced by subconcussive
185. In 1962, Drs. Serel & Jaros looked at the heightened incidence of chronic
"Parkinsonian"
encephalopathy in boxers and characterized the disease as a pattern of
progressive decline.
4
Gross, A.G., 1958. A new theory on the dynamics of brain concussion and brain
injury, 3. OF NEUROLOGY 15: 548-561.
- 42 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
186. A 1963 study by Drs. Mawdsley & Ferguson published in Lancet found that
some boxers sustain chronic neurological damages as a result of repeated head injuries. This
damage manifested in the form of dementia and impairment of motor function.
187. A 1967 study by Drs. Hughes & Hendrix examined brain activity impacts from
football by utilizing EEG to read brain activity in game conditions, including after head
trauma.
188. In 1969, a report by the Royal College of Physicians of London confirmed the
danger of chronic brain damage occurring in boxers as a result of their career.
189. Additionally, in 1969 (and then again in the 1973 book entitled Head and Neck
Injuries in Football), a paper published in the Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports by
a leading medical expert in the treatment of head injuries recommended that any concussive
event with transitory loss of consciousness requires the removal of the football player from
play and requires monitoring.
190. In 1973, Drs. Corsellis, Bruton, & Freeman-Browne studied the physical
neurological impact of boxing. This study outlined the neuropathological characteristics of
Pugilistica,"
"Dementia including loss of brain cells, cerebral atrophy, and neurofibrillary
tangles.
191. In 1973, Neurosurgeon R.C. Schneider first described a disabling and
sometimes deadly condition involving the second impact concussion occurring before
symptoms of a first concussion resolve. The revealed that a re-injury to the already-
study
concussed brain triggers swelling that the skull cannot accommodate. This phenomenon was
syndrome"
termed "second-impact in 1984 by Dr. R.L. Sanders.
- 43 -
48 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
192. In 1975, The Lancet, one of the world's oldest and best known peer-reviewed
general medical journals, published an article titled Cumulative Effect of Concussion by two
of the world's leading healers in the field of brain injury, Drs. Gronwall and Wrightson. In
their 1975 Lancet article, Drs. Gronwall and Wrightson left no doubt as to the cumulative
impact of repeated concussions on the brain, finding that those who suffered a second
concussion took longer to recover than those who suffered from their first concussion, and
the permanent damage caused thereby. Significantly, Drs. Gronwall and Wrightson also
stated, "Whatever the mechanism for this fall-off in intellectual performance, doctors do
have a duty to convince the controlling bodies and participants in sports where concussion is
frequent that the effects are cumulative and that the acceptance of concussion injury, though
dangerous."
gallant, may be very
193. In 1982, Canadian Medical Association Journal published an article titled
concussion."
"Return to athletic competition following The article concluded:
The basic recommendation is that return to training and competition should be
deferred until all associated symptoms such as headaches have completely

resolved. The decision to return must take into account the nature of the sport,
the athlete's level of participation and the cumulative effect of previous
concussions. Some athletes will have to avoid any further participation in their
sport.
194. In 1986, the Physician and Sportsmedicine journal published an article by Dr.
Robert Cantu, a widely-respected authority on brain injuries from the American College of
concussion."
Sports Medicine, titled "Guidelines for return to contact sports after cerebral
Dr. Cantu established a system to grade the severity of concussions based on clear and
obvious symptoms and corresponding guidelines for when players should return to play.
After publishing his article in 1986, Dr. Cantu added to the concussion grading scale in 2001,
- 44 -
49 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
emphasizing the importance of post-traumatic amnesia in grading the severity of a
concussion. The Cantu guidelines for return to play are widely accepted and recognized in
the medicalcommunity as being the most useful guidelines. It is not plausible that the NHL
and its medical personnel were unaware of these widely accepted guidelines.
195. The foregoing references are by no means exhaustive. Physicians and
academics have exhaustivelystudiedandreported the danger of concussions suffered both
inside and outside of sports over the past eight decades.
196. Between 1952 and 1994, numerous additional studies were published in
medical journals including the Journal of the American Medical Association, Neurology,the
New England Journal of Medicine, and Lancet warning of the dangers of single concussions,
multiple concussions, and sports-related head trauma from multiple concussions. These
studies collectively established that:
a. repetitive head trauma in contact sports has potential dangerous long-term
effects on brain function;
b. encephalopathy (dementia pugilistica) is caused by repeated subconcussive
and concussive impacts;
c. acceleration and rapid deceleration of the head that results in brief loss of
consciousness in primates also results in a tearing of the axons (brain cells)
withinthebrainstem;
d. with respect to mild head injury in athletes who play contact sports, there is a
relationship between neurologic pathology and length of the athlete's career;
e. immediate retrograde memory issues occur following concussions;
f. mild head injury requires recovery time without risk of subjection to further
injury;
g. head trauma is linked to dementia;
h. a player who suffers a concussion requires significant rest before being

subjected to further contact; and
- 45 -
50 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
i. minor head trauma can lead to neuropathological and neurophysiological
alterations, including neuronal damage, reduced cerebral blood flow, altered
brainstem evoked potentials and reduced speed of information processing.
197. In 1998, a Canadian news article documented how frequent concussions are for
NHL players:
Concussions have become an epidemic in the NHL over the past several years,
striking everyone from marquee players to fourth-line checkers. The rash of
concussions has led the NHL to try to improve prevention and diagnosis of
concussions and has awakened many players and coaches.
* * *
According to statistics provided by the NHL, 60 players had concussions last
season during the regular season and the playoffs. As of early February this
season, 56 players already had received concussions.
198. In 1999, the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research at the
University of North Carolina conducted a study involving 18,000 collegiate and high school
football players. The research showed that once a player suffered one concussion, he was
three times more likely to sustain a second in the same season.
199. A 2000 study, which surveyed 1,090 former NFL players, found that more than
60% had suffered at least one concussion, and 26% had suffered three or more, during their
careers. Those who had sustained concussions reported more problems with memory,
concentration, speech impediments, headaches, and other neurological problems than those
who had not been concussed.
200. In the last decade, numerous published peer reviewed scientific studies have
demonstrated that playing professional sports is associated with significant risk for numerous
negative long term effects, including depression, cognitive disorders and brain injuries such
as dementia, Alzheimer's and CTE. Notably, there have been multiple studies published
- 46 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
regarding the negative long term effects of head impacts on current and former football
players.
201. For example, a 2007 study of NFL retirees, found that of the retirees that had
sustained one or two previous concussions, 11.5% reported that the injuries have had a
permanent effect on their thinking and memory skills as they have aged. Moreover, 11.1%
depression.5
of all respondents reported having a prior or current diagnosis of clinical
202. A 2011 study of both active and former NFL players showed that 28% of the
players studied suffered from depression, compared to only 9.5% of the general population.
See Daniel G. Amen, M.D., et al., Impact of Playing American Professional Football on
Long-Term Brain Function, 23:1 THE J. OF NEUROPSYCHIATRY AND CLINICAL
NEUROSCIENCES, 98, 103 (Winter 2011).
203. Professional athletes also experienced earlier onset of disease and dementia
more frequently than the general American male population in the same age range. Once
there is a finding of impairment of mental functioning, the prognosis is poor; the vast
majority of such patients develop Alzheimer's disease within a decade. Notably, early
detection of dementia and Alzheimer's can lead to a physician prescribing Vitamin E, the
drug Namenda XR (memantine HCL), or a combination of the two, which recent studies
demonstrate improves a person's ability to perform activities of daily living.
204. For example, as discussed at the 2001 Vienna International Symposia on
"alarming"
Concussions in Sport, since 1986, doctors worldwide have observed an increase
5
See Kevin M. Guskiewicz, et al., Recurrent Concussion and Risk of Depression in
Retired Professional Football Players, MED. & SCI.IN SPORTS & EXERCISE, 903, 905
(2007).
- 47 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
in the rate of MTBI found in ice players - with the rate of MTBI from 2%
hockey increasing
in the 1989-1990 season to 8% in the 1999-2001 season.
205. An October 2005 study of retired professional football players investigating the
association between previous head injury and the likelihood of developing mild cognitive
impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's, found that retired players with three or more reported
concussions had a fivefold prevalence of MCI and a threefold prevalence of significant
memory problems, compared to other retirees. See Kevin Guskiweicz, Ph.D, et al.,
Association Between Recurrent Concussion and Late-Life Cognitive Impairment in Retired
Professional Football Players, 57 NEUROSURGERY 719, 719 (Oct. 2005).
206. A 2009 study performed by the University of Michigan showed that 6.1% of
retired NFL players over the age of 50 receive a Dementia-related diagnosis compared to the
1.2% national average for men of the same age. See David R. Weir, et al., National Football
League Player Care Foundation Study of Retired NFL Players, U. MICH., INSTITUTE FOR
SOCIAL RES. Sep. 10, 2009, at 1, 32.
207. A 2011 published peer reviewed scientific study showed that 36% of former
NFL players, age 65-75, who were studied, suffered from dementia, whereas the prevalence
of dementia in the general population for the same age group is 2.2-6.5%. See Daniel G.
Amen, M.D., et al., Impact ofPlaying American Professional Football on Long-Term Brain
Function, 23:1 THE J. OF NEUROPSYCHIATRY AND CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCES, 98, 103
(Winter 2011).
208. A November 6, 2012 study analyzing neurodegenerative causes of death
among a cohort of 3,439 former NFL players that played between 1959 and 1988 confirmed
- 48 -
53 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
that the neurodegenerative mortality rate of professional football players is 3 times higher
than that of the general United States population. In fact, the rate of Alzheimer's and ALS in
professional football players was 4 times higher. See Everett J. Lehman, MS, et al.,
Neurodegenerative causes of death among retired National Football League players, 79
NEUROLOGY, 1, 2 (Nov. 6, 2012).
209. In fact, a September 12, 2014 actuarial study submitted by the NFL in the
lawsuit brought against it by thousands of retired NFL estimated that one-

players, nearly
third of former NFL players will be diagnosed with either dementia or Alzheimer's. See
Thomas Vasquez Ph.D., NFL Concussion Liability Forecast at 20, Analysis Research
Players'
Planning Corp., Feb. 10, 2014, filed in In re National Football League Concussion
Injury Litig., No. 2:12-md-02323-AB (E.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2014), ECF No. 6167.
210. Put simply, overwhelming evidence shows that CTE is caused by repeated
sublethal brain trauma of the sort Plaintiffs repeatedly suffered.
211. In January 2012, the Boston University Center for the Study of Traumatic
Encephalopathy, which has performed autopsy examinations of the brains of deceased NFL
players, estimated a lifetime prevalence rate of CTE of 3.7% for retired NFL players. The
Center stated: "[a]lthough this represents a conservative estimate, it suggests a significant
injury."
public health risk for persons who suffer repetitive mild traumatic brain See
Brandon E. Gavett, Ph. D. et al., Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy: A Potential Late Effect
ofSport-Related Concussive and Subconcussive Head Trauma, CLINICAL SPORTS MED., 1, 2
(Jan. 1, 2012).
- 49 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
212. On September 16, 2014, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (NY)
published the results of its neuroimaging case study regarding diagnosing CTE in living
subjects. Through an experimental radiolabeled compound called [18F]-T807, designed to
latch onto the Tau protein in the brain, and using a positron emission tomography (PET)
scanner, researchers were able to effectively diagnose CTE in a living subject. See E.M.
Mitsis, et al., Tauopathy PET and Amyloid PET in the Diagnosis of Chronic Traumatic
Encephalopathies: studies of a retired NFL player and of a man with FTD and a severe head
injury, TRANSLATIONAL PSYCHIATRY (Sept. 16, 2014). Prior to this research, it was thought
that CTE could only be diagnosed post-mortem.
213. Most recently, on September 30, 2014, it was reported that after studying
brains of 79 deceased NFL players, one of the nation's largest brain banks confirmed that 76
of those players suffered from CTE. According to the results, 78.9% of football players, and
96.2% of former NFL players suffered from the disease. See Josh Katzowitz, PBS Frontline:
76 of 79 NFL Player Brains Studied Show Signs of CTE, CBS SPORTS (Sept. 30, 2014).
214. According to reports, NHL players are five times more likely to suffer a
concussion than NFL players, which is devastating, given that the NFL has admitted that
nearly one in three NFL players will contract debilitating brain disease. These numbers are
also not since NFL players on average 4 pre-season games and a 16 game-
surprising play
season, and engage in only 11-15 minutes of actual playing time per game, while NHL
players on average 6 pre-season games and an 82-game except for fourth-

play season, and,
liners and spare defensemen, play an average of 18-25 minutes per game.
- 50 -
55 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
215. Some of the most accomplished experts on brain injuries have stated that
subconcussive impacts are more detrimental than concussive impacts.
216. Subconcussive impacts are repetitive subconcussive blows to the head that are
the building blocks of CTE.
217. Subconcussive impacts can be more dangerous because when sustained, they
leave the brain as vulnerable to long-term damage as a diagnosed concussion; however,
because they are not diagnosed as a concussion, the player continues to play and add damage
to the affected portion of the brain. Additionally, repeated subconcussive blows lead to
CTE.
218. As one author observed: "Dr. Robert Cantu, the prominent neurosurgeon out of
Boston and undisputed concussion expert, has stated that a lineman in the NFL, on one 80
career!"
yard drive, can sustain up to 18 subconcussive blows. 18! 15,000 in a ten year NFL
219. After reviewing the findings of Dr. Cantu and other scholars, one author noted:
"It is the continuous small blows to the brain that are creating the damning evidence found in
players."
the brains of former football
220. NHL players sustain thousands of these subconcussive impacts every year.
The NHL was or should have been aware of the neurological effects of subconcussive
impacts, yet did not warn its players or protect them.
221. It is not plausible that the NHL was unaware of this body of literature. In fact,
NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman recently stated, "We have, on our own, a long history,
seriously."
going back to 1997, of taking concussions very He added, "We spend a lot of
players' safety."
time, money and effort working with the association on player CNN, NHL
- 51 -
56 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
'Concussion'
Facing Lawsuit, Int'l Ed., Nov. 26, 2013,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/26/sport/nhl-lawsuit-concussion-10-players/index.html.
222. To be sure, NHL Deputy Commissioner William Daly has disingenuously
claimed that the NHL has taken a leadership role in teaching others about the dangers of
concussions, notwithstanding its continued glorification of violence in its own league. For
example, the NHL states that education has been a vital component of its mission since 1997,
and that its "[e]ducational efforts are directed towards all relevant parties in our game,
including most importantly our Players, but also relevant Club personnel, including Club
medical staff, Club owners and executives, team General Managers and Coaches, and on-ice
Officials."
game
223. In connection with this education mission, Deputy Commissioner Daly, said:
Our recent educational initiatives have focused on articulating and identifying
many of the common visible signs and symptoms of a concussion so that
Players will recognize when they, or a teammate, may be at risk. . . . It is our

Players'
strong belief that the health and safety will be enhanced if all
relevant personnel clearly understand the latest science regarding

concussions. . . .
224. The NHL also boasts that it has "assisted in the development of concussion
players."
educational programs for youth and junior age hockey As a self-anointed leader in
concussion education, the NHL has repeatedly portrayed itself as knowledgeable about
current research in concussions and head trauma.
Players'
C. The Medical Community Has Focused on Hockey Brain
Injuries and the NHL Has Participated in or Attended Many of
the Symposia Regarding Brain Injuries in Sports
225. Since 2001, there have been four "International Symposia on Concussions in
Sport."
These conferences took place in Vienna (2001), Prague (2004), and twice in Zurich
- 52 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
(2009 and 2012). Attendees included American doctors who are experts on the brain and
concussions.
226. The 2001 Vienna symposium included two reports focusing specifically on
hockey. "Procedures After Minor Traumatic Brain Injury MTBI in Ice Hockey to Prevent
Sequelae"
Neurological noted that since 1986, doctors worldwide had observed "an alarming
gear."
increase in the rate of MTBI in ice hockey despite improved protective In the NHL,
the proportion of MTBI had increased from 2% in the 1989-1990 season to 8% in the 1999-
2001 seasons. This report recommended that "any confused player with or without amnesia
hours."
should be taken off the ice and not be permitted to play again for at least 24
"
227. The second Vienna symposium report was titled Concussion Experience:
League,"
Swedish Elite Ice Hockey focused on the seriousness of concussions in ice hockey.
The report noted an alarming increase in the number of concussions among players in the
1980s, which the authors of the report attributed to "[t]oday's ice hockey [being] faster and
physical."
more
228. In 2004, neurological experts met in Prague to discuss recommendations for
the improvement of safety and health of athletes who suffer concussive injuries in sports,
including ice hockey, based on current research. These experts recommended that a player
should not be returned to play while symptomatic, and coined the phrase, "when in doubt, sit
out."
them This echoed similar medical protocol established at a Vienna conference in 2001.
229. A 2006 publication stated that "[a]ll standard U.S. guidelines, such as those
first set by the American Academy of Neurology and the Colorado Medical Society, agree
game."
that athletes who lose consciousness should never return to play in the same
- 53 -
58 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
230. Additionally, an abstract was presented at a 2012 conference titled "Acute
Players,"
Clinical Signs and Outcome of Concussion in National Hockey League which
concluded that concussions can produce a spectrum of acute on-ice clinical signs.
231. Various conferences on the subject of sports-related concussions produced
detailed protocols on examining a player believed to have suffered a concussion. Members
of the NHL Concussion Program attended many of these conferences, including all four of
the International Symposia on Concussions in Sport.
232. In North America, researchers have also focused on hockey and brain injuries.
A 2006 study, comparing the eight major contact sports (American football, boxing, ice
hockey, judo, karate, tae kwon do, rugby, and soccer), found that ice hockey players have the
highest rate of concussions. At the professional level, ice hockey was only second to rugby
for the highest rate of concussions. See Contact Sport Concussion Incidence, 41 J. OF
ATHLETIC TRAINING (Oct-Dec 2006).
233. For the 2009-10 season, Dr. Paul Echlin followed two junior hockey clubs to
assess their incidence of concussions. The report concluded that 25% of the players on the
teams experienced at least one concussion in a 52-game season. Twenty-nine per cent of
those players endured recurring concussions. Dr. Echlin stated that concussions occurring in
hockey may be seven times higher than reported in the then-current literature.
234. Recently, Mayo Clinic sponsored two "Conferences on Concussions in
Hockey,"
one in 2010 and the other in 2013. Recommendations at the first conference led
the NHL to begin taking concussions suffered by its players seriously.
- 54 -
59 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
235. At the 2013 Conference, Dr. Michael Stuart, a director of the Mayo Clinic
Sports Medicine Center and chief medical officer for USA Hockey, noted two recent fights
in the NHL that resulted in players receiving concussive head injuries. Recommendations
made at that 2013 conference focused on eliminating fighting, such as those noted by Dr.
Michael Stuart.
236. As described above, the NHL has known for decades that MTBI can and does
lead to long-term brain injury, including, but not limited to, memory loss, dementia,
depression, CTE, and related symptoms.
237. Rather than take immediate measures to protect its players from these known
dangers, the NHL for decades failed to disclose to its players relevant and highly material
health information it possessed regarding the significant risks associated with MTBI. At the
same time, the NHL promoted and encouraged violent blows to the head, including bare
knuckled fist fighting, as a routine part of the game.
D. NHL's Knowledge of the Devastating Effects of Brain Trauma

Documented by Violent Incidents
238. Although all NHL players face imminent risk of brain trauma, the NHL's
infamous incidents of violent head impacts and the negative repercussions of such impacts
on its players demonstrate the NHL's actual knowledge of decades-old, League-wide
problems.
239. For example, in 1947, New York Rangers player William Ezinicki (known as
"Wild Bill") of the Toronto Maple Leafs delivered a crushing check to Edgar Laprade of the
New York Rangers that left Laprade sprawled unconscious on the ice with head trauma.
Laprade was taken off the ice and his teammates thought he was dead. Laprade wound up in
- 55 -
60 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
the hospital with a concussion and needed five stitches to close a cut to his head. In 1988, a
Canadian media outlet ran a story regarding NHL player Edgar Laprade's hospitalization due
Rangers'
to head trauma. The bodycheck enraged Frank Boucher, the New York head coach
and general manager, who urged the NHL: "How much longer is Ezinicki going to get away
with elbowing, high sticking and deliberate injuries to opponents? Believe curb must be put
immediately."
on this player Then NHL president Clarence Campbell dismissed Boucher's
concerns and appeal for further punishment and concluded that Ezinicki's contact with
Laprade was legal.
240. Gordie Howe is one of the greatest NHL players in the history of the game,
playing in the NHL from 1946 until 1980. Many of Howe's accolades may never be
surpassed, even by fellow NHL Hall of Fame inductees. Early in his playing career, Howe
sustained what would be the worst injury of his career, fracturing his skull after an attempt to
check Toronto Maple Leafs captain Ted Kennedy into the boards went awry during the 1950
playoffs. The fracture was so severe that Howe had to be immediately taken to a hospital for
emergency surgery, drilling a hole into his head in order to relieve pressure on his brain. As
a result of this head trauma, Howe developed a permanent facial tic and was nicknamed
"Blinky"
by his teammates. The next season, he returned to record 86 points, winning the
scoring title by 20 points. Famed for his mixture of skill and toughness, his Hall of Fame
biography even notes that "He threw his weight around and he never backed away from a
fight." "guarantees"
News outlets reported that Howe battled dementia, his family that
concussions were the cause, and that Howe died on June 10, 2016.
- 56 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
241. In 1968, NHL player Bill Masterton of the Minnesota North Stars suffered a
severe internal brain injury during Minnesota's game against the Oakland Seals. As
Masterton carried the puck up the ice at full speed, opposing player Ron Harris collided into
him. Masterton was knocked backwards hitting his helmetless head on the ice and fell into
unconsciousness. Masterton's brain was damaged so severely that he never regained
consciousness and died two days after the incident.
242. In 1988, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a story titled Hazardous Despite a
Player's Death, Helmets Were Long Ignored. The article recounted Masterton's death in
1968 and criticized the NHL's cavalier attitude toward player safety:
On Jan. 17, 1968, the NHL Players Association (NHLPA) issued a statement
urging the league to adopt mandatory helmet legislation.
Chicago's Stan Mikita, the league's MVP that year, and others began wearing
helmets immediately after the death. Blackhawks superstar Bobby Hull
admitted that vanity alone had kept him from using a helmet and said that he
would consider using one.
The NHL, though, remained unmoved.
Clarence Campbell, the imperious commissioner who refused to lend league
sanction to a benefit game for Masterton's family, went so far as to suggest
that the death was just one of those things.
"It was a routine accident that could have happened in any hockey game . . . a
occupation,"
normal hazard of the Campbell said in defense of NHL policy.
"(Helmets) are optional now, and we think that is the best method of dealing
it."
with
* * *
Callous as it sounded, Campbell's attitude on helmets was merely reflective of
a firmly held belief among league owners that their use was bad for the game.
243. In 1977, opposing player Dave Farrish of the New York Rangers hooked NHL
player Rick Martin of the Buffalo Sabres around the neck from behind and kicked Martin's
- 57 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
feet out from under him, causing Martin to hit his head on the ice. As a result of Farrish's
conduct, Martin hit his head on the ice, was knocked unconscious, and went into
convulsions. A 1978 news article about the incident comments that Martin's head trauma
could have been mitigated had Martin been wearing a helmet, but quotes then NHL president
Zeigler with a countervailing remark, "'The league's position has been and is right now that
individual.'"
the wearing of a helmet is up to the
244. In 1996, a Canadian media outlet ran an article titled Comfort, safety clash in
season."
NHL helmet debate, noting a "rash of concussions this That same year, a Canadian
media outlet ran an article titled Concussions just a fact of hockey life.
245. In 1997, Dennis Vaske of the New York Islanders retired due to the effects of
three concussions (although he did attempt a comeback in 1998-99 with the Boston Bruins).
The first concussion he suffered was in the 1995-96 NHL season when he was hit from
behind by Eric Lacroix of the Los Angeles Kings. After that incident, Vaske recounted,
explode.'"
"'[r]iding in that ambulance, I thought my head was going to
246. In 1998, the Canadian press ran an article regarding NHL player Nick Kypreos.
Kypreos played in the NHL from 1989 until 1997. Kypreos was in a total of 81 fights in
NHL games. Kypreos was a Stanley Cup champion. The 1998 article discusses how, on one
occasion, Kypreos suffered a concussion during a game. Instead of going to the hospital,
Kypreos recounted that he attempted to participate in a subsequent practice. The article
follow"
notes that there was "no protocol to for NHL players who suffered concussions.
- 58 -
63 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
247. In recounting a fight during a 1997-98 pre-season game with Ryan
VandenBussche which gave Kypreos a career-ending concussion, Kypreos is quoted as
saying:
I lost my helmet and hit my head on the ice. . . . It's like a dream you can't
remember. Within one hour everything started to come back into focus. I was
being asked how I was feeling and if I could go back on the ice to finish the
game.
248. Pat LaFontaine played in the NHL from 1983 until 1998, suffering from six
documented concussions. In 1990, LaFontaine was knocked unconscious by a hit from an
opposing player, James Patrick. In 1996, LaFontaine was again knocked unconscious by a
hard hit to the head, this time from opposing player Francois Leroux. He attempted to
recover and continue his career, but that attempt proved short lived, as he collided with a
teammate and sustained a career-ending concussion in 1998. LaFontaine recounted his head
trauma:
A neurologist at the Mayo Clinic asked me, "Did it feel like someone came
you?"
along and ripped all the motivation and personality out of That was
exactly what happened to me . . . I remember being scared because for the first
month after my fifth concussion, I was very depressed at times. I wouldn't
want to come out of my room. My wife was really scared because the littlest
things would set me off.
249. During this era, countless other NHL players were suffering life threatening,
career-ending concussions. For example, Dean Chynoweth played in the NHL from 1988
until 1998. Chynoweth reportedly suffered 13 concussions during his ten-year career, and
was forced into retirement at the age of 28 due to concussion-related health concerns.
Chynoweth was in a total of 38 fights in his NHL career.
- 59 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
250. Gino Odjick played in the NHL from 1990 until 2002. Odjick, a prominent
Assassin"
enforcer, was known as the "Algonquin and was in a total of 154 fights in NHL
games. In the last two years of his career, Odjick sometimes became so forgetful that he
could not find the hockey rink, even though "[i]t was just one turn to the right, one turn to
there."
the left to get to the rink, but I got lost just going Odjick's career came to a sudden
end when he was hit in the back of the head by a puck. Odjick subsequently suffered from
persistent dizziness and headaches and retired from the NHL. Odjick has since struggled
with depression and other mental health issues, and has stated that he has spent 32 months in
hospitals since his retirement due to his concussions.
251. Steve Moore and Mark Moore were brothers who were drafted into the NHL.
Mark Moore never played an NHL game due to a minor league concussion he suffered.
Steve Moore had played 69 games in the NHL before his career was suddenly cut short in
2004 by opposing player Todd Bertuzzi, who struck Moore from behind and, in the attack,
landed on top of him, resulting in a fractured neck and concussion, as depicted below:
- 60 -
65 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
252. In response to the attack, the NHL suspended Bertuzzi for the remainder of the
season, a mere 20 games. Bertuzzi is currently an unrestricted free agent of the NHL and has
played in over 1,000 games. Steve Moore's recurring concussion symptoms kept him from
ever returning to the NHL.
253. Keith Primeau played in the NHL from 1990 until 2006. Primeau suffered four
documented concussions in the NHL, where he was in a total of 81 fights. In the 2003-04
season, Primeau missed 21 NHL games due to concussions. In 2006, Primeau suffered a
career-ending concussion at the hands of Alex Perezhogin, who hit Primeau in the head.
Because of lingering concussion symptoms, Primeau retired from the NHL and has agreed to
have his brain donated for use in Boston University's research effort into the causes of CTE
in athletes.
254. In 2004, before this incident with Primeau, Perezhogin swung his stick at the
face of an opposing player in a minor league hockey game. The opposing player was
knocked unconscious and started convulsing on the ice. The player required twenty stitches
in his face, lost teeth, and suffered a concussion. Perezhogin was criminally prosecuted by
the local authorities and was sentenced to one year probation, though he was still called up to
the NHL a year later.
255. In 2010, NHL player Marc Savard was carried off the ice after a collision with
opposing player Matt Cooke:
- 61 -
66 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
256. Savard suffered a Grade 2 concussion from the hit; on-ice officials did not
penalize Cooke for the hit. In response to Cooke's collision with Savard and in explaining
why Cooke was not suspended, NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman stated: "'I was very
unhappy and upset with that hit'. . . . 'I was more upset there was nothing [in the NHL's
it.'"
rules] to do to punish Cooke's hit on Savard was characterized as "'[a]very surgical hit
head."'
to the After suffering head trauma from his interaction with Cooke, Savard was later
hit by other opposing players. Savard has described the daily struggles with the lasting
effects of head injuries: "'I'm still hoping that something happens that I'll feel a lot better.
play.'"
But if I feel like this, I still couldn't
257. Paul Kariya played in the NHL from 1994 until 2010, was an NHL all-star, and
achieved numerous accolades during his tenure, including the Lady Byng Trophy for the
NHL's most gentlemanly player. Kariya likewise had an illustrious amateur career,
receiving the award for the top collegiate hockey player in 1993 and winning Olympic
medals, including the gold medal in 2002 at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics.
- 62 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
258. Kariya ended his NHL career due to the negative effects of head trauma he
received. In 1996, an opposing player hit Kariya during an NHL game, concussing Kariya.
The player was not penalized during the game but was subsequently suspended by the NHL.
Kariya missed two games because of the concussion. In 2003, Kariya collided with an
opposing player during an NHL game, where he laid on the ice motionless and had to be
helped to the locker room. Kariya later returned to play in that same game. In one infamous
instance, Kariya suffered a blindside hit to the face while celebrating a goal from opposing
player Gary Suter, leaving Kariya unable to play for the rest of the season and the 1998
Olympics.
259. The NHL suspended Suter for a total of four games. Suter had also been
accused of intentionally trying to injure Wayne Gretzky during a Canada Cup game where he
slammed Gretzky into the boards, eliminating him from the Championship Round. The
Fame"
NHL inducted Suter into its "Hall of in 2011.
260. Kariya has suffered from headaches and short term memory loss as a result of
his repeated head trauma. Since retirement, Kariya has been an outspoken critic of the NHL,
stating in interviews:
- 63 -
68 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
The thing that I worry about is that you'll get a guy who is playing with a
concussion, and he gets hit, and he dies at centre ice . . . .
There's too much of a lack of respect players have for one another . . . . If the
league wants to stop that kind of conduct, it will have to punish players . . . .
Ten-game suspensions . . . and more, have to be brought back to help wake up

players.
There probably isn't a player in the league who hasn't had a concussion.
261. Eric and Brett Lindros were brothers who played in the NHL. Eric Lindros
was the NHL MVP in 1995 and a 2002 Olympic gold medal winner. Eric Lindros also
suffered eight concussions from 1998 through 2005, which eventually led to his retirement in
Lindros'
2007. Eric former team, the Philadelphia Flyers, downplayed the seriousness ofhis
concussion condition and questioned whether he took too long to rehabilitate from the
concussions.
262. Brett Lindros retired two years after playing in the NHL at the age of 20. Brett
Lindros had sustained numerous concussions by the age of 20 and is quoted as stating:
What was for me was each time it took longer to resolve -- last
scary my
concussion before my 20th birthday took eight or nine weeks. . . . Sometimes I
had memory loss on the bench.
Lindros'
263. A Canadian news source noted Brett outspoken views on the issue of
concussions. Brett Lindros stated: "It's every kid's dream to play in the NHL . . . My
shattered."
dreams have basically been The article went on to note:
Although Lindros's concussions at the pro level are well documented, he said
he wasn't sure how many he might have suffered during his junior career with
the Kingston Frontenacs of the Ontario Hockey League.
264. The news source also interviewed coaches and management from Brett
Lindros'
team, the New York Islanders, which noted the frequency of concussions and the
NHL's willful disregard of the problem. For instance, Mike Milbury, the team's then
general manager and coach, stated: "And I think not only do we have to think how to treat a
- 64 -
69 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
concussion, you have to think more in terms of preventive measures. It used to be in old-time
hockey you'd take a hit, you'd get your bell rung and you'd go right back out there.
that."
Obviously, we've got to rethink
265. Mr. Milbury's recent statements, on national television, that fighting in the
NHL needs to be eliminated because the concussion risks are simply too high demonstrates
recognition of a long undeniable reality.
266. After retirement, Eric Lindros was also vocal about his views on the
concussion problems. In fact, Eric Lindros started a call to action in the ice hockey
community through his association with the Ontario Brain Injury Association. A Canadian
news source quoted Eric Lindros as stating as follows:
It's time to understand that we have a problem . . . We just don't want anyone
to go through this again. . . . You cannot fix a brain, that's something I had to
learn. It's not like a shoulder or a knee. . . Hockey is an old sport. It's the old-
school boys and an old way of thinking. We have to change that thinking a
little bit. I bought into it, I wanted to be a tough guy. But it didn't do me any
good. That's what came home to me obviously . . . my brother can't play
hockey any more . . . Hopefully, other kids won't have to go through this
frustration and a shortened dream of playing in the league. . . . The lack of
response from the hockey community has frustrated me.
267. Another Canadian news article discussed the outreach on the NHL's
concussion problem by the Lindros family, noting how different the NHL's stance on
concussions is from other elite ice hockey organizations in the world: "In European hockey,
historically, if a player has a concussion, he's automatically out three weeks. That seems
Americans."
bizarre to North The Lindros family criticized the NHL's stance on
testing:"
concussions, which involved "baseline
But you can return to baseline and still be concussed . . . Not all teams rest
players for the same period of time as it's taken them to lose the symptoms of
- 65 -
NYSCEF DOC. NO. Document615 Filed 10/17/16 Page70
RECEIVED of 122
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
concussion. Some teams are knowledgeable, others ignore them [symptoms]

as if they just didn't happen.
Bill"
268. From the infamous hits, like the one to William "Wild Ezinicki that left
him sprawling, unconscious, on the ice in 1947, and Todd Bertuzzi's vicious hit on Steve
Moore in 2004 that ended a career, to all the concussive and subconcussive impacts in
between and beyond, the NHL's failure to inform players of the actual increased risks to
long-term brain health remained constant.
269. At the end of 2012, in the NHL Board of Governors meeting, Commissioner
Gary Bettman addressed the successive deaths, decades of concussion evidence, and dangers
of fighting in the NHL, callously stating "I think it's unfortunate if people use tragedies to
jump to conclusions that probably at this stage aren't supported . . . . I think people need to
overreact."
take a deep breath and not He further implied that economics were a key factor
in the NHL's decision-making, confessing that, "fans tell us that they like the level of
physicality in our game, and for some people it's an issue, but it's not as big an issue in
is."
terms of fans and the people in the game to the extent that other people suggest it
E. Contact in Training Camp and Practices Caused Repeated
Exposure to Concussive and Subconcussive Impacts
270. The risk of head injuries is not limited to NHL games; head injuries occur
during the practices in which NHL players must participate.
271. NHL players go through a rigorous training camp every year which determines
which players will make the regular season roster. These training camps are many times the
most intense experiences - and - that an NHL player will ever

physically mentally
experience because this period will determine whether that player will have a job in the
- 66 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
NHL. players are put through practices which involve contact - to

Consequently, including
- men."
the head and are meant to "separate the boys from the
272. Once the intense yearly training camp is finished, players then occasionally
experience some contact in practices during the days in between the games. During these
practices, players sometimes simulate game-like conditions, subjecting them to concussive
and subconcussive impacts.
273. Blows to the head during practices and drills have a latent effect on the brain.
Repetitive exposure to accelerations to the head causes deformation, twisting, shearing, and
stretching of neuronal cells such that multiple forms of damage take place, including the
release of small amounts of chemicals within the brain, such as the Tau protein. Among
other the gradual of Tau - sometimes over decades - causes which is

things, build-up CTE,
the same phenomenon as boxer's encephalopathy (or "punch drunk syndrome") studied and
reported by Harrison Martland in 1928.
V. THE NHL HAS PROMOTED UNNECESSARY BRUTALITY AND

VIOLENCE TO BECOME A DOMINANT ELEMENT OF THE
GAME AS PLAYED IN THE LEAGUE
A. NHL Hockey Has Created an Fostered an Unnecessarily Violent
Sport
274. From the time of its formation in 1917, the NHL quickly found its roots in
brutality and violence among its players. For example, in 1923, notoriously violent Montreal
Canadiens player Sprague Cleghorn used his hockey stick to strike Ottawa Senators player
Lionel Hitchman over the head. Cleghorn was criminally charged and found guilty of
assault for his misconduct during the game.
- 67 -
RECEIVED of 122
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
275. In 1927, Boston Bruins player Billy Coutu instigated a bench-clearing brawl
during the Stanley Cup finals. Coutu punched referee Jerry LaFlamme, and attacked referee
Billy Bell. The NHL banned Coutu for life after the incident and fined him $100, or over
$1,300 in 2014 dollar value. The NHL lifted the ban five years later.
276. On November 23, 1929, after an on-ice fight between Boston Bruin's Eddie
Maroons'
Shore and Montreal Dave Trottier, it is was reported that the Maroons spent the
rest of the night trying to get even with Shore. The game had to be stopped in the third
period in order to clean up all the blood from the ice. Shore ended up in the hospital with a
broken nose, lost four teeth, two black eyes, a gashed cheekbone, cuts over both eyes, and a
concussion.
277. In 1955, Boston Bruins player Hal Laycoe hit Montreal Canadiens player
Maurice Richard over the head with his hockey stick, resulting in him bleeding profusely on
the ice. In retaliation, Richard struck Laycoe on the shoulder with his stick, punched another
Bruins player in the face, and punched a referee. The Boston police attempted to arrest
Richard in the locker room but were supposedly kept away by Richard's teammates.
278. As the NHL continued to thrive in subsequent eras, so did routine and brutal
"enforcers" "goons"
violence. This continued growth can be best exemplified through the or
of the and 1990s - players known for force to protect

1970s, 1980s, using intimidating
marquee teammates and respond aggressively to physical or foul play. Oftentimes, these
players were put and kept on NHL teams precisely for their physicality, not their pure
hockey skills. And, even skill players who had never had a single fight in their high school,
- 68 -
73 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
"goons" "enforcers"
college, or minor league hockey careers, were forced to become or in
order to keep their jobs.
"goons" Flyers'
279. One of the best examples ofNHL was the Philadelphia "Broad
Bullies."
Street Although the Flyers franchise did not exist until 1967, in just a few years
NHL teams would see their home attendance double when they were playing the Flyers.
280. As the violence in the NHL continued, it appeared that outside observers
became concerned about the vicious acts promoted and glorified by the NHL. For example,
in 1974, the Ontario Cabinet appointed Canadian lawyer William McMurtry, to issue a
report on violence in minor hockey. As part of his research, McMurtry interviewed
numerous NHL players. His official report was stark and concluded:
In talking to numerous players in the NHL and WHA, they all feel that most
advertising and selling of the game is over-emphasizing the fighting and
brawling at the expense of educating the crowds about the skill and finesse.
This past season the advertising for the NBC Game of the Week, showed a
film clip of a hockey fight. Can you conceive of any other sport promoting
itself in this fashion?
281. In 1975, Bobby Hull, considered among the greatest NHL players of all time,
staged a one-game strike in protest of the NHL's commoditization of violence, stating "[t]he
ordeal."
game is no pleasure any more. It's an Hull further stated:
It's time we took some action. . . because, if something isn't done soon, it will
ruin the game for all of us. I've never seen so much stuff like this. I never
thought it could be so bad . . . . It's becoming a disaster. . . . . The idiot
owners, the incompetent coaches, the inept players are dragging the game into
the mud. They're destroying it with their senseless violence . . .
282. On February 17, 1986,SportsIllustratedpublished an article entitled,Hockey?
Call It Sockey: Hockey's designated hit men are making a travesty of the game. It's high
- 69 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
time to get rid of all the goons, where it firmly criticized the NHL's failure to take action
against violence, stating:
[M]any NHL executives are scared to death that if fighting were banned from
hockey, thousands of season-ticket holders who get their jollies from watching
grown men in short pants in a quasi-legal, bare-knuckle battle would bail out
on the spot. Violence sells. That's not news, so does sex. If that's what's
important, why doesn't the league hire a bunch of bikini clad bimbos to skate
around behind the Zambonis holding up placards showing each team's penalty
totals?
283. Moreover, law enforcement authorities began to criminally charge NHL
players for their on-ice conduct, even while the NHL remained silent.
284. In 1988, Minnesota North Stars player Dino Ciccarelli was criminally
prosecuted when during a game against the Toronto Maple Leafs after Ciccarelli attacked
Maple Leafs player Luke Richardson with his stick. Ciccarelli was subsequently sentenced
to one day in jail and fined $1,000.
285. In 2000, Canadian authorities charged and convicted NHL player Marty
McSorley of assault with a weapon, after he attacked opposing Vancouver Canucks forward
Donald Brashear with his stick, with three seconds left in the game. Brashear fell on his
months'
head, lost consciousness, and suffered a concussion. McSorley was sentenced to 18
probation. The NHL only suspended McSorley for a year.
286. Vancouver Canucks player Todd Bertuzzi pleaded guilty to assault charges
following the March 8, 2004 incident, described above, in which he threw a right hook to the
back of Colorado Avalanche player Steve Moore, after Moore supposedly refused to turn and
face him. In September of 2014, after ten years of litigation during which Bertuzzi claimed
that the Canucks coach told players during the second intermission of the game that Moore
- 70 -
75 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
price"
needed to "pay the for his hit against another Canucks player five days earlier, it was
announced that Bertuzzi and Moore had reached a private settlement regarding the matter.
287. In 2011, Mario Lemieux, then owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins and one of the
most respected hockey players of all time, spoke out against the growing violence in the
NHL. Specifically, in response to the NHL's failure to discipline players following a fight-
filled game between the Pittsburgh Penguins and New York Islanders, Lemieux posted the
following in a letter on the Pittsburgh Penguins website:
Hockey is a tough, physical game, and it always should be. But what
happened Friday night on Long Island wasn't hockey. It was a travesty. It
was painful to watch the game I love turn into a sideshow like that. The NHL
had a chance to send a clear and strong message that those kinds of actions are
unacceptable and embarrassing to the sport. It failed. We, as a league, must
do a better job of protecting the integrity of the game and the safety of our
players. We must make it clear that those kinds of actions will not be tolerated
and will be met with meaningful disciplinary action. If the events relating to
Friday night reflect the state of the league, I need to re-think whether I want to
it."
be a part of
288. On February 21, 2011, in an article entitled Fighting Hockey Violence A Losing
Battle, discussing Lemieux's remarks, the National Post stated:
Violence in hockey persists for one simple reason: Today, as in 1975, the men
who control the game have no interest in eliminating it. Forget all the familiar
rationalizations and explanations. Any reasonable analysis would conclude
that players should not be policed by other players, that the threat of retaliation
should not be used to enforce good behavior, that infractions of the rules
should not be used to market a sport.
289. According to hockeyfights.com:
(a) In the 2013-2014 NHL regular season, there were a total of 469 fights,
involving 288 players. Out of 1,230 games, 366 had fights. Of those games
with fights, 78 had more than one fight. For the preseason, there were a total
of 100 fights, involving 149 players. Out of 104 games, 59 had fights. Of
those games with fights, 20 had more than one fight.
- 71 -
76 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
(b) In the 2012-2013 NHL regular season, there were a total of 347 fights,
involving 245 players. Out of 720 games, 264 had fights. Of those games
with fights, 66 had more than one fight.
(c) In the 2011-2012 NHL regular season, there were a total of 546 fights,
of72 fights, involving 115 players. Out of 108 games, 49 had fights. Ofthose
games with fights, 16 had more than one fight.
(d) In the 2010-2011 NHL regular season, there were a total of 645 fights,
(e) In the 2009-2010 NHL regular season, there were a total of 714 fights,
(f) In the 2008-2009 NHL regular season, there were a total of 734 fights,
(g) In the 2007-2008 NHL regular season, there were a total of 664 fights,
(h) In the 2006-2007 NHL regular season, there were a total of 497 fights,
of92 fights, involving 138 players. Out of 105 games, 55 had fights. Ofthose
games with fights, 27 had more than one fight.
(i) In the 2005-2006 NHL regular season, there were a total of 466 ñghts,
involving 276 players. Out of 1,230 games, 357 had Eghts. Of those games
- 72 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
(j) In the 2003-2004 NHL regular season, there were a total of 789 fights,
with fights, 172 had more than onefight. Forthe preseason, there were a total
(k) In the 2002-2003 NHL regular season, there were a total of 668 fights,
(1) In the 2001-2002 NHL regular season, there were a total of 803 fights,
involving348players. Out of 1,230 games, 519 had fights. Of those games
(m) In the 2000-2001 NHL regular season, there were a total of 684 fights,
with fights, 155 had more than one fight. Forthe preseason, there were a total
B. Other Sports Are Violent Too, ButExtreme Violence Is Unique
to NHL Hockey
290. As demonstrated above, the NHLhasfordecadesfosteredanunreasonably and
unnecessaryviolent Leaguefullofsheerbrutalityby,amongotherthings, promoting fighting
and even distinguishing between fighting during playandnotduring play. While the NHL
continues to generate billions in revenue with its violent culture, the violent dynamic of the
NHL is wholly unique to the NHL. Other elite and professional ice hockey leagues
successfullypromoteacompletelydifferentstyleof play, includingOlympicandEuropean
ice hockey, in which finesse, speed and skill, and power without violence dominate, and
fightingisnearlynonexistent.
- 73 -
78 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
291. Other professional hockey and sports leagues have harsh punishments against
fighting, resulting in the near extinction of fighting from the game. For example, fighting is
prohibited by the International Ice Hockey Federation ("IIHF"), which governs Olympic
hockey and most international leagues. IIHF Rule 141, Fighting, penalizes any player who
"who punches an opponent during game action, after a whistle, or any time during the
confrontation."
regular course of a game during a prolonged player Instigators of fights are
penalized with immediate ejection from the game, and IIHF authorities are given discretion
to issue further suspensions.
292. Amateur hockey leagues similarly punish fighting much more harshly than the
NHL does. The National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") prohibits "fighting or
punching"
in U.S. college hockey. Pursuant to Rule 48 of the NCAA Hockey Rules and
Interpretations, any player caught fighting is immediately disqualified, removed from the
game and suspended from playing in the next game. The act of instigating results in removal
from the game and a two-minute penalty for the team, while continuing a fight results in
removal from the game for ten minutes, suspension, or disqualification.
293. Likewise, Canadian Interuniversity Sports ("CIS"), governing universities in
Canada penalizes fighting in ice hockey with a game misconduct, resulting in the offending
player's ejection from the game, and a suspension for the subsequent game. The second
fight means a game misconduct, and two-game suspension, and a third fight means a game
misconduct, a minimum three-game suspension and a review by the league. The rules are
virtually identical through Canada's Ontario, Atlantic and Canada West conferences.
- 74 -
RECEIVED of 122
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
294. According to University of Saskatchewan head ice hockey coach, Dave
Adolph:
Everybody thought it would hurt our game. It has not. . . . Our league is a
better place without fighting. . . . The day they took fighting out, all us young
coaches were totally petrified that-without the guy who could keep someone
honest-it would all escalate. It has not . . . . There's a little more stick work,
and a few more pretenders, but we don't have the concussion problems. No
one tries to hurt the skill guys. You almost stand out if you're an idiot at our
level.
295. There are still more professional sports leagues that also prohibit fighting. The
National Basketball Association ("NBA") imposes severe penalties upon players who fist
fight. Any player who fights, punches, attempts to punch, or elbows the head of another
immediately"
player is "ejected and is subject to a fine and suspension by the Commissioner.
The fine ranges from a minimum of $1,000 to a maximum of $35,000 for the first offense.
Rules"
296. The NBA further states in its rulebook's "Comments on the section:
Violent acts of any nature on the court will not be tolerated. Players involved
in altercations will be ejected, fined, and/or suspended.
There is absolutely no justification for fighting in an NBA game. The fact that
you may feel provoked by another player is not an acceptable excuse. If a
player takes it upon himself to retaliate, he can expect to be subject to
appropriate penalties.
297. The NFL prohibits all players from striking any other player with fists. Any
player who punches another player is immediately ejected from the game and his team is
assessed a 15-yard penalty.
298. Indeed, as opposed to the NHL, where in 2013, there were a remarkable 444
fights involving 282 players in nearly one-third of all NHL games, only a handful of NFL
players were involved in fighting that same year.
- 75 -
80 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
299. By both enforcing their rules and imposing proportional punishments, other
sports have successfully curbed violent fights from breaking out in their games, and
essentially eliminated all fighting in the sport.
300. By promoting and, in fact, glorifying fighting, the NHL continues to perpetuate
its message to players, coaches, and fans that blows to the head should not be considered
serious injuries.
VI. RATHER THAN USE ITS RESOURCES TO PROTECT PLAYERS

FROM DANGERS, ABOUT WHICH THE NHL KNEW OR
SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, IT CAPITALIZED ON VIOLENCE
WHILE DOWNPLAYING RISKS
A. NHL Can Financially Fulfill Its Safety Duties to Its Players
301. Enormously successful, thanks to the skill, speed, courage and dedication of
the Plaintiffs, the NHL is financially capable of providing full and accurate information
about the risks of head trauma to the players. It has chosen not to, however.
302. The NHL generates approximately $3,300,000,000 in gross income per year
and oversees America's most popular hockey league, acting as a trade association for the
benefit of the 30 independently-operated teams. The NHL's average attendance per game in
2012-13 was 17,760, 97% of capacity. It has been reported that the League's revenue will
increase to $4,000,000,000 for the 2014-2015 season.
B. The NHL Admits It Profits from Extreme Violence
303. For nearly a century, the NHL has developed and promoted a culture of
gratuitous violence within NHL hockey.
- 76 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
304. Part of the NHL's strategy has been to promote brutality and violence by
glorifying the violent aspects of the game, including, but not limited to, the brutal and
ferocious head-snapping checks and the vicious bare-knuckle fist fights that occur on the ice.
305. The NHL's approach to player safety can correctly be called, at best, cavalier,
at worst, as the NHL supports and promotes a highly profit-

and, non-existent, calculated,
driven philosophy, spearheaded by the promotion of the NHL's hyper-aggressive,
unnecessarily violent style of play that leads directly to players suffering traumatic brain
injuries.
306. The NHL has expressly and regularly acknowledged that it has capitalized on
extreme violence, including fighting.
307. In the 1974 McMurtry Report, discussed above, then NHL President Clarence
Campbell expressly acknowledged that the NHL's business is to increase support at the box
office through whatever means necessary:
[I]t is the business of conducting the sport in a manner that will induce or be
conducive to the support of it at the box office . . . . Show business, we are in
the entertainment business and that can never be ignored. We must put on a
spectacle that will attract people.
308. According to the McMurtry Report, McMurtry and Campbell had the
following conversation regarding the type of pressure facing players to fight:
McMurtry: And right now it is extremely difficult for the player who is being
provoked and being pushed to turn his back and appear to be running....
* * *
McMurtry: To have the sanction there of being embarrassed and ridiculed
and to be discussed among your peers and your coach and many millions of
fans, that is not one of the most difficult decisions in the world for a person, to
turn his back and not fight?
- 77 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
Campbell: I didn't say it wasn't difficult. I said it is an alternative.
McMurtry: Then if you will agree it is a very difficult alternative, it is
apparently what you call the free alternative.
Campbell: All right.
McMurtry: There is incredible pressure and duress on that player not to turn
his back-is that not true?
Campbell: I don't think it is as great as you say, but it is real.
McMurtry: There is a real pressure and duress on that player to stand his
ground and to fight?
Campbell: I think so, yes, yes.
309. In 1988, The Miami Herald quoted then NHL President John Ziegler
("Ziegler") as stating, "Violence will always be with us in hockey . . . . Anytime you get a
violence."
situation of high anxiety and frustration in any walk of life, you get
310. In a 1989 interview with The Wall Street Journal, Ziegler went on to explain
why he would not put an end to fighting in the NHL:
If you did that, you wouldn't be commissioner for long . . . . The view of the
21 people who own the teams, and employ me, is that fighting is an acceptable
outlet for the emotions that build up during play. Until they agree otherwise,
it's here to stay . . . . The main question about fighting is, "Does the
it?"
customer accept The answer, at present, seems to be yes.
311. In a 2007 press conference, current NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman
explained that "[W]e're not looking to have a debate on whether fighting is good or bad or
game."
should be part of the and continued "[ff ighting hasalways had a role in the game . .
312. In 2011, Commissioner Bettman highlighted fan support as a reason why
fighting and other extreme violence persists in NHL hockey: "Our fans tell us that they like
- 78 -
83 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
the level of physicality in our game, and for some people it's an issue but it's not as big an
is."
issue in terms of fans and people in the game to the extent that other people suggest it
"thermostat"
313. In 2013, Commissioner Bettman called fighting in NHL hockey a
that helps cool things down when tensions run high.
314. In August 2013, 66% of the delegates at the Canadian Medical Association's
complacency"
annual meeting voted to "condemn the of the NHL in regards to violence in
hockey. CMA president and injury-prevention expert Louis Francescutti commented: "What
we want to do is make it crystal clear that violence must be addressed . . . purposely hurting
hockey."
someone is not part of the game of
315. The NHL regularly continues to feature violent hits and fights in commercials
for the game, and other advertising, and features such violence prominently on its website.
website"
For example, in 2012, the NHL gave "feature billing on the league's to a video of
an infamous brawl in Madison Square Garden involving six experienced fighters fighting at
once. According to an article from the Canadian Press the NHL gave "no fines or
suspensions"
to those involved.
316. For instance, the NHL promotes the HBO Documentary, Broad Street Bullies,
on its Philadelphia Flyers affiliated website. The trailer for the film, viewable on
www.flyers.nhl.com, features clip after clip of fighting and violent head shots, accompanied
"intimidation"
by voice-over testimonials extolling the virtues of winning through over
talent.
317. The NHL's philosophy regarding brutality and violence is also exemplified by
NHL Original Products-an agent and instrumentality of the NHL devoted to producing
- 79 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
promotional films for the NHL. NHL Original Products has created numerous features that
focus on the hardest-hits that take place on the ice, further advancing the NHL's culture of
violence as entertainment.
"hits" "fights"
318. A simple search of either or on www.nhlfilmsarchive.com
reveals numerous highlights and compilations of the violent hits and fights that have taken
place in the NHL over the years. Whether affiliated with the NHL or not,
nhlfilmsarchive.com exists, and the NHL allows its intellectual property to be used and its
violent footage to be featured.
319. In addition, if a person were to visit www.nhl.com during the regular season
they would see enforcers and fisticuffs in the main news story rotation on a nightly basis.
320. The NHL Network produces a weekly program segment called "Top 10 Hits of
Week."
the Those clips are archived for viewing on the nhl.com website.
321. Individual teams also show in-game replays of violent hits, with the marquee
Game"
"Hit of the above the jumbo television screens.
322. NHL Films, an agent and instrumentality of the NHL devoted to producing
promotional films, has created numerous highlight features that focus solely on the hardest
hits that take place on the ice. These featured videos are marketed and sold to advance the
NHL's culture of violence as entertainment.
323. In addition, NHL-sponsored video games include fighting and vicious body
checking. Video game players can even add virtual enforcers to their team rosters. For
example, the NHL licensed EA Sports to produce NHL 14, released on September 10, 2013
Engine."
and which featured a completely re-vamped fighting system called the "Enforcer
- 80 -
85 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
Those new features included: (a) enforcers coming to the aid of downed superstars and
targeting"
initiating fights; (b) "physics-based punch that make blows more realistic; and (c)
real-time facial damage such that bruising and black eyes remain throughout the game.
324. NHL 14 producer Sean Ramjagsingh told the Canadian Press in an interview:
"it was all about capturing the big hits, real fights and unbelievable speed and skill of
hockey."
Ramjagsingh said: "When I look back at NHL 13, I feel like we fell short a little
it."
bit on the aggression piece of
325. Most recently, the NHL's view on violence in hockey took center stage during
the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on concussions in
sports. Specifically, during the hearing on March 13, 2014, NHL Deputy Commissioner
game,"
Daly testified that "fighting remains a small part of our stating:
[O]ur fans-who continue to attend our games in new record numbers almost
every year (at least 20 million in attendance in every full season since the turn
of the century)-want [the game] to be physical.
326. According to Deputy Commissioner Daly:
The role of fighting continues to be a hot topic in our game and one which
engenders a broad spectrum of opinions and debate. As a League, we continue

to search for a consensus as to how best to serve the interests of all constituent
groups in the game on the issue-including our fans, our teams, and our
Players. To this point, that consensus has proved elusive, including with and
as among our Players.
327. As demonstrated above, for nearly a century, the NHL has failed to supply its
players with full, accurate information about the risks of head trauma because it has
continued to profit handsomely from its culture of violence, notwithstanding the brain
injuries inflicted on NHL players. Through its savvy media outlets, the NHL is able to
promote the most violent aspects of the NHL and urge players at every level of the game to
- 81 -
86 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
remain uninformed about the true risks of violent head impacts. The NHL has created a
"toughest" - -
culture in which the players are glorified and maintain job security for their
ability to dish out and endure severe violence on the ice.
328. Moreover, when players did report violent head impacts that rendered them
unable to play, the NHL punished them by demoting them to the minors, which resulted in
pay cuts. Due to these retributory actions, the NHL created an environment for its players
where they felt forced to continue playing after suffering serious injuries, or risk losing their
roster spot on an NHL team.
329. Within this culture, the NHL purposefully profits from the brutality and
violence it promotes. This attitude has existed for decades and continues to the present day,
"toughness"
with players lauded for their body checking, fighting skills, and for playing
through concussions.
C. Despite Its Knowledge the NHL Downplayed the Risks of Head

Trauma
330. At all relevant times, the NHL's unique historical vantage point at the apex of
the sport of hockey, paired with its unmatched resources as the most well-funded
organization devoted to the business of the game, has afforded it unparalleled access to data
relating the effect of head impacts on its players and made it an institutional repository of
accumulated knowledge about head injuries to players. As set forth above, the NHL has
trumpeted its role in educating players on these issues and taking care of their safety.
331. From its inception, the NHL unilaterally assumed the role of protecting players
and informing players of safety concerns. From the beginning, the NHL held itself out and
players'
acted as the guardian of the best interests on health and safety issues.
- 82 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
332. However, the NHL has made, and continues to make, many statements
inaccurately downplaying the risks of head trauma and fighting, and denying the need for
reform to decrease those risks. Not onlyhasthe NHL concealed facts about concussions, but
it has also downplayed the head and brain injury risks of the violent aspects of the game,
including fist fighting.
333. For example, in response to proposed legislation in 1980 to curb violence in
professional supports (The Sports Violence Act of 1980), then-NHL president Zeigler was
quoted by a Canadian media outlet as stating at a subcommittee hearing that "under the
present laws in the United States and in the provinces of Canada, people charged with
job."
refereeing the sports seem to have done a responsible Ziegler was also quoted as
interfere."
stating that the NHL "didn't need the federal Government to
334. And in a 2007 press conference, Commissioner Bettman acknowledged that the
topic of fighting is "something we need to lookat"butcallouslyunderscoredthat"[flighting
game"
has always had a role in the and "we're not looking to have a debate on whether
game."
fighting is good or bad or should be part of the The comments were in response to
a series of fighting incidents, including one on March 21, 2007, when Colton Orr of the New
York Rangers fought with Todd Fedoruk of the Philadelphia Flyersandendedupknocking
Fedorukunconscious.
335. Indeed, as late as 2011, Commissioner Bettman said of fighting: "Maybe it is
[dangerous] and maybe it's not. You don't know that for a fact and it's something we
continuetomonitor."
Bettman said it is premature to draw a connection between fighting in
hockey and CTE. The remarks were made in response to questions about the deaths of three
- 83 -
88 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
former NHL players in 2011 who were prominent fighters, and a New York Times article
discussing the link between fighting and CTE. Bettman said he thought "in this whole area
rumors."
there is probably entirely too much speculation and He then defended the inclusion
of fighting in hockey for profit's sake, saying "[o]ur fans tell us that they like the level of
game."
physicality in our He further explained "people need to take a deep breath and not
overreact" yet."
and not "over-conclude when the data isn't there
VII. WHILE PROMOTING A CULTURE OF VIOLENCE BY WHICH IT
PROFITS AND DOWNPLAYING RISKS, THE NHL

VOLUNTARILY UNDERTOOK A DUTY OF CARE TO ITS
PLAYERS
336. For decades, the NHL undertook and repeatedly confirmed a duty of care to its
players, rooted in the NHL's knowledge that the NHL had vastly superior managerial,
medical, legal and other resources to gather, analyze and understand concussion and head
injury data than the Plaintiff players did.
337. The NHL's duty of care to the players was also rooted in the NHL's vastly
superior ability to gather, analyze and understand the correlation between, for example, the
speed of playing surfaces, board and glass configurations, turnbuckle locations, playing rules
and enforcement of rules, distances between lines, distances between goal lines and end
boards, size and player position, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the frequency,
severity and duration of concussions and other head injuries.
338. With its pronouncements about player safety in general, and concussions and
head injuries in particular, the NHL confirmed to the players the NHL was undertaking to
protect them, to take all reasonable steps to maximize their safety.
- 84 -
89 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
339. As a result, the players, medically untrained and often not exposed to post high
school education, reasonably relied on what the NHL said and did not say to players about
concussions and other head injuries.
340. The NHL always knew that the players lacked the injury data that the NHL
receives from every team after every game.
341. The NHL always knew that the players lacked specialized medical, statistical
and other - which the League did have - to analyze and understand
training necessary
correlations between concussion and head injury causal factors and the frequency, severity
and duration of resulting concussions and head injuries.
342. The NHL knew that players, by upbringing, by training in organized hockey
from mites to major juniors, from high school to college, from minor professional leagues to
the NHL, trusted and relied on League personnel, and League-approved medical personnel,
trainers and to provide them with information important to their health and well-
coaches,
being.
343. The individual-last culture of not well-

team-first, hockey players, only
documented but extremely well-known, constantly discussed in the media, rendered the
Plaintiffs especially susceptible to trusting and uncritical reliance on the NHL's statements
and silences about concussions, MTBI, and other brain injuries.
344. In a number of ways the NHL communicated to the players that they were not
at risk of long-term brain and neurodegenerative injury from concussions and other brain
injuries. These include, for example:
- 85 -
90 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
(a) promoting fighting, especially staged fights, of the sort engaged in by Derek
Wade Rick and Bob Probert - all now all of

Boogaard, Belak, Rypien, dead,
whom had degenerative brain disease;
(b) having players continue their careers even after inflicting career-ending
concussive damage to competitors, such as the one Vancouver's Todd
Bertuzzi did to Colorado's Steve Moore on March 8, 2004;
(c) calibrating player discipline for head hits to the existence and severity of
resulting injury, as the NHL's former Vice President for Player Safety,
Brendan Shanahan admitted doing;
(d) returning players to play in games in which they had been concussed, even
knocked cold, as Gilles Gratton did in a game against the Boston Bruins in the
1976-1977;
(e) returning players to play after concussive and subconcussive impacts without
any medical evaluation or subsequent waiting period;
(f) by never warning the players that they might be developing CTE and should
be checked for symptoms to ensure that they understood that continued
playing might expose them to irreversible brain damage and neurocognitive
impairment;
(g) by never warning the players that studies of football players and boxers, and
others, of the sort described herein, were applicable to NHL players;
(h) by avoiding any proper study of concussions and other head injuries and
developing rules and protocols for disclosing risks and minimizing their
occurrence.
345. The NHL assumed the duty to make the game of professional hockey safer for
the players and to keep the players informed of safety information, particularly about
concussions and brain injuries, that players needed to know. The NHL has admitted that it
"always"
has assumed the duty to care for player safety. Deputy Commissioner Daly has
publicly stated, "[The NHL is] completely satisfied with the responsible manner in which the
players'
league and the association have managed player safety over time, including with
respect to head injuries and concussions. . . . This is something that we have always
important."
treated as important and will continue to treat as
- 86 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
346. Likewise, David Poile, General Manager of the Nashville Predators has
commented "It's the game of hockey, it's going to be physical. As the caretakers we're
going to do everything possible to make it as safe as possible, but there are still going to be
injuries."
347. The NHL has far greater ability than individual players, and uses that ability, to
collect and analyze concussion and head data -

injury cause, effect, type, severity, location,
and other specific factors - treatment options and related information.
348. The NHL has long recognized its much greater ability to collect, analyze and
disseminate the results of concussion and head injury data for purposes of player protection.
As NHL Executive Vice President Colin Campbell said, discussing concussions: "It's
about."
something that we're concerned about, always have been concerned
349. The NHL has long recognized its power to reduce concussions and head
injuries through its power to fine and suspend players. "The league has told players they will
be subject to fines and suspension for hits deemed dangerous during post-game video
reviews."
350. Receiving injury reports from NHL member teams and communicating with
NHL member teams, seeing press reports and team press releases about injuries, the NHL
knew or should have known the reported rate of concussions in the NHL for every year of
the class period.
351. However, with its personnel frequenting NHL team locker rooms, its numerous
meetings with players both in and outside of the season, in disciplinary and informational
settings, its ready access to team personnel, including team doctors and trainers, and its
- 87 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
supervision and control of the NHL disciplinary program through the NHL Office of Player
Safety, staffed by NHL personnel, including, most recently, Brendan Shanahan and Stephane
Quintal, the NHL knew, or should have known, that, as stated by Dr. Karen Johnston,
director of the Concussion Clinic at Toronto Rehabilitation Institute and who has "treated a
number of NHL players with concussions: 'No matter what the numbers [of] concussions
are in the newspaper, they're much larger than what's reported....Concussions are vastly
underreported.'"
352. For decades, the NHL's players and their families reasonably relied on, and
looked to, Defendant, which had publicly undertaken to promote player health and safety, for
guidance on these issues and to intervene in matters of player safety, to recognize issues of
player safety, and to be truthful on the issue of player safety.
353. Since its inception, the NHL received and paid for advice from medical
consultants regarding health risks associated with playing hockey, including the health risks
associated with concussive and subconcussive impacts. Such ongoing medical advice and
knowledge placed the NHL in a position of superior knowledge to the players.
354. Combined with Defendant's heavy influence over the game, Defendant at all
relevant times was in a position to influence and dictate how the game would be played and
to define the risks to which players would be exposed.
355. As a result, Defendant assumed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs, to avoid
conduct detrimental to the health and safety of NHL players, to provide truthful and
complete information to NHL players regarding risks to their health, and to take all
reasonable steps necessary to ensure the safety of players.
- 88 -
93 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
356. Despite their voluntarily assumed duty of care and power to govern player
conduct on and off the ice, the NHL for decades ignored, turned a blind eye to, and actively
concealed, the risks to players of repetitive subconcussive and concussive impacts, which
rung"
can and do result in players being knocked unconscious or having "their bell so that
they are in a conscious but disoriented state.
VIII. INSTEAD OF PROTECTING ITS PLAYERS, THE NHL SAT ON

THE BENCH FOR ANOTHER 14 YEARS WHILE THE EVIDENCE
KEPT MOUNTING
A. The Concussion Program Report Produced Nothing Until 2011
357. Rather than exercise reasonable care in fulfilling its voluntarily assumed duty
of care to its players, the NHL pursued a long-running course of fraudulent and negligent
conduct to maintain and improve its economic advantage, which included failing to make
any statements of substance about concussions, MTBI, and other brain injuries.
358. During the seven years of the Concussion Program report's 1997-2004 data
gathering, and the seven years after that before the report was finally published in May of
2011, the NHL never disclaimed, directly or indirectly, the duty of care it had historically
and continuously adopted toward its players.
359. The NHL's seven year silence from 1997-2004 about concussions and the
Concussion Program's data, and the NHL's seven year delay, until 2011, in publishing the
Program's results - which boiled down to "we need more information"- furtherjustified the
Plaintiffs in relying on the NHL. If the League had any information that players were at risk
of developing brain deficits and neurodegenerative conditions, the existence of the study
confirmed for players that the League would tell them if any information was important.
- 89 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
360. All of the Plaintiffs relied on the NHL for information about concussions, other
brain injuries, and the short and long term risks of both, including information about when
returning to play was safe and when it was not.
361. Delaying for some seven years the publication of a report from the Concussion
Program that did not mention MTBI and was designed to ignore accepted and valid
neuroscience regarding the connection between repetitive traumatic concussive events,
subconcussive events, or brain injuries, and degenerative brain disease such as CTE, only
confirmed and reinforced a climate of silence by which the NHL implied, and Plaintiffs
reasonably relied on the implication, that truthful and accepted neuroscience on the subject
was inconclusive and subject to doubt.
362. The NHL's supreme status in the hockey world of hockey imbued its silence
on the issue with a unique authoritativeness and as a highly reliable source of information to
players. Plaintiffs therefore reasonably relied on the NHL's silence on this vital health issue
as an indication that concussions were either not dangerous or were less dangerous than they
in fact are.
363. To date, the Concussion Program has taken no public position on the long-term
effects of concussions. The NHL continues to respond to inquiries on the subject by saying
that further research is required.
364. Putting aside the fact that NHL players were not informed of any of the
findings from the 2011, the report still did nothing to educate players on the devastating
impact of repeated head trauma, and, notwithstanding bodies of medical literature, that more
study was still needed.
- 90 -
95 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
B. Between 1997 and 2011, the Concussions Just Kept Coming
365. Between the time the NHL began its Concussion Program in 1997 and
published its report in 2011, the NHL experienced increasingly devastating and highly
publicized, career-ending concussions in its players.
366. Both before and after the beginning of the NHL's Concussion Program in
1997, the NHL knew that fighting and concussions in the NHL were serious risks that could
result in life altering consequences. However, at least through 2011 and beyond, the NHL
continued to withhold and suppress important and relevant information from its players, and
the health and careers of the NHL's best players continued to be destroyed.
367. Furthermore, while members of the NHL Concussion Study attended four
conferences, the International Symposia on Concussions in Sport between 2001 and 2012,
where the dangers of brain trauma in hockey and other sports were discussed and experts
made recommendations to help reduce the risk of brain trauma, the NHL did not disclose to
its players what it learned at the conferences and did not follow the medical expert advice.
368. After the Concussion Program began in 1997, the NHL continued to engage in
a course of fraudulent and negligent conduct, which included failing to make any statements
of substance on the issues of concussions and post-concussion syndrome in NHL players or
any kind of brain trauma relevant to the sport of hockey, all the while claiming to need more
data.
369. The 2011 report generated by the Concussion Program, 14 years after its
inception and seven years after the study was complete, simply concluded that the
Concussion Study's "results suggest that more should be done to educate all involved with
- 91 -
96 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
the sport about the potential adverse effects associated with continuing to play while
concussion."
any suspected
370. While the 2011 report included certain basic safety information that should
have been disclosed much earlier to players and others, there was much left out of the report.
The Concussion Program report: (a) ignored the accepted and valid scientific research and
studies regarding the connection between repetitive traumatic concussive events,
subconcussive events or brain injuries, and degenerative brain disease such as CTE; and (b)
solidified the NHL's silence on the issue, which implied that truthful and accepted
neuroscience on the subject was inconclusive and subject to doubt.
371. Notably, the 2011 report did not take a position on the long-term effects of
concussions, and did not provide any specific recommendations as to return to play
guidelines. Nor did the report include any analysis of the causes of concussions, such as
fighting and equipment.
IX. NHL PLAYERS STILL FACE A RISK OF HEAD TRAUMA AND

DEVASTATING LONG-TERM EFFECTS
A. The NHL Has Insufficiently and Ineffectively Protected Its
Players
372. On March 16, 2011, the NHL changed its concussion protocols to require an
bench"
"off the ice and examination by a doctor, rather than a trainer. Previously, trainers
performed these examinations on the bench or on the ice in the arena. The NHL changed its
concussion protocols to require an examination off the ice and bench, in a location referred
room," -
to as a "quiet by a doctor but this examining doctor need not be a neurosurgeon.
- 92 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
Under the guidance, an affected player could return to the ice if he was symptom free,
returned to his brain baseline and passed the SCAT2 test. This was so, despite the fact that
the general medical standard for return from concussion had been set as early as 2001, and
out" -
by the Prague convention in 2004, as "when in doubt, sit them a mandate to prevent a
concussed player from returning to a game.
373. Also in 2011, the NHL created a Department of Player Safety to look at rules
players'
that can better protect players. The Department focuses on safety issues related to
equipment and the playing environment and administers supplemental player discipline.
374. Following a number of incidents, on July 23, 2013, the NHL finally changed
its concussion protocols to require that a concussed player not return to the same game in
which the concussion occurred.
375. To date, the NHL does not require a neurosurgeon to be available at its games.
376. Many experts agree that the number of NHL concussions are still significantly
under-reported.
B. The NHL Still Promotes Fighting and Violence
377. The NHL's continuing callous indifference to the risks of concussions is
exemplified in its reaction to the Max Pacioretty incident.
378. In March 2011, Max Pacioretty was hospitalized with a severe concussion and
fractured vertebra after the Montreal forward was slammed into a stanchion holding the glass
at the Bell Centre in Montreal on a vicious hit by Zdeno Chara of the Boston Bruins, the
League's biggest player.
- 93 -
98 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
379. Pacioretty's team, the Montreal Canadiens, criticized the NHL's decision not
blow"
to suspend Chara, calling the decision "a hard and expressing "frustration,
shock" "urgency"
disappointment and over the issue. The NHL team stressed the of
addressing head injuries and player safety in hockey:
players'
Our organization believes that the safety in hockey has become a
major concern, and that this situation has reached a point of urgency. At risk
are some of the greatest professional athletes in the world, our fan base and the
Players'
health of our sport at all levels. safety in hockey must become the
ultimate priority and the situation must be addressed immediately.
380. The NHL was defiant and dismissive of the deep concern shared by the
Canadian government, NHL's sponsors, NHL players, and an NHL franchise. Commissioner
Bettman, testifying at a Congressional hearing later that week and discussing it afterward,
comfortable"
boasted that the NHL was "extraordinarily with its decision not to suspend the
offending player, taking the incongruous position that further discipline would not deter
future vicious hits: "It was a horrific injury, we're sorry that it happened in our fast-paced
physical game, but I don't think whether or not supplemental discipline was imposed would
happened."
change what
381. In response to calls in congress to legislate stricter protections for players after
the horrific injury to Max Pacioretty in 2011, Commissioner Bettman flatly said there is no
"over-legislate"
need to head hits. While Bettman acknowledged that concussions were on
events"
the rise, he inaccurately tried to explain this away as the result of "accident and "not
hits."
from head In fact, a recent study showed that only 4.9% of concussions during this
time period were the result of unintentional contact.
- 94 -
99 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
C. The NHL Has No Good Excuse for Its Failure to Act, Which Has
Harmed Its Players
382. In 2008, Boston University's Dr. Ann McKee (who performed the Reg
Fleming autopsy in 2010) stated that "the easiest way to decrease the incidence of CTE [in
concussions."
contact sport athletes] is to decrease the number of Dr. McKee further noted
that "[t]here is overwhelming evidence that [CTE] is the result of repeated sublethal brain
trauma."
383. Why the NHL (and its Concussion Program) failed to share material
information and take appropriate actions can be chalked up at worst to intentional
wrongdoing and at best to negligence, since the NHL has known or should have known for
decades that multiple blows to the head can lead to long-term brain injury, including memory
loss, depression, dementia, and other severe symptoms and illnesses. The NHL knew or
should have known its players were retiring and dying due to concussions and subconcussive
impacts. Fist fighting does not just hurt the players involved in the fight. It also creates a
code of silence with respect to brain injuries. The obvious expectation is that any player who
is struck in the head should be tough enough to stay in the game regardless how hard he is
hit.
384. Notably, 64.2% of the reported, diagnosed concussions in a July 2013 report by
Dr. Michael Cusimano were caused by body checking. Only 28% of the reported
concussions in the report resulted in a called penalty. A legal body check to another player's
body can still result in the checked player's head hitting the ice, boards or glass, resulting in
a concussion.
- 95 -
NYSCEF DOC. CASE 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM
NO. 308 Document615 Filed 10/17/16 Page of 122
100 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
385. On August 21, 2013, 66% of the delegates at the Canadian Medical
Association meeting in Calgary voted to "condemn the complacency of the NHL in regards
hockey."
to violence in
386. The concussive and subconcussive impacts suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class
in their capacity as NHL players caused twisting, shearing, and stretching of neuronal cells,
and in turn caused the release of Tau protein, which accumulates in the brain over time, and
thus caused changes and damage within their brains on a cellular level. These present,
Plaintiffs'
cellular injuries have increased risk of further neurodegenerative disorders and
diseases, including but not limited to CTE, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, and similar
neurodegenerative conditions, beyond that level of risk observed in the average person.
D. Plaintiffs Have Suffered Damages and Require Medical
Monitoring
387. Plaintiffs and Class members assert on behalf of the Class that the NHL failed
to warn of - and concealed - the increased risk of neurodegenerative diseases

developing
and conditions, and the increased risk that such diseases and conditions would occur earlier
and with greater - with continued exposure to concussive and subconcussive

severity
impacts. Without this information, players had no reasonable ability to decide for
themselves whether it was safe to continue to play, whether in a particular practice or game,
or whether to stop playing in the NHL altogether.
388. By virtue of playing in the NHL, all retired players have sustained concussive
or subconcussive impacts. The speed and demanded NHL-style - in

physicality by play
practices and in games - results in players concussive

necessarily receiving impacts,
subconcussive impacts, or both, regardless of how long they worked for their teams. Such
- 96 -
NO. 308 Document615 Filed 10/17/16 Page 101 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
blows result in cellular and subcellular neurological injury. The unresolved accumulation of
such cellular and subcellular injuries places players at an increased risk of developing
neurodegenerative diseases and conditions that occur earlier, and with greater severity, than
they otherwise would.
389. This cellular and subcellular damage often does not result in any concurrent
symptoms. Thus, players had no reason to suspect or investigate their cellular and
subcellular injury until very recently, when news about the root causes of neurodegenerative
diseases and conditions in professional athletes became widespread.
players'
390. The NHL's failure to warn was a substantial factor contributing to
cellular and subcellular injuries. As alleged above, the literature reveals the devastating
impact continued play has on a player, not only in the immediate aftermath of returning too
soon after an obvious concussion, but also by virtue of mere subconcussive impacts
occurring moment to moment during every day, physical NHL-style play. Had players
known the would have had the to make -

truth, they opportunity informed, properly safety
conscious decisions regarding their participation level or even career horizons. The NHL
deprived them of those opportunities. Now that the cellular and subcellular damage is done,
the League owes its players - at the least - medical that could prevent or at
very screening
least ameliorate the more devastating aspects of neurodegenerative diseases and conditions.
391. Medical monitoring would provide immense relief to retired players. Even
when neurodegenerative diseases and conditions are timely diagnosed and the patient is
fortunate enough to be in a supportive environment, the diseases have a profound impact on
patients and their families. However, as seen repeatedly in some of the best known cases of
- 97 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
former athletes, neurodegenerative diseases and conditions, left undiagnosed, can lead to
severe consequences, including debilitating depression, the breakdown of family and
employment relationships, and suicide, not to mention the devastating physical impact of the
diseases.
392. Early detection and diagnosis is essential to place former players and their
families in the best position to prepare to deal with the onset of difficult symptoms.
Resources exist for patients and families dealing with neurodegenerative diseases or
conditions - resources that not assist with the physical challenges of but
only daily living,
also provide treatment and therapy to address difficult mood and personality changes. Early
detection is imperative to help patients navigate some pitfalls of an otherwise unexplained
onset of emotional, cognitive, and physical challenges.
393. Finally, former players will benefit from data recorded from the medical
monitoring program itself. Such data should be used to conduct an epidemiological study to
measure, in part, the severity of the impact on the patient cohort, providing further
information that would assist in predicting the probability of developing neurodegenerative
diseases or conditions by yet-undiagnosed class members.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
394. Plaintiffs bring their actions on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of all
Retired NHL Hockey Players and their Representative Claimants (the "Class"). Plaintiffs
LaCouture, Nicholls, Christian, and Larson, further bring their action on their own behalf
and on behalf of the following subclass, referred to herein as Subclass 1:
- 98 -
103 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
All living Class members who have not been clinically diagnosed with a
Neurological Disease, Disorder, or Condition.
395. Plaintiffs Leeman and the Estate of Lawrence Zeidel further bring their action
on their own behalf and on behalf of the following subclass, referred to herein as Subclass 2:
All Class members who have been clinically diagnosed with a Neurological
Disease, Disorder, or Condition.
"Subclasses."
396. Subclass 1 and Subclass 2 are collectively referred to as, the
Players"
397. As used in the Class definition, "Retired NHL Hockey means NHL
hockey players who retired from playing professional hockey with the NHL or any Member
Club or affiliate, or who were under contract with or on any roster, including preseason,
regular season, or postseason, of any such Member Club or affiliate, and who no longer are
under contract to a Member Club or affiliate and are not seeking active employment as
players with any Member Club or affiliate.
Claimants"
398. As used in the Class definition, "Representative means Retired
Players'
NHL Hockey respective executors or equivalent legal representatives under
applicable state law.
Condition"
399. As used in the Class definition, "Neurological Disease, Disorder, or
is defined as ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, CTE, Frontotemporal Dementia, Lewy Body
Dementia, Parkinson's Dementia, or other neurodegenerative disease or conditions, as well
as any cognitive, mood, or behavioral conditions where such conditions arose after
retirement from the NHL.
- 99 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
400. This action is properly maintainable as a class action under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
401. The Class, while readily ascertainable, is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, there are thousands of members of
the proposed Class throughout the United States, Canada, and elsewhere around the world.
402. There are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class. The
common questions, which are each separate issues that should be certified for classwide
resolution pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4), include, inter alia, the following:
(a) whether the NHL owed a duty of care to the Class;
(b) whether the NHL's duty of care to the Class included the duty to warn the
Class of and protect the Class from the long-term health risks and
consequences of concussive and subconcussive impacts;
(c) whether the NHL breached its duty to warn the Class of and protect the Class
from the long-term health risks and consequences of repeated concussive or
subconcussive impacts;
(d) whether concussive and subconcussive impacts experienced in NHL hockey

cause the injuries claimed herein;
(e) whether concussive and subconcussive impacts result in cellular and
subcellular neurological injury;
(f) whether NHL-style play results in an increased level of cellular and
subcellular neurological injury that increases the risk of developing

neurodegenerative diseases and conditions compared to that observed in the
general population;
(g) whether medical monitoring and early detection will provide benefits to
members of the Class;
(h) whether an epidemiological study using data from the medical monitoring
cohort will benefit members of the Class;
(i) whether the NHL should be required to pay for the increased health care costs,
and loss of earnings, and lost enjoyment of life costs for Subclass 2.
- 100 -
NO. 308 Document 615 Filed 10/17/16 Page of 122
105 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
Plaintiffs'
403. claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class
and Plaintiffs do not have any interests adverse to the Class. Each of the Plaintiffs suffered
one or more concussions and subconcussive impacts while playing in the NHL, did not
receive proper treatment, are presently injured at the cellular and subcellular level, and are at
an increased risk for developing one of more neurodegenerative diseases or conditions.
404. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class, have retained competent
counsel experienced in litigation of this nature and will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the Class.
405. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would
create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of
the Class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing
the Class.
406. Plaintiffs anticipate that there will be no difficulty in the management of this
litigation. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy.
407. The NHL's acts and omissions are generally applicable to the Class with
respect to the matters complained of herein, thereby making appropriate the relief sought
herein with respect to the Class as a whole.
408. In addition, certification of specific issues such as Defendant's liability is
appropriate.
- 101 -
106 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
BASES FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
Action for Relief -

Declaratory Liability
409. Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
410. There is an active case and controversy among Plaintiffs and the Class on the
one hand, and the NHL on the other.
411. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201, Plaintiffs seek a declaration as to the following:
a. That the NHL knew or reasonably should have known, at all material times,
that the repeated concussive or subconcussive impacts that the Plaintiffs and
members of the Class endured while playing hockey in the NHL likely put
them at substantially-increased risks of developing one or more
neurodegenerative diseases or conditions, including, but not limited to,
dementia, ALS, CTE, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease, and any
cognitive, mood, or behavioral conditions resulting from of any of them;
b. That, based on the NHL's conduct, inter alia, voluntary undertaking to study
the issues of concussions and head trauma and assuming a duty to protect the
health and safety of the players, the NHL had a duty to advise Plaintiffs and
members of the Class of the probability of this heightened risk;
c. That the NHL willfully and intentionally concealed material information from,
and misled Plaintiffs and the Class concerning the probability of that risk; and
d. That the NHL recklessly endangered Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
412. Plaintiffs and the Class are at an increased risk of developing, or have already
developed, neurodegenerative diseases or conditions including, but not limited, to dementia,
ALS, CTE, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease, and their debilitating symptoms,
as well as any cognitive, mood, or behavioral conditions. As such, a declaratory judgment is
warranted to prevent future harm to Plaintiffs and the Class.
- 102 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
COUNT H
Medical Monitoring
413. Plaintiffs, except for the Estate of Lawrence Zeidel, reallege the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
414. During their respective NHL playing careers, Plaintiffs and the Class
experienced concussive impacts, subconcussive impacts, or a combination of them, with
greater frequency and severity than the general population of men of a similar age.
415. These repeated, traumatic, concussive and subconcussive impacts experienced
by Plaintiffs and the Class during their respective NHL careers are known and proven to be
hazardous because they caused an increased level of present cellular and subcellular injuries
that, in turn, increase the risk of developing one or more neurodegenerative diseases or
conditions, including but not limited to, dementia, Alzheimer's, CTE, ALS, Parkinson's
disease, as well as any cognitive, mood, or behavioral conditions. Each concussive or
subconcussive impact causes the death of brain cells and tissue, which leads to atrophy in the
medial temporal lobe, and results in a cellular injury.
416. Plaintiffs and the Class were exposed to a significant number of concussive
impacts, subconcussive impacts, or a combination of such impacts as a result of their
professional hockey careers. The general public does not experience this type of brain
trauma and subsequent atrophy of brain tissue absent extraordinary circumstances.
417. Defendant was fully aware of, yet concealed and failed to warn of the dangers
of exposing Plaintiffs and the Class to repeated concussive and subconcussive impacts and
the corresponding increased risks of developing neurodegenerative diseases or conditions.
To that end, brain injury and brain disease in NHL retirees is a latent disease that can appear
- 103 -
108 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
years or decades after the player experiences repeated subconcussive or concussive impacts
in his NHL career.
418. Defendant's fraudulent concealment, omissions of material fact, negligent
misrepresentations, and failure to warn, as to the risks of repeated concussive and
Plaintiffs' Class'
subconcussive impacts have caused and the present injuries, which have
increased the risks for members of the Class of developing, or have caused them to develop,
one or more neurodegenerative diseases or conditions and their sequelae, including
cognitive, mood, or behavioral conditions, after retirement.
419. Absent Defendant's negligence, fraud, breach of duties, misrepresentations, or
any combination of such acts, the concussive and subconcussive impacts to which Plaintiffs
and members of the Class were exposed, and the resulting risk to Plaintiffs and members of
the Class - that their brain tissue would - would have been
prematurely atrophy materially
lower or zero.
420. Serial testing of cognitive functioning for early signs or symptoms of
neurologic dysfunction and serial brain imaging for signs of injury or disease is medically
necessary to assure early diagnosis and effective treatment of brain disease.
421. Monitoring procedures exist that comport with contemporary scientific
principles and make possible early detection of the neurodegenerative diseases and
conditions that Plaintiffs and members of the Class are at increased risks of developing or
have developed. Such monitoring, which includes, but is not limited to, baseline and
diagnostic exams, will mitigate the injuries and enable treatment of and early therapeutic
- 104 -
109 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
interventions for the adverse consequences of the latent neurodegenerative conditions or
diseases when detected.
422. Such medical monitoring for latent brain disease is highly specialized and
different from the medical care that is normally recommended to other men of a similar age,
in the absence of a history of subconcussive impacts and concussions.
423. For sports, such as NHL hockey, in which repeated subconcussive and
concussive impacts have been common, proper concussion assessment and management is
paramount for preventing and mitigating long term consequences.
424. Defendant was fully aware of the danger of exposing its players to the
increased risk of future neurodegenerative injury. Yet Defendant encouraged them to play
with these injuries or to play prior to the time that such injuries could heal. Defendant also
failed to warn players about the risks of repeated subconcussive or concussive impacts,
whether fully healed or not. Defendant instead attempted to conceal the harmful effects of
these impacts from players. Furthermore, Defendant breached its duties of reasonable and
ordinary care to the Plaintiffs and members of the Class by failing to protect their physical
and mental health and failing to provide adequate information.
425. As a proximate result of Defendant's misconduct, Plaintiffs and the Class have
experienced cellular and subcellular neurological injuries to the extent they are at an
increased risk of developing serious, neurodegenerative diseases or conditions including, but
not limited to, CTE, dementia, ALS, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease, and any
debilitating cognitive, mood, or behavioral conditions from them.
- 105 -
110 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
426. As a direct result of the NHL's actions, Plaintiffs and the Class are in need of
the costly medical monitoring procedures described herein. Specifically, the monitoring
procedures are reasonably necessary according to contemporary scientific principles to
enable Plaintiffs and the Class to obtain early detection and diagnosis of the
neurodegenerative diseases or conditions that they are at increased risks of developing, or
have developed, as a result of Defendant's tortious conduct described herein.
427. Plaintiffs and the Class seek the creation and funding of a Court-supervised,
NHL-funded medical monitoring regime, which will provide for medical testing to detect
neurocognitive impairment and other symptomology, to provide for early diagnoses of
specific neurodegenerative diseases, or any combination of such results. Under the program,
a diagnosis of one specific neurodegenerative disease in the course of the medical monitoring
program does not foreclose continued medical monitoring for other, yet undiagnosed,
neurodegenerative diseases, but rather indicates further testing for other diseases within the
program. Medical monitoring will identify the need for adequate treatment, management,
and rehabilitation in the event a neurodegenerative disease or condition is diagnosed. If a
neurodegenerative disease or condition is diagnosed, the patient will be referred for medical
management to qualified medical personnel for treatment outside the medical monitoring
program for that specific neurodegenerative disease.
428. Plaintiffs and the Class have no adequate remedy at law in that monetary
damages alone cannot compensate them for their injuries and the risks of long-term physical
and economic losses due to concussions and subconcussive injuries. Without a Court-
approved medical monitoring program as described herein, Plaintiffs and the Class will
- 106 -
NO. 308 Document 615 Filed 10/17/16 Page 111 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
continue to face an unreasonable risk of injury, disability, and harm. Furthermore, as part of
their medical monitoring relief, Plaintiffs and the Class seek to have the Court commission
an epidemiological study, using data from the cohort screened in the course of the medical
monitoring program. The study would benefit the Class, but could not occur through
monetary compensation alone. Monetary relief would not enable an individual player to
commission and conduct an epidemiological study, as such an endeavor requires the
participation of others through the Court-approved medical monitoring program.
429. Plaintiffs and the Class also seek all other available and necessary relief in
connection with this claim.
COUNT m
Negligence
431. The NHL has historically and voluntarily assumed an independent tort duty of
reasonable care regarding player safety and head trauma. The NHL has admitted that it has
"always"
assumed the duty to manage player safety, particularly with regard to head injuries
and concussions. It was thus obligated to discharge this duty non-negligently.
432. Defendant also had a duty of reasonable care to act in the best interests of the
health and safety of NHL players; to provide truthful information to NHL players regarding
risks to their health; and to take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure the safety of players.
433. As part of this duty of reasonable care, the NHL was required to keep NHL
players informed of neurological risks of head injuries suffered while playing hockey in the
NHL, and not to omit material information about the risks of negative long term effects or
- 107 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
permanent neurological damage that can occur from head injuries incurred while playing
hockey.
434. The NHL breached that duty of reasonable care to its players by:
a. creating, fostering, and promoting a culture of extreme violence, including

head hits and violence from fighting, where brain trauma to Plaintiffs and
Retired NHL Hockey Players was a natural and common corollary;
b. failing to inform Plaintiffs and the Class about the scientific research on the
negative health effects of brain trauma and about anecdotal evidence from the
negative health effects of brain trauma from its own NHL players;
c. failing to wam players of the potential negative effects of brain injuries
suffered while playing in the NHL, including but not limited to, that they are
at an increased risk for developing one or more serious, neurodegenerative
diseases or conditions including, but not limited to, CTE, dementia, ALS,
Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease, and the debilitating symptoms
from each of them;
d. failing to adequately address the continuing health risks associated with
concussive events, subconcussive events, or brain injuries that the NHL

players sustained;
e. failing to make any statements of substance about concussions, MTBI or other
brain injuries;
f. turning a blind eye to the risks to players of repetitive subconcussive and
concussive impacts, and
g. avoiding any proper study of concussions and other brain injuries.
435. As a result of the NHL's breach of its duty of reasonable care, Plaintiffs and
the Class have suffered injury, including but not limited to long-term neurological damage,
and the serious symptoms from that as well as the risk of long-
resulting damage, developing
term neurological damage.
436. The NHL's failure to exercise reasonable care in the execution of its duties
proximately caused the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class.
- 108 -
113 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
437. As a direct and proximate result of the NHL's negligence, the NHL is liable to
Plaintiffs Leeman, the Estate of Lawrence Zeidel, and members of Subclass 2 for the full
measure of damages allowed under applicable law and, except for Representative Claimants,
for medical monitoring for undiagnosed neurological diseases, disorders, or conditions; and
is liable to Plaintiffs LaCouture, Nicholls, Christian, Larson, Leeman and all members of
Subclass 1 for medical monitoring.
COUNT IV
Negligent Misrepresentation by Omission
439. A special relationship exists between the NHL and the Plaintiffs and the Class
sufficient to impose a duty on the NHL to disclose accurate information to them. This duty
arose because: (1) the NHL had superior special knowledge of material medical information
that players did not have access to, and was not readily available to players; and (2) the NHL
communicated with players and the public, completely omitting material information about
the true risks of brain trauma, or providing partial or ambiguous statements regarding safety
and brain injuries, and the context of those communications shows that the NHL needed to
complete or clarify those statements with all material information.
440. Despite its knowledge of such material facts, and generally speaking about
concussions and brain injuries, the NHL negligently omitted to disclose material information
to its players regarding the link between brain injuries suffered while playing in the NHL and
the resulting negative neurological effects and conditions.
441. The NHL actively omitted true information at a time when they knew, or
should have known, because of their superior position of knowledge, that Plaintiffs and the
- 109 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
Class faced serious health problems if they returned to a game too soon after sustaining a
concussion.
442. Plaintiffs and the Class justifiably relied on the NHL's negligent
misrepresentations by omission to their detriment, relying on what the NHL said and failed
to say to players about concussions and other brain injuries.
Plaintiffs' Class'
443. and the reliance on the NHL's negligent misrepresentations
by omission was reasonable, given the NHL's superior and unique vantage point on these
issues.
444. Had Plaintiffs and the Class been aware of such information, they would have
ensured that they received appropriate medical treatment and ensured that they were
completely healthy and their brains had completely healed before returning to play.
445. The NHL failed to act with reasonable care by negligently omitting to disclose
material information to its players and former players regarding the link between
concussions and brain injury and resulting negative effects and cognition-impairing
conditions.
446. As a direct and proximate result of the NHL's negligent misrepresentation by
omission, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered or are at an increased risk of suffering
serious injuries, including, but not limited to, long-term neurological damage, and the serious
symptoms, disorders, and diseases resulting from that damage.
447. As a direct and proximate result of the NHL's negligence, the NHL is liable to
- 110 -
115 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
COUNT V
Fraudulent Concealment
449. The NHL knowingly and fraudulently concealed from Plaintiffs and the Class
material information regarding the risks of brain trauma suffered while playing in the NHL,
including, but not limited to, the link between concussive and subconcussive impacts and the
resulting negative neurological effects and conditions, including the increased risk of
developing one or more serious, latent, neurodegenerative diseases or conditions including,
but not limited to, CTE, dementia, ALS, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease, and
the debilitating symptoms from each of them, and that they should be checked for symptoms
to ensure that they understood that continued playing might expose them to irreversible brain
damage.
450. The NHL knew, intended to induce and expected that Plaintiffs and the Class
would reasonably rely on their silence and fraudulent concealment of the risks and long term
effects of brain injuries suffered while playing in the NHL.
451. Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably relied on that silence during and after their
careers, to their detriment.
452. The NHL's actions and omissions were committed, with deliberate or reckless
players'
disregard of the health and safety, in order to keep players in the dark about the
dangers of concussions, MTBI and other brain injuries.
- 111 -
116 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
453. Had Plaintiffs and the Class been aware of such information they would have
454. As a direct and proximate result of the NHL's fraudulent concealment,
Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered and continue to suffer serious injuries, including but
not limited to long-term neurological damage, and the serious symptoms resulting from that
damage, and the increased risk of developing one or more serious, latent, neurodegenerative
diseases or conditions including, but not limited to, CTE, dementia, ALS, Alzheimer's
disease, and Parkinson's disease, and the debilitating symptoms from each of them.
455. As a direct and proximate result of the NHL's misconduct, the NHL is liable to
COUNT VI
Fraud by Omission / Failure to Warn
457. The NHL had a duty to promptly disclose and speak the full truth regarding the
health risks caused by concussive and subconcussive impacts. This duty arose because: (1)
the NHL had superior special knowledge of material medical information that players did not
have access to, and was not readily available to players; and (2) the NHL communicated with
players and the public, completely omitting material information about the true risks of head
- 112 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
trauma, or providing partial or ambiguous statements regarding safety and brain injuries, and
the context of those communications shows that the NHL needed to complete or clarify those
statements with all material information.
458. The NHL breached that duty by fraudulently failing to disclose material
information to Plaintiffs and the Class regarding the likely risks of brain injuries suffered
while playing in the NHL, including, but not limited to, the link between concussive and
subconcussive impacts and the resulting negative neurological effects and conditions,
including the increased risk of developing one or more serious, latent, neurodegenerative
diseases or conditions including, but not limited to, CTE, dementia, ALS, Alzheimer's, and
Parkinson's and other neurodegenerative diseases, and the debilitating symptoms from each
of them, and that they should be checked for symptoms to ensure that they understood that
continued playing might expose them to irreversible brain damage.
459. Specifically, the NHL concealed material facts and information with the effect
of evading the truth, which caused Plaintiffs and the Class to become exposed to the harm
referenced above.
460. Plaintiffs and the Class justifiably relied on the NHL's fraudulent omissions to
their detriment.
461. Given the NHL's superior and special knowledge and resources, Plaintiffs and
the Class reasonably relied upon the NHL for guidance on concussions and other brain
injuries, and reasonably relied upon the NHL's fraudulent omissions of material fact, which
concealed and minimized the perceived risks of repetitive brain impacts that players suffered
while playing in the NHL.
- 113 -
118 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
462. Had Plaintiffs and the Class been aware of such information they would have
463. As a direct and proximate result of the NHL's fraud by omission and failure to
warn, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered and continue to suffer serious injuries, including,
but not limited, to long-term neurological damage, the serious symptoms resulting from that
damage, and the increased risk of developing one or more serious, latent, neurodegenerative
diseases or conditions including, but not limited to, CTE, dementia, ALS, Alzheimer's
disease, and Parkinson's disease, and the debilitating symptoms from each of them.
464. As a direct and proximate result of the NHL's misconduct, the NHL is liable to
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment with respect to their Second Amended
Class Action Complaint as follows:
1. Certifying the Class and Subclasses as defined herein;
2. Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, Plaintiffs LaCouture, Nicholls,
Christian, and Larson, as Subclass 1 Representatives, and Plaintiffs Leeman
and the Estate of Lawrence Zeidel as Subclass 2 Representatives, and their
undersigned counsel as Class Counsel;
- 114 -
119 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
3. With respect to Count I, granting the declaratory relief requested on behalf of
Plaintiffs and all members of the Class pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 against
Defendant;
4. With respect to Counts II-VI, granting medical monitoring to Plaintiffs
LaCouture, Nicholls, Leeman, Christian, Larson, and all members of the Class
except Representative Claimants;
5. With respect to Counts III through VI, granting Plaintiffs Leeman, the Estate
of Lawrence Zeidel, and members of Subclass 2 compensatory and all other
damages allowed pre- and post-judgment

by law, including interest;
6. With respect to all counts, awarding Plaintiffs their costs and disbursements in
attorneys'
this action, including reasonable fees, to the extent permitted by
law; and
7. With respect to all counts, granting Plaintiffs all other relief allowable at law
or equity.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: October 17, 2016
By: /s/ Charles S. Zimmerman By: /s/ Stuart A. Davidson
Charles S. Zimmerman (MN Lic. #0120054) Stuart A. Davidson (FL Bar #84824)
Brian C. Gudmundson (MN Lic. #0336695) Mark J. Dearman (FL Bar #982407)
David M. Cialkowski (MN Lic. #0306526) Kathleen B. Douglas (FL Bar #43240)
ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP Janine D. Arno (FL Bar #41045)
1100 IDS Center, 80 S 8th St. ROBB1NS GELLER RUDMAN
Minneapolis, MN 55402 & DOWD LLP
Telephone: (612) 341-0400 120 E Palmetto Park Road
charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com Boca Raton, FL 33432
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com Telephone: (561) 750-3000
david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
kdouglas@rgrdlaw.com
jarno@rgrdlaw.com
- 115 -
120 NYSCEF:
RECEIVED 11/08/2022
Hart Robinovitch (MN Lic. #0240515) By: /s/ Stephen G. Grygiel
ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP Steven D. Silverman (MD Bar #22887)

14646 North Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Stephen G. Grygiel (MD Bar #09169)
Scottsdale, AZ 85254 William Sinclair (MD Bar #28833)

Telephone: (480) 348-6400 SILVERMAN, THOMPSON,
hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com SLUTKIN & WHITE, LLC
201 N Charles Street, Suite 2600
Baltimore, MD 21201
Telephone: (410) 385-2225
ssilverman@mdattorney.com
sgrygiel@mdattorney.com
bsinclair@mdattorney.com
Plaintiffs'
Co-Lead Counsel
Lewis A. Remele (MN Lic. #0090724)
Jeffrey D. Klobucar (MN Lic. #0389368)

J. Scott Andresen (MN Lic. #0292953)
BASSFORD REMELE
33 S 6th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-3000
Iremele@bassford.com
jklobucar@bassford.com
sandresen@bassford.com
Plaintiffs'
Liaison Counsel
- 116 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
Michael R. Cashman (MN Lic. #206945) Jeffrey D. Bores (MN Lic. #0227699)
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC Bryan L. Bleichner (MN Lic. #0326689)
8050 West 78th Street CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
Edina, MN 55439 17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
Telephone: (952) 941-4005 Minneapolis, MN 55401
meashman@hjlawfirm.com Telephone: (612) 339-7300
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
Thomas Demetrio (ARDC #611506) Brian D. Penny (PA Bar #86805)

William T. Gibbs (ARDC #6282949) Mark S. Goldman (PA Bar #48049)
CORBOY & DEMETRIO GOLDMAN, SCARLATO
33 N Dearborn Street & PENNY PC
Chicago, IL 60602 101 E. Lancaster Ave., Suite 204
Telephone: (312) 346-3191 Wayne, PA 19087
tad@corboydemetrio.com Telephone: (484) 342-0700
wtg@corboydemetrio.com penny@gskplaw.com
goldman@gskplaw.com
Vincent J. Esades (MN Lic. #0249361) Thomas J. Byrne (CA Bar #179984)
James W. Anderson (MN Lic. #0337754) Mel Owens (CA Bar #226146)
HEINS MILLS & OLSON, PLC NAMANNY, BYRNE, & OWENS,
310 Clifton Ave. APC
Minneapolis, MN 55403 2 S. Pointe Dr.
Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Lake Forest, CA 92630
vesades@heinsmills.com Telephone: (949) 452-0700
janderson@heinsmills.com tbyrne@nbolaw.com
mowens@nbolaw.com
Daniel E. Gustafson Robert K. Shelquist (MN Lic. #21310X)

David A. Goodwin W. Joseph Bruckner (MN Lic. #147758)
Joshua J. Rissman Rebecca Peterson (MN Lic. #0392663)
GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 P.L.L.P.
Minneapolis, MN 55402 100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
Phone: (612) 333-8844 Minneapolis, MN 55401
Fax: (612) 339-6622 Telephone: (612) 339-6900
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com wjbruckner@locklaw.com
jrissman@gustafsongluek.com rapeterson@locklaw.com
- 117 -
RECEIVED of 122 11/08/2022
Shawn M. Raiter Charles J. LaDuca
LARSON KING, LLP CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP

30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
Saint Paul, MN 55101 Bethesda, MD 20814
Telephone: (651) 312-6500 Telephone: (202) 789-3960
sraiter@larsonking.com charles@cuneolaw.com
Michael J. Flannery
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP

7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 226-1015
mflannery@cuneolaw.com
Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee
- 118 -
EXHIBIT 3
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14 /2021 06:13
10 : 37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
RIVERSTONE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT LLC

. 250 COMMERCIAL STREET, SUITE 5000
MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03101
TELEPHONE: (603) 656-2200
TOLL FREE: (888) 257-2059
A EAIRIAX Company
FACSIMILE: (603) 656-7500
December 31, 2013
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
David Zimmerman, Esq.

Executive Vice President and General Counsel
National Hockey League
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Policyholder: National Hockey League, et al
Policy No.: SSP1340721

November -
Policy Period: 30, 1989 January 1, 1991
Insurers: Transamerica Insurance Company
Claimants: Bradley Aitken
Darren Banks
Curt Bennett
Richard Dunn
Warren Holmes
Gary Leeman
Robert Manno
. Blair James Stewart
Morris Titanic
Richard Vaive
Suit caption: Leeman et al v. National League et al, 13-cv-

Hockey
01856-KBJ, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
RiverStone Claims Management, LLC ("RiverStone") is the authorized claims
administrator for Transamerica Insurance Company n/k/a TIG Insurance Company (collectively
"TIG"). This letter responds to an electronic mail of December 3, 2013 from BWD Group LLC
("BWD Group") to RiverStone providing notice of a claim under certain insurance policies
allegedly issued by certain TIG-affiliated insurance companies and attaching the complaint
("Complaint") filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the matter
captioned Leeman et al v. National Hockey League et al in which the National Hockey League
Governors"
(the "NHL") and the "NHL Board of ("NHL BG") are named as defendants (the
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
6534 21/2 020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
"Underlying Action"). Please be advised that RiverStone is administering this claim on behalf of
TIG. As indicatedin RiverStone's letter dated December 6, 2013 addressed to Maria Dercola at
BWD Grotip, I have been assigned the future handling of this matter, so please direct all future
correspondence concerning this matter to my attention.
At the outset, and to the extent that the December 3, 2013 communication from BWD
Group LLC did not include any request that TIG take any specific action, we request that you
please clarify the purpose of the December 3, 2013 communication and what, exactly, is being
requested of TIG. This said, TIG has conducted a search for all policies issued to the NHL or
NHL BG and has located the above-referenced policy. The purpose of this letter is to advise you
of the results of TIG's policy search to date and of TIG's coverage position under the above
referenced policy only with respect to the Underlying Action. TIG's position with respect to any
additional policies that may be produced or located will be addressed in separate correspondence.
TIG's policy search and coverage investigation is ongoing. However, based upon the
information known to date, TIG agrees to participate in the defense of the NHL in connection
with the Underlying Action under the primary commercial general liability policy issued by TIG
and identified as SSP1340721 (the "TIG Policy"). TIG's agreement to participate in the NHL's
defense is subject to the terms set out in this letter and to a full reservation of rights under the
TIG Policy and at law, including all of therights reserved in this letter. Please note that TIG is
proceeding on the basis that the NHL has been or soon will be served with the Complaint in the
Underlying Action. Until such time as service of process has actually occurred, TIG can have no
duty to participate in funding the defense of any suit. TIG takes no position and reserves all of
its rights with respect to any other policy.
L OVERVIEW OF UNDERLYING ACTION
On November 25, 2013, ten former NHL players (collectively, the "Representative
Plaintiffs") initiated the Underlying Action by filing a Class Action Complaint ("Complaint").
The Representative Plaintiffs brought this action on behalf of a plaintiff class defined as "all
former NHL players who retired on or before February 14, 2013 and who have suffered brain
trauma and/or injuries as a result of concussive and subconcussive impacts inflicted on them
NHL."
while playing in the
The Representative Plaintiffs played in the NHL at various times between 1970 and 1996,
and each claims to have "suffered multiple concussions and sub-concussive impacts as a result of
The Representative Plaintiffs are: Bradley Aitken (Pittsburgh Penguins from 1987-88 and in 1990 and for the
Edmonton in 1991"); Darren Banks (Boston Bruins - 1992-94);
Oilers Curt Bennett (St. Louis Blues - 1970, 1972,
1977-1979; New York Rangers - 1972; Atlanta Flames - 1972-1977, 1979-1980); Richard Dunn (Buffalo Sabres -
- Warren Holmes (Los Angeles Kings - 1981-1984);
1977-1982, 1985-1989; Calgary Flames 1982-1983); Gary
Leeman (Toronto Maple Leafs - 1983-1992; - Montreal Canadians - 1993-1994;
Calgary Flames 1992-1993;
Vancouver Canucks - 1994-1995; St. Louis Blues - 1996); Robert Manno (Vancouver Canucks - 1976-1981;
Toronto Maple Leafs - Detroit Red Wings - Blair James Stewart (Detroit Red Wings -
1981-1982; 1983-1985);
Washington Capitals - Quebec Nordiques - Morris Titanic (Buffalo Sabres
1973-1975; 1975-1979; 1979-1980);
(1974-1976); and, Richard Vaive (Vancouver Canucks 1979-1980; Toronto Maple Leafs 1980-1987; Chicago
Blackhawks - Buffalo Sabres - 1988-1992).
1987-1988;
2
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
0 9 / 14 / 2 0 2 1 06:13
10 : 37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO . 653421/2020
6 5 34 2 1 / 2 0 2 0
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
NYSCEF: 09/14/2021

December 3 1, 2013
NHL." retirement,"
his playing professional hockey in the It is further alleged that "since his
each Representative Plaintiff "has suffered from injuries associated with such concussions and
impacts"
sub-concussive which include, but are not limited to "post-traumatic head syndrome";
"posttraumatic headaches"; "depression"; "personality change"; "memory loss"; "lack of
concentration"; "cephalgia"; "visual problems"; "tinnitus"; "lightheadedness"; "memory loss";

deficit."
"bilateral hearing loss"; and "cognitive In connection with these alleged injuries, the
Representative Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, medical monitoring
attorneys'
expenses and costs and fees.
decades,"
The Representative Plaintiffs further allege that "[f]or "the NHL has been
aware or should have been aware that multiple blows to the head can lead to long-term brain
injury, including but not limited to memory loss, dementia, depression, and CTE and its related
symptoms"
but that "[r]ather than take immediate measures to protect NHL players from these
known dangers, from the time it first knew of these problems through the 1990s, the NHL did
nothing."
The Complaint contains seven counts against the NHL and the NHL BG.
" Count I - Action for Relief - Liability: of this

Declaratory By way count,
the Representative Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the NHL knew or
should have known, at all times material, that head impacts endured while
playing NHL hockey were likely to expose the plaintiffs to neuro-

degenerative disorders and that the NHL had a duty to inform the NHL
intentionally"
players of this risk and that the NHL "willfully and
concealed and misled the Representative Plaintiffs concerning this risk,

and that the NHL recklessly endangered the Representative Plaintiffs;
" Count II - Medical Monitoring: By way of this count, the Representative

Plaintiffs seek an injunction creating a court-supervised, NHL-funded
medical monitoring program to facilitate the diagnosis and treatment of
the Representative Plaintiffs;
" Count III - Fraudulent Misrepresentation Concealment: Here the

by
Representative Plaintiffs allege that the NHL and the NHL BG are liable
willful"
for injuries resulting from the NHL's "fraudulent and
concealment of material facts and information relating to head trauma;
" Count IV - Fraudulent Misrepresentation Nondisclosure: The

by
Representative Plaintiffs allege in this count that the NHL and the NHL
BG are liable for injuries resulting from the NHL's failure to take any
action related to its playing rules or medical protocols thus concealing and
minimizing the risks of repetitive brain impacts;
" Count V - Fraud: It is alleged in this count that the NHL and the NHL
fraudulently"
BG "knowingly and concealed from the Representative
Plaintiffs the long-term risks of head injuries and of returning to game
activity too soon following such an injury;
3
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
" Count VI - Negligent Misrepresentation: In this it is alleged that

count,
the NHL and the NHL BG negligently misrepresented and actively
concealed certain information knowing that the Representative Plaintiffs
would and did rely on the NHL and the NHL BG for guidance and that,
therefore, the NHL and the NHL BG are liable to them for their alleged
injuries; and,
" Count VII - "Negligence through 2013": which plaintiffs

January by
allege that the NHL's and the NHL BG's failure to publicize the mounting
evidence and scientific literature of chronic neuro-cognitive problems
amongst former players caused then-current and current players to beheve
that their physical and psychological problems were not related to hockey.
As relief for all of these claims, the Representative Plaintiffs seek: (1) certification of the
proposed class; (2) an injunction for the requested medical monitoring relief; (3) a judgment
against the NHL and the NHL BG for damages to the full extent of the law, including
compensatory and punitive damages and the costs and fees incurred in connection with the
Underlying Action. It merits noting that the Complaint contains no data with respect to the
potential size of the proposed class. If the NHL is in possession of such data, we ask that it be
provided to RiverStone as soon as reasonably possible.
IL THE TIG POLICY
To date, TIG has located the following policy issued to "National Hockey League (USA),
National Hockey League Services, Inc., National Hockey League (Canada), National Hockey
League Pension Society, National Hockey League Hall Of Fame":
Issuing Policy Period Primary or Limits of Liability
Company and Excess/Umbrella
Policy No.
Transamerica 11/30/89- $1,000,000 each occurrence

Primary
Insurance 1/1/91
Company
SSP1340721
It appears that other policies may have been issued to the NHL by TIG or other
companies for which RiverStone is authorized to handle certain insurance claims on behalf of.
In this regard, RiverStone's policy search remains on-going. Moreover, the NHL recently
provided RiverStone with copies of other policies allegedly issued to the NHL by TIG or other
companies for which RiverStone is authorized to handle certain insurance claims on behalf of,
which are currently under review. The analysis in this letter is confined to the TIG Policy
above.2
referenced Upon the location or receipt of any other policies, RiverStone will
2
We note specifically that the December 3, 2013 correspondence from BWD Group to RiverStone included
Policy"
reference to a "TIG Specialty Umbrella Liability bearing Policy No. KLBl454587 and allegedly issued for
4
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
supplement this letter. To the extent that any additional policy materials or information is
located, RiverStone reserves the right to modify the policy information above and the coverage
position set forth herein, and RiverStone does not waive any rights that may exist under any such
additional policy and/or policies. RiverStone hereby requests that the NHL and its agents and/or
brokers provide it with any and all policy materials and any other evidence of coverage in its
possession for any policy, including but not limited to any policy which the NHL contends was
issued by any company for which RiverStone is authorized to handle certain insurance claims on
behalf of, including but not limited to TIG, North River Insurance Company and/or Crum &
Forster, under which the NHL seeks coverage for the Underlying Action.
TIG will now describe and discuss some of the provisions in the TIG Policy that may be
significant in evaluating what coverage, if any, is available to the NHL for the Underlying
Action and pursuant to which coverage is disclaimed for certain claims. Please note that TIG
cites only that language that appears germane based on the information about the Underlying
Action and the claims asserted therein that is known to date. TIG reserves all of its rights under
the TIG Policy and at law to the extent other language contained within the TIG Policy may
ultimately prove relevant to this matter. To the extent that the NHL believes that this letter
misquotes or mischaracterizes any policy language, the language of the policy controls.
RiverStone asks that you inform us immediately of any such circumstances. TIG's coverage
investigation is ongoing. TIG reserves the right to supplement this letter as it learns more about
the allegations made against the NHL and/or the NHL BG.
A. The TIG Policy (No. SSP1340721)
The Insuring Agreement of the TIG Policy provides, in relevant part, as follows with
injury:"
respect to "bodily
SECTION I - COVERAGES...
1. Insuring Agreement.
a. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated
injury"
to pay as damages because of "bodily or "property
damage"
to which this insurance applies. No other obligation or
liability to pay sums or perform acts or services is covered unless
provided for under SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS-

explicitly
the period from Hovember 30, 1989 through January 1, 1991 (the "TIG Umbrella Policy"). BWD Group very
recently provided to RiverStone documents related to the TIG Umbrella Policy and certain other umbrella and/or
excess insurance policies issued by companies for which RiverStone is authorized to handle certain insurance claims
on behalf of. RiverStone's analysis with respect to these policies will each be addressed in separate correspondence,
once RiverStone's review of those materials is complete. In the meantime, if the NHL or its brokers are in
possession of any documents evidencing any other policy which the NHL contends was issued by a company for
which RiverStone may be authorized to handle certain insurance claims on behalf of, including but not limited to
TIG, North River Insurance Company and/or Crum & Forster, please provide the same to us as soon as possible. All
rights with respect to the TIG Umbrella Policy, and any other policy, are reserved.
5
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
COVERAGES A AND B. This insurance applies only to "bodily

injury" damage"
and "property which occurs during the policy
injury" damage"
period. The "bodily or "property must be caused
"occurrence"
by an "occurrence". The must take place in the
"coverage territory". We will have the right and duty to defend

"suit"
any seeking those damages. But:
(1) The amount we will pay for damages is limited as

described in SECTION III-LIMITS OF INSURANCE;
"suit"
(2) We may investigate and settle any claim or at our
discretion; and
(3) Our right and duty to defend end when we have used up the
applicable limit of insurance in the payment of judgments
or settlements under Coverages A or B or medical
expenses under Coverage C.
injury"
b. Damages because of "bodily include damages claimed by
any person or organization for care, loss of services or death
injury."
resulting at any time from the "bodily
The coverage provided by the TIG Policy is subject to the following potentially
relevant exclusions:
This insurance does not apply to:
injury" damage"
a. "Bodily or "property expected or intended from the
standpoint of the insured. This exclusion does not apply to "bodily
injury"
resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect persons or
property.
***
d. Any obligation of the insured under a workers compensation,
disability benefits or unemployment compensation law or any
similar law.
injury"
e. "Bodily to:
(1) An employee of the insured arising out of and in the course
of employment by the insured ...
6
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14 /2Ö21 06:13
10Ï37 PM
PM INDEX
INÓEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
This exclusion applies:
(1) Whether the insured may be liable as an employer or in any

other capacity...
***
The TIG Policy also provides, in relevant part, as follows with respect to "who is
insured:"
SECTION II - WHO IS AN INSURED
1. If you are designated in the Declarations as: ...
c. An organization other than a partnership or joint venture, you are

an insured. Your executive officers and directors are insureds, but
only with respect to their duties as your officers or directors. Your

stockholders are also insureds, but only with respect to their
liability as stockholders.
2. Each of the following is also an insured:
a. Your employees, other than your executive officers, but only for
acts within the scope of their employment by you. However, none

of these employees is an insured for:
injury" injury"
(1) "Bodily or "personal to you or to a co-employee
while in the course of his or her employment.
***
The coverage provided by the TIG Policy is also subject to the following potentially
relevant conditions:
***
2. Duties In The Event Of Occurrence, Claim Or Suit.
"occurrence"
a. You must see to it that we are notified promptly of an
which may result in a claim. Notice should include:
"occurrence"
(1) How, when and where the took place; and
7
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
(2) The names and addresses of any injured persons and

witnesses.
"suit"
b. If a claim is made or is brought against any insured, you
must see to it that we receive prompt written notice of the claim or
"suit".
c. You and any other involved insured must:
(1) Immediately send us copies of any demands, notices,

summonses or legal papers received in connection with the
claim or "suit";
(2) Authorize us to obtain records and other information;
(3) Cooperate with us in the investigation, settlement or
defense of the claim or "suit"; and
(4) Assist us, upon our request, in the enforcement of any right
against any person or organization which may be liable to
the insured because of any injury or damage to which this
insurance may also apply.
d. No insureds will, except at their own cost, voluntarily make a
payment, assume any obligation, or incur any expense, other than
for first aid, without our consent....
4. Other Insurance.
If other valid and collectible insurance is available to the insured for a loss
we cover under Coverages A or B of this Coverage Part, our obligations
are limited as follows:
a. Primary Insurance
This insurance is primary except when b. below applies. If this
insurance is primary, our obligations are not affected unless any of
the other insurance is also primary. Then, we will share with all
that other insurance by the method described in c. below....
***
8
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
c. Method of Sharing
If all of the other insurance permits contribution by equal shares,

we will follow this method also. Under this approach each insurer
contributes equal amounts until it has paid its applicable limit of
insurance or none of the loss remains, whichever comes first.
If any of the other insurance does not permit contribution by equal
shares, we will contribute by limits. Under this method, each

insurer's share is based on the ratio of its applicable limit of
insurance to the total applicable limits of insurance of all
insurers....
8. Transfer of Rights of Recovery Against Others to Us.
If the insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment we have
made under this Coverage Part, those rights are transferred to us. The
insured must do nothing after loss to impairthem. At our request, the

"suit"
insured will bring or transfer those rights to us and help us to
enforce them.
***
The TIG Policy also includes the following potentially relevant definitions:
injury"
3. "Bodily means bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by a
person, including death resulting from any of these at any time.
territory"
4. "Coverage means:
a. The United States of America (including its territories and
possessions), Puerto Rico and Canada; ...
"Occurrence"
9. means an accident, including continuous or repeated
exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions....
"Suit"
13. means a civil proceeding in which
damages because of "bodily
injury" injury"
injury", "property damage", "personal or "advertising to
"Suit"
which this insurance applies are alleged. includes an arbitration
proceeding alleging such damages to which you must submit or submit

with our consent.
9
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM
PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
The TIG Policy also includes a Medical Payments Coverage Part ("Coverage C") that
provides, in relevant part, as follows:
COVERAGE C. MEDICAL PAYMENTS
1. Insuring Agreement.
injury"
a. We will pay medical expenses as described below for "bodily
caused by an accident:
(1) On premises you own or rent;
(2) On ways next to premises you own or rent; or
(3) Because of your operations;
provided that:
territory"
(1) The accident takes place in the "coverage and
during the policy period;
(2) The expenses are incurred and reported to us within one

year of the date of the accident; and
(3) The injured person submits to examination, at our
expenses, by physicians of our choice as often as we
reasonably require.
b. We will make these payments regardless of fault. These payments will
not exceed the applicable limit of insurance. We will pay reasonable
expenses for:
(1) First aid at the time of an accident;
(2) Necessary medical, surgical, x-rays and dental services,
including prosthetic devices; and
(3) Necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing and

funeral services.
Coverage Part C is subject to the following specifically applicable exclusions:
We will not pay expenses for "bodily injury":
a. To any insured.
b. To a person hired to do work for or on behalf of any insured or a
tenant of any insured.
c. To a person injured on that part of premises you own or rent that
the person normally occupies.
10
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14 /2021 06:13
10 : 37 PM
P
INDEX
D NO. 653421/2020
$42Î750EC
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December31, 2013
d. To a person, whether or not an employee of any insured, if benefits

injury"
for the "bodily are payable or must be provided under a
workers compensation or disability benefits law or a similar law.
e. To a person injured while taking part in athletics.
f. Included within the "products-completed operations hazard".
g. Excluded under Coverage A.
- Sports"
Finally, the TIG Policy includes a "Participant Liability endorsement which
provides, in its entirety, as follows:
PARTICIPANT LIABILITY - SPORTS
This endorsement modifies insurance under the following:
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART.
Insurance provided to you under Section I., Coverage A, includes those

sums which you become legally obligated to pay because of actions
injury" damage"
brought against you for "bodily or "property by a
PARTICIPANT while practicing for or participating in any contest or
exhibition of an athletic or sports nature sponsored by you.
The limit of insurance with respect to this endorsement for Participant

Legal Liability is $1,000,000 each occurrence. For the purpose of this
endorsement, this limit replaces the limit of insurance shown on the

Declarations for each occurrence.
It is also agreed that a $2,500.00 each occurrence deductible shall apply to

all claims arising out of Participants Legal Liability coverages. Our
obligation under the Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage
Liability Coverages to pay damages on your behalf applies only to the

amount of damages in excess of any deductible amounts stated above as
applicable to such coverages, and the limits of insurance applicable to
each occurrence for such coverages will be reduced by the amount of such
deductible. The Aggregate limits for such coverages shall not be reduced
by the application of such deductible amount.
11
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14 /2021 06:13
10 : 37 PM
PM INDEX
ÎDEX NO.
O 653421/2020
53 1 2 2
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 09/14/2021
David Zimmerman, Es q.
December 3 1, 2013
Claims or actions brought by one player against another player. However,

coverage remains in effect for the first Named Insured and/or any
applicable Additional Insureds who have been endorsed onto the policy.
The definition of a Participant shall be as follows:
The term Participant shall include players, coaches, managers, staff
members, team workers, and game officials who have been granted proper
authorization to enter any restricted area(s).
The restricted area(s) shall include those areas which are occupied by
players and to which access by the general public is restricted or
prohibited. Such areas shall be designated as restricted beginning two
hours prior to the official starting time of the activity/event and ending at
period"
the official conclusion of the activity/event. "Inter shall not be
included within the period of time designated for the restricted area(s).
IH. DECLINATION OF COVERAGE UNDER THE TIG POLICY FOR THE

CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF DARREN BANKS
As noted, Representative Plaintiff Darren Banks alleges that he sustained head trauma at
various times during his NHL career between 1992 and 1994. The TIG Policy expired on
January 1, 1991. Because the alleged injuries of Mr. Banks did not occur, and could not have
occurred, during the TIG Policy's coverage period, there is no coverage for his claim under the
TIG Policy. Accordingly, the Insurers deny coverage under the TIG Policy as to the injuries
allegedly sustained by Mr. Banks.
IV. DECLINATION OF COVERAGE UNDER THE TIG POLICY FOR THE

CLAIMS AGAINST THE NHL BOARD OF GOVERNORS
As noted above, the only named defendants in the Underlying Action are the NHL and
Governors." insured"
"NHL Board of The entity NHL BG is not a "named under the TIG Policy
and is not identified in any endorsement attached to the TIG Policy. Accordingly, it has not been
"insured"
established that NHL BG is an under the TIG Policy and, therefore, TIG must
respectfully disclaim any obligations to defend or indemnify NHL BG with respect to the
Underlying Action at this time. You are invited to provide to RiverStone any additional
information that you may have regarding the entity NHL BG which you feel may affect this
analysis. RiverStone reserves the right to review any additional information and supplement this
analysis, if necessary.
12
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14 /2021 06:13
10 i 37 PM INDEX
ÎNDE} NO.
NO. 653421/2020
65342p 0 0
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
C"
V. DECLINATION OF COVERAGE UNDER "COVERAGE PART OF THE TIG
POLICY
As noted above, the TIG Policy contains a Coverage C Medical Payments coverage part.
The insuring agreement for this coverage part sets out specific requirements for coverage. These
include requirements that the accident take place during the policy period and that the expenses
be incurred and reported to the insurer within one year of the date of the accident.
Coverage C also has several exclusions. Among others, it does not pay expenses for
bodily injury to a person injured while taking part in athletics or to a person hired to do work for
or on behalf of any insured. Nor does it apply to a person, whether or not an employee of any
workers'
insured, if benefits for the bodily injury are payable or must be provided under a
compensation or disability benefits law or a similar law.
Based on the allegations of the Complaints and the facts currently known, TIG is
unaware of any basis for the Medical Payments coverage part of the TIG Policy being implicated
by the Underlying Action. Among other reasons, the Representative Plaintiffs allege they were
injured while participating in athletics. Accordingly, TIG respectfully disclaims coverage under
Coverage C of the TIG Policy.
VL DECLINATION OF COVERAGE UNDER THE TIG POLICY FOR PUNITIVE

"FRAUD"
DAMAGES AND
"damages"
Coverage under the TIG Policy is limited to that an insured becomes legally
damage" injury"
obligated to pay because of "property or "bodily that is caused by an
"occurrence."
TIG disclaims any obligation to provide coverage for punitive damages because
"damages"
they are not as that term is used in the TIG Policy. Likewise, to the extent damages
V" "Fraud,"
are sought in "Count of the Complaint filed in the Underlying Action for TIG
disclaims any obligation to indemnify the NHL for such damages as they, as a matter of law,
"occurrence"
cannot have been caused by an as that term is defined in the TIG Policy.
VIL EMPLOYMENT EXCLUSIONS
Notwithstanding an express allegation in the Complaint filed in the Underlying Action

that "the NHL persists in [certain] conduct to date by, among other things, refusing to ban
fighting and body checking and by continuing to employ hockey players whose main function
('Enforcers')"
is to fight or violently body check players on the other team (emphasis added), it
is TIG's understanding that each of the Representative Plaintiffs (and any members of the
proposed class) were employees of individual NHL teams or clubs and not employees of the
NHL. It is also TIG's understanding that the individual NHL clubs are not owned by the NHL,
but are independently owned.
However, in the event that any of the plaintiffs are determined to be employees of the
NHL, TIG disclaims any obligation to provide coverage on the basis of the employment-related
exclusions described herein above and included in the TIG Policy. For example,
13
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/08/2022 06:13 PM ImmX
INDEX NH42Û2
NO. 653421/2020
EÈED : NEW YÔRK ÜOUNTY CEERK 0Ù 1 021 10 : 3 P
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
"d"
Exclusion applies to liability for which an insured or any of its insurers may be held liable
workers'
under compensation or under any similar law. The TIG Policy also excludes coverage
"e"
under Exclusion for bodily injury to an employee of the insured arising out of and in the
course of employment by the insured. Please advise RiverStone if the position of the NHL is
that any of the Representative Plaintiffs or potential class members are or ever were its
employees. RiverStone reserves the right to review any additional information and supplement
this analysis, if necessary.
VIIL DEFENSE UNDER A RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AS TO THE TIG POLICIES
Notwithstanding the foregoing disclaimer as to Representative Plaintiff Darren Banks and

with respect to certain claims, TIG will participate in the defense of the NHL in the Underlying
Action under the TIG Policy, subject to a full and complete reservation of rights.
A. Reservation of Rights
TIG's agreement to participate in the defense of the NHL is subject to a reservation of all
of its rights under the TIG Policy, including its right to pay only its rightful share of those
defense costs, including attorney and paralegal hourly rates, that are reasonable and customary
and its right to deny any duty to defend and/or indemnify should the facts show that coverage is
not triggered or that the policy contains an exclusion eliminating coverage. In the event that TIG
makes such a determination, it may withdraw from the defense, in whole or in part.
The bases upon which TIG reserves its rights under the TIG Policy include, but are not
limited to, the following:
" The putative plaintiff class is not certified. To the extent that member of any
any
plaintiff class that is subsequently certified did not suffer any injury or that such
injury did not take place during the coverage period of the TIG Policy, there is no
coverage under the TIG Policy.
" To the extent that the injuries alleged the Representative Plaintiffs were not
by
"occurrence"
caused by an as that term is defined in the TIG Policy, there is no
coverage thereunder.
" To the extent that any plaintiff's claim asserted against the NHL is exclusively for
medical monitoring intended to detect future injuries, if any, there is no coverage
under the TIG Policy for such claims.
" To the extent that the injuries alleged by the Representative Plaintiffs do not
injury"
constitute "bodily as that term is defined in the TIG Policy, there is no
coverage thereunder.
" occurrence place after the expiration of the TIG cannot be the
Any taking Policy
injury"
cause of "bodily during the TIG Policy's coverage period.
14
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14 /2021 06:13
10 : 37 PM
PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NÖ. 653421/2020
655421/2020
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
" To the extent that the injuries alleged the Representative Plaintiffs were or
by
should reasonably have been expected or intended by the NHL, there is no
coverage under the TIG Policy.
" To the extent that the injuries alleged in the Complaint were caused the
by
intentional conduct of the NHL, there may be no coverage under the TIG Policy.
" To the extent that the Representative Plaintiffs does not seek damages which the
NHL is allegedly legally obligated to pay, there is no coverage under the TIG
Policy.
" "damages"
There is no coverage to the extent that the Complaint does not seek
injury"
because of "bodily as those terms are used in the TIG Policy.
" To the extent that there is any other insurance available for the Representative
Plaintiff's injuries or the injuries of any member of a class certified in the future,
there may be no coverage under the TIG Policy.
"occurrence,"
" To the extent that notice of alleged as that term is defined in the
any
TIG Policy, or of any claim of the Representative Plaintiffs or of the Complaint
was not provided to TIG as soon as practicable, there is no coverage under the
TIG Policy.
" To the extent that the NHL has made or makes payments or has
any voluntary
voluntarily incurred or voluntarily incurs in the future any expense with respect to
any of the claims in the Complaint, there is no coverage under the TIG Policy.
" To the extent the NHL has compromised any rights that may be available to TIG
in any way or fails to assist TIG in the enforcement of any right against any
person or organization which may be liable to the NHL for the alleged injuries
and damages sought by the Representative Plaintiffs, there is no coverage under
the TIG Policy.
" To the extent that the NHL, its agents and brokers, fail or have failed to
including
cooperate with TIG in the investigation or defense of the Underlying Action,
including providing any and all applicable information and documents related to
the underlying claims, there may be no coverage under the TIG Policy.
" To the extent allowable under applicable law, TIG reserves its right to seek
reimbursement of amounts paid in the defense of the Underlying Action.
" In no event is there coverage or other requirement to pay an amount in excess

any
of the limits of liability of the TIG Policy.
15
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
" To the extent the NHL or any other insured failed or fails in the future to disclose
to TIG relevant information or made/makes any material misrepresentations of
fact in connection with the issuance of the TIG Policy, there may be no coverage
thereunder.
"sponsor"
" To the extent that the NHL did not the events which the
during
Representative Plaintiffs or any member of the proposed class allege to have
sustained injuries, there may be no coverage under the TIG Policy for such
claims.
TIG reserves its right to assert any of these grounds as a basis for denying or limiting
coverage under the TIG Policy. Moreover, TIG's investigation is ongoing. While TIG has
sought to identify the relevant insurance coverage considerations, TIG's identification of these
potential grounds for denying or limiting coverage under the TIG Policy is not intended and
should not be construed as a waiver of any other right or basis for which TIG may deny or limit
coverage, and TIG expressly reserves its right to assert other coverage defenses,
B. TIG's Rights of Reimbursement, Contribution and Subrogation
TIG fully reserves all rights it has to seek reimbursement, contribution, indemnity and/or
other recovery in connection with this matter from any responsible insurers or indemnitors of the
NHL and/or any responsible third-party tortfeasors. This reservation applies to defense
payments, settlements, judgments and other payments that TIG may make on behalf of the NHL.
As noted above, the TIG Policy contains provisions that require the NHL and other
insureds to assist and cooperate with TIG in enforcing TIG's rights against entities that may be
liable to the insureds for injury or damage and to do nothing to impair such rights. Specifically,
TIG notes that, pursuant to the terms of the TIG Policy, "if the [NHL] has rights to recover all or
part of any payment we have made under [Coverage Part A of the TIG Policy], those rights are
[TIG}"
transferred to and that the "insured must do nothing after loss to impair [these
rights]." 'suit'
The TIG Policy further provides that "at[TIG's] request, the insured will bring or
them."
transfer those rights to [TIG] and help [TIG] enforce All of TIG's rights with respect to
reimbursement, contribution and subrogation are reserved.
An insured's failure to assist in TIG's enforcement of its rights against others or to
protect TIG's subrogation rights is a material breach of the TIG Policy's terms and conditions
and will operate to void coverage that would otherwise exist under the TIG Policy.
C. Handling of Defense
TIG will participate in ftmding the defense of the NHL in connection with the Underlying
Action under the TIG Policy pursuant to its reservation of rights and will pay its rightful share of
post-tender, reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and related expenses to defend the NHL in
the Underlying Action. In agreeing to participate in the defense, TIG looks forward to working
collaboratively with you and your counsel to provide the NHL with a sensible and effective
16
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
ÑO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
defense. TIG will require that selected defense counsel provide to TIG all information that TIG
shall deem necessary and that it shall request in connection with its investigation and analysis of
the Underlying Action, as well as regular detailed status updates concerning the Underlying
Action. Moreover, TIG expects that it will be provided an opportunity to participate and
collaborate in effectuating the defense of the Underlying Action. To this end, TIG hereby
requests that it be consulted prior to the selection or retention of any attorney or law firm to serve
as defense counsel for the NHL in connection with the Underlying Action.
Further, TIG's participation in the defense is subject to the following limitations:
" TIG will its share of defense costs, along with other participating insurers and
pay
the NHL to the extent that it was uninsured during any relevant time period, that
are both reasonable and necessary and which comport with the hourly rates for
legal services (both attorneys and paralegals) that it pays in the ordinary course of
business with respect to the defense of similar actions.
" TIG reserves its right to recover from the NHL and any other responsible entities
the portion of the defense payments that are attributable to claims that do not
come within the coverage afforded by the TIG Policy.
" TIG disclaims obligation to provide coverage for the costs associated with
any
any affirmative relief that the NHL may seek in connection with the Underlying
"defense"
Action. Such costs are not costs.
" TIG can have no further obligation to defend pursuant to a policy once that
policy's applicable limits are exhausted.
" In the event that TIG determines that it has no duty to defend and/or indemnify,
TIG reserves the right to withdraw from the defense of the NHL.
Invoices for legal services should be submitted to TIG electronically. TIG will provide your
counsel with the requisite information.
TIG reserves the right to review fees and costs billed by defense counsel and to determine
whether they are reasonable and necessary and whether they comply with TIG's billing
guidelines, which are attached hereto and must be provided to defense counsel to be retained
upon consultation with TIG. TIG also reserves the right to review fees and costs during or at the
conclusion of this matter. If TIG determines that any fees, costs, or charges are not reasonable,
TIG may, when practicable, pay that portion which is estimated by TIG to be reasonable. Any
payments made will be subject to TIG's right of reimbursement. TIG specifically reserves its
rights to refuse to pay - or to pay and then seek reimbursement of - payments made by or on
attomeys'
behalf of the NHL, whether for fees, other claims expenses, settlement(s),
judgments(s) or any other purpose.
17
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
Finally, to the extent that other insurance or self-insurance applies to this lawsuit, TIG
will seek to apportion defense costs and indemnity costs in accordance with the terms of the TIG
Policy and applicable law. In this regard, TIG will need to discuss the sharing of defense costs
with any other participating insurer and/or with the NHL if it was self-insured or uninsured
during any relevant time period. Please provide RiverStone with copies of any coverage position
letters issued by other insurers on notice of this claim.
IX. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS:
TIG further requests that the NHL and its agents and brokers provide RiverStone with the
following information and documentation. The full cooperation of the NHL, as required by the
terms of the policies, in providing all of the requested information would be appreciated.
1. Copies of all defense bills for the defense of the NHL in the Underlying Action;
2. Copies of all documents relating to any insurer's payments of any bills for the defense of
the NHL in the Underlying Action;
3. A list of all insurers that provided primary, excess or umbrella liability coverage to the
NHL at any time, and the dates and limits of their coverage;
4. All responses from any insurer to any request for coverage for the NHL in connection
with the Underlying Action;
5. A list of all other insurance companies, including contact information for the claim
handlers, who are defending the NHL in connection with the Underlying Action;
6. Complete copies of all policies issued by TIG, or any company with which the NHL
contends TIG is related or associated, under which the NHL seeks coverage with respect
to the Underlying Action and copies of all policies of all other insurers who received
notice from the NHL with respect to the Underlying Action;
7. If complete copies of any policies under which the NHL is seeking coverage are not
available, please provide any portions or secondary evidence of such coverage in the
NHL's possession;
8. Copies of all complaints, pleadings or lawsuits filed by or against the NHL regarding
issues of insurance coverage in connection with the Underlying Action;
9. Copies of all settlement agreements between the NHL and any insurance company
concerning the Underlying Action;
10. Copies of all studies, reports, data or other documents discussing or addressing the
prevalence of concussions or other head injuries among NHL players at any time;
18
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
11. Copies of all studies, reports, data or other documents discussing or addressing the
potential short-term and long-term health effects of concussions or other head injuries at
any time;
12. Copies of any and all documents or information in the NHL's possession that in any way
relate to or address concussions, head trauma while playing sports or the injuries alleged
by the Representative Plaintiffs;
13. Copies of any and all documents between the NHL and any medical experts and
consultants at any time addressing concussions, head trauma or similar injuries while
playing ice hockey or the injuries alleged by the Representative Plaintiffs; and,
14. Copies of any and all documents describing, evidencing, or related to the foundation
and/or formal organization of the NHL and the relationship between the NHL and (i) the
NHL BG; (ii) each individual NHL team or club; and (iii) the individual former or
current NHL players. These documents should include, but not be limited to, the
following:
" incorporation documents, agreements, the current and

Any partnership any
"constitution" "bylaws"
and all former versions of the NHL's or or any
similar documents,
" The current and and all former versions of a Collective

any Bargaining
Agreement between the NHL and the individual NHL players or the "NHL
Association"
Players or any similar organization; and,
" and all contracts entered into between combination of the NHL, the
Any any
NHL BG and any individual NHL team or club.
If the above-referenced documents are voluminous, please contact the undersigned to

arrange for copying and shipment by a mutually acceptable vendor at our expense.
please be advised that in investigating the matters alleged in the above-

Finally, TIG,
referenced litigation, or in negotiating or making any compromised settlement, or in defending
any action filed against the NHL or in any other way acting or failing to act, does not waive any
of its rights or admit any obligation under any alleged policy. Further, TIG fully reserves its
right to raise any additional policy defenses and to amend, edit or otherwise supplement those
asserted herein upon further investigation of these claims and upon further investigation of the
provisions, terms and conditions of any policy under which coverage is sought.
Any person who knowingly presents a false or fraudulent claim for payment of a loss or
benefit or who knowingly presents false information in an application for insurance is guilty of a
crime and may be subject to restitution, fines, voidance of insurance coverage or confinement in
prison, or any combination thereof.
19
FILED:: NEW
{FILED NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
65342 A/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
125 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021

December 31, 2013
We look forward to receiving theinformationand documentation requested above. Once

the NHL has had an opportunity to search for the requested information and to provide it to
RiverStone, we propose that a meeting be scheduled between the NHL, its counsel and carriers
to discuss the further handling of this matter. Please advise whether the NHL is agreeable to
such a meeting. In the meantime, should you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not
hesitate to contact us. I can be reached by phone at 603.656.2356 or by email at
Mike_Stacchi@trg.com.
Very truly yours,
By:
Michael S. Stacchi
RiverStone Claims Management, LLC

250 Commercial St.
Suite 500
Manchester, NH 03101
Enclosure
CC: Maria L Dercola (Sent via certified mail return receipt requested and email)
Multi-Lines Claim Specialist
BWD Group LLC .
45 Executive Drive
Plainview, NY 11803-1737
20
EXHIBIT 4
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
AIG
AlG Property Casualty

March 24, 2014
PO Box 2430
Alpharetta, GA 30023-2430
9-°°
Via Certified Mail and E-Mail

Zachary A. Mengel
SENIOR ANALYST ATTN: David Zimmerman
5UAl-W
°°2 2 58 2 1185 Avenue of the Americas
F 855 241 8829 New NY 10036
York,
zachary.mengel@aig.com
dzimmerman@nhl.com
Re: Claim: Leeman, et al. v. National Hockey League, et al.

Insured: National Hockey League
Policies: National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,
Pa.
Policy No. GLA 5830813 (1/1/91-1/1/92)

Policy No. GLA 5830817 (1/1/92-1/1/93)
Policy No. GLA 5830848 (1/1/93-1/1/94)
Claim No.: 683-592432
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
AIG Claims Inc. ("AIG Claims"), a member company of AIG Property

Casualty, Inc. is the claims administrator handling claims arising under the
above-referenced policies issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, Pa. ("National Union"). I am the adjuster handling this claim; all
future correspondence should be directed to my attention.
The purpose of this letter is to advise the National Hockey League ("NHL") of
our coverage position as it relates to the claims asserted against the NHL in
the above-captioned lawsuit.
Based on the information provided and National Union's initial investigation,

National Union agrees to participate in the defense of the NHL subject to a
full reservation of its rights. We have retained Joseph Ortego, Esq. of the law
firm of Nixon Peabody to represent your interests in the above-captioned
matter. Mr. Ortego can be reached at 212-940-3045 or at
jortego@nixonpeabody.com.
Please note that we agree to participate in the defense of the NHL for those
defense costs which are reasonable and necessary. We do not agree to pay
for routine administrative tasks, insurance coverage related tasks or costs.
National Union reserves the right to withdraw from participation in the
defense of the NHL, and to seek reimbursement of expenses incurred in its
defense if it is determined that the claims at issue do not fall within the
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
David Zimmerman
Page 2 of 7
coverage of the above-referenced policies, or that any of the terms,

conditions, or exclusions contained therein preclude coverage for this claim.
We would like you to know that we appreciate and value the NHL as a
customer and we expect that you may have questions after reading this letter
regarding our position and the practical impact of the reservation of rights.
Please feel free to contact me regarding any questions about our coverage
position.
In considering the NHL's request for coverage, we have reviewed the

insurance policies referenced above, the underlying coverage and the
allegations asserted by the plaintiffs. If the NHL asserts a right to coverage
under any other policy issued by any other member company of AIG, please
submit notice pursuant to the notice provisions contained in that policy.
Based on the information we have received to date, the following sets forth a
summary of the allegations in the Leeman lawsuit.
On November 25, 2013, the Plaintiffs Gary Leeman, Bradley Aitken, Darren
Banks, Curt Bennett, Richard Dunn, Warren Holmes, Robert Manno, Blair
James Stewart, Morris Titanic, and Richard Vaive (collectively "Plaintiffs")
filed a purported Class Action Complaint against the NHL and the NHL Board
of Governors in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs contend that the NHL knew or should have known
of the term risks and consequences of repeated concussive and sub-
long
concussive events and/or brain injuries but took no action to reduce the
number and severity of concussions among NHL players. Plaintiffs further
assert that the NHL voluntarily inserted itself into the scientific research and
discussion concerning the link between brain injuries sustained by NHL
players and short-term and long-term impairment by establishing and
maintaining a concussion program. Plaintiffs also contend that the NHL's

active and purposeful concealment of the severe risks of brain injuries
exposed players to unnecessary dangers that they could have avoided had
they been provided with truthful and accurate information. Plaintiffs contend
that they have sustained repetitive brain injuries while in the NHL and now
suffer from latent or manifest neuro-degenerative disorders and diseases.
Plaintiffs contend that they played in the NHL at various times between the
1970's through the 1990's.
Plaintiffs, serving as class representatives, are seeking to certify a class
consisting of "all former NHL players who retired on or before February 14,
2013 and who have suffered brain trauma and/or injuries as a result of
concussive and sub-concussive impacts inflicted on them while playing in the
NHL."
Plaintiffs assert that the class consists of approximately 10,000
individuals.
Plaintiffs have asserted seven separate causes of action against the NHL. In
Count I (Declaratory Relief), Plaintiffs seek a declaration as to the liability of
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
David Zimmerman
Page 3 of 7
the NHL - a declaration that the NHL and

including willfully intentionally
concealed information and mislead Plaintiffs concerning the risk of head
injuries while playing hockey. In Count II (Medical Monitoring), Plaintiffs seek
an injunction creating a Court-supervised, NHL-funded medical monitoring
program to facilitate the diagnosis and adequate treatment of Plaintiffs for
neuro-degenerative disorders and diseases. In Count III (Fraudulent
Misrepresentation By Concealment), Plaintiffs assert that the NHL has been
aware of the serious short-term and long-term risks associated with repetitive
head impacts but the NHL knowingly and fraudulently concealed the risks
from NHL players. In Count IV (Fraudulent Misrepresentation By
Nondisclosure), Plaintiffs assert that the NHL withheld or omitted facts and
information from the Plaintiffs relating to the risks of repetitive head impacts
and that such acts and/or omissions were committed willfully, maliciously,
and with intent to injure the Plaintiffs. In Count V (Fraud), Plaintiffs repeat
their previous allegations and further contend that the NHL delayed in
players'
implementing changes in the game that it knew could reduce
exposure to the risks of head injuries. In Count VI (Negligent
Misrepresentation), Plaintiffs assert that the NHL misrepresented the dangers

associated with head injuries and the dangers of retuming to action after
sustaining a head injury. In Count VII (Negligence Through January, 2013),

Plaintiffs assert that the NHL failed to adequately address and publicize the
continuing health risks associated with concussive and sub-concussive

events and brain injuries.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, medical monitoring, compensatory damages,

punitive damages, prejudgment interest and attorney's fees and costs.
On February 19, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint
whereby Plaintiff Richard Vaive was dropped from the lawsuit and additional
Plaintiffs Bruce Bell, Bernie Nichols, Bob Bourne and Scott Parker were
added as class representatives. The causes of action and allegations in the
Amended Class Action Complaint remained substantially the same as the
original complaint.
National Union issued three commercial general liability and commercial

automobile liability policies to the NHL. The policies include National Union
Policy No. GLA5830813, effective January 1, 1991 to January 1, 1992,

National Union Policy No. GLA 5830817, effective January 1, 1992 to
January 1, 1993, and National Union Policy No. 5830848, January 1, 1993 to
January 1, 1994. AII three of the National Union Policies provide $1 million
per occurrence limits and are subject to $2,500 per occurrence Bodily Injury
and Property Damage Combined deductibles. The relevant provisions of
"1."
the National Union Policies are attached as Exhibit Kindly refer to
the Policies for their complete terms, provisions and conditions.
Based upon our review of the allegations asserted in the Amended Class
Action Complaint and the National Union Policy, National Union agrees to
participate in the defense of the NHL subject to a full reservation of its rights.
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
David Zimmerman
Page 4 of 7
Notwithstanding the above, please note that there are serious coverage
issues associated with the above-referenced lawsuit that may preclude
coverage under the National Union Policies. In this regard, the National
Governors"
Hockey League and "NHL Board of have been named as
defendants in the Leeman lawsuit. The National Union Policies were issued
to National Hockey League Services, Inc. and, by endorsement, National
Hockey League. Accordingly, National Union reserves its rights to deny

coverage to the NHL Board of Governors to the extent it does not qualify as
"insured"
an under the National Union Policies.
In addition, the insuring agreement and definition section provides that the
policies apply to claims for bodily injury taking place during the policy period
injury"
caused by an occurrence. First, there must be "bodily as that term is
injury"
defined in the policies. Additionally, the "bodily must take place during
injury"
the policy period. If the alleged "bodily did not take place during the
injury,"
policy period, there is no coverage. "bodilyFurther, if any, must arise
"occurrence,"
out of an as this term
is defined in the policy. The policy does
injury" "occurrence."
not provide coverage for "bodily not caused by an
Accordingly, National Union reserves its rights to rely on the insuring

agreement and definitions sections of the National Union Policies to preclude
Plaintiffs'
coverage for the claims.
Also, the insuring agreement of the National Union Policies only provides
coverage for those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as
damages because of bodily injury. Plaintiffs in the Leeman lawsuit are, in
part, seeking injunctive relief to establish a Court-supervised medical
monitoring fund. Such relief is not damages designed to compensate a

person for an actual injury that the person may have suffered. Accordingly,
National Union reserves the right to limit or decline coverage under the
National Union Policies to the extent that the relief sought by Plaintiffs does
not constitute damages because of bodily injury.
injury"
Further, the National Union Policies only provide coverage for "bodily
"occurrence." "occurrence"
caused by an The term is defined, in pertinent
part, as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to

conditions."
substantially the same general harmful The Plaintiffs characterize
the NHL's conduct as willful and intentional. Further, the Plaintiffs assert
claims for Fraudulent Misrepresentation By Concealment (Count III),
Fraudulent Misrepresentation by Nondisclosure (Count IV), and Fraud (Count
V). The National Union Policies do not provide coverage for these claims or
any damages associated with them or for any willful or intentional conduct
"occurrence"
because such damages do not arise from an as defined by the
policies. National Union, therefore, reserves the right to disclaim coverage
"occurrence."
for any damages to the extent that the claims do not involve an
"occurrence"
Moreover, the term is defined as "an accident, including
continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful
conditions."
National Union, therefore, reserves its right to rely upon the
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
David Zimmerman
Page 5 of 7
"occurrence"
definition of the term and the provisions of the Limits of
Insurance section of the policy to limit coverage under the Policies.
We also refer you to Exclusion a. of the Policies, which excludes coverage, in

injury"
pertinent part, for any "bodily that is "expected or intended from the
insured."
standpoint of the Accordingly, any causes of action and any
damages associated with any willful or intentional conduct are excluded
under the National Union Policies to the extent such injuries were expected
or intended from the standpoint of the insured. National Union reserves its
intended"
right to rely on the "expected or exclusion to disclaim any obligation
to indemnify any insured for any injuries that were expected or intended from
the standpoint of the insured.
The Plaintiffs in the Leeman lawsuit are seeking to recover punitive damages
in the lawsuit. Please note that punitive damages are often based upon
intentional and other non-fortuitous conduct. In addition, such relief is not
damages designed to compensate a person for an actual injury that the
person may have suffered. Also, punitive damages, whether for direct or
vicarious liability, may not be insurable as a matter of public policy or law.
Accordingly, National Union reserves its right to deny coverage for punitive
damages to the extent they are not insurable under applicable state law, to
the extent they are precluded under the policy, or to the extent that they are
based on acts or omissions that were intentional, non-fortuitous, or acts and
omissions that do not otherwise constitute an occurrence.
As part of our investigation into the underlying claims and the handling of this
matter pursuant to a full reservation of rights, we request that you please
provide us with copies of all future communications with defense counsel
and/or other insurers as well as copies of all pleadings and other documents
filed in connection with the Leeman lawsuit. In addition, we request that you
please provide us with copies of the following documents and information:
1. A summary/coverage chart of the National Hockey

League's relevant insurance coverage from 1917
through the present, including carriers, policy numbers,
policy periods, policy limits and contact information;
2. A summary/list of the National Hockey League's

relevant insurance brokers from 1917 through the
present;
3. Copies of all
primary insurance policies issued to the
National Hockey League from 1917 to the present;
4. Copies of all tenders/responses correspondence

to/from each and every carrier to whom the National
Hockey League has tendered the Leeman lawsuit;

FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
David Zimmerman
Page 6 of 7
5. The identity of every insurance carrier that has agreed

to defend/participate, or is currently participating in the
defense of, the National Hockey League for the
Leeman lawsuit, including the date of acceptance and
the policy(ies) under which the defense is being
provided;
6. Contact information, including email addresses, for
every insurance carrier and/or insurance carrier

representative that has agreed to defend/participate, or
is currently participating in the defense of, the National
Hockey League for the Leeman lawsuit
7. Please provide a summary of the time frame during

which any studies were performed and/or committees
were researching head injury, including concussions
and sub-concussive blows, by or on behalf of the
National Hockey League; and
8. Any and all AIGRM and/or risk management

agreements relating to the National Union Policies and
any other liability policies that potentially provide

coverage for the Leeman lawsuit.
National Union's coverage position is based on the information presently

available to us. This letter is not, and should not be construed as, a waiver of
any terms, conditions, exclusions or other policy provisions, or any other

insurance policies issued by Property AIG Casualty member companies.
National Union expressly reserves all its rights under the policies referenced
above, including the right to assert additional defenses to any claims for
coverage. In addition, National Union has not yet been provided with copies
of the AIGRM agreements issued in conjunction with the National Union
Policies. National Union, therefore, reserves its rights to revise its coverage
positions to the extent the AIGRM agreements impact or otherwise affect
coverage under the National Union Policies.
If the NHL asserts a right to coverage under another policy issued by any
other member company of AIG Property Casualty, please submit notice
pursuant to the notice provisions contained in that policy.
Should you have any additional information that you feel would cause us to
review our position, or would assist us in our investigation or determination,
please advise me as soon as possible. Also, if the NHL is served with any
additional or amended pleadings, please forward them to me immediately so
that we can review our coverage position.
If you have any other insurance policies that may respond to these claims,
you should notify those insurers immediately.
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
David Zimmerman
Page 7 of 7
In closing, allow me to reiterate that we value the NHL as a customer and

encourage you to contact us should you have any questions or concerns
regarding the contents of this letter.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from
you.
Very truly yours,
Zachary A. Mengel
Senior Analyst
Complex Casualty Claims
cc: Maria J. Dercola
Sports, Entertainment & Special Risks Group

BWD Group, LLC
45 Executive Drive
mdercola@bwd.us
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
EXHIBIT I
The three National Union Policies contain the following or substantially similar
relevant provisions:
SECTION I - COVERAGES
COVERAGE A BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY
1. Insuring Agreement
a. We will pay those sums that the insured

becomes legally obligated to pay as damages
injury" damage"
because of "bodily or "property
to which this insurance applies. No other
obligation or liability to pay sums or perform
acts or services is covered unless explicitly
provided for under SUPPLEMENTARY
PAYMENTS -COVERAGES A AND B. This
injury"
insurance applies only to "bodily and
damage"
"property which occurs during the
injury"
policy period. The "bodily or "property
damage" "occurrence."
must be caused by an
"occurrence"
The must take place in the
territory."
"coverage We will have the right and
"suit"
duty to defend any seeking those
damages even if the allegations of the suit are
fraudulent.'
groundless, false or But:
(1) The amount we will pay for damages is limited

as described in SECTION III - LIMITS OF
INSURANCE;
(2) We may investigate and settle any claim or

"suit"
at our discretion; and
(3) Our right and duty to defend end when we have

used up the applicable limit of insurance in the
payment of judgments or settlements under
Coverage A or B or medical expenses under
Coverage C.
'
This sentence was added to Policy No. GLA 5830813 by endorsement.
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
injury"
b. Damages because of "bodily include
damages claimed by any person or
organization for care, loss of services or death
injury."
resulting at any time from the "bodily
* * *
2. Exclusions
injury" damage"
a. "Bodily or
"property expected or intended
from the standpoint of the insured. This exclusion does
injury"
not apply to "bodily resulting from the use of
reasonable force to protect persons or property.
* * *
1. If you are designated in the Declarations as:
* * *
c. An organization other than a partnership or joint venture, you

are an insured. Your executive officers and directors are
insureds, but only with respect to their duties as your officers

or directors. Your stockholders are also insureds, but only
with respect to their liability as stockholders.
* * *
The National Union Policies contain the following relevant definitions:
injury"
3. "Bodily means bodily injury, sickness or disease
sustained by a person, including death resulting from any of
these at any time.
"Occurrence"
9. means an accident, including continuous or
repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful
conditions.
The National Union Policies contain the following Deductible Endorsement:
DEDUCTIBLE LIABILITY INSURANCE
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:

FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART
PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE

PART
SCHEDULE
Coverage Amount and Basis of

Deductible
* * *
Bodily Injury Liability and
Property Damage Liability $ N/A per claim

Combined $ 2,500 per occurrence
* * *
1. Our obligation under the Bodily Injury Liability and Property

Damage Liability Coverages to pay damages on your behalf
applies only to the amount of damages in excess of any
deductible amounts stated in the Schedule above as
applicable to such coverages, and the limits of insurance
occurrence"
applicable to "each for such coverages will be
"Aggregate"
reduced by the amount of such deductible. limits
for such coverages shall not be reduced by the application of
such deductible amount.
2. The deductible amounts stated in the Schedule apply as

follows:
* * *
B. PER OCCURRENCE BASIS - if the deductible is on a "per

occurrence"
basis, the deductible amount applies:
1. Under the Bodily Injury Liability or Property Damage
Liability Coverage, respectively:
injury"
a. To all damages because of "bodily as a
"occurrence,"
result of any one or
damage"
b. To all damages because of "property
"occurrence."
as a result of any one
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
regardless of the number of persons or organizations

"occurrence."
who sustain damages because of that
Liability Coverage combined to all damages because

injury" damage"
of "bodily and "property as the
"occurrence"
result of any one regardless of the
number of persons or organizations who sustain
"occurrence."
damages because of that
3. The terms of this insurance, including those with

respect to:
"suits"
(a) Our right and duty to defend any seeking
those damages; and
"occurrence,"
(b) Your duties in the event of an
claim, or suit
apply irrespective of the application of the deductible

amount.
4. We may pay any part or all of the deductible amount to

effect settlement of any claim or suit and, upon
notification of the action taken, you shall promptly
reimburse us for such part of the deductible amount as
has been paid by us.
The National Union Policies contain the "Participant -

following Liability
Sports"
Endorsement:
This endorsement modifies Insurance under the following:
Insurance provided to you under Section I., Coverage A., Includes

those sums which you become legally obligated to pay because of
injury" damage"
actions brought against you for "bodily or "property by
a PARTICIPANT while practicing for or participating in any contest or
exhibition of an athletic or sports nature sponsored by you.
The limit of insurance with respect to this endorsement for Participant

Legal Liability is $1,000,000.00 each occurrence. For the purpose of
this endorsement, this limit replaces the limit of insurance shown on
the Declarations for each occurrence.
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
126 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
It is also agreed that a $2,500.00 each occurrence deductible shall
apply to all claims arising out of Participants Legal Liability coverages.

Our obligation under the Bodily Injury Liability and Property Damage
Liability Coverages to pay damages on your behalf applies only to the

amount of damages in excess of any deductible amounts stated
above as applicable to such coverages, and the limits of insurance
applicable to each occurrence for such coverage will be reduced by
the amount of such deductible. The Aggregate limits for such
coverages shall not be reduced by the application of such deductible
amount.
Claims or actions in effect by one player against another

player. However, coverage remains in effect for the first
Named Insured and/or any applicable Additional Insureds who
have been endorsed onto the policy.
The term Participant shall include players, coaches,

managers, staff members, team workers, and game officials
who have been granted proper authorization to enter any
restricted area(s).
The restricted area(s) shall include those areas which are occupied by
players and to which access by the general public is restricted or
prohibited. Such areas shall be designated as restricted beginning
two hours prior to the official starting of the activity/event and ending
period"
at the official conclusion of the activity/event. "Inter shall not
be included within the period of time designated for the restricted
area(s).
EXHIBIT 5
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
Pli
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
Whiteand
Williams LLP
Michael 0. Kassak
LibertyView | 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 400 | Cheny Hill, NJ 08002-2220

Direct 856.317.3653 | Fax 856.317.3603
kassakm@whiteandwilliams.com | whiteandwilliams.com
May 8, 2014
VIA REGISTERED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUEST, AND EMAIL

David Zimmerman, Esquire
14d"
1185 Avenue of the Americas, Floor
New York, NY 10036
RE: Insured : National Hockey League

Subject : Concussion Litigation
Primary Policy : Federal Insurance Company/Vigilant Insurance
Company Policy No. 7320-73-95, effective January 1,

1994 to January 1, 2014
Umbrella-Excess : Federal Insurance Company Policy No. 7973-47-51,
Policy effective January 1, 1994 to January 1, 2014

Claim Ref.: : 040513095859
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:
"Chubb,"
Various member companies of the Chubb Group of Insurance Companies (collectively
unless otherwise identified individually) issued primary, umbrella, and excess policies to the
National Hockey League ("NHL") for various periods. White and Williams LLP has been
retained by Chubb with regard to the series of lawsuits involving claims by current, former, and
retired NHL players against the NHL and/or NHL Board of Governors for injuries they have or
will suffer from repetitive head impacts they sustained while playing hockey in the NHL.
Specifically, the following class action lawsuits ("Lawsuits") have been tendered by the NHL to
Chubb:
" Gary Leeman, et al. v. National Hockey League and NHL Board of Governors,
U.S.D.C. D.D.C. No. 13-cv-01856-KBJ;
" LaCouture v. NHL, U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., No. 1:14-cv-02531-SAS; and
Delaware | Massachusetts | New Jersey | New York | Pennsylvania

FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 2
14-cv-01140-SRN-JSM.1
" Christian v. NHL, U.S.D.C. D.Minn., No.
Although there are differences among the Lawsuits in terms of their lead plaintiffs, class
defmitions, jurisdictions, and claims, among others, the common theme to all is that the players
allege they have suffered long-term injuries from repetitive head injuries they sustained while
playing in the NHL. The players further allege that they have developed, or will develop,
progressive neurodegenerative diseases as a result of their repetitive head impacts. The Lawsuits
assert various causes of action, such as negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, medical monitoring,
and declaratory relief, among others. We recognize that the allegations in the Lawsuits are
unsubstantiated contentions at this time, and nothing in this letter is intended to suggest or imply
that these allegations have any legal or factual merit.
Chubb is still investigating the existence and location of all policies that it issued to the NHL
that may provide coverage for the Lawsuits. At the present time, Chubb has located complete
copies of Federal Insurance Company ("Federal")/Vigilant Insurance Company ("Vigilant")
policy number 7320-73-95 for terms effective January 1, 2001 through January 1, 2014, and
complete copies of Federal excess-umbrella policy number 7973-47-51, which is excess to
Federal/Vigilant policy number 7320-73-95. This letter only addresses Federal's and Vigilant's
defense and indemnification obligations to the NHL under Federal/Vigilant number 7320-
policy
73-95 and Federal excess-umbrella policy number 7973-47-51 for policy periods for which
Chubb has complete copies of both of these policies, i.e., January 1, 2001 through January 1,
2014. Chubb continues to investigate the existence and location of all potentially applicable
policies that its member companies issued to the NHL, as well as the terms and conditions of
companies'
those policies. We will address the various member coverage positions regarding
other applicable policies under separate correspondence when other complete policies are
located. To further expedite this process, Chubb requests the assistance of the NHL in locating
copies of any and all potentially applicable policies issued by Chubb member companies.
parties'
Please be advised that Chubb reserves its rights to resolve the rights and obligations
through the existing declaratory judgment action filed by TIG referenced in footnote 1 or such
other litigation as may become necessary. Under the circumstances addressed herein, should any
of the Lawsuits proceed to trial, it may be necessary to seek an allocated verdict, through the use
of a special verdict sheet, to identify what portion of any verdict (and resulting judgment), if any,
is allocable to uncovered claims and damages. Special interrogatories also may be necessary to
resolve factual issues that affect insurance coverage. Chubb reserves all of its rights in
connection with requiring the NHL to pursue a special verdict sheet or special interrogatories, in
order to achieve these objectives. Chubb also reserves the right to intervene in the Lawsuits for
1
We also recognize that another insurance carrier has filed a declaratory judgment action to
resolve issues of insurance coverage concerning the Lawsuits:
" TIG Ins. Co., et. al. v National Hockey League, et al., Supreme Court of New
York, County of New York, No. 651162/2014.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 3
purposes of, among other things, participating in discovery and pursuing a special verdict sheet
and/or special interrogatories.
Please understand that this reservation-of-rights letter is not an attempt on Chubb's part to avoid
its responsibilities to the NHL under its policies, but rather, to apprise you of Chubb's
obligations and rights as required under applicable law. Chubb appreciates and values its
relationship with the NHL, and is committed to working closely with the NHL in the defense of
this lawsuit.
The following provides a discussion of the allegations of the Lawsuits, the coverage afforded
under the policies, including the bases for our conclusions, and the terms and conditions of the
defense that Federal and Vigilant have agreed to provide. Chubb reserves the right to
supplement or amend the positions taken in this letter for any reason, including, without
limitation, if new or different information becomes available.
To assist you in understanding this letter, we have included excerpts of certain policy provisions
from the insurance policies addressed in this letter. Words that appear in bold print are defined
terms within the policies. This information is provided so that you may have it available as you
review the explanations contained in this letter. The positions set forth in this letter are based on
all of the provisions of the policies referenced in this letter, and not only on the excerpts cited
herein. Therefore, we urge you to refer to the full text of the policies and not merely the excerpts
in this letter. Additionally, please note that nothing in this letter is intended to modify the terms
of the policies. To the extent cited portions differ in any manner from the actual language of the
policies'
policies, the language shall control.
I. DISCLAIMER AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AS TO FEDERAL/VIGILANT

PRIMARY POLICY NO. 7320-73-95
It is Chubb's that Vigilant and/or Federal issued number 7320-73-

understanding primary policy
95 for policy periods effective January 1, 2001 through January 1, 2014. Chubb also
acknowledges the potential existence of primary policy number 7320-73-95 issued to the NHL
for policy periods effective January 1, 1994 through January 1, 2001. However, Chubb is still
searching for copies of the policies that were potentially in effect from January 1, 1994 through
January 1, 2001. Once again, the scope of this letter is limited to the policies effective January 1,
2001 through January 1, 2014. If the NHL has any of the missing policies for policy number
7320-73-95, Chubb requests that copies of these policies be provided to Chubb at your earliest
convenience. Once Chubb obtains copies of these missing policies or sufficient secondary
evidence to analyze them, Chubb will address its coverage position regarding these policy
periods in a separate reservation of rights letter.
A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIMARY POLICY
Vigilant issued policy number 7320-73-95 for the three-year term effective January 1, 2001 to
January 1, 2004, with a $1 million per occurrence limit and a $2,500 per occurrence deductible
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 4
that reduces the per occurrence limit of insurance. Effective with the January 1, 2003 to January
1, 2004 term, the policy contained a $5 million general aggregate limit.
Thereafter, Vigilant renewed the policy for annual terms effective January 1, 2004 to January 1,
2005; January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006; January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2007; January 1, 2007 to
January 1, 2008; January 1, 2008 to January 1, 2009; January 1, 2009 to January 1, 2010;
January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2011; and January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2012. Federal issued the
policy effective January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2013; and January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014
(hereafter, referred to in this section as the "Primary Policy"). These policy periods have a $1
million per occurrence limit, a $5 million general aggregate limit, and $2,500 per occurrence
deductible.
B. BODILY INJURY OCCURRING OUTSIDE THE POLICY PERIOD AND

CAUSED BY AN OCCURRENCE
Effective January 1, 2001, the Primary Policy states, in pertinent part:
We will pay damages the insured becomes legally obligated to pay
by reason of liability imposed by law or assumed under any

contract or agreement because of:
bodily injury or property damage caused by an
occurrence; or personal injury or advertising injury
to which this insurance applies.
This insurance applies:
1. to bodily injury or property damage which occurs during the
policy period; and
2. to personal injury or advertising injury only if caused by an

offense committed during the policy period.
We will defend any claim or suit against the insured seeking such
damages. We will pay in addition to the applicable limit of
insurance the defense expense. Our obligation to defend and pay
for defense expense is limited as described under DEFENSE OF
CLAIMS OR SUITS.
We have no obligation under this insurance to make payments or

to perform acts or services except as provided above.
See Form 40-02-0004 (Ed. 9-84)(effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004).

FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 5
Bodily injury means physical injury, physical sickness, or physical disease sustained by a
person and, if arising out of the foregoing, mental anguish, mental injury, shock, humiliation or
death at any time. See Form 40-02-0004 (Ed. 9-84)(effective 1/1/2001 to 1/1/2004).
Effective January 1, 2004, the Primary Policy states, in pertinent part:
Subject to all of the terms and conditions of this insurance, we will
pay damages that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay by

reason of liability:
" imposed law; or

by
" assumed in an insured contract;
for bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence

to which this coverage applies.
This coverage applies only to such bodily injury or property

damage that occurs during the policy period.
Damages for bodily injury include damages claimed by a person

or organization for care or loss of services resulting at any time
from the bodily injury.
Other than as provided under the Investigation, Defense And

Settlements and Supplementary Payments sections of this contract,
we have no other obligation or liability to pay sums or perform acts
or services under this coverage.
. . . .
See Form 80-02-2000 (Rev. 4-01) at 3, 25, 29 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
Thus, according to the Primary Policy, Federal and/or Vigilant will pay damages the insured
becomes legally obligated to pay for bodily injury that occurs during the policy period and was
caused by an occurrence to which the Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Coverage
applies (subject to the Primary Policy's terms and conditions).
The Leeman lawsuit alleges a class consisting of "all former NHL players who retired on or
before February 14, 2013 who have suffered brain trauma and/or injuries as a result of
NHL."
concussive and sub-concussive impacts inflicted on them while playing in the See
Leeman Am. Compl. ¶ 150. The LaCouture lawsuit alleges a class consisting of all former and
current NHL players. See LaCouture Compl. ¶ 242. The Christian lawsuit alleges a class
consisting of all living NHL hockey players, their spouses and dependents, and the estates of
players"
deceased NHL who retired from playing in the NHL. See Christian Compl. ¶ 187.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 6
Thus, by our estimation, the bodily injuries allegedly sustained by the class potentially spans
from the start of the NHL in 1917 through the present. The NHL was insured under the Primary
Policy for policy periods effective from January 1, 2001 through January 1, 2014. Federal and
Vigilant therefore disclaim coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any settlement or
judgment for, bodily injury that occurred outside the policy periods of the Primary Policy and/or
were not caused by an occurrence covered under the Primary Policy.
Additionally, because the Primary Policy provides coverage only for bodily injury caused by
and/or resulting from an occurrence, coverage is limited to liability arising from an accident,
including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions.
As discussed at greater length below in the "Expected Or Intended Consequences, Intentional
Generally"
Conduct section, the Lawsuits contain causes of action predicated on allegations of
intentional conduct, and they contain allegations of intentional conduct and conduct that a
reasonable person would expect to cause bodily injury. Intentional conduct, by its very
definition, cannot be accidental, and therefore allegations of intentional conduct do not fall
within the scope of the Primary Policy's insuring agreement.
C. BODILY INJURY OR SUITS OCCURRING OUTSIDE OF THE

COVERAGE TERRITORY
The Primary Policy contains a Coverage Territory Endorsement, which states, in pertinent part:
Subject to all of the terms and conditions of this insurance, this

insurance:
A. applies only to:
1. bodily injury and property damage that takes place; or
2. advertising injury and personal injury caused by an

offense committed;
in:
" the United States of America its possessions and

(including
territories), Canada or Puerto Rico; or
" intemational airspace or waters, if such or damage

injury
occurs or such offense is committed during the course of
transportation or travel between places in the United States
of America (including its possessions and territories),
Canada or Puerto Rico.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 7
B. does not apply to any damages, loss, cost or expense in

connection with any suit brought outside the United States of
America (including its possessions and territories), Canada or
Puerto Rico.
. . . .
1/1/2013).2
See Form 80-02-6388 (Ed. 7-03)(effective 1/1/2004 through
Effective January 1, 2013, the Primary Policy contains the following Coverage Territory
Endorsement:
With respect to the Coverages described in the Schedule, the
following provision is added to this policy and replaces any similar

provision contained therein. The use of the words damages, loss,
cost or expense in any provision does not expand any coverages
under this contract.
Subject to all of the terms and conditions of this insurance, with

respect to the Coverages as described in the Schedule, such
Coverages apply only if an event trigger happens in the
Applicable Coverage Territory as described in the Schedule.
As used herein the following words and phrases have special

meanings described below:
Event trigger refers to the:
" injury, damage or other loss; or
" accident, act, occurrence, offense or other cause of loss;
that must happen for coverage to apply as described under the

applicable Coverage.
Coverage: ALL COVERAGES
Applicable Coverage Territory
Coverage Territory means, and therefore this insurance applies,
only to an event trigger happening inside the United States of
2
This language was quoted from the Coverage Territory Endorsement Form 80-02-6388 issued
April 24, 2006 for the policy period 1/1/2006 to 1/1/2007. Between 1/1/2004 and 1/1/2013, the
Coverage Territory Endorsement Form varies slightly in format.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 8
America (including its possessions and territories), Canada or

Puerto Rico.
However, Coverage Territory does not include (and therefore this

insurance does not apply to) any damages, loss, cost or expense in
connection with any suit brought outside the United States of
America (including its possessions and territories), Canada and
Puerto Rico.
Further, this insurance does not apply to any event trigger
happening in international airspace or waters during the course of

transportation or travel between places in the United States [of]
Puerto Rico, unless a suit is brought inside the United States of
Puerto Rico.
With respect to advertising injury or personal injury caused by

an event trigger using the Internet (or similar electronic means of
communication), such an event trigger will be deemed to have

happened inside the United States (including its possessions and
territories), Canada and Puerto Rico if the first publication of

content or material using the Internet (or similar electronic means
of communication), causing such injury originated inside the
United States (including its possessions and territories), Canada
and Puerto Rico
See Form 80-02-2373 (Ed. 4-94) at 1-2 (effective 1/1/2013 to 1/1/2014).
Therefore, Federal and Vigilant disclaim coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any
settlement or judgment for, any alleged bodily injury or event trigger occurring outside of the
United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.
D. WHO IS INSURED
The term insured under the Primary Policy means any Named Insured, and any other person or
organization that meets one or more of the insured definitions in the Primary Policy's "Who Is
Insured"
An section. This section includes, among others, insured definitions for a sole
organization,"
proprietorship, partnership or joint venture, limited liability company, "other
organizations." 40-02-
employee, or "subsidiary or newly acquired or formed See, e.g., Form
2000-B (Rev. 7-87) at 7-8 (effective 1/1/2001 to 1/1/2004); Form 80-02-2000 (4-01) at 5-9
(effective 1/1/2004 to 1/1/2014), as modified by various endorsements.
Some of the Plaintiffs assert claims against the NHL Board of Governors (the "Board"). See
Leeman Am. Compl. Federal and Vigilant acknowledge that the NHL is a Named Insured under
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 9
the Primary Policy. The Board, however, is not expressly named as an insured in the Primary
Policy, and Federal and Vigilant are unaware of any facts that qualify the Board as an insured
Insured"
under the insured definitions in the Primary Policy's "Who Is An section. Federal and
Vigilant, however, are still investigating this issue. As such, please provide us with any and all
information and documents relevant to this issue, including the Board's legal status and the
nature of its affiliation with the NHL.
E. EXPECTED OR INTENDED CONSEQUENCES, OR INTENTIONAL

CONDUCT GENERALLY
The Primary Policy contains the following Intentional Acts exclusion:
INTENTIONAL ACTS
bodily injury or property damage, expected or intended from the

standpoint of the insured.
BUT
this exclusion does not apply to bodily injury or property

damage resulting from the use of reasonable force to protect
persons or property.
Effective January 1, 2004, the Primary Policy contains the following Expected or Intended Injury
exclusion:
This insurance does not apply to bodily injury or property

damage arising out of an act that:
" is intended the insured; or

by
" would be expected from the standpoint of a reasonable

person in the circumstances of the insured;
to cause bodily injury or property damage, even if the actual
bodily injury or property damage is of a different degree or type

than intended or expected.
This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury or property

persons or tangible property.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 10
See Form 80-02-2000 (Rev. 4-01) at 13 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
Thus, pursuant to these exclusions, the Primary Policy expressly precludes coverage for bodily
injury resulting from an act that was intended or expected by the insured. The exclusion
applicable from January 1, 2004 through January 1, 2014 also precludes coverage for acts that a
reasonable person would expect to cause bodily injury.
The Lawsuits assert various intentional tort claims against the NHL, including causes of action
such as fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation by concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation by
nondisclosure, fraud by omission, fraud by concealment, and intentional harm. Intentional
conduct is a prima facie requirement of all of these claims. As such, these Counts are not
covered under the Primary Policy because the Expected or Intended Injury exclusion expressly
precludes coverage for bodily injury that results from intentional conduct.
The Lawsuits also assert various negligence claims, such as negligent misrepresentation and
negligence. Although these allegations are styled as negligence-based claims, they are based in
whole or in part on allegations of intentional conduct and conduct that a reasonable person would
expect to cause bodily injury. By way of example, but not limitation, the negligent
Plaintiffs'
misrepresentation claim in the Leeman complaint depends on allegations that the NHL
knowingly withheld, ignored, and actively concealed information demonstrating the risks
associated with repetitive head injuries. See, e.g., Leeman Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 228-38. The
negligence claim alleges the NHL breached its duty to adequately address the risks of repetitive
statements"
traumatic head injuries by perpetrating "misleading and false about such risks,
failing to disclose and publicize such risks, and perpetrating the dangerous myth that NHL
players are so tough they can readily withstand, without risk of serious impairment and
permanent injuries, repetitive traumatic head impacts. See Leeman Am. Compl., ¶ 242-245;
LaCouture Compl., ¶¶ 252-255; Christian Compl. ¶ 238.
Furthermore, the Lawsuits have general allegations that the NHL has known of these risks for
"refused"
decades, actively and purposefully concealed them, denied their validity, and to
"refusing"
address them by to ban fighting or amend the NHL's rules, procedures, and
equipment requirements. See, e.g., Leeman Am. Compl., ¶ ¶ 3-4, 16-18, 112, 114, 137, 143,
145, 147; LaCouture Compl., ¶¶ 7, 84, 167, 175. The Lawsuits also allege the NHL purposefully
glorified the brutality of NHL hockey in an effort to market the sport, and propagated false
representations that hits to the head do not seriously threaten a player's health and are an
acceptable and natural consequence of the game. See, e.g., Leeman Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 95-102.
In addition, some of the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the NHL "willfully and intentionally
risk."
concealed material information from, and misled Plaintiffs concerning, that Id. at ¶ 164.
Intentional conduct is an element of all of these allegations. Intentional conduct that results in
bodily injury is specifically excluded from coverage under the aforementioned policy
exclusions. Moreover, the Primary Policy provides coverage for bodily injury caused by a
covered occurrence, and therefore it cannot provide coverage for bodily injury resulting from
intentional conduct because an occurrence, by its very definition, is an accident. Furthermore,
as a matter of public policy, an insurer cannot indemnify its insured for intentional conduct
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 11
because to do so would allow the insured to profit from its wrongdoing. As such, Federal and
Vigilant disclaim coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay for, any damages, settlement,
judgment or claim for fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation by concealment, fraudulent
misrepresentation by nondisclosure, and any other similar claim alleging intentional conduct by
the NHL.
F. KNOWN LOSSES
Effective January 1, 2004, the Primary Policy contains the following Loss in Progress exclusion:

damage that is a change, continuation or resumption of any bodily
injury or property damage known by you, prior to the beginning
of the policy period, to have occurred.
Bodily injury or property damage will be deemed to be known
by you:
A. if such injury or damage is known by, or should have been

known from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the
circumstances of:
1. you;
2. any of your directors, managers, members, officers

(or their designees) or partners (whether or not an
employee); and
B. when any person described in paragraph A. above:
1. reports all, or any part, of any such injury or

damage to us or any other insurer;
2. receives a claim or a demand for damages because

of any such injury or damage; or
3. becomes aware that any such injury or damage has

occurred or has begun to occur.
Thus, the Primary Policy's coverage does not apply to bodily injury that was known by a
Named Insured (or its directors, managers, members, officers, or partners) prior to the beginning
of the policy period. Furthermore, under the known loss doctrine, an insured may not obtain
insurance to cover a loss that is known before the policy takes effect.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
6 53421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF : 11/08/2022
0 9 / 14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 12
If the facts reveal that the NHL was aware of bodily injury, claims or losses associated with
those alleged in the Lawsuits, and had such knowledge prior to the Primary Policy's subject
policy period, then Federal and/or Vigilant disclaim coverage for, and shall have no obligation to
pay any damages, settlement, or judgment for, any bodily injury, claims or losses known to
have occurred prior to the beginning of the policy period.
G. MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
Effective January 1, 2004, the Primary Policy contains the following Medical Professionals
exclusion:
This insurance does not apply to bodily injury, property damage,
advertising injury, personal injury or medical expenses arising

out of:
A. The rendering of or failure to render:
1. medical, surgical, dental, x-ray or nursing service,

treatment, advice or the related furnishing of food
or beverages;
2. any health or therapeutic service, treatment, advice

or instruction;
3. any cosmetic service, treatment, advice or
instruction; or
4. any related professional service, treatment, advice

or instruction;
B. the furnishing or dispensing of drugs or medical, dental or

surgical supplies or appliances;
C. the handling of, or treatment of dead bodies, including

autopsies, organ donation or other procedures; or
D. any retention, employment, investigation, or supervision of any

person or organization performing activities referred to in
subparagraphs A., B, or C. above.
Paragraph D. does not apply to the named insured. This

exclusion does not apply to liability of an athletic trainer for bodily
injury, property damage, advertising injury, or personal
injury.

FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 13
Thus, the Primary Policy's Medical Professionals Exclusion excludes coverage for bodily injury
arising out of the rendering of or the failure to render: medical advice; health treatment, advice
or instruction; and any related professional service, treatment, advice or instruction.
Plaintiffs'
claims in the Lawsuits are predicated on allegations that they sustained bodily injury
as a result of the NHL's failure to advise them of the health and medical risks of repetitive head
injuries, and the NHL's failure to implement reasonable safety rules and procedures to prevent
and treat head injuries. By way of example, but not limitation, the amended Leeman complaint
"Defendants'
makes the following allegations: active and purposeful concealment of the severe
risks of brain injuries exposed players to unnecessary dangers they could have avoided had the
NHL provided them with truthful and accurate information and taken appropriate action to
prevent needless and avoidable harm"; the NHL had a duty to provide truthful information to
NHL players regarding the risks associated with repetitive head injuries and it breached such
duty through silence, misrepresentation, concealment, and omission; the Plaintiffs reasonably
relied on the Defendants for guidance on head injuries and concussions; the NHL misled the
Plaintiffs to believe that the symptoms associated with neurodegenerative disease were not
caused by events occurring while the Plaintiffs were playing in the NHL; and the NHL failed to
provide a reasonably-safe playing and practice environment by refusing to adopt safety rules and
"refusal"
procedures to prevent and properly treat head injuries, including its to "outlaw fighting
head,"
and all hits to the and failing to implement concussion protocols that conformed to
standard practices. See, e.g., Leeman Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 16, 106, 111, 130, 132, 146-147, 153,
see also LaCouture Compl. at ¶¶ 257-
186-194, 198-207; 175, 177, 219, 230, 239-240, 252-253,
259, 263-265; Christian Compl. at ¶¶ 113-116; 172-182, 236-242, 244-255.
As such, Federal and Vigilant disclaim coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any
damages, settlement or judgment for, any bodily injury that arose out of the rendering of or
failure to render medical or health advice, health treatment, health instruction, or any related
professional service, treatment, advice or instruction.
H. EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY
The Primary Policy contains the following Employers Liability exclusion:
EMPLOYERS LIABILITY
bodily injury to:
1. an employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of

employment by the insured; or
2. the spouse, child, parent, brother, or sister of that employee as a

consequence of 1. Above.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 14
1. whether the insured may be liable as an employer or in any

other capacity; and
2. to any obligation to share damages with or repay someone else

who must pay damages because of the injury.
BUT
this exclusion does not apply to liability assumed by the insured

under an insured contract.
See Form 40-02-2000-B (Rev. 7-87) at 2 (effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004).
Effective January 1, 2004, the Primary Policy contains the following Employer's Liability
Exclusion:
A. This insurance does not apply to bodily injury to an
employee of the insured arising out of and in the course of:
1. employment by the insured; or
2. performing duties related to the conduct of the insured's

business.
B. This insurance does not apply to bodily injury to the
brother, child, parent, sister or spouse of such employee as a

consequence of any injury described in paragraph A. above.
" whether the insured be liable as an employer or in

may any
other capacity; and
" to obligation to share damages with or someone

any repay
who must pay damages because of an injury described in
paragraphs A. or B. above.
This exclusion does not apply to the liability for damages assumed
by the insured in an insured contract.
See Form 80-02-2000 (Rev. 4-01) at 12-13 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
It is Chubb's understanding that the Plaintiffs were not employees of the NHL when they were
playing NHL hockey. If, however, it is determined that any Plaintiff was an employee of the
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 15
NHL and such Plaintiff's alleged bodily injury arose out of and in the course of employment by
any insured or while performing duties related to the conduct of the insured's business, then
Vigilant and/or Federal disclaim coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any damages,
settlement or judgment for, any such claims or losses.
L EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES
Effective January 1, 2004, the Primary Policy contains the following Employment-Related
Practices Exclusion:
A. This insurance does not apply to any damages sustained at
any time by any person, whether or not sustained in the course of

employment out of employment-
by any insured, arising any
related act, omission, policy, practice or representation directed at
such person, occurring in whole or in part at any time, including
any:
1. arrest, detention or imprisonment;
2. breach of any express or implied covenant;
3. coercion, criticism, humiliation, prosecution or
retaliation;
4. defamation or disparagement;
5. demotion, discipline, evaluation or reassignment;
6. discrimination, harassment or segregation;
7. a. eviction; or
b. invasion of other violation of any right of
occupancy;
8. failure or refusal to advance, compensate, employ

or promote;
9. invasion or other violation of any right of privacy or
publicity;
10. termination of employment; or
11. other employment-related act, omission, policy,

practice, representation or relationship in
connection with any insured at any time.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 16
B. This insurance does not apply to any damages sustained at
any time by the brother, child, parent, sister or spouse of such

person at whom any employment-related act, omission, policy,
practice or representation is directed, as described in paragraph A.
above, as a consequence thereof.

may any
other capacity; and

any repay
else who must pay damages because of any of the
foregoing.
Thus, this exclusion precludes coverage for any damages sustained by a Plaintiff arising out of
any employment-related act, omission, policy, practice or representation directed at such
Plaintiff, regardless of whether the insured may be liable as an employer or in any other
capacity, and regardless of whether the Plaintiff's damages were sustained in the course of
employment by an insured.
The Plaintiffs asserts various allegations that they sustained injuries in connection with the
Defendants'
failure to provide a reasonably-safe playing and practicing environment and
Defendants'
promotion of a violent culture in the league. By way of example, but not limitation,
the amended Leeman complaint alleges: the Defendant NHL governs, operates, regulates, and
promotes, the NHL professional hockey league; the Defendant Board is the ruling and governing
body of the NHL that exists to establish the policies of the NHL, including the review and
approval of any rule changes to the game; the Plaintiffs and the class are former and retired NHL
players who sustained brain trauma and/or injuries as a result of repetitive head impacts
them"
"inflicted on while playing professional hockey in the NHL; the NHL instituted programs
for the NHL players to support player health and safety, such as the Concussion Program,
Plaintiffs'
Department of Player Safety, and they knew that risks of the injuries could be reduced
by implementing changes to the game, but they refused to change or implement rules,
procedures, equipment requirements, and medical/treatment protocols that would effectively
protect the players from their alleged injuries; Defendants made changes to the game that
Plaintiffs'
increased the likelihood and occurrence of injuries; the Defendants permitted and
promoted on-ice fighting, and they created and promoted a pervasive culture of violence in the
environment"
NHL; "the in which the NHL players sustained repetitive head impacts "exposed
them to substantive hazards"; the Defendants breached their voluntarily-assumed duty to disclose
the medical risks of repetitive traumatic head impacts and actively concealed such information;
Defendants'
and aforementioned acts and omissions caused or materially contributed to
Plaintiffs' 103-
alleged injuries. See Leeman Am. Compl., ¶¶ 10, 17, 23-35, 43, 45, 95, 100-101,
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 17
105, 114, 117, 124-125, 131, 150, 169, 172, 213; see also LaCouture Compl. at ¶¶ 7,172, 176-79,
196-208; Christian Compl. at ¶¶ 15-24, 72, 77-97, 109-171.
Plaintiffs'
Furthermore, some of the negligent misrepresentation claims are based on allegations
that: Defendants misrepresented and concealed the long-term risks of permanent harm from
Defendants'
playing professional hockey in the NHL; and inadequate concussion protocol and
refusal to change the rules of play supported their misrepresentations. See, e.g., Leeman Am.
Compl., Count VI, ¶¶ 235-238.
Some of the Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants are liable for negligence because they failed
to provide a reasonably-safe playing and practice environment to the Plaintiffs, they perpetrated
misleading and false statements about the risks of sustaining traumatic head impacts while
playing NHL hockey, they failed to disclose the true risks of sustaining traumatic head impacts
effect"
while playing NHL hockey, and their conduct created an "institutional in the NHL that
reduced interest in safety, and avoided necessary changes to the game's rules and concussion
protocol. See, e.g., Leeman Am. Compl. ¶¶ 242-246.
Defendants'
Plaintiffs further allege that the aforementioned rules, policies, procedures and
requirements, protocol, acts, misrepresentations, and omissions caused and/or contributed to the
injuries they sustained while playing professional hockey in the NHL.
The Primary Policy's Employment-Related Practices Exclusion excludes coverage for "damages
sustained at any time by any person . . . arising out of any employment-related act, omission,
person."
policy, practice or representation directed at any such This exclusion applies regardless
of whether or not the person sustained the damages while in the course of employment by an
insured, and regardless of whether the insured may be liable as an employer or in any other
capacity. The aforementioned allegations constitute acts, omissions, policies, and practices, that
"employment-related"
are because they pertain to the employment of NHL professional hockey
players. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs contend that these alleged acts, omissions, policies and
practices were directed at them, and that their injuries were caused by the alleged acts,
of"
omissions, policies, and practices. As such, Plaintiffs allege their injuries "arose out the
employment-related acts, omissions, policies, and practices.
Therefore, Federal and Vigilant disclaim coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any
settlement or judgment for, any claims for damages arising out of employment-related acts,
omissions, policies, practices, or representations.
J. CONTRACTS EXCLUSION
Effective January 1, 2004, the Primary Policy contains the following Contracts Exclusion:

damage for which the insured is obligated to pay damages by
reason of assumption of liability in a contract or agreement.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 18
This exclusion does not apply to the liability for damages:
" that such insured would have in the absence of such

contract or agreement; or
" assumed in an oral or written contract or agreement that is

an insured contract, provided the bodily injury or
property damage, to which this insurance applies, occurs

after the execution of such contract or agreement.
Thus, this exclusion precludes coverage for damages from bodily injury the insured is obligated
to pay because it has assumed liability for such damages in a contract or agreement. It is
Chubb's understanding that one or more contracts may obligate the NHL to pay various medical
expenses, health benefits, disability benefits, and/or retirement benefits to Plaintiffs through
various plans and/or policies. The relief sought in the Lawsuits may include expenses, costs,
and/or benefits that the NHL is already required by contract or agreement to provide to the
Plaintiffs. As such, please provide Chubb with copies of any and all contracts and agreements
that required the NHL to provide its players, former players, and/or retired players with medical
and/or health benefits, disability benefits, and/or retirement benefits pertaining to bodily injury.
Furthermore, Federal and Vigilant reserve the right to disclaim coverage, in whole or in part, for
any claims for damages an insured is obligated to pay pursuant to contract or agreement.
WORKERS' OR
K. COMPENSATION SIMILAR LAWS
The Primary Policy contains the following exclusion:
STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS TO EMPLOYEES
any obligation of the insured under workers compensation,
disability benefits or unemployment compensation law or any

similar law.
See Form 40-02-2000-B (Rev. 7-87) at 2 (effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004).
Workers'
Effective January 1, 2004, the Primary Policy contains the following Compensation or
Similar Laws Exclusion:
This insurance does not apply to any obligation of the insured

workers'
under any compensation, disability benefits or
unemployment compensation law or any similar law.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 19
To the extent the relief sought in the Lawsuits include expenses, costs, and/or benefits that the
workers'
NHL was or is obligated to provide the Plaintiffs under compensation, disability
benefits, unemployment compensation law, or any other similar law, such relief is precluded
from coverage under the Primary Policy's Workers Compensation Or Similar Laws Exclusion.
workers'
settlement or judgment for, any obligation an insured has under any compensation,
disability benefits, unemployment compensation law, or any other similar law.
L. MEDICAL MONITORING
Some of the Plaintiffs have asserted claims for medical monitoring. See, e.g., Leeman Am.
Compl., Count II; Christian Compl., Count I. These claims seek a court-approved, NHL-funded
medical monitoring regime to assist in the diagnosis of the alleged latent neurodegenerative
diseases. Because medical monitoring costs are incurred for the purposes of determining
whether a Plaintiff will develop an alleged injury or disease in the future, such costs do not
constitute damages for bodily injury, nor do they constitute bodily injury that occurred during
the policy period. See, e.g., Form 40-02-0004 (Ed. 9-94)(effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004);
Form 80-02-2000 (Rev. 4-01) at 3 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014). Therefore, the medical
monitoring costs sought by Plaintiffs are not covered under the Primary Policy.
Federal and Vigilant also disclaim coverage generally for the cost of complying with an
injunction, such as the one sought in Count I of the amended Leeman complaint to establish a
court-supervised medical monitoring fund, because such relief is equitable in nature and not for
damages covered under the Primary Policy. See, e.g., Form 40-02-0004 (Ed. 9-94)(effective
1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004); Form 80-02-2000 (Rev. 4-01) at 3 (effective 1/1/2004 through
1/1/2014).
settlements or judgments for, any claim for medical monitoring or medical surveillance
expenses.
M. MEDICAL EXPENSES
Pursuant to endorsement, the Primary Policy's coverage for medical expenses was deleted and
therefore the Primary Policy does not provide coverage for medical expenses. See, e.g., Form
40-02-2077 (Ed. 9-84)(effective 1/1/2001 to 1/1/2004); Form 80-02-2311 (Rev. 4-01)(effective

1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014). Medical expenses means reasonable expenses for: necessary first
aid administered at the time of an accident; necessary medical, surgical, x-ray, and dental
services, including prosthetic devices; and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing,
and funeral services. Form 40-02-2001-B (Rev. at 7; Form 80-02-2000 (Rev. 4-
See, e.g., 7-87)
01) at 27 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 20
Here, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages for their alleged injuries. To the extent this
requested relief includes past and future expenses, costs or obligations that fall within the
Primary Policy's definition of medical expenses, this type of relief is not covered under the
Plaintiffs'
Primary Policy. In addition, claims for medical monitoring are also not covered under
the Primary Policy because they seek future services that fall within the Primary Policy's
defmition of medical services, such as medical, surgical, x-ray, hospital, and/or professional
nursing services.
settlement or judgment for, any claim for medical expenses.
N. PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
The Lawsuits include claims for punitive or exemplary damages. The Primary Policy provides
that it will pay damages the insured becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of liability
imposed law or assumed under an insured contract for injury. Form 40-
by bodily See, e.g.,
02-004 (Ed. 9-84)(effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004); Form 80-02-2000 (Rev. 4-01) at 3
(effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014). However, as a matter of law and public policy, this does
not include claims for punitive or exemplary damages, regardless of whether those claims arise
from direct or vicarious liability of the NHL. As such, Federal and Vigilant disclaim coverage
for, and shall have no obligation to pay any settlement or judgment for, any claim for punitive or
exemplary damages.
O. DECLARATORY RELIEF
Some of the Plaintiffs seek a declaration that: the Defendants knew or should have known that
repetitive traumatic head impacts the Plaintiffs sustained while playing in the NHL increased
their risk of developing neurodegenerative diseases; Defendants had a duty to advise Plaintiffs of
that heightened risk; the NHL willfully and intentionally concealed material information from,
and misled Plaintiffs concerning that risk; and Defendants recklessly endangered Plaintiffs. See
e.g., Count I, Leeman Am. Compl.
The Primary Policy provides coverage for a claim seeking damages for bodily injury or
property damage the insured is legally obligated to pay for bodily injury or property damage
caused by a covered occurrence. See, e.g., Form 40-02-0004 (Ed. 9-84)(effective 1/1/2001
through 1/1/2004); Form 80-02-2000 (Rev. 4-01) at 3 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
Bodily injury means physical injury, physical sickness, or physical disease sustained by a
person, including resulting death, humiliation, mental anguish, mental injury or shock at any
time. Form 40-02-0004 (Ed. 9-84)(effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004); Form 80-02-2000
(Rev. 4-01) at 25 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
Furthermore, Federal and Vigilant have no duty under the Primary Policy to defend against a suit
seeking damages to which the Primary Policy's insurance does not apply, and a suit means a
civil proceeding seeking damages to which this insurance applies. See, e.g., Form 40-02-0004
(Ed. 9-84)(effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004); Form 40-02-2001-B (Rev. 7-87) at 9 (effective
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 21
1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004); Form 80-02-2000 (Rev. 4-01) at 4-5, 31 (effective 1/1/2004 through
1/1/2014).
A claim for declaratory relief does not constitute a claim for damages for bodily injury covered
under the Primary Policy, nor does it constitute a suit seeking damages. Therefore, Federal and
Vigilant disclaim coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any settlement or judgment
for, any claim for declaratory relief.
P. PREVENTION OF INJURY OR DAMAGE EXPENSES
Effective January 1, 2004, the Primary Policy contains the following Enhancement, Maintenance
Or Prevention Expenses Exclusion:
This insurance does not apply to any loss, cost or expense incurred
by you or others for any:
A. enhancement or maintenance of any property; or
B. prevention of any injury or damage to any:
1. person or organization; or
2. property you own, rent or occupy.
Thus, pursuant to this exclusion, the Primary Policy precludes coverage for loss, cost, or
expenses incurred for the prevention of injury or damage to a person.
Some of the Plaintiffs assert claims for medical monitoring, which allege that medical
mitigate"
monitoring is necessary to "prevent or various adverse consequences of the alleged
neurodegenerative diseases, and "significantly reduce the risk that Plaintiffs will suffer long-term
losses."
injuries, disease, and See, e.g., Leeman Am. Compl., ¶¶ 177-180.
Plaintiffs'
Because medical monitoring claims seek expenses to prevent or mitigate future injury,
and the Primary Policy's Enhancement, Maintenance or Prevention Expenses Exclusion excludes
Plaintiffs'
coverage for the prevention of injury or damage to a person, claims for medical
monitoring and medical monitoring expenses are not covered under the Primary Policy. As such,
Federal and Vigilant disclaim coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any settlement or
judgment for, any medical monitoring claim and any other claim for loss, cost or expense
incurred for the prevention of injury or damage to a person.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 22
Q. VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS
It is a condition of the Primary Policy that the insured not make any admission of liability, incur
any expense, assume any obligation, or make any payment (other than for first aid) without
obtaining Federal or Vigilant's prior consent. Any such unauthorized payments, expense, and/or
obligations will be at the insured's own cost. See Form 40-02-2001-B (Rev. 7-87) at 3; Form
80-02-2000 (Rev. 4-01) at 21 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
Therefore, Federal and Vigilant shall have no obligation to provide coverage to the NHL for any
payment, obligation, or expense that the NHL voluntarily makes, assumes or incurs (other than
for first aid) without Federal and/or Vigilant's prior consent.
R. OTHER INSURANCE
The Primary Policy contains various Other Insurance provisions. The provision contained in the
Primary Policy effective January 1, 2001 to January 2004 is lengthy. See Form 40-02-2001-B
(Rev. 7-87) at 4.
The Primary Policy contains an Other Insurance provision, which states generally that if there is
other valid and collectible insurance available to the insured for a loss covered under the Primary
Policy's insurance, then the Primary Policy's insurance is primary. If any of the other insurance
is also primary, then any indemnity obligation of Federal or Vigilant will be subject to sharing or
allocation among all such other insurance in accordance with the specified methods of sharing.
Form 40-02-2001-B (Rev. at 4 (effective 1/1/2001 to Form 80-02-
See, e_.g., 7-87) 1/1/2004);
2000 (Ed. 4-01) at 22 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
Effective January 1, 2004, the Primary Policy contains the following Other Insurance provision:
Other Insurance
If other valid and collectible insurance is available to the insured

for loss we would otherwise cover under this insurance, our
obligations are limited as follows:
Primary Insurance
This insurance is primary except when the Excess Insurance

provision described below applies.
If this insurance is primary, our obligations are not affected unless
any of the other insurance is also primary. Then, we will share

with all that other insurance by the method described in the
Method of Sharing provision described below.
Excess Insurance
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 23
This insurance is excess over any of the other insurance, whether
primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis:
A. that is Fire, Extended Coverage, Builder's Risk, Installation

Risk or similar insurance for your work;
B. that is insurance that applies to property damage to

premises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with
permission of the owner;
C. if the loss arises out of aircraft, autos or watercraft (to the

extent not subject to the Aircraft, Auto Or Watercraft
exclusion);
D. that is insurance:
1. provided to you by any person or organization
working under contract or agreement for you; or
2. under which you are included as an insured; or
E. that is insurance under any Property section of this policy.
When this insurance is excess, we will have no duty to defend the
insured against any suit if any other insurer has a duty to defend
such insured against such suit. If no other insurer defends, we
will undertake to do so, but we will be entitled to the insured's
rights against all those other insurers.
When this insurance is excess over other insurance, we will pay

only our share of the amount of the loss, if any, that exceeds the
sum of the total:
" amount that all other insurance would for loss in the
pay
absence of this insurance; and
" of all deductible and self-insured amounts under all other

insurance.
We will share the remaining loss, if any, with any other insurance
that is not described in this Excess Insurance provision and was not
negotiated specifically to apply in excess of the Limits Of
Insurance shown in the Declarations of this insurance.
Method of Sharing
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 24
If all of the other insurance permits contribution by equal shares,

we will follow this method also. Under this method each insurer
contributes equal amounts until it has paid its applicable limits of
insurance or none of the loss remains, whichever comes first.
If any of the other insurance does not permit contribution by equal
shares, we will contribute by limits. Under this method, each

insurer's share is based on the ratio of its applicable limits of
insurance to the total applicable limits of insurance of all insurers.
See Form 80-02-2000 (Ed. 4-01) at 22 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
Thus, any indemnity obligation by Federal or Vigilant under the Primary Policy will be subject
to sharing or allocation among other primary, umbrella, and excess insurers for the NHL.
S. EXPLANATION OF THE DEFENSE PROVIDED UNDER

FEDERAL/VIGILANT PRIMARY POLICY NO. 7320-73-95
The Primary Policy states, in pertinent part:
DEFENSE OF CLAIMS OR SUITS
1. We will defend claims or suits against the insured seeking

damages to which this insurance applies even if the allegations of
the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent.
2. Our right and duty to defend such claims or suits end when we
have used up the Amount of Insurance available, as provided under
LIMITS OF INSURANCE. This applies both to claims and suits
pending at that time and those filed thereafter.
See Form 40-02-2213-B (Rev. 7-93) at 6 (effective 1/1/2001 to 1/1/2004).
Effective January 1, 2004, the Primary Policy states:
Investigation, Defense and Settlements

have the right and duty to defend the insured against a suit, even if
such suit is false, fraudulent or groundless.
. . . .
We have no duty to defend any person or organization against any

suit seeking damages to which this insurance does not apply.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 25
We may, at our discretion, investigate any occurrence or offense

and settle any claim or suit.
Our duty to defend any person or organization ends when we have

used up the applicable Limit Of Insurance.
. . . .
Thus, pursuant to this Policy language, Federal/Vigilant acknowledge a duty to defend subject to
a reservation of rights as described more fully herein. Given the potential for conflict that may
arise in the defense between covered and uncovered claims discussed above, the NHL has a right
to obtain independent counsel to defend it in the Lawsuits. Federal and Vigilant are aware that
the NHL is currently being defended by the law firms of Proskauer Rose LLP ("Proskauer"),
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom ("Skadden"), and associated local counsel (collectively
"Defense Counsel"). Federal and Vigilant consent to the NHL's use of Defense Counsel as its
independently selected counsel, subject to the following terms and conditions.
Federal's and Vigilant's defense of the NHL in the Lawsuits shall be limited solely to payment
of the reasonable and necessary post-tender fees and expenses incurred by Defense Counsel to
defend the NHL. Federal and Vigilant propose a rate of $350/hour since this is a rate for
experienced counsel in the defense of bodily injury litigation. Please provide the rate structure
that Defense Counsel have been charging the NHL to date as a basis for further discussions on
this point.
In addition, Federal and Vigilant's agreement to pay reasonable costs of defense of the NHL is
subject to appropriate allocation of such costs among the NHL and other insurers of the NHL
who have an obligation to pay defense costs for the Lawsuits. Thus, as stated by Mr. Donald
undivided."
Sonlin in his letter of May 1, 2014, Chubb does not agree that "each insurer's duty is
Nevertheless, Chubb is open to discussions with the other insurers and the NHL with respect to
your request regarding defense costs.
Further, while Federal and Vigilant have determined that they will provide a defense to the NHL
for the Lawsuits, Federal and Vigilant disclaim coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay,
any of the NHL's defense costs and expenses that were incurred prior to the NHL's tenders of
defense for the Lawsuits.
Federal and Vigilant shall also have the right to review the NHL's defense bills to determine that
the work performed qualifies as reasonable and necessary. In addition, Defense Counsel shall be
required to follow Chubb's litigation and billing guidelines (copy enclosed), to the extent that
they do not interfere with counsel's unfettered right to represent its client-such as, with respect
to, status report obligations, acceptable expenses, billing format, and other aspects of the
guidelines that are not directly related to the attorney-client relationship. Please advise us
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 26
immediately of any instances in which counsel does not believe that it can follow these litigation
and billing guidelines.
T. GENERAL RESERVATION
In addition to the foregoing, Federal and Vigilant reserve their rights to assert any and all
defenses and rights under the Policy. This letter is therefore not intended as a waiver,
modification, or alteration of any of the terms, conditions, limitations, endorsements, or
exclusions of the Primary Policy. Federal and Vigilant do not waive, and shall not be estopped
from asserting, any of their defenses or rights available under the Primary Policy and/or the law.
Any defense, investigation, claims handling, or other conduct by Federal or Vigilant or their
employees/agents regarding this matter is subject to all the terms, conditions, limitations,
endorsements or exclusions of the Primary Policy and/or at law, and is undertaken subject to a
full reservation of rights without any further obligation.
H. DISCLAIMER AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS FOR FEDERAL EXCESS-

UMBRELLA POLICY NUMBER 7973-47-51
Federal issued excess-umbrella policy number 7973-47-51 to the NHL for terms effective
January 1, 1994 through January 1, 2014. This policy is referred to throughout this section as the
Policy."
"Excess-Umbrella It is excess to Federal/Vigilant policy number 7320-73-95. As
previously mentioned, Chubb is still searching for and/or is missing copies of policy 7320-73-95
believed to be in effect from January 1, 1994 through January 1, 2001. Because policy number
7973-47-51 follows form, in part, to 7320-73-95 for numerous terms and conditions, the scope of
this letter is limited to the policy periods for which Chubb has located policies, i.e., January 1,
2001 through January 1, 2014.
A. DESCRIPTION OF EXCESS-UMBRELLA POLICY NUMBER 7973-47-51
Federal issued Excess-Umbrella Policy number 7973-47-51 to the NHL for a three-year period,
effective January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2004. For the period between January 1, 2001 to January
1, 2003, that policy had a $25 million per occurrence limit, a $25 million general aggregate limit,
where applicable, and a $10,000 Retained Limit/Deductible for Coverage B. For the period
January 1, 2003 to January 1, 2004, that policy had a $10 million per occurrence limit, a $10
million general aggregate, where applicable, and a $10,000 Retained Limit/Deductible for
Coverage B.
Effective January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2005, the Excess-Umbrella Policy was issued with a $10
million per occurrence limit, a $10 million excess coverage other aggregate limit (as applicable),
a $10 million umbrella coverages aggregate limit, and a $10,000 deductible per bodily
injury/property damage occurrence for Coverage B. The Excess-Umbrella Policy was renewed
for policy periods effective January 1, 2005 to January 1, 2006; January 1, 2006 to January 1,
2007; January 1, 2007 to January 1, 2008; January 1, 2008 to January 1, 2009; January 1, 2009 to
January 1, 2010; January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2011; January 1, 2011 to January 1, 2012;
January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2013; and January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014. Each renewal has a
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 27
$10 million per occurrence limit, a $10 million excess coverage other aggregate limit (as
applicable), a $10 million umbrella coverages aggregate limit, and a $10,000 deductible for
Coverage B.
B. THE EXCESS-UMBRELLA POLICY'S INSURING AGREEMENTS
The Excess-Umbrella Policy features two insuring agreements: Coverage A is Excess Follow
Form Liability coverage, and Coverage B is Umbrella Liability coverage.
L Coverage A - Excess Follow Form Liability
The insuring agreement for Coverage A states, in pertinent part:
Coverage A - Excess Follow Form Liability Insurance
Under Coverage A, we will pay on behalf of the insured, that part

of loss covered by this insurance in excess of the total applicable
limits of underlying insurance, provided the injury or offense
takes place during the Policy Period of this policy. The terms and
conditions of underlying insurance are with respect to Coverage
A made a part of this policy, except with respect to:
A. any contrary provision contained in this policy; or
B. any provision in this policy for which a similar

provision is not contained in underlying insurance.
With respect to the exceptions stated above, the provisions of this
policy will apply.
The amount we will pay is limited as described in Limits of

Insurance.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained above, if
underlying insurance does not cover loss, for reasons other than
exhaustion of an aggregate limit of insurance by payment of
claims, then we will not cover such loss.
We have no obligation under this insurance with respect to any

claimor suit settled without our consent.
. . . .
See Form 07-02-1357 (Ed. 10/98) at 2-3 (effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004).
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy states the following, in pertinent part:
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 28
Coverage/Excess Follow-Form Coverage A
Subject to all of the terms and conditions applicable to Excess

Follow-Form Coverage A, we will pay, on behalf of the insured,
that part of loss to which this coverage applies, which exceeds the
applicable underlying limits.
This coverage applies only if the triggering event that must happen
during the policy period of the applicable underlying insurance

happens during the policy period of this insurance.
This coverage will follow the terms and conditions of underlying

insurance described in the Schedule of Underlying Insurance,
unless a term or condition contained in this coverage:
" differs from term or condition contained in the

any
applicable underlying insurance; or
" is not contained in the applicable insurance.

underlying
With respect to such exceptions described above, the terms and

conditions contained in this coverage will apply, to the extent that
such terms and conditions provide less coverage than the terms and
conditions of the applicable underlying insurance.
This coverage does not apply to any part of loss within underlying
limits, or any related costs or expenses.


Thus, Coverage A adds excess limits over underlying coverages, and it provides generally that
the terms and conditions of the underlying insurance are made part of the Excess-Umbrella
Policy, with the certain limited exceptions specified above. Thus, if the Scheduled Underlying
Insurance or underlying insurance does not cover the loss, then Federal does not cover the loss
under Coverage A. See Form 07-02-0528 (Rev. 6-86) at 1; Form 07-02-1357 (Ed. 10/98) at 2-3.
Accordingly, Federal incorporates by reference all the terms, conditions, limitations,

endorsements and exclusions contained in the policies listed in the Schedule of Underlying
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 29
Insurance and underlying insurance applicable to the Excess-Umbrella Policy, notwithstanding

the exceptions noted above. Furthermore, Coverage A only applies to bodily injury that occurs
during the Excess-Umbrella Policy's policy period.
2. Coverage B - Umbrella Liability
Coverage B - Umbrella Liability adds a broadening measure of coverage against many of the
gaps in and between the underlying coverages. The insuring agreement for Coverage B states, in
pertinent part:
Coverage B - Umbrella Liability Insurance
Under Coverage B, we will pay on behalf of the insured, damages

the insured becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of liability
imposed by law or assumed under an insured contract because of
bodily injury, property damage, personal injury, or advertising

injury covered by this insurance which takes place during the
Policy Period of this policy and is caused by an occurrence. We

will pay such damages in excess of the Retained Limit Aggregate
specified in Item 4.d. of the Declarations or the amount payable by
other insurance, whichever is greater.
Damages because of bodily injury include damages claimed by

any person or organization for care or loss of services resulting at
any time from the bodily injury.
This coverage applies anywhere.
The amount we will pay is limited as described in Limits of

Insurance.
Coverage B will not apply to any loss, claim or suit for which
insurance is afforded under underlying insurance or would have
been afforded except for the exhaustion of the limits of insurance
of underlying insurance.

See Form 07-02-1357 (Ed. 10/98) at 2-3 (effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004).
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 30
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy states, in pertinent part:
Coverages/Umbrella Coverage B
Subject to all of the terms and conditions applicable to Umbrella

Coverage B, we will pay, on behalf of the insured, loss by reason
of liability:
" imposed law; or

by
for bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence

to which this coverage applies.
This coverage applies only to such bodily injury or property

damage that occurs during the policy period.
Damages for bodily injury include damages claimed by a person

or organization for care or loss of services resulting at any time
from the bodily injury.
This coverage does not apply to any part of:
A. loss to which underlying insurance would apply,

regardless of whether or not:
1. underlying insurance is available; and
2. the applicable underlying limits have been
exhausted;
B. loss to which underlying limits apply; or
C. any costs or expenses related to loss as described in

paragraphs A. or B. above.


. . . .
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 31
Thus, Coverage B provides coverage for damages or loss the insured becomes legally obligated
to pay because of covered bodily injury that takes place during the policy period, was caused by
an occurrence, and is not covered by underlying insurance. Thus, to the extent the Lawsuits
allege any losses or claims that are not covered by the underlying insurance, but are covered by
the insurance afforded under the Excess-Umbrella Policy, then Coverage B will apply.
C. WIIO IS INSURED
The term insured under the Excess-Umbrella Policy means any Named Insured, and any other
person or organization that meets one or more of the definitions of insured in the Excess-
Umbrella Policy, which includes, among others, insured definitions for a sole proprietorship,
organization,"
partnership or joint venture, limited liability company, "other employee, or
organizations." 7-
"subsidiary or newly acquired or formed See, e_.g., Form 07-02-0815 (Rev.
01) at 6-8.
Some of the Plaintiffs assert claims against the NHL Board of Governors (the "Board"). See
e.g., Leeman Am. Compl. Federal acknowledges that the NHL is a Named Insured under the
Excess-Umbrella Policy. The Board, however, is not expressly named as an insured in the
Excess-Umbrella Policy. It is unclear to Federal at this time whether the Board qualifies as an
Insured"
insured under the insured definitions in the Excess-Umbrella Policy's "Who Is An
section, but Federal is still investigating this issue. As such, please provide us with any and all
information and documents relevant to this issue, including the Board's legal status and the
nature of its affiliation with the NHL.
D. FEDERAL HAS NO CURRENT OBLIGATION TO DEFEND UNDER

THE EXCESS-UMBRELLA POLICY
As between primary and excess carriers, the primary carrier has the primary duty to defend on
behalf of its insured. That duty to defend is not diminished simply because its policy limits are
more easily exceeded in any given case. Moreover, a primary insurer has a duty to defend
without any entitlement to contribution from an excess insurer.
The Excess-Umbrella Policy states, in pertinent part:
Defense and Supplementary Payments
A. We have the right and duty to assume control of the
investigation, settlement or defense of any claim or suit against the

insured for damages covered by this policy:
1. under Coverage A, when the applicable limit of underlying

insurance has been exhausted by payment of claims; or
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 32
2. under Coverage B, when damages are sought for bodily

injury, property damage, personal injury or advertising injury
to which no underlying insurance or other insurance applies.
. . . .
C. In those circumstances where paragraph A. above does not
apply, we do not have the duty to assume control of the

insured. We do, however, have the right to participate in the
investigation, settlement or defense of any claim or suit that we

feel may create liability on our part under the terms of this policy.
If we exercise this right, we will do so at our expense.
Our duty to defend ends when we have exhausted the applicable

Limits of Insurance stated in Item 4 of the Declarations.
See Form 07-02-1357 (Ed. 10/98) at 3-4 (effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004), modified by
Endorsement Form 07-02-1354 (Rev. 9/99) at 1 (effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004).
Effective January 1, 2003, the Excess-Umbrella Policy has a New York Amendatory
Endorsement, which states, in pertinent part:
A. We have the right and duty to assume control of the

insured for damages covered by this policy, even if the allegations
of the claim or suit are groundless, false or fraudulent:
1. under Coverage A, when the applicable limit of underlying

insurance has been exhausted by payment of claims; or
2. under Coverage B, when damages are sought for bodily

injury, property damage, personal injury or advertising injury
to which no underlying insurance or other insurance applies.
. . . .
C. In those circumstances where paragraph A. above does not
apply, we do not have the duty to assume control of the

insured. We do, however, have the right to participate in the
investigation, settlement or defense of any claim or suit that we

feel may create liability on our part under the terms of this policy.
If we exercise this right, we will do so at our expense.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 33
Our duty to defend ends when we have exhausted the applicable

Limits of Insurance stated in Item 4 of the Declarations.
. . . .
See Form 07-02-1354 (Rev. 01/01) at 1-2 (effective 1/1/2003 to 1/1/2004).
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy states:
Investigation, Defense And Settlements

have the right and duty to defend the insured:
" under Excess Follow-Form Coverage A, against a suit in

connection with loss to which such coverage applies, if the
applicable underlying limits have been exhausted by
payment of judgments, settlements or related costs or
expenses (if such costs or expenses reduce such limits; or
" under Umbrella Coverage B, against a suit to which such

coverage applies, even if such suit is false, fraudulent or
groundless.
We have no duty to defend any person or organization against any

claim or suit:
" to which this insurance does not apply; or
" if any other insurer has a duty to defend.
When we have the duty to defend, we may, at our discretion,

investigate any occurrence or offense and settle any claim or suit.
In all other cases, we may, at our discretion, participate in the
investigation, defense and settlement of any occurrence, offense,

claim or suit.
Our duty to defend any person or organization ends when we have

used up the applicable Limit Of Insurance.
Thus, Federal has no duty to defend any claim or suit that is not against an insured for damages
or loss covered by the Excess-Umbrella Policy. Furthermore, Federal is not obligated to assume
the defense of the insured unless the limits of liability of the Scheduled Underlying Policies
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 34
have been exhausted, or damages are sought for bodily injury to which no underlying
insurance or other insurance would apply. Because Federal and Vigilant have acknowledged a
duty to defend under policy number 7320-73-95, and because none of the applicable limits of the
underlying insurance have been exhausted yet, Federal has no current obligation to provide a
defense or indemnity to any insured under the Excess-Umbrella Policy. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, Federal has provided its coverage position below for the Excess-Umbrella Policy in
the event its coverage is triggered and based on Chubb's current understanding of the facts and
allegations.
E. MAINTENANCE OF SCHEDULED UNDERLYING INSURANCE
The Excess-Umbrella Policy required the NHL to maintain the Underlying Insurance listed in the
force."
Excess-Umbrella Policy's schedule in "full See, e.g., Form 07-02-1357 (Ed. 10/98) at 19
(effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004); Form 07-02-0815 (Rev. 7-01) at 22 (effective 1/1/2004
force"
through 1/1/2014). While the failure to maintain valid Underlying Insurance in "full does
not necessarily invalidate the Excess-Umbrella Policy, it nonetheless renders Federal liable only
to the same extent as if there had been compliance with this condition. Id.
F. EXPECTED OR INTENDED CONSEQUENCES, OR INTENTIONAL

CONDUCT GENERALLY
The Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following Intentional Acts exclusion:
Under Coverage B, this insurance does not apply to:
bodily injury or property damage which results from an act that

is intended by the insured or can be expected from the standpoint
of a reasonable person to cause bodily injury or property
damage, even if the injury or damage is of a different degree or
type than actually intended or expected.
This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury caused by the use
of reasonable force to protect people or property.
See Form 07-02-1357 (Ed. 10/98) at 10 (effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004).
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following Expected Or
Intended Injury Exclusion applicable to Coverage B:

damage arising out of an act that:
" is intended the insured;

by
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 35
" or would be expected from the standpoint of a reasonable

person in the circumstances of the insured;
to cause bodily injury or property damage, even if the actual
bodily injury or property damage is of a different degree or type

than intended or expected.
This exclusion does not apply to bodily injury or property

persons or tangible property.
Federal/Vigilant Primary Policy number 7320-73-95 contains similarly worded exclusions, and
their applicability are discussed in Section I(E). Therefore, Federal incorporates that discussion
as though set forth at length herein.
G. KNOWN LOSSES
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following Loss In Progress
Exclusion applicable to Coverage B:

damage that is a change, continuation or resumption of any bodily
injury or property damage known by you, prior to the beginning
of the policy period, to have occurred.
Bodily injury or property damage will be deemed to be known
by you:
A. if such injury or damage is known by, or should have been

known from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the
circumstances of:
1. you;
2. any of your directors, managers, members, officers

(or their designees) or partners (whether or not an
employee); and
B. when any person described in paragraph A. above:
1. reports all, or any part, of any such injury or

damage to us or any other insurer;
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 36
2. receives a claim or a demand for damages because

of any such injury or damage; or
3. becomes aware that any such injury or damage has

occurred or has begun to occur.
Federal/Vigilant Primary Policy number 7320-73-95 contains a similarly worded exclusion, and
its applicability, along with the applicability of the Known Loss doctrine, are discussed in
Section I(F). Therefore, Federal incorporates the entirety of that discussion as though set forth at
length herein.
H. PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
The Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following General Professional Exclusion for
Coverage B:
Professional Liability
Any liability arising out of any act, error, omission or mistake

committed or alleged to have committed by or on behalf of the
insured in rendering or failing to render professional services or
advice described below, whether or not acting in a professional
capacity.
Description of Profession:
1. Athletic Trainers
See Form 99-02-02 (Ed. 9/92)(effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004).
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy contains a Medical Professionals
exclusion, which states that the Excess-Umbrella Policy's insurance does not apply to bodily
injury, property damage, advertising injury, personal injury, or medical expenses arising
out of :
A. The rendering of or failure to render:
1. medical, surgical, dental, x-ray or nursing service,

treatment, advice or the related furnishing of food
or beverages;
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
6 53421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF : 11/08/2022
0 9 / 14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 37
2. any health or therapeutic service, treatment, advice

or instruction;
3. any cosmetic service, treatment, advice or
instruction; or
4. any related professional service, treatment, advice

or instruction;
B. the furnishing or dispensing of drugs or medical, dental or

surgical supplies or appliances;
C. the handling of, or treatment of dead bodies, including

autopsies, organ donation or other procedures; or
D. any retention, employment, investigation, or supervision of any

person performing activities referred to in subparagraphs A., B, or
C. above.
With respect to Coverage A only:
Paragraph D, does not apply to the named insured. This exclusion

does not apply to liability of an athletic trainer for bodily injury,
property damage, advertising injury, or personal injury.
See Form 99-02-02 (Rev. 7-01)(effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/20143).
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy also contains a Professional Services
exclusion applicable to Coverage B only:
This insurance does not apply to bodily injury, property damage,
advertising injury or personal injury arising out of the rendering

or failure to render professional service or advice, whether or not
that service or advice is ordinary to the insured's profession,
regardless of whether a claim or suit is brought by a client or any
other person or organization.
See Form 07-02-0863 (Rev. 7-01)(effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
Federal/Vigilant Primary Policy number 7320-73-95 contains an exclusion that is similar to the
exclusions referenced here, and its applicability is discussed in Section I(G). Therefore, Federal
incorporates that discussion as though set forth at length herein.
3
The 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 versions only apply to Coverage B.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 38
L EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY
The Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following Employee Injury exclusion for Coverage B:
Employee Injury
1. any injury to an employee of the insured arising out of and in

the course of employment by the insured; or
2. any injury to the spouse, child, parent, brother, or sister of that

employee as a consequence of 1. above.
This exclusion applies whether the insured may be liable as an

employer or in any other capacity, or to any obligation to share
damages with or repay someone else who must pay damages
because of any injury.
. . . .
The Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following Employer's Liability exclusion for Coverage
A:
Under Coverage A, this insurance does not apply to:
Employer's Liability
any liability arising out of injury to an employee in the course of
employment, where the obligation of any underlying insurer or

self-insurance mechanism providing employer's liability coverage
for the insured is by law unlimited.
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following Employee Or
Worker Injury exclusion for Coverage B:
A. This insurance does not apply to bodily injury, property

damage, advertising injury or personal injury sustained by an
employee or temporary worker of the insured arising out of and
in the course of:
1. employment by the insured; or

FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 39
2. performing duties related to the conduct of the insured's

business.
B. This insurance does not apply to bodily injury, property

damage, personal injury or advertising injury sustained by the
brother, child, parent, sister or spouse of such injured person, as a

consequence of any injury or damage described in paragraph A.
above.

may any
other capacity; and

any repay
else who must pay damages because of any injury or
damage described in paragraphs A. or B. above.
If it is determined that any Plaintiff was an employee of the NHL when he sustained his alleged
bodily injury, and that such bodily injury arose out of and in the course of such employment,
then Federal disclaims coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any settlement or
judgment for, any such claims or losses.
J. EMPLOYMENT-RELATED PRACTICES
The Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following Employment-Related Practices Exclusion

for the policy period January 1, 2001 to January 1, 2003:
Under Coverage B, this insurance does not apply to any liability

arising out of any damages sustained:
1. by any person at any time, whether or not sustained in the

course of employment by any insured, which would not have been
incurred in whole or in part but for one or more employment-
any
related acts, omissions, policies, practices, representations or
relationships in connection with any insured, occurring in whole
or in part at any time, including any:
a. arrest, detention or imprisonment;
b. breach of any express or implied covenant;

FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 40
c. coercion, criticism, humiliation, prosecution or
retaliation;
d. defamation or disparagement;
e. demotion, discipline, evaluation or reassignment;
f. discrimination, harassment or segregation;
g. (1) eviction; or
(2) invasion of other violation of any right of
occupancy;
h. failure or refusal to advance, compensate, employ

or promote;
i. invasion or other violation of any right of privacy;
j. termination of employment; or
k. other employment-related act, omission, policy,

2. as a consequence of any of the foregoing.

other capacity;
and
2. to any obligation to share damages with or repay someone else

who must pay damages because of any of the foregoing.
Effective January 1, 2003, the Policy contains the following Employment-Related Practices
Exclusion applicable to Coverage A and Coverage B:
Under Coverage A and Coverage B, this insurance does not apply

to any liability arising out of any damages sustained:
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 41
1. by any person at any time, whether or not sustained in the

course of employment by any insured, which would not have been
incurred in whole or in part but for one or more employment-
any
related acts, omissions, policies, practices, representations or
relationships in connection with any insured, occurring in whole
or in part at any time, including any:
a. arrest, detention or imprisonment;
b. breach of any express or implied covenant;
c. coercion, criticism, humiliation, prosecution or retaliation;
d. defamation or disparagement;
e. demotion, discipline, evaluation or reassignment;
f. discrimination, harassment or segregation;
g. (1) eviction; or
(2) invasion of other violation of any right of occupancy;
h. failure or refusal to advance, compensate, employ or
promote;
i. invasion or other violation of any right of privacy or
publicity;
j. termination of employment; or
k. other employment-related act, omission, policy, practice,

representation or relationship in connection with any
insured at any time.
2. as a consequence of any of the foregoing.

other capacity; and
2. to any obligation to share damages with or repay someone

foregoing.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 42
See Form 07-02-1536 (Ed. 10/99)(effective 1/1/2003 to 1/1/2004).
Effective the Excess-Umbrella contains the Employment-

January 1, 2004, Policy following
Related Practices Exclusion applicable to Coverage B:
A. This insurance does not apply to any liability or loss, cost

or expense in connection with any damages sustained at any time
by any person, whether or not sustained in the course of

employment out of employment-
by any insured, arising any
related act, omission, policy, practice or representation directed at
such person, occurring in whole or in part at any time, including
any:
1. arrest, detention or imprisonment;
2. breach of any express or implied covenant;
3. coercion, criticism, humiliation, prosecution or
retaliation;
4. defamation or disparagement;
5. demotion, discipline, evaluation or reassignment;
6. discrimination, harassment or segregation;
7. a. eviction; or
b. invasion of other violation of any right of
occupancy;
8. failure or refusal to advance, compensate, employ

or promote;
9. invasion or other violation of any right of privacy or
publicity;
10. termination of employment; or
11. other employment-related act, omission, policy,

B. This insurance does not apply to any liability or loss, cost

or expense in connection with any damages sustained at any time
by the brother, child, parent, sister or spouse of such person at

FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 43
whom any employment-related act, omission, policy, practice or

representation is directed, as described in paragraph A. above, as a
consequence thereof.

may any
other capacity; and

any repay
foregoing.
Federal/Vigilant Primary Policy number 7320-73-95 contains a similarly worded exclusion as

the exclusion quoted above from Form 07-02-0815 (Rev. 7-01). Its applicability is discussed in
Section 1(I), and therefore, Federal incorporates that discussion as though set forth at length
herein.
K. FOREIGN LIABILITY
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy contains a Foreign Liability exclusion
applicable to Coverage B only. Although the language varies slightly in the different versions of
this exclusion, they all preclude coverage for bodily injury arising out of an occurrence outside
the United States of America, its territories or possessions, Canada or Puerto Rico. See, e.g.,
Form 07-02-0861 (Rev. 6/94)(effective 1/1/2001 through Form 07-02-0861 (Rev. 7-
1/1/2004);
01)(effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
Therefore, Federal disclaims coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any settlement or
judgment for, bodily injury arising out of an occurrence outside the United States, Canada, or
Puerto Rico.
L. OBLIGATIONS OF UNDERLYING INSURANCE EXCLUSION
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following exclusion
applicable to Coverage A only:
This insurance does not apply to any liability or loss, cost or

expense for which the liability or obligation under underlying
insurance is by law unlimited.

FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 44
judgment for, any loss, cost, or expense for which the liability or obligation under underlying
insurance is, by law, unlimited.
M. UNDERLYING INSURANCE EXCLUSIONS
The Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following Underlying Insurance Exclusion:
Under Coverage A, this insurance does not apply to:
any liability excluded by underlying insurance.
Effective January 1, 2004, this exclusion was changed to state the following, applicable to
Coverage A only:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in any other

provision of this contract, this insurance does not apply to any
liability or loss, cost or expense to which the terms and conditions
of underlying insurance do not apply.
judgment for, any liability or loss, cost, or expense not covered by the underlying insurance.
N. VARIOUS COVERAGES/LAWS EXCLUSION
The Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following exclusion:
Under Coverage A and Coverage B, this insurance does not apply

to:
. . . .
Laws, Various
any liability or obligation imposed on the insured under any of the

following:
1. any uninsured/underinsured motorist or automobile no fault

or first party personal injury law;
workers'
2. any compensation, unemployment compensation,
or disability benefits law or any similar law;
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 45
States' Employees'
3. the United Retirement Income Security
Act (E.R.I.S.A.) of 1974 as now or hereaner amended.
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following exclusion:
This insurance does not apply to any liability or loss, cost or

expense or obligation of any insured under any:
" medical expenses or payments coverage;
" no-fault law;
" personal protection coverage;

injury
" underinsured or uninsured financial law;

responsibility
workers'
" compensation, benefits or
disability
unemployment compensation law; or
" similar coverage or law.
To the extent any of the relief sought in the Lawsuits include loss, expenses, costs, obligations,
or liabilities of an insured under any medical expenses or payments coverage, personal injury
workers'
protection coverage, compensation, disability benefits, or other similar coverage or law,
such relief is precluded from coverage under the Excess-Umbrella Policy's Various/Coverages
Laws Exclusion. As such, please provide Chubb with copies of any and all documents
demonstrating payments, benefits, expenses, and costs the NHL has paid or is obligated to pay
any Plaintiff or behalf of any Plaintiff, pertaining to the injuries, damages, and/or losses alleged
in the Lawsuits. Furthermore, Federal reserves the right to disclaim coverage for any liability,
loss, cost, expense, or obligation of any insured under any medical expenses or payment
coverage, workers compensation law, disability benefits law, or any other similar coverage or
law.
O. MEDICAL MONITORING
Some of the Plaintiffs assert claims for medical monitoring. See, e.g., Leeman Am. Compl.,
Count I; Christian Compl., Count I. These claims seek a court-approved, NHL-funded medical
monitoring regime to assist in the diagnosis of the alleged latent neurodegenerative diseases.
Because medical monitoring costs are incurred for the purpose of determining whether a Plaintiff
will develop the alleged injury or disease in the future, such costs do not constitute damages for
bodily injury, nor do they constitute bodily injury that occurred during the policy period. See,
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 46
Form_07-02-1357 (Ed. at 13 (effective 1/1/2001 through Form 07-02-

e.g., 10/98) 1/1/2004);
0815 (Rev. 7-01) at 25 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014). Therefore, the medical monitoring
costs sought by Plaintiffs are not covered under the Excess-Umbrella Policy.
Federal also disclaims coverage generally for the cost of complying with an injunction, such as
the one some of the Plaintiffs seek to establish a court-supervised medical monitoring fund,
because such relief is equitable in nature and not for damages that are covered under the Excess-
Umbrella Policy. See, e.g., id.
As such, Federal disclaims coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any settlement or
judgment for, any claim for medical monitoring or medical surveillance.
P. PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
The Lawsuits include claims for punitive or exemplary damages. Punitive damages are, as a
matter of public policy, uninsurable under most state laws. Furthermore, the Excess-Umbrella
Policy, contains a Punitive Damages exclusion, which states that the Excess-Umbrella Policy
penalties." 07-
"does not apply to any punitive or exemplary damages, fines or See, e .g., Form
02-1354 (Rev. 9/99) at 1 (effective 1/1/2001-2004); Form 07-02-1354 (Rev. 8-03)(effective
1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014); see also Form 07-02-1354 (Rev. 01/01) at 2 (effective 1/1/2003 to
1/1/2004)(applying exclusion to punitive or exemplary damages only).
Accordingly, Federal disclaims coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any settlement
or judgment for, punitive or exemplary damages, fines or penalties.
Q. DECLARATORY RELIEF
Some of the Plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory relief. See, e.g., Leeman Am. Compl., Count
I. As previously discussed in Section I(0), Federal has a duty to defend any claim or suit against
the insured for damages for bodily injury covered by the Excess-Umbrella Policy. A claim for
declaratory relief does not seek monetary payment, or "damages", for bodily injury. As a result,
Federal disclaims coverage for, and shall have no obligation to pay any settlement or judgment
for, any claim for declaratory relief.
R. PREVENTION OF INJURY OR DAMAGE EXPENSES
Effective January 1, 2004, Coverage B contains an Enhancement, Maintenance Or Prevention

Expenses exclusion which states that its insurance "does not apply to any loss, cost, or expense
incurred by you or others for any . . . prevention of any injury or damage to any . . . person or
organization."
Thus, this exclusion precludes coverage for loss, cost or expenses incurred for the prevention of
injury or damage to a person. Primary Policy 7320-73-95 contains this same exclusion and its
applicability is discussed in Section I(P). Therefore, Federal incorporates that discussion as

though set forth at length herein.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 47
S. VOLUNTARY PAYMENTS AND ADMISSIONS OF LIABILITY
It is a requirement and condition of the Excess-Umbrella Policy that the insured not make any
admission of liability, incur any expense, assume any obligation, or make any payment other
than for first aid without obtaining Federal's prior consent. Any such unauthorized payments,
expenses, and obligations will be at the insured's own cost. See, e.g., Form 99-02-02 (Ed.
9/92)(effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004); Form 07-02-1354 (Rev. 9/99) at 3 (effective
1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004); Form 07-02-1354 (Rev. 01/01) at 4 (effective 1/1/2003-04); Form
07-02-0815 (Rev. 7-01) at 20 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2014).
Therefore, Federal shall have no obligation to provide coverage for any payment, expense, or
other obligation that an insured voluntarily makes, incurs, or assumes with respect to the
Lawsuits and without obtaining Federal's prior consent.
T. OTHER INSURANCE
The Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following Other Insurance provision:
If other insurance applies to claims covered by this policy, the

insurance under this policy is excess and we will not make any
payments until the other insurance has been exhausted by
payment of claims. This insurance is not subject to the terms or
conditions of any other insurance.
Other Insurance, as used in both Coverage A and Coverage B, means:
a policy of insurance affording coverage that this policy also

affords. Other insurance includes any type of self-insurance or
other mechanism by which an insured arranges for funding of legal
liabilities.
Other insurance does not include underlying insurance or a policy
of insurance specifically purchased to be excess of this policy
affording coverage that this policy also affords.
See Form 07-02-1357 (Ed. 10/98) at 12, 19 (effective 1/1/2001 through 1/1/2004).
Effective January 1, 2004, the Excess-Umbrella Policy contains the following Other Insurance
provision:
If other valid and collectible insurance is available to the insured

for loss we would otherwise cover under this insurance, our
obligations are limited as follows:
This insurance is excess over any other insurance, whether
primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis.

FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 48
We will have no duty to defend the insured against any suit if any
provider of any other insurance has a duty to defend such insured
against such suit.
We will pay only our share of the amount of loss, if any, that
exceeds the sum of the total:
" amount that all other insurance would for loss in the
pay
absence of this insurance; and
" of all deductible and self-insured amounts under all other

insurance.
This insurance is not subject to the terms or conditions of any

other insurance.
See Form 07-02-0815 (Rev. 7-01) at 23 (effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2007, 1/1/2009 through
1/1/2010); Form 99-02-02 (Rev. 7-01)(effective 1/1/2007 through 1/1/2009, 1/1/2010 through
1/1/2014, Coverage B only).
In addition to the policies identified in this letter, there are numerous other primary, umbrella,
and excess coverages available to the NHL, the precise details of which are largely unknown to
Federal at this time. If there is other insurance that applies to loss or claims covered by the
Excess-Umbrella Policy, then the Excess-Umbrella Policy is excess unless the coverage is
written specifically to be in excess over the Excess-Umbrella Policy. Furthermore, in the event
that this Excess-Umbrella Policy and other insurance are determined to provide coverage for
the same claim or loss, then Federal's obligation to indemnify is subject to sharing or allocation
and/or Federal reserves the right to seek contribution from the insurers of the other insurance.
U. GENERAL RESERVATION
In addition to the foregoing, Federal reserves its rights to assert any and all defenses and rights
under the Excess-Umbrella Policy. This letter is therefore not intended as a waiver,
modification, or alteration of any of the terms, conditions, limitations, endorsements or
exclusions of the Excess-Umbrella Policy. Federal does not waive, and shall not be estopped
from asserting, any of its defenses or rights available under the Excess-Umbrella Policy and/or
the law. Any defense, investigation, claims handling, or other conduct by Federal or its
employees/agents regarding this matter is subject to all the terms, conditions, limitations,
endorsements or exclusions of the Excess-Umbrella Policy and/or at law, and is undertaken
subject to a full reservation of rights without any further obligation.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
09/14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 49
HL REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION
Consistent with the NHL's duty of cooperation contained in the applicable policies, we ask for
your assistance in identifying other potentially applicable coverage issued by Chubb, and any
other carrier(s), to the NHL.
In addition to the copies of policy number 7320-73-95 for the potential periods of January 1,
1994 through January 1, 2001, Chubb has also identified some indicia of coverage for other
policies that may provide coverage for the Lawsuits:
" No. 3534-17-04, effective 1997 through 2013;

Policy
" No. 0631-65-93, effective 1/1/2004 through 1/1/2006;

Policy
" No. 1265109501, effective 11/19/2005 through 11/19/2009;

Policy

Policy

Policy

Policy

Policy

Policy
If you believe that any of these policies exist and potentially provide coverage for the claims
asserted in the Lawsuits, and/or any other similar claims, please provide Chubb with copies of
these policies and/or any documents demonstrating their existence, terms, or conditions.
We also request, as to policies that may potentially provide coverage for the Lawsuits, a
comprehensive policy listing and/or policy chart, copies of policies issued by other insurers,
reservation of rights letters provided by other insurers, and any written response by the NHL to
such letters.
Should you have any questions or concerns aner reading this letter, please feel free to contact me
at any time.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/14/2021 06:13
10:37 PM
P
INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
6 53421/2020
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
127 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF : 11/08/2022
0 9 / 14/2021
May 8, 2014
Page 50
Very truly yours,
WMTE AND WILLIAMS LLP
Michael O. Kassak
Enclosure
Exhibit A - Chubb Litigation Management Guidelines
cc: via email

Ms. Maria J. Dercola, BWD Group, LLC
Mr. Donald Sonlin
13521033v.3
EXHIBIT 6
FILED:
FILED : NEW
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/27/2022 06:13
11:13 PM
AN
INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO . 653421/2020
653421/ 2020
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 290
308 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
06/24/2022

NEW YORK COUNTY
PRESENT: HON. MELISSA CRANE PART 60M
Justice
_______-___________-------------------------------------X INDEX NO. 653421/2020
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, et al.'

MOTION DATE 02/24/2022
Plaintiffs,
MOTION SEQ. NO. 004
- v -
TIG INSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A TRANSAMERICA

DECISION + ORDER ON
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
MOM
Defendants.
_________------__----------------------------------Ç
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,
99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119,
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140,
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161,
162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182,
183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203,
204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224,
225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 248, 249,
250, 251
were read on this motion to/for PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This action concerns insurance coverage for various underlying personal injury lawsuits
and other proceedings that former National Hockey League players brought alleging that they
sustained concussion-related injuries during their careers (collectively, Concussion Litigation).
The insurer-defendants at issue on this motion provided the NHL plaintiffs with 31 primary
commercial general liability policies (Policies) spanning from 1982-2013. Generally, each of
those policies provided the insured with coverage for a limited period of one year. NHL was
unmsured for most of the years prior to the issuance of those policies.
In Motion Seq. No. 04, plaintiffs National Hockey League, NHL Board of Governors,
and NHL Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, NHL) move for partial summary judgment declaring
that: (1) the insurers has a contractual duty to defend the underlying Concussion Litigation; (2)
653421/2020 NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE vs. TIG INSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A Page 1 of 11
Motion No. 004
1 of 11
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/27/2022 06:13
11:13 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653 421/2020
AM)
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
290 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 06/24/2022
insurers'
the duties to defend require payment of all reasonable defense costs incurred in NHL's
defense of the Concussion Litigation; and (3) the insurers cannot allocate or recover any defense
costs from NHL. In the alternative, NHL seeks (4) a declaration that allocation of defense costs
must exclude NHL from paying, even for the years it was self-insured. NHL directs this motion
against defendants Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, Federal Insurance Company, Vigilant
Insurance Company, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., American
Home Assurance Company, and TIG Insurance Company (collectively, defendants) only. NHL
does not move against defendants Zurich Ins. Co. Ltd. or Aviva Ins. Co. of Canada.
The Underlying Concussion Litigation Matters
in November over 150 named plaintiffs filed multiple concussion-

Beginning 2013,
related lawsuits against NHL. In August 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred those lawsuits to Federal Court under the caption In re: National Hockey League
Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation (MDL). The operative complaint in the MDL was a
putative class action on behalf of all retired NHL players. In the MDL, the players alleged that
they sustained concussive injuries during their time as players for the NHL. Specifically, the
players on behalf of all retired NHL that sustained concussive and sub-
alleged, players, they
concussive injuries that occurred and continued to occur throughout their careers in the NHL and
afterward. The NHL operated since 1917 and obtained coverage in approximately 1974.
players'
Ultimately, the Federal Court denied the motion for class certification in the MDL and
the NHL settled the MDL cases, seven related concussion cases in California State court, and
certain unfiled claims for approximately $18.5 million.
653421/2020 NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE vs. TIG INSURANCE C.OMPANY F/K/A Page 2 of 11
Motion No. 004
2 of 11
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/27/2022 06:13
11:13 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653 421/2020
AM)
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
290 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 06/24/2022
The Policies
The defendants issued 31 primary comprehensive general liability policies spanning from
October 31, 1982 to January 1, 2014. The policies each contain a duty to defend and a duty to
indemnify for occurrences of bodily injury within the policy periods.
The Chubb policies generally state:
"We will pay damages the insured becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of
liability imposed by law or assumed under any contract or agreement because of:
bodily injury . . . caused by an occurrence . . . to which this insurance applies.
This insurance applies:

1. to bodily injury . . . which occurs during the policy period[.]
We will defend any claim or suit against the insured seeking such damages.
will defend claims or suits against the insured seeking damages to which this
insurance applies even if the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or
fraudulent.
SÖIT means a civil proceeding in which damages because of bodily injury . . . to

."
which this insurance applies are alleged. . (Doc 108).
The AIG policies generally state:
"We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as
damages because of bodily injury . . . to which this insurance applies. We will

have the right and duty to defend any suit seeking those damages even if the
allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent.
This insurance applies to bodily injury . . . only if
(1) The bodily injury . . . is caused by an occurrence that takes place in the
coverage territory and (2) The bodily injury . . . occurs during the policy period.
Suit means a civil proceeding in which damages because of bodily injury . . . to

."
which this insurance applies are alleged. . (Doc 166).
The TIG policy states:
"We will those sums

the insured becomes
that legally obligated to pay as
pay
injury"
damages because of "bodily . . . to which this insurance applies. . . . This
injury"
insurance applies only to "bodily . . . which occurs during the policy
injury" "occurrence."
period. The "bodily . . . must be caused by an ... . We will
"suit"
have the right and duty to defend any seeking those damages.
. . . .
Motion No. 004
3 of 11
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/27/2022 06:13
11: 13 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
AM)
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
290 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
06/24/2022
"Suit" injury"
means a civil proceeding in which damages because of "bodily . . .
."
to which this insurance applies are alleged. . (Doc 104).
Defense Costs
In late 2013, NHL provided notice of the Concussion Litigation to the defendants, who
agreed, under reservations of rights, to front the defense costs. NHL had already retained, at that
time, independent law firms that NHL selected for itself. Under their reservations of rights, the
defendants made payments towards parts of the defense costs for the Concussion Litigation.
Those payments amounted to almost $20 million between 2017 and 2020. NHL seeks to recover
the unpaid portions of its defense costs in this action.
In Motion Seq. No. 04, NHL argues that the defendants have a duty to pay its reasonable
defense costs for the entire Concussion Litigation lawsuits. NHL also seeks a declaration that
the defendants may not allocate any defense costs to NHL for NHL's self-insured years.
The defendants respond that summary judgment is not appropriate because NHL did not
defendants'
trigger the obligations to reimburse costs. Specifically, they argue that plaintiff was
required to tender the defense of the underlying cases to the defendants, but NHL instead elected
to retain independent counsel and control its own defense. Defendants assert that discovery is
necessary to "further explore whether NHL, from the outset, intended to maintain complete,
Litigation"
unilateral control over the defense of the Concussion (Doc 186 at 9-10 [Def's Opp]).
Relatedly, defendants argue that there was a conflict of interest between them and NHL,
and that the issue of defense costs must be analyzed under equitable principles pursuant to the
independent counsel doctrine (id. at 8-9 ["The doctrine thus transforms the insurer's contractual
to defend (with the concomitant right to control) into an equitable duty to pay for the
duty
defense (without a right to control)"]).
MotionNo.004
4 of 11
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/27/2022 06:13
11:13 PM INDEX
IN DEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653 421/2020
AM)
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
290 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 06/24/2022
Defendants also contend that allocation to NHL is necessary because NHL was uninsured
for almost 60 of the more than 95 years at issue in the Concussion Litigation, and that allocation
of defense costs should proceed pro rata, on a time-on-risk basis, that includes NHL's uninsured
periods.
Discussion
To obtain summary judgment, the movant must make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting sufficient "evidentiary proof in
form"
admissible to demonstrate the absence of material issues of fact (Winegrad v New York
Univ. Med Ctr., 64 NY2d 851, 853 [1985]). The court views the evidence in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party and draws all reasonable inferences in that party's favor (see
Flomenbaum v New York 71 AD3d 91 [1st Dept 2009]). The burden shifts to the non-
Univ., 80,
moving party to demonstrate the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action if the
movant makes its prima facie case (see Vermette v Kenworth Truck Co., 68 NY2d 714, 717
[1986]). Additionally, the court may exercise its power under CPLR 3212 (b) and search the
record to award summary judgment to the non-moving party.
Defendants first argue that NHL never triggered a right to defense coverage because it
has not established that it was prepared to tender the defense to the defendants. The court
disagrees. NHL notified defendants of the Concussion Litigation in 2013 and the defendants,
aware of NHL's selection of its own counsel, were at least somewhat involved in the litigation
and paid part of the defense costs under their reservations of rights. Defendants did not timely
disclaim coverage or demand that NHL cede control of the defense. The basis of this purported
disclaimer (raised for the first time in this - NHL's failure to tender control of the
lawsuit)
- was or should have been apparent almost and the multi-

defense to the defendants immediately
653421/2020 NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE vs. TlG INSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A Page 5 of 11
Motion No. 004
5 of 11
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/27/2022 06:13
11:13 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
AM)
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
290 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
06/24/2022
year delay in disclaiming is unreasonable as a matter of law (see e.g. Hunter Roberts Const.
Group, LLC v Arch Ins. Co., 75 AD3d 404,.409 [1st Dept 2010]).
Where "the insurer's interest in defending the lawsuit is in conflict with the [insured]'s
interest . . . [the insured] is entitled to defense by an attorney of his own choosing, whose
insurer"
reasonable fee is to be paid by the (Public Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v Goldfarb, 53 NY2d 392,
401 [1981]; see also Prashker v U.S. Guar. Co., 1 NY2d 584, 593 [1956]; Cunniffv Westfield,
Inc., 829 F Supp 55, 57 [EDNY 1993]). "Where an insurer defends under a reservation of rights,
counsel"
the insured is entitled to retain its own (Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v Twin City Fire
Ins. Co., 28 AD3d 32, 37 n1 [1st Dept 2006]). The "insurer's reservation affects only the
."
insurer's duty to indemnify, not its duty to defend . . (1 Insurance Claims and Disputes § 4:26
[6th ed.]).
defendants'
Here, waived their right to control NHL's defense in the underlying action by
failing to disclaim coverage timely and by making partial payments towards NHL's independent
defense under reservation of rights over the course of several years. Defendants agreed to make
partial payments towards NHL's defense costs under reservation of rights and acquiesced to
NHL's selection of independent counsel. In any event, NHL was entitled to independent counsel
defendants'
by virtue of reservations of rights (Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 28 AD3d at 37 n1).
defendants'
Thus, disclaimer arguments are precluded at this juncture.
Moving on to allocation, the issue is whether defense costs can be allocated to the insured
on the back end for the periods that it failed to obtain coverage. "It is well established that[,] '[i]n
policy' "
determining a dispute over insurance coverage, we first look to the language of the
(Keyspan Gas E. Corp. v Munich Reins. Am., Inc., 31 NY3d 51, 60-61 [2018], quoting Roman
Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v National Union Fire Ins. Co. ofPittsburgh, Pa., 21 NY3d 139,
Motion No. 004
6 of 11
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/27/2022 06:13
11:13 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653 421/2020
AM)
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
290 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 06/24/2022
broad,"
148 [2013]). The duty to defend "is exceedingly and "[a]n insurer must defend
coverage"
whenever the four corners of the complaint suggest . . . a reasonable possibility of
(Continental Casualty Co. v Rapid-Am. Corp., 80 NY2d 640, 648 [1993]). That is, an insurer is
obligated to front-end its insured's defense (or reasonable defense costs) for suits alleging
covered incidents.
period"
The court in Keyspan found that the "during the policy language is a provision
occurrences"
"limiting the insurer's liability to losses and that required a pro rata approach to
indemnification allocation (Keyspan Gas E. Corp., 31 NY3d at 61). The Court of Appeals
sums"
reasoned that the "all approach would "impose liability in perpetuity (or retroactively to
periods prior to coverage) on an insurer who issued insurance coverage for only a limited
years"
number of (id.). It also noted that application of the unavailability rule (with the all sums
approach to allocation of indemnification) "would effectively provide insurance coverage to
policyholders for years in which no premiums were paid and in which insurers made the
question"
calculated choice not to assume or accept premiums for the risk in (id. at 61).
The court finds that allocation of defense costs to NHL for the periods that it was self-
insured is appropriate under the facts presented here and applying the language in the pertinent
policies. In the policies in this case, the indemnification provisions state that the defendants
"will pay damages the insured becomes legally obligated to pay . . . because of . . . bodily injury .
applies."
. . caused by an occurrence . . . to which this insurance The insurance applies to bodily
period"
injury that "occurs during the policy only (see e.g. Doc 108). Likewise, the defense
costs portions of the policies state that defendants "will defend claims or suits against the insured
seeking damages to which this insurance applies even if the allegations of the suit are
groundless, false or fraudulent. . . . SUIT means a civil proceeding in which damages because of
Motion No. 004
7 of 11
FILED:
FILED : NEW
NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/27/2022 06:13
11:13 PM
AN
INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653 421/2020
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 290
308 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
06/24/2022
."
bodily injury . . . to which this insurance applies are alleged. . (e.g. Doc 108). The language
applies" defendants'
"to which this insurance plainly limits the scope of both the indemnification
and defense obligations to bodily injury caused by an occurrence during the applicable policy
periods.
In Danaher Corp. v Travelers Indemnity Co. (414 F Supp 3d 436 [SDNY 2019]), the
court found that "defense costs can be readily apportioned, as 'apportionment of defense costs
costs' "
[may] follow the method for apportionment of indemnification (id. quoting Avondale
Indus., Inc. v Travelers Indemnity Co., 774 F. Supp. 1416, 1437). It apportioned defense costs to
the self-insured parties in the same manner as indemnification costs, and ruled that otherwise
allocation "would be inconsistent with the principle from Keyspan Gas that an insured must bear
coverage"
the risk of loss allocable to any years in which the insured went without (id. at 454;
see also Insurance Co. of N. Am. v Forty-Eight Insulations, Inc., 633 F2d 1212, 1224-1225 [6th
Cir 1980] ["An insurer contracts to pay the entire cost of defending a claim which has arisen
within the policy period. The insurer has not contracted to pay defense costs for occurrences
which took place outside the policy period. Where the distinction can be readily made, the
insured must pay its fair share for the defense of the non-covered risk."]). It is immaterial that
the Danaher plaintiffs were indemnitors of the insured as they stood in the insured's shoes.
The ruling in Danaher is persuasive. The former NHL players alleged [concussive and
sub-concussive] bodily injuries that first occurred during their professional careers and continued
afterwards. The proposed class of former players would have encompassed players from 1917
onwards, and some, if not many, of their alleged injuries would have occurred during the years
that NHL failed to obtain insurance. To the extent that the defense of the Concussion Litigation
encompassed claims of bodily injury that arose prior to NHL's insured years, NHL should be
Motion No. 004
8 of 11
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/27/2022 06:13
11:13 PM INDEX
IN DEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653 421/2020
AM)
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
290 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 06/24/2022
required to pay its own reasonable costs for that defense. In the policies, defendants agreed to
cover the defense for only suits alleging bodily injury that occurred during the policy periods
("to which this insurance applies").
Thus, each of the policies is limited to the amount of time that it covered. Accordingly,
the defense costs must be allocated among the insurers and the insured (for its self-insured
periods) commensurate with their proportionate time on the risk. NHL did not carry insurance
for approximately 57 of the 97 years that the underlying Concussion Litigation addressed.
risk"
Accordingly, NHL must "pay its fair share for the defense of the non-covered (Danaher
Corp. v Travelers Indemnity Co., 414 F Supp 3d 436, 454 [SDNY 2019], quoting Generali-U.S.
Branch v Caribe Realty Corp., 1994 WL 903279, at *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 1994]).
Other courts in this jurisdiction have reached the same result. For instance, the court in
Generali-U.S. Branch v Caribe Realty Corp. (1994 WL 903279 [Sup Ct, NY County 1994])
found that "there is a clear basis for apportioning defense costs between [the insured] and [the
insurer]"
where one of the alleged occurrences of lead poisoning happened prior to the issuance
of a policy when the defendant was not insured (id. at *2).
Method of Allocation
NHL alternatively argues that apportionment of defense costs between itself and the
insurers should be limited to the 302 individual settled claims from the Concussion Litigation,
not all of the claims raised in the various underlying matters that were defended. NHL contends
that allocation of defense costs to it should therefore be "calculated as the ratio of amounts paid
in settlement to claimants with no alleged injury during the Policy periods, divided by the total
claimants"
settlement amount paid to all (Doc 95 at 21). That is, NHL seeks to avoid all or
nearly all allocation of defense costs to itself on the basis that the settled claims involved retired
653421/2020 NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE vs. TlG INSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A Page 9 of 11
Motion No. 004
9 of 11
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/27/2022 06:13
11:13 PM INDEX
IN DEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653 421/2020
AM)
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
290 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 06/24/2022
players whose injuries at least continued into the years covered by the policies. NHL's position
is that allocation to it would be appropriate for only settled claimants who sustained injuries and
died prior to the issuance of any policy, regardless of when the original injuries occurred.
Defendants respond that a pro rata time-on-risk allocation encompassing all the claims in
the Concussion Litigation - all of the claims of the purported class of retired NHL
including
players from 1917 onwards - is more appropriate. Defendants point to the class certification
motion in the MDL.
The court rejects NHL's proposed method for allocation. The defense of the underlying
Concussion Litigation was not limited to only the individual claims that ultimately settled.
While the motion to certify the class in the MDL was denied, NHL defended the entire proposed
class action and accrueddefense costs in the process. Directing allocation for only the settled
policies' applies"
claims would ignore the "to which this insurance language. Thus, using
NHL's approach would subvert the contracts and obviate NHL's obligation to cover the defense
coverage"
costs "allocable to any years in which [it] went without (Danaher, 414 F Supp 3d at
454).
NHL relies on Continental Cas. Co. v Rapid-Am. Corp. (80 NY2d 640, 642 [1993]). The
Rapid-Am. court noted that "[t]he question whether the insured itself must contribute to defense
costs is appropriately deferred at least until such time as the underlying lawsuits are shown to
'occurrences' periods"
involve during self-insured (id. at 642). Rapid-Am. actually militates
against NHL's proposed method of allocation because the Concussion Litigation proceedings
were settled without determinations of when or if qualifying bodily injuries occurred.
Courts in New York and in the United States generally have applied many methods for
allocating defense costs to insureds and insurers, some of which would not be workable here (see
Motion No. 004
10 of 11
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/27/2022 06:13
11:13 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
AM)
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
290 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
06/24/2022
e.g. Ostrager & Newman, Handbook on Ins. Coverage Disputes, § 6.02 [20th ed, 2021]). "In
cases in which it is determined that the insured is self-insured for part of the coverage period, the
costs"
weight of authority is that the insured must bear a pro rata share of defense (id. § 6.02 [a]
[2]). Nonetheless, the record before the court is not sufficient to determine, as a matter of law,
which pro rata allocation approach is best suited. Accordingly, the motion is denied as to the
method of allocation. This denial is without prejudice to a new motion by defendants to
determine which pro rata approach to apply.
parties'
The court has considered the remaining arguments and finds them without
unavailing.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion is granted in part and denied in part; and it is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECLARED that NHL's motion for a declaratory
judgment is granted to the extent that defendants are required to pay reasonable defense costs
incurred in NHL's defense of the Concussion Litigation, provided that the defense costs must be
allocated between the insurers and NHL using a method to be determined after further motion
practice; and it is further
ORDERED that the remainder of the relief requested in the motion is denied; and it is
further
ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference on July 26, 2022 at 11:00
a.m. by Microsoft Teams.
6/24/2022
DATE MELISSA CRANE, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER
MotionNo. 004
11 of 11
EXHIBIT 7
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022 06:13 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
651162/2014
04/15/2014|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
1 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
04/15/2014

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, : Date Purchased
: Index No.:
:
Plaintiff, :
: SUMMONS
-against- : Plaintiff designates:
: New York County as the place of trial
:
:
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE; :
NHL BOARD OF GOVERNORS; :
THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY; :
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; :
WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE :
COMPANY; GENERAL STAR NATIONAL :

INSURANCE COMPANY; RELIANCE :
INSURANCE COMPANY; :
ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; ATHENA :
ASSURANCE COMPANY; CHUBB :
INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA; :
NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE :
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, Pa.; :
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; :
STARR EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE :
INTERNATIONAL, LTD.; and :

ABC-XYZ INSURANCE COMPANIES, :
fictitious insurance companies, :
:
Defendants. :
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of
appearance, on Plaintiff's attorneys within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of
the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not
personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or
answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Dated: April 15, 2014 CARROLL, McNULTY & KULL LLC

New York, New York
By: s/ Christopher R. Carroll

Christopher R. Carroll, Esq.
Heather E. Simpson, Esq.
Mark F. Hamilton, Esq.
8*
570 Lexington Avenue, Floor
(646) 625-4000
Attorneys for Plaintiff
TIG Insurance Company
f/k/a Transamerica Insurance Company
2

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, :
: Index No.:
:
Plaintiff, :
: COMPLAINT FOR
-against- : DECLARATORY
: JUDGMENT
:
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE; :
NHL BOARD OF GOVERNORS; :
THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY; :
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; :
WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE :
COMPANY; GENERAL STAR NATIONAL :

INSURANCE COMPANY; RELIANCE :
INSURANCE COMPANY; :
ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; ATHENA :
ASSURANCE COMPANY; CHUBB :
INSURANCE COMPANY of CANADA; :
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, Pa.; :
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; :
STARR EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE :
INTERNATIONAL, Ltd; and :

ABC-XYZ INSURANCE COMPANIES, :
fictitious insurance companies, :
:
Defendants. :
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
Plaintiff TIG Insurance Company f/k/a Transamerica Insurance Company ("TIG"), by
and through its attorneys Carroll, McNulty & Kull LLC, as and for their Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment against Defendants National Hockey League ("NHL"), NHL Board of
Company,* Company,*
Governors ("NHL BG"), The North River Insurance Federal Insurance
Company,* Company,*
Westchester Fire Insurance General Star National Insurance Reliance
Company,* Company,* Company,*

Insurance Royal Indemnity Athena Assurance Chubb
Canada,* Pa.,*
Insurance Company of National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh,
Company,* Ltd,*
Lexington Insurance Starr Excess Insurance and ABC-
Liability Intemational,
XYZ Insurance Companies, which represent fictitious insurance companies (the "Fictitious
Insurer Defendants"), hereby allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. This insurance coverage action arises out of two underlying class action lawsuits
filed against the NHL and NHL BG alleging, among other things, that these entities concealed
the long-term effects of concussions suffered by NHL players and failed to warn and protect
NHL players against risks associated with concussions, including Chronic Traumatic
Encephalopathy and other brain injuries (the "Concussion Class Actions").
2. Plaintiff issued certain primary, umbrella and excess liability policies to the NHL
and certain NHL-related entities (but not NHL BG) that were in effect for various periods
between 1989 and 2001. On information and belief, the Non-TIG Insurers and Fictitious Insurer
Defendants also issued certain primary, umbrella and excess liability policies to the NHL at
various times before, during and after the timeframe in which the policies issued by TIG were in
effect.
3. Plaintiff seeks a determination of their rights and obligations to defend and/or
indemnify the NHL and NHL BG, if any, in connection with the Concussion Class Actions.
Insurers'
Plaintiff also seeks a determination of the Non-TIG and the Fictitious Insurer
Defendants'
rights and obligations to defend and/or indemnify the NHL and NHL BG, if any, in
connection with the Concussion Class Actions.
Insurers."
Collectively, these Insurers may be referred to herein as the "Non-TIG
2
VENUE AND JURISDICTION
4. Plaintiff TIG is a California corporation with its principal place of business in
Manchester, New Hampshire. At all relevant times, TIG was and is authorized to do business in
the State of New York.
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant NHL is an unincorporated association
with its principal place of business in New York, New York.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant NHL BG is an unincorporated entity that
includes among its members representatives of the various member clubs of the NHL and which
conducts its business in New York, New York.
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant The North River Insurance Company
("North River") is a New Jersey Corporation with its principal place of business in Morristown,
New Jersey and all relevant times was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant Federal Insurance Company ("Federal")
is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Warren, New Jersey and at all
relevant times was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
9. Upon information and belief, Defendant Chubb Insurance Company of Canada
("Chubb of Canada") is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Toronto,
Ontario and at all relevant times was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Royal Indemnity Company ("Royal") is
a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina and at all
relevant times, Federal was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Westchester Fire Insurance Company
("Westchester") is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in
3
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and at all relevant times was and is authorized to do business in the
State of New York.
12. Upon information and belief, Defendant General Star National Insurance
Company ("General Star") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Stamford, Connecticut and at all relevant times was and is authorized to do business in the State
of New York.
13. Upon information and belief, Defendant Reliance Insurance Company
("Reliance") is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania and at all relevant times was and is authorized to do business in the State of New
York.
14. Upon information and belief, Defendant Athena Assurance Company ("Athena")
is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota and at all
relevant times was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
15. Upon information and belief, Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, Pa. ("National Union") is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of
business in New York, New York and at all relevant times was and is authorized to do business
in the State of New York.
16. Upon information and belief, Defendant Lexington Insurance Company
("Lexington") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Boston,
Massachusetts and at all relevant times was and is authorized to do business in the State of New
York.
17. Upon information and belief, Defendant Starr Excess Liability Insurance
International, Ltd. ("Starr Excess") is a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of
4
Ireland with its principal place of business in Hamilton, Bermuda and was and is authorized to
do business in the State of New York.
18. Upon information and belief, Defendants ABC-XYZ Insurance Companies
represent fictitious insurance companies that issued certain policies of insurance to NHL and,
therefore, may be interested parties in this action.
19. This declaratory judgment action is brought pursuant to New York CPLR §3001.
20. Venue is appropriate under CPLR 503(a) because at least one of the Defendants is
a resident of New York County.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
L THE CONCUSSION CLASS ACTIONS
A. The District of Columbia Class Action
21. On November 25, 2013, certain former professional hockey players who played
as members of various NHL member clubs during their professional careers (the "First Set of
Retired NHL Player Plaintiffs") filed a Class Action Complaint (the "First Class Action
Complaint") against the NHL and NHL BG, captioned Leeman et al v. National Hockey League
et al, 13-cv-01856-KBJ, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
22. To date, there are thirteen retired NHL players named as Plaintiffs in the First
Class Action Complaint, but, by way of the First Class Action Complaint, the First Set of Retired
NHL Player Plaintiffs seek to create a certified class defined as follows:
all former NHL players who retired on or before February 14, 2013 and
who have suffered brain trauma and/or injuries as a result of concussive
and sub-concussive impacts inflicted on them while playing in the NHL.
23. The members of the First Set of Retired NHL Player Plaintiffs are alleged to have
played in the NHL for various teams from 1970 through 2008.
5
24. Each of the individual members of the First Set of Retired NHL Player Plaintiffs
allege to have "suffered multiple concussions and sub-concussive impacts as a result of []
NHL."
playing professional hockey in the It is further alleged that subsequent to retiring from
the NHL, each one of the First Set of Retired NHL Player Plaintiffs "has suffered from injuries
impacts"
associated with such concussions and sub-concussive which include, but are not limited
to, "post-traumatic head syndrome"; "post-traumatic headaches"; "depression"; "personality
change"; "memory loss"; "lack of concentration"; "cephalgia"; "visual problems"; "tinnitus";
deficit."
"lightheadedness"; "memory loss"; "bilateral hearing loss"; and "cognitive
25. The First Set of Retired NHL Player Plaintiffs also allege in the First Class Action
decades,"
Complaint that "[f]or "the NHL has been aware or should have been aware that
multiple blows to the head can lead to long-term brain injury, including but not limited to
symptoms"
memory loss, dementia, depression, and CTE and its related but that "[r]ather than
take immediate measures to protect NHL players from these known dangers, from the time it
nothing."
first knew of these problems through the 1990s, the NHL did
26. The NHL and NHL BG have sought insurance coverage for the claims asserted in
the First Class Action Complaint from TIG.
B. The New York Class Action
27. On April 9, 2014, certain former professional hockey players who played as
members of various NHL member clubs during their professional careers (the "Second Set of
Retired NHL Player Plaintiffs") filed Class Action Complaint (the "Second Class Action
against the captioned LaCouture et al v. National 14-cv-

Complaint") NHL, Hockey League,
02531-SAS, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
6
28. To date, there are nine retired NHL players named as Plaintiffs in the Second
Class Action Complaint, but by way of the Second Class Action Complaint the Second Set of
Retired NHL Player Plaintiffs seek to create a certified class defined as "all former and current
players."
NHL
29. The members of the Second Set of Retired NHL Player Plaintiffs are alleged to
have played in the NHL for various teams from 1976 through 2009.
30. It is alleged, generally, in the Second Class Action Complaint that each of the
individual members of the Second Set of Retired NHL Player Plaintiffs "has been and will
misconduct"
continue to be damaged as a result of the NHL's as that "misconduct is described in
detail in the Second Class Action Complaint and that all of the members of the broad proposed
class (defined as every current and former NHL Player) "have suffered and will continue to
suffer serious health problems as a result of the NHL's sophisticated use of extreme violence to
Internet."
bring fans to the game in hockey arenas, on television, the radio and the
31. The Second Set of Retired NHL Player Plaintiffs also allege in the Second Class
Action Complaint that
Through the sophisticated use of extreme violence as a commodity, from

which the NHL has generated billions of dollars, the NHL has subjected
and continues to subject its players to the imminent risk of head trauma
and, as a result, devastating and long-term negative health consequences.

The NHL has failed and continues to fail to warn its players of these risks
and consequences of head trauma, concealing material scientific and
anecdotal information from its players. The NHL has failed to institute
policies and protocols that could have and will protect its players from
suffering or exacerbating head trauma sustained during practice or in
games; and that
despite the fact that the NHL's violent game design induces head trauma,
including concussions, the NHL has failed and continues to fail to warn its
players of the risks to their lives and the devastating and long-term
negative health effects. In fact, the NHL affirmatively concealed specific
anecdotal evidence from players and scientific evidence about the health
7
risks and consequences associated with playing in the NHL, including

head injuries. To maintain its billions in revenue, the NHL also
purposefully failed to institute policies and protocols that would protect its
players from exacerbating injuries sustained during practice or in games.
32. The NHL has sought, or upon information and belief will seek, insurance
coverage for the claims asserted in the Second Class Action Complaint from TIG.
H. THE PRIMARY INSURANCE POLICIES
33. TIG issued policy number SSP1340721 for the policy period November 30, 1989
through January 1, 1991.
34. Upon information and belief, Federal issued one or more primary liability
insurance policies to the NHL.
35. Upon information and belief, Chubb of Canada issued one or more primary
liability insurance policies to the NHL.
36. Upon information and belief, National Union issued one or more primary liability
insurance policies to the NHL.
37. Upon information and belief, the Fictitious Insurer Defendants issued one or more
primary liability insurance policies to the NHL and/or NHL BG.
HL THE UMBRELLA AND/OR EXCESS POLICIES
38. TIG issued policy number KLB1454587, which provides excess liability
insurance that is excess of $1,000,000 in underlying insurance, for the policy period November
30, 1989 through January 1, 1991.
39. TIG issued policy number XLX9710624, which provides excess liability
insurance that is excess of $121,000,000 in underlying insurance, for the policy period January 1,
8
40. TIG issued policy number XLX9710647, which provides excess liability
insurance that is excess of $121,000,000 in underlying insurance, for the policy period January 1,
41. Upon information and belief, North River issued one or more excess and/or
umbrella liability insurance policies to the NHL.
42. Upon information and belief, Federal issued one or more excess and/or umbrella
liability insurance policies, including but not limited to policies listed as scheduled underlying
insurance in the TIG policies described in paragraphs 39 and 40 above, to the NHL.
43. Upon information and belief, Chubb of Canada issued one or more excess and/or
umbrella liability insurance policies, including but not limited to policies listed as scheduled
underlying insurance in the TIG policies described in paragraphs 39 and 40 above, to the NHL.
44. Upon information and belief, Royal issued one or more excess and/or umbrella
45. Upon information and belief, Westchester issued one or more excess and/or
46. Upon information and belief, General Star issued one or more excess and/or
47. Upon information and belief, Reliance issued one or more excess and/or umbrella
9
48. Upon information and belief, Athena issued one or more excess and/or umbrella
49. Upon information and belief, Lexington issued one or more excess and/or
50. Upon information and belief, Starr Excess issued one or more excess and/or
51. Upon information and belief, the Fictitious Insurer Defendants issued one or more
umbrella and/or excess liability insurance policies to the NHL and/or the NHL BG.
COUNT I
Judgment - Alleged to
(Declaratory Duty Defend)
52. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation of the
preceding paragraphs as if set forth herein, verbatim and fully at length.
53. A dispute has arisen as to the existence and scope of any obligation of Plaintiff to
defend NHL and/or NHL BG in connection with the Concussion Class Actions.
parties'
54. Plaintiff seeks a determination of the respective rights and obligations
under the policies identified above in connection with the Concussion Class Actions.
55. In particular, Plaintiff seeks a determination that any past or future duty to defend
NHL or NHL BG may be limited or precluded by a number of factual or legal defenses,
including, but not limited to, the following:
A. NHL BG is not an insured under certain policies;
B. NHL and NHL BG may have failed to comply with the conditions
of the policies, including proper notice;
10
C. The policies do not provide coverage for intentional wrongdoing or
bodily injury expected or intended by NHL and/or NHL BG;
D. The policies do not provide coverage for bodily injury that took
place before or after the relevant policy periods, but, for example,
certain members of the of both the First and Second Sets of Retired
NHL Player Plaintiffs include individuals whose NHL Careers
began following the expiration of the policies coverage period,

and, therefore, cannot possibly have suffered bodily injury caused
policies'
by the NHL or NHL BG during the coverage period;
E. The policies do not provide coverage for bodily injury that was
known to NHL and/or NHL BG prior to any relevant policy
periods;
F. Certain policies do not provide coverage for bodily injury

sustained while practicing for or participating in athletic events;
G. Certain policies do not provide coverage for injuries sustained in

"sponsored"
events not by the NHL;
H. The policies do not provide coverage for medical monitoring costs;
I. The policies do not provide coverage for punitive damages;
J. NHL and/or NHL BG failed to properly mitigate their losses,
including but not limited to defense costs/expenses;
K. NHL and/or NHL BG are responsible to satisfy any deductibles,

self-insured retentions or percentage of defense costs allocable to
any uninsured or insolvent periods; and
L. Any duty to defend and/or duty to reimburse defense costs under
any of the policies must be reasonable and necessary.
56. Therefore, an actual and justiciable controversy exists regarding the nature and
scope of the insurance coverage potentially owed to NHL and NHL BG.
COUNT H
Judgment - Alleged to
(Declaratory Duty Indemnify)
57. Plaintiff repeats, reiterates and realleges each and every allegation of the
preceding paragraphs as if set forth herein, verbatim and fully at length.
11
58. A dispute has arisen as to the existence and scope of any obligation of Plaintiff to
indemnify NHL and/or NHL BG in connection with the Concussion Class Actions.
parties'
59. Plaintiff seeks a determination of the respective rights and obligations
under the policies identified above in connection with the Concussion Class Actions.
60. In particular, Plaintiff seeks a determination that any potential duty to indemnify
NHL or NHL BG may be limited or precluded by a number of factual or legal defenses,
including, but not limited to, the following:
A. NHL and NHL BG may have failed to comply with the conditions
of the policies, including proper notice;
B. NHL BG is not an insured under certain policies;
C. The policies do not provide coverage for intentional wrongdoing or
any bodily injury expected or intended by NHL and NHL BG;
D. The policies do not provide coverage for bodily injury that took
place before or after the relevant policy periods but, for example,
certain members of the of both the First and Second Sets of Retired
NHL Player Plaintiffs include individuals whose NHL Careers
began following the expiration of the policies coverage period,
and, therefore, cannot possibly have suffered bodily injury caused
policies'
by the NHL or NHL BG during the coverage period;
E. The policies do not provide coverage for bodily injury that was
known to NHL and/or NHL BG prior to any relevant policy
periods;
F. Certain policies do not provide coverage for bodily injury

sustained while practicing for or participating in athletic events;
G. Certain policies do not provide coverage for injuries sustained in

"sponsored"
events not by the NHL;
H. The policies do not provide coverage for medical monitoring costs;
I. The policies do not provide coverage for punitive damages;
J. NHL and NHL BG failed to properly mitigate their respective
losses; and
12
K. NHL and/or NHL BG are responsible to satisfy any deductibles,

self-insured retentions or amounts allocable to any uninsured or
insolvent periods.
61. Therefore, an actual and justiciable controversy exists regarding the nature and
scope of the insurance coverage potentially owed to NHL and NHL BG.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
(a) For a determination of Plaintiff's rights and obligations, if any, with respect to
the payment of past and future defense costs on behalf of NHL and/or NHL
BG in connection with the Concussion Class Actions;
(b) For a determination of Plaintiff's rights and obligations, if any, to indemnify

NHL and/or NHL BG in connection with the Concussion Class Actions;
Defendants'
(c) For a determination of the Non-TIG Insurer respective rights and
obligations, if any, to defend or indemnify NHL and NHL BG in connection

with the Concussion Class Actions;
attorneys'
(d) For its fees and costs pursuant to law; and
(e) For such other relief as is just and equitable herein.
Dated: April 15, 2014 CARROLL, McNULTY & KULL LLC

New York, New York
By: s/ Christopher R. Carroll

Christopher R. Carroll, Esq.
Heather E. Simpson, Esq.
8*
570 Lexington Avenue, Floor
(646) 625-4000
f/k/a Transamerica Insurance Company
13
EXHIBIT 8
White and
Williams ete
Michael 0. Kassak
LibertyView | 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 400 | Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-2220

Direct 856.317.3653 | Fax 856.317.3603
June 4, 2021
Via e-NYSCEF
Hon. Melissa Anne Crane
Supreme Court of the State of New York
County of New York

60 Centre Street, Room 647
RE: National et al. v. TIG Insurance et al. - Supreme Court

Hockey League, Co.,
of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 653421/2020
Dear Justice Crane:
We write on behalf of Chubb, AIG, and TIG (collectively, the "Insurers") in response to NHL
counsel's May 28, 2021 correspondence requesting a telephone conference to discuss discovery
issues (NYSCEF 49). Each of the Insurers has either already produced or agreed to produce
non-privileged materials relevant to the NHL's claim for coverage at issue in this litigation. By
way of its disputed discovery requests, the NHL seeks primarily proprietary and/or confidential
information about other claims, other insureds, or other circumstances, none of which could
productively inform the issues here. The information the NHL seeks would only serve to distract
from the issues in this case and unnecessarily extend the time needed to complete the already
substantial relevant discovery which needs to take place.
Relevant Background
The Insurers have consistently met their obligations to the NHL under the relevant policies. The
"my-way-or-the-highway"
NHL, on the other hand, has taken a approach, including rejecting the
Insurers'
offered defense and refusing to provide necessary information.
Despite the NHL's intransigence, Chubb, AIG, and TIG have collectively paid the NHL
approximately $20 million to cover its defense costs in the underlying Concussion Litigation.
This payment more than covers the reasonable and necessary defense costs of qualified counsel
to represent the NHL in the Concussion Litigation in the relevant forum. What is actually in
dispute before Your Honor, is the fact that the NHL hired three law firms to represent it in the
Concussion Litigation, and those three firms overstaffed the matter (utilizing over 400
Delaware | Massachusetts | New Jersey | New York | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island

27232166v.1
June 4, 2021
Page 2
timekeepers) and employed other well-recognized inflationary billing practices, which resulted
in the NHL paying defense costs far beyond what was reasonable or necessary.
Misstatements in the NHL's May 28, 2021 Letter
parties'
The NHL's letter includes several mischaracterizations of the history of the dispute.
First, under New York law and under the policies, the NHL must contribute a pro rata share of
Insurers'
costs allocable to uninsured and lost policy periods. The stated position has always
been that the relevant allocation period based on the allegations in the underlying complaints
begins in 1917 (the year asserted in the underlying MDL as the start of a putative class).
However, as an effort to compromise with their insured, the Insurers offered to use 1951 as a
start date for the allocation period for defense costs (based on the playing career of the earliest
named plaintiff in the MDL). The NHL refused to agree with that insurer-proposed compromise.
Second, the NHL misrepresents the claim payment history. The Insurers all reimbursed the NHL
for significant defense costs, subject to a reservation of rights concerning the scope and extent of
any defense obligation, and each Insurer tried to reach a compromise settlement to avoid
litigation with the NHL. While the Insurers offered different terms of compromise, each of them
offered reasonable solutions that more than met their obligations to the NHL. To the extent that
certain of the Insurers applied a percentage reduction to the share of defense costs allocable to
their respective coverage periods to provisionally account for unreasonable and unnecessary
costs for which the NHL sought reimbursement, these discounts were not, as the NHL suggests,
limited to accounting for excessive amounts billed based on unreasonably high hourly rates.
They also accounted for additional significant issues, including block billing and overstaffing.
The Insurers nevertheless collectively paid approximately $20 million that more than met their
obligations to the NHL, while reserving all rights to recoup any amounts attributable to
unreasonable and unnecessary costs.
issues" extent"
Third, in this litigation, the "billing are not significant to a "lesser than the rate
issues - in are a driving factor in this dispute. The NHL's counsel utilized well-known
fact, they
inflationary billing practices which lead to unreasonable and unnecessary defense costs incurred
by the NHL. These billing practices have been criticized in New York and courts across the
country. Indeed, NHL's counsel has had its fees reduced in multiple prior published opinions for
employing these practices. The NHL may have agreed to pay such costs, but such costs are not
recoverable under commercial general liability insurance policies. The NHL's counsel may wish
to minimize these issues (particularly because they were the counsel in the underlying matter
engaging in these unreasonable practices), but they are front and center here and a primary
incurred.1
reason for the unreasonableness of the defense costs
I
To the extent that the NHL made reference in its letter to a prior
action that was brought coverage
by TIG to
Insurers'
determine the rights and obligations to defend
indemnify the and/or
NHL, it merits note that immediately
after that litigation commenced the court granted a stay of all proceedings in accordance with a fully executed Stay
and Tolling Agreement entered into between the parties and no discovery was conducted.
27232166v.1
June 4, 2021
Page 3
As to the specific categories of information noted in the May 28, 2021 letter, the Insurers will
fully brief their positions in the event that the NHL moves to compel discovery. But a summary
of some of the reasons why the NHL is not entitled to this information is as follows:
NHL Claim Information (category 1 in the NHL's letter)
The Insurers have agreed to produce the non-privileged portions of their claim files, and in fact
have already begun to do so. There, the NHL will find any non-privileged "documents
Insurers' claim,"
concerning the handling, investigation, and evaluation of the NHL's insurance
as it has requested. Subject to the objections and reservations in their respective responses, the
Insurers do not dispute the NHL's requests for non-privileged information relating to its own
claim for coverage.
Information related to other insureds (categories 2, 3 and 6)
In the disputed requests, the NHL seeks information on unrelated insurance disputes involving
other insureds in other jurisdictions. The NHL cites to a Western District of Washington opinion
as justification for its probe into the confidential business of other policyholders. A brief look at
the actual standard here in New York demonstrates the NHL's request is untethered from the
applicable legal standard and its request must be denied.
fees,"
As an initial matter, calculations of "reasonable defense costs, including attorney's are
made "by multiplying 'a reasonable hourly rate by the reasonable number of hours expended on
case."
the Danaher Corp. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14159, at *10
(S.D.N.Y. January 16, 2015). The party seeking approval of the fee must provide satisfactory
evidence that the requested rates charged were reasonable and "in line with rates charged in
litigated."
similar cases in the forums in which they were Id. at *31, 34-44 (reviewing the rates
firms charged in each of the 11 states where cases were and assessing whether those rates were
reasonable in each respective community).
The NHL's three law firms litigated the MDL Concussion matter in the District of Minnesota.
Under Danaher, Your Honor must determine the reasonable and appropriate rates in that forum.
Other lawsuits, involving other insureds and unrelated circumstances, handled by other law
firms, whether in Pennsylvania (NFL) or Illinois (NCAA), do not inform the reasonableness of
the NHL counsel's fees in a Minnesota case. Rather, such an inquiry would result in multiple
mini-trials and discovery rabbit holes about the differences between (1) the other lawsuits, (2)
claims, (3) insureds , (4) each of the 400+ timekeepers here in comparison to timekeepers in the
other cases, and (5) the separate forums where the distinct cases were litigated. This would be a
waste of time and resources.
Moreover, courts in New York and throughout the country have consistently rejected attempts by
policyholders to obtain discovery about other insured's claim files for number of reasons
litigation,"
including lack of relevance, privilege concerns, the likelihood of extensive "side and
the unjustifiable burden to the insurers. The case law in New York alone supporting the
Insurers'
position is abundant. See, e.g., Gold Fields American Corp. v. Aetna Casualty &
27232166v.1
June 4, 2021
Page 4
Surety Co., No. 19879/89, 1994 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 709 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 3, 1994); Convermat
Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69102, at *12 (E.D.N.Y. Sep.
18, 2007). These New York holdings are in accord with of the law in jurisdictions throughout
the United States.
Internal documents other than those related to the handling of the NHL's claim (categories
4 and 5)
The Insurers have agreed to produce the non-privileged portions of their claim files for this
matter, as well as the relevant policy documents that they have located. No more should be
compelled. The plain and ordinary meaning of the written terms of insurance policies control in
a breach of contract dispute. Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Bear Stearns Cos., Inc., 884 N.E.2d 1044, 1047
(N.Y. 2008) Any dispute about the policy provisions is for Your Honor to resolve under New
York law and is not a matter that can or should be resolved on the basis of materials like the
Insurers'
claims manuals or standard policy forms.
Knowledge of concussion risks (category 7)
Insurers'
To the extent relevant, documents responsive to this request are in the claim files.
Thousands of pages have already been produced by certain of the Insurers, and rolling
productions continue.
Insurers'
By contesting the response to this demand, the NHL again seems intent on distracting
- competitors'
from the real issues including seeking discovery about business information that
the Insurers may have from other claims. This is of no moment to the "knowledge-based
defenses"
to which the NHL refers.
Insurers'
Those knowledge-based defenses are about the NHL's knowledge of risks, not the
knowledge. For example, the loss in progress exclusion precludes coverage for bodily injury
policies'
known by the NHL prior to the beginning of the policy period. Relatedly, the
requirement that there be an occurrence or accident to trigger the policy coverage implicates the
Insurers'
NHL's knowledge, not the knowledge. Bodily injury arising out of an act intended by
the insured or that would be expected to cause bodily injury is not fortuitous and not covered.
The NHL possesses the information that will be relevant to the NHL's knowledge. For example,
the NHL has maintained a centralized database of player injury information since the 1990s.
What information is in that system, who had access to that information, and how it informed
policy decisions at the league will all speak to whether the claimed injuries were indeed
accidental, or whether the NHL expected or intended them. What the Insurers knew or may have
known unrelated to these claims is nothing more than a distracting sleight of hand.
Lost Policies
As this is an issue of primary importance to Zurich and Aviva, the Insurers will leave it to those
parties to address and not burden the Court with further discussion on the issue
27232166v.1
June 4, 2021
Page 5
For the reasons noted above, it is respectfully submitted that the Insurers have satisfied and are
continuing to satisfy their respective discovery obligation in connection with this litigation.
Therefore, the NHL's efforts to demand additional expansive, overbroad discovery should be
denied, thereby allowing the parties to focus on the significant, relevant discovery which needs
to occur. The Insurers look forward to discussing this matter with Your Honor.
Sincerely,
WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
/s/ Michael 0. Kassak
Michael O. Kassak
Robert Wright
cc: Peter Luneau, Esq./Rebekah Mott, Esq.

Charles Scibetta, Esq./Andrew L. Poplinger, Esq.
Mark Hamilton, Esq./Heather Simpson, Esq.
Kevin Coughlin, Esq./Steven Cantarutti, Esq.
Thomas Maeglin, Esq./Glenn Jacobson, Esq.
Marc Rosenthal, Esq.
27232166v.1
EXHIBIT 9
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/24/2020 06:13
12:12 PM INDEX
INDEX NO. 653421/2020
NO. 651162/2014
PM
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
45 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 06/24/2020

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
Index No.: 651162/2014
TIG INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a
TRANSAMERCA INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff(s)
- vs - NOTICE OF
DISCONTINUANCE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PURSUANT TO CPLR 3217
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE;

NHL BOARD OF GOVERNORS;
THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY;
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY;
WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY; GENERAL STAR NATIONAL
INSURANCE COMPANY; RELIANCE INSURANCE
COMPANY; ROYAL INDEMNITY COMPANY;
ATHENA ASSURANCE COMPANY; CHUBB
INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA; NATIONAL
UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
PITTSBURGH, PA.; LEXINGTON INSURANCE
COMPANY; STARR EXCESS LIABILITY INSURANCE
INTERNATIONAL, LTD.; and ABC-XYZ INSURANCE
COMPANIES, fictitious insurance companies,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
I, Mark F. Hamilton, Esq., hereby affirm as follows:
1. I am attorney of record for Plaintiff TIG Insurance Company, f/k/a Transamerica
Insurance Company ("Plaintiff"), in the above-entitled action.
2. To date, no responsive pleading has been served by any party in response to
Plaintiff's Complaint in this action.
1 of 2
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
06/24/2020 06:13
12:12 PM INDEX
INDEX NO. 653421/2020
NO. 651162/2014
PM
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
45 RECEIVED
NYSCEF: 06/24/2020
3. I hereby affirm that the above-entitled action be, and the same is, hereby discontinued
without prejudice as against all Defendants, and without costs to any party, pursuant to CPLR
3217(a), and that this notice may be filed with the Clerk of the Court without further notice.

June 24, 2020

Kennedys CMK LLP
- 88"
570 Lexington Avenue Floor
(646) 625-4000
2 of 2
EXHIBIT 10
CLOSED,MASTER,MDL,NHL,PROTO
U.S. District Court

U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT
Players'
IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Date Filed: 08/19/2014
Litigation Date Terminated: 11/01/2019
Assigned to: Judge Susan Richard Nelson Jury Demand: Both
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson Nature of Suit: 360 P.I.: Other
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury Jurisdiction: Diversity
Date Filed # Docket Text
08/19/2014 1 TRANSFER ORDER from Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1407 that the actions
pending in districts other than the District of Minnesota
are transferred to the District of Minnesota, creating MDL 2551. MDL 2551 assigned
to Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (TSS) (Entered: 08/20/2014)
08/26/2014 Receipt of record from the Southern District of New York, Their Case No.
1:14-02531; Our Case No. 14-3234 SRN. (AKL) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
08/26/2014 Receipt of record from the District of Columbia, Their Case No. 1:13-1856; Our Case
No. 14-3233 SRN. (AKL) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
09/04/2014 2 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1 Establishing Preliminary Procedures. The Initial Case
Management Conference in these MDL cases will be held on Thursday, September 18
at 1:00 pm in Courtroom 7B of the Warren E. Burger Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse in St. Paul, Minnesota. See Order for additional information and
deadlines. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 09/04/2014. Associated Cases:
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM, 0:14-cv-01140-SRN-JSM,
0:14-cv-03038-SRN-JSM, 0:14-cv-03233-SRN-JSM,
0:14-cv-03234-SRN-JSM(SMD) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
09/05/2014 3 CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-1) (AKL) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
09/09/2014 Receipt of record from the Southern District of New York, case no. 1:14-cv-05732;
Our Case No. 14-3377 SRN/JSM. (AKL) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
09/11/2014 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian D Penny on behalf of Chris Ferraro, Dan Fritsche.
(Penny, Brian) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
09/11/2014 5 RESPONSE re 2 Pretrial Order,, filed

by National League. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) A - Proposed CMO, # 2 Exhibit(s) B
Hockey
Proposed Agenda,
- # 3
Certificate of Service. EXHIBITS ATTACHED IN ERROR, THE EXHIBITS HAVE
BEEN RE-FILED, SEE DOCUMENT NUMBER 12 .)(Beisner, John) Modified text
on 9/16/2014 (LEG). (Entered: 09/11/2014)
Plaintiffs'
09/11/2014 fi BRIEF Initial Case Management Submission Pursuant to Pretrial Order
No. 1 filed
by Bradley Aitken, Scott Bailey, Darren Banks, Bruce Bell, Curt Bennett,
Bob Bourne, Richard Brennan, Jack Carlson, Richard Dunn, Chris Ferraro, Dan
Fritsche, Warren Holmes, Dan Keczmer, Dan LaCouture, Cory Larose, Gary Leeman,
Robert Manno, Brad Maxwell, Bernie Nicholls, Scott Parker, Michael Peluso, Allan
Rourke, Blair James Stewart, Morris Titanic, Tom Younghans. (Gudmundson, Brian)
(Entered: 09/11/2014)
09/11/2014 7 NOTICE by Bradley Aitken, Scott Bailey, Darren Banks, Bruce Bell, Curt Bennett,
Plaintifs'
Rourke, Blair James Stewart, Morris Titanic, Tom Younghans of Proposed
Agenda for Initial Case Management Conference (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered:
09/11/2014)
09/11/2014 8 NOTICE by Bradley Aitken, Scott Bailey, Darren Banks, Bruce Bell, Curt Bennett,
Plaintifs'
Rourke, Blair James Stewart, Morris Titanic, Tom Younghans of Proposed
Case Management Order (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered: 09/11/2014)
09/11/2014 2 MOTION to Appoint Counsel

and Application for Leadership Structure by Bradley
Aitken, Scott Bailey, Darren
Banks, Bruce Bell, Curt Bennett, Bob Bourne, Richard
Brennan, Jack Carlson, Richard Dunn, Chris Ferraro, Dan Fritsche, Warren Holmes,
Dan Keczmer, Dan LaCouture, Cory Larose, Gary Leeman, Robert Manno, Brad
Maxwell, Bernie Nicholls, Scott Parker, Michael Peluso, Allan Rourke, Blair James
Stewart, Morris Titanic, Tom Younghans. (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered:
09/11/2014)
09/11/2014 10 Declaration of Brian C. Gudmundson in Support of 2 MOTION to Appoint Counsel

and Application for Leadership Structure filed
by Bradley Aitken, Bailey, Scott
Darren Banks, Bruce Bell, Curt Bennett, Bob Bourne, Richard Brennan, Jack Carlson,
Richard Dunn, Chris Ferraro, Dan Fritsche, Warren Holmes, Dan Keczmer, Dan
LaCouture, Cory Larose, Gary Leeman, Robert Manno, Brad Maxwell, Bernie
Nicholls, Scott Parker, Michael Peluso, Allan Rourke, Blair James Stewart, Morris
Titanic, Tom Younghans. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-1 (Robbins Geller Firm
Resume), # 2 Exhibit(s) A-2 (Silverman Firm Resume),
# 3 Exhibit(s) A-3
(ZImmerman Reed Firm Resume), # 4 Exhibit(s) A-4 (Bassford Remele Firm
Resume), # 5 Exhibit(s) A-5 (Chestnut Cambronne Firm Resume), # 6 Exhibit(s)
A-6 (Corboy & Demetrio Firm Resume), # 7 Exhibit(s) A-7 (Heins Mills Firm
Resume), # 8 Exhibit(s) A-8 (Goldman Firm Resume), # 2 Exhibit(s) A-9 (Gustafson
Gluek FirmResume), # 10 Exhibit(s) A-10 (Levine Firm Resume), # 11 Exhibit(s)
A-11 (Namanny, Bryne & Owens Firm Resume), # 12 Exhibit(s) A-12 (Zelle
Hofmann Firm Resume), # la Exhibit(s) B-1 (Robins Geller Individual Resumes), #
14 Exhibit(s) B-2 (Silverman Individual Resumes), # 15 Exhibit(s) B-3 (Zimmerman
Reed Individual Resumes), # 16 Exhibit(s) B-4 (Bassford Remele Individual
Resumes), # 17 Exhibit(s) B-5 (Chesnut Cambronne Individual Resumes), # 18
Exhibit(s) B-6 (Corboy & Demetrio Individual Resumes), # 12 Exhibit(s) B-7 (Heins
Mills Individual Resumes), # 20 Exhibit(s) B-8 (Goldman Individual Resumes), # 21
Exhibit(s) B-9 (Gustafson Gluek Individual Resumes), # 22 Exhibit(s) B-10 (Levine
Individual Resumes), # 23 Exhibit(s) B-11 (Namanny, Individual Byrne & Owens
Resumes), # 24 Exhibit(s) B-12 (Zelle Hofmann Individual Resumes), # 25
Exhibit(s) C1 - C12 (Certificates of Good Standing))(Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered:
09/11/2014)
09/15/2014 11 AMENDED EXHIBIT C-11 re 10 Declaration in Support by Bradley Aitken, Scott

Bailey, Darren Banks, Bruce Bell, Curt Bennett, Bob Bourne, Richard Brennan, Jack
Carlson, Richard Dunn, Chris Ferraro, Dan Fritsche, Warren Holmes, Dan Keczmer,
Dan LaCouture, Cory Larose, Gary Leeman, Robert Manno, Brad Maxwell, Bernie
Titanic, Tom Younghans filed by Bradley Aitken, Scott Bailey, Darren Banks, Bruce
Bell, Curt
Bennett, Bob Bourne, Richard Brennan, Jack Carlson, Richard Dunn, Chris
Ferraro, Dan Fritsche, Warren Holmes, Dan Keczmer, Dan LaCouture, Cory Larose,
Gary Leeman, Robert Manno, Brad Maxwell, Bernie Nicholls, Scott Parker, Michael
Peluso, Allan Rourke, Blair James Stewart, Morris Titanic, Tom Younghans.
(Gudmundson, Brian) Modified on 9/15/2014 (kt). (Entered: 09/15/2014)
09/15/2014 12 EXHIBIT INDEX re 5 Response, by National League. (Attachments:# 1

Exhibit(s) A - Proposed CMO, # 2 Exhibit(s) B -
Hockey
Proposed Agenda, # 3
Certificate of Service)(Beisner, John) Modified text on 9/15/2014 (LEG). (Entered:
09/15/2014)
09/17/2014 la AMENDED EXHIBITS C-2

and C-6 re 10 Declaration in Support by Bradley
Aitken, Scott Bailey, Darren
Banks, Bruce Bell, Curt Bennett, Bob Bourne, Richard
Brennan, Jack Carlson, Richard Dunn, Chris Ferraro, Dan Fritsche, Warren Holmes,
Dan Keczmer, Dan LaCouture, Cory Larose, Gary Leeman, Robert Manno, Brad
Maxwell, Bernie Nicholls, Scott
Parker, Michael
Peluso, Allan Rourke, Blair James
Stewart, Morris Titanic, Tom Younghans filed by Bradley Aitken, Scott Bailey,
Darren Banks, Bruce Bell, Curt Bennett, Bob Bourne, Richard Brennan, Jack Carlson,
Richard Dunn, Chris Ferraro, Dan Fritsche, Warren Holmes, Dan Keczmer, Dan
LaCouture, Cory Larose, Gary Leeman, Robert Manno, Brad Maxwell, Bernie
Titanic, Tom Younghans. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) C-6

(Amended))(Gudmundson, Brian) Modified on 9/17/2014 (kt). (Entered: 09/17/2014)
09/17/2014 14 NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel J Connolly on behalf of National Hockey League.

(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
09/17/2014 15 NOTICE of Appearance by Aaron D Van Oort on behalf of National Hockey League.
(Van Oort, Aaron) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
09/17/2014 16 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph M Price on behalf of National Hockey League.

(Price, Joseph) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
09/17/2014 17 NOTICE of Appearance by Linda S Svitak on behalf of National Hockey League.

(Svitak, Linda) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
09/18/2014 18 ORDER granting 9 Motion to Appoint Counsel and Application for Leadership
Structure. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 09/18/2014. (SMD) (Entered:
09/18/2014)
09/18/2014 20 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Initial Pretrial
Conference held on 9/18/2014. Written Order to Issue. (Court Reporter Heather
Schuetz) (SMD) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
09/19/2014 12 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 2. The Order of September 18, 2014 [Doc. No.
18] is amended solely to reflect a change in the caption to Pretrial Order No. 2. Signed
by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 09/19/2014. Associated Cases:
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al. (SMD) (Entered: 09/19/2014)
09/23/2014 21 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 3. See Order for deadlines and other information. Signed by
Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 09/23/2014. Associated Cases:
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(SMD) (Entered: 09/23/2014)
09/24/2014 22 NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated
with it. (HAS) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
09/24/2014 24 TRANSCRIPT of Scheduling Conference held on September 18, 2014, before Judge
Susan Richard Nelson. (33 pages). Court Reporter: Heather Schueiz (E-mail:
Heather_Schuetz@mnd.uscourts.gov. Telephone: (651) 848-1223). Redaction
Request due 10/15/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/27/2014. Release of
Transcript Restriction set for 12/23/2014. For information on redaction procedures,
please review Local Rule 5.5. (HAS) (Entered: 09/24/2014)
09/25/2014 25 NOTICE of Appearance by Leonard B. Simon on behalf of Scott Bailey, Richard

Brennan, Jack Carlson, Dan Keczmer, Dan LaCouture, Brad Maxwell, Michael
Peluso, Allan Rourke, Tom Younghans. (Simon, Leonard) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
09/29/2014 26 BRIEF (Defendant National Hockey League's Position Statement Regarding

Plaintifs'
Proposal on Reporting Attorney Time). (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
09/29/2014)
09/29/2014 27 APPENDIX filed re 26 Brief (to Defendant National Hockey League's Position
Plaintifs'
Statement Regarding Proposal on Reporting Attorney Time). (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit(s) 1)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
Plaintiffs'
10/20/2014 28 AMENDED COMPLAINT Master Administrative Long-Form and Class
Action Complaint against National Hockey League. Filed by IN RE: National Hockey
Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation. No summons requested. (Attachments:
# 1 Exhibit(s) 1 - Proposed Short Form Complaint) (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered:
10/20/2014)
Plaintiffs'
10/20/2014 22 BRIEF Brief in Response to Defendanes Position Statement Regarding
Plaintifs'
Proposal on Reporting Attorney Time filed by IN RE: National Hockey
Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered:
10/20/2014)
Players'
10/27/2014 30 NOTICE by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation of
Filing of Proposed Agenda for the November 6, 2014 Status Conference
(Attachments: # 1 Proposed Agenda)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
10/27/2014 31 NOTICE by National Hockey League of Filing Joint Proposed Summary of the Case
Parties'
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Joint Proposed Summary of the Case)(Connolly,
Daniel) (Entered: 10/27/2014)
Plaintifs'
10/30/2014 32 REPLY re 26 Brief of Defendant National Hockey League Regarding
Proposal on Reporting of Defense Counsel Time filed by National Hockey League.
10/30/2014 33 BRIEF of National Hockey League's Submission Regarding the Use of Short-Form
Complaints. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 10/30/2014)
10/30/2014 34 APPENDIX filed re 33 Brief of National Hockey League's Submission Regarding the
Use of Short-Form Complaints. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1)(Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 10/30/2014)
11/06/2014 35 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Status
Conference held on 11/6/2014. (Court Reporter Heather Schuetz) (SMD) (Entered:
11/06/2014)
11/07/2014 36 PRETRIAL ORDER No.

4 Summarizing November 6, 2014 Status Conference. See
Order for details. Signed
by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 11/07/2014. Associated
Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(SMD) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
11/18/2014 32 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master Complaint Based on Labor Law Preemption by

National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
11/18/2014 38 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 37 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master

Complaint Based on Labor Law Preemption : Motion Hearing set for 1/8/2015 02:00
PM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 11/18/2014)
11/18/2014 32 MEMORANDUM in Support re 32 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master Complaint

Based on Labor Law Preemption filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
11/18/2014)
11/18/2014 40 Declaration of William L. Daly in Support of 3_2 MOTION to Dismiss/General

Master Complaint Based on Labor Law Preemption filed
by National Hockey
League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4
Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Exhibit(s) 5, # 6 Exhibit(s) 6, # 2 Exhibit(s) 7, # 8 Exhibit(s) 8, # 9
Exhibit(s) 9, # 10 Exhibit(s) 10, # 11 Exhibit(s) 11, # 12 Exhibit(s) 12, # 13 Exhibit(s)
13, # 14 Exhibit(s) 14, # 15 Exhibit(s) 15, # 16 Exhibit(s) 16, # 12 Exhibit(s)
17)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
11/18/2014 41 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by National Hockey League

re 32 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master Complaint Based on Labor Law
Preemption (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
11/18/2014 42 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 32 Motion to Dismiss/General filed by

11/18/2014 43 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 12(B)(6) and 9(B) by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 11/18/2014)
11/18/2014 44 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 43 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master

Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) and 9(B) : Motion
Hearing set for 1/8/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
11/18/2014 45 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 43 Motion to Dismiss/General filed by

11/18/2014 46 MEMORANDUM in Support re 43 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master Complaint

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) and 9(B) filed by National
Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance

Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 11/18/2014)

re 43 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) and 9(B) (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
11/20/2014 49 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on November 6, 2014, before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson. (31 pages). Court Reporter: Heather Schueiz (E-mail:
12/04/2014 50 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. Jointly filed by Plaintiffs and Defendant.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 Proposed Deposition Protocol, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2
Proposed Production Protocol, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3 Proposed Medical Records
Authorization, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4 Proposed Class Certification Schedule, # 5 Exhibit(s)
5 Proposed Protective Order, # 6 Exhibit(s) 6 Proposed Privilege Protocol)(Connolly,
Players'
Filing of Joint Proposed Agenda for the December 18, 2014 Status Conference
(Attachments: # 1 Joint Proposed Agenda)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered:
12/08/2014)
12/09/2014 52 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 43 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master

Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) and 9(B) filed by
Players'
IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Attachments:
# 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Zimmerman, Charles)
(Entered: 12/09/2014)
12/09/2014 53 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 32 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master

Complaint Based on Labor Law Preemption filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count
Compliance Certificate)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
12/09/2014 54 Declaration of Brian C. Gudmundson re 32 MOTION to Dismiss filed by IN RE:

Players'
National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # a Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E, # 6
Exhibit(s) F)(Zimmerman, Charles) Modified on 12/10/2014 (kt). (Entered:
12/09/2014)
12/10/2014 55 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion: 43 MOTION to

Dismiss/General Master Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(B)(6) and 9(B), 32 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master Complaint Based on
Labor Law Preemption : The Motion Hearing is now set for 1/8/2015 at 09:30 AM in
Courtroom 7B
(STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. Please note change in time
of hearing on motions / status conference on January 8, 2015. (SMD) CC: Byrne. (kt)
(Entered: 12/10/2014)
12/11/2014 56 PLAINTIFF'S SUBMISSION WITH RESPECT TO EARLY DISCLOSURE OF

SPECIFIC DEPOSITION EXHIBITS AND DISCOVERY OF MEDICAL
PROVIDER INFORMATION filed by Plaintiffs. (Gudmundson, Brian) Modified on
12/12/2014 (kt). (Entered: 12/11/2014)
12/11/2014 52 Declaration of Brian C. Gudmundson in Support of 56 Response filed by IN RE:

Players'
Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B)(Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
12/11/2014 58 RESPONSE re 50 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, Position Paper Regarding
Medical Authorizations filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 12/11/2014)
12/11/2014 52 LR7.1/LR72.2 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by National Hockey

League re 58 Response. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
12/11/2014 60 RESPONSE re 50 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, Position Paper Regarding
Proposed Deposition Protocol filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate, # 2 Exhibit(s) INDEX, # 3
Exhibit(s) 1, # 4 Exhibit(s) 2, # 5 Exhibit(s) 3, # 6 Exhibit(s) 4)(Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 12/11/2014)
Players'
Filing of Joint Finalized Proposed Agenda for the December 18, 2014 Status
Conference (Attachments: # 1 Joint Finalized Proposed Agenda)(Zimmerman,
Charles) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
12/15/2014 62 REPLY re 50 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting, Clarification of Its Position
Paper Regarding Proposed Deposition Protocol filed by National Hockey League.
(Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Connolly,
12/16/2014 63 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael H Menitove on behalf of National Hockey

League. (Menitove, Michael) (Entered: 12/16/2014)
Conference held on 12/18/2014. See Pretrial Order No. 5 for summary. (Court
Reporter Heather Schueiz) (SMD) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
12/19/2014 64 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew T Rees on behalf of Scott Bailey, Richard

Brennan, Jack Carlson, Dan Keczmer, Dan LaCouture, Brad Maxwell, Michael
Peluso, Allan Rourke, Tom Younghans. (Rees, Andrew) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
12/19/2014 66 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 5, Memorializing December 18, 2014 Status Conference.
Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 12/19/14. Associated Cases:
12/19/2014 62 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 6 - Deposition Protocol. Signed by Judge Susan Richard
Nelson on 12/19/14. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(SMD)
(Entered: 12/19/2014)
12/19/2014 68 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 7

- Protocol for the Production of Hard Copy Documents
and Electronically Stored Information (ESI). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson
on 12/19/14. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(SMD) (Entered:
12/19/2014)
12/19/2014 62 PRETRIAL ORDER No. 8

- Schedule Regarding Issues Related to Class
Certification. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 12/19/14. Associated Cases:
12/19/2014 20 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 12/19/2014.

Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(SMD) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
12/19/2014 21 PRETRIAL ORDER No. 9

- Privilege Protocol. Signed by Judge Susan Richard
(Entered: 12/19/2014)
12/23/2014 la TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on December 18, 2014, before Judge Susan
12/23/2014 24 SUPPLEMENT TO REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. Filed by National

Hockey League. Jointly Signed by All Plaintiffs.(Connolly, Daniel) Modified on
12/24/2014 (kt). (Entered: 12/23/2014)
12/23/2014 25 REPLY re 37 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master Complaint Based on Labor Law

Preemption filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word
Count Compliance Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 12/23/2014)
12/23/2014 26 REPLY re 43. MOTION to Dismiss/General Master Complaint Pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) and 9(B) filed by National Hockey League.
Players'
Filing of Joint Proposed Preliminary Agenda for the January 8, 2015 Status
Conference (Attachments: # 1 Joint Proposed Preliminary Agenda)(Zimmerman,
Players'
Filing of Joint Finalized Proposed Agenda for the January 8, 2015 Status Conference
(Attachments: # 1 Joint Finalized Proposed Agenda)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered:
01/05/2015)
01/05/2015 22 Mail Returned as Unable to forward. Mail sent to Thomas J Byrne.(JAM)

DOCUMENT QC'D ON 1/26/15 LGLModified on 1/26/2015 (LGL). (Entered:
01/06/2015)
01/08/2015 80 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Case
Management Conference Held; the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Master
Complaint Based on Labor Law Preemption [Doc. No. 37] and the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the Master Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(B)(6) and 9(B) [Doc. No. 43] were submitted, argued, and taken under
advisement. (Court Reporter Heather Schueiz) (SMD) (Entered: 01/09/2015)

- Memorializing January 8, 2015 Status Conference.
01/18/2015 83 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on January 8, 2015 before Judge Susan
Heather_Schuetz@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone: 651-848-1223). Redaction
01/20/2015 M MOTION to Compel by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:

01/20/2015)
01/20/2015 85 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 84 MOTION to Compel : Motion Hearing set

for 2/5/2015 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson.
01/20/2015 86 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 84 Motion to Compel filed by National

Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
01/20/2015 82 MEMORANDUM in Support re 84 MOTION to Compel filed by National Hockey

League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
01/20/2015 88 EXHIBIT re 82 Memorandum in Support of Motion by National Hockey League filed

by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s)

re 84 MOTION to Compel (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 01/20/2015)
Players'
Filing of Joint Proposed Preliminary Agenda for the February 5, 2015 Status
Conference (Attachments: # 1 Joint Proposed Preliminary Agenda)(Zimmerman,
01/27/2015 21 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 84 MOTION to Compel filed by IN RE: National

Players'
Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered:
01/27/2015)
01/29/2015 22 NOTICE of Appearance by Geoffrey Wyatt on behalf of National Hockey League.

(Connolly, Daniel) Modified on 1/29/2015 (kt). (Entered: 01/29/2015)
Players'
Filing of Joint Finalized Proposed Agenda for the February 5, 2015 Status
Conference (Attachments: # 1 Joint Finalized Proposed Agenda)(Zimmerman,
02/02/2015 24 MOTION for Leave to File Reply/Surreply by National Hockey League. (Connolly,
02/02/2015 25 REPLY re 84 MOTION to Compel filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly,

02/02/2015 26 EXHIBIT INDEX re 25 Reply in Support of Motion to Compel by National Hockey

League filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2
Exhibit(s) 2)(Connolly, Daniel) Modified on 2/3/2015 (kt). (Entered: 02/02/2015)

re 24 MOTION for Leave to File Reply/Surreply (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
02/02/2015)
02/04/2015 28 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 11 - Deposition Protocol Regarding Pre-designation of

Exhibits. Signed
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(MJC) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
02/05/2015 22 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Case
Management Conference held on 2/5/2015. (Court Reporter Carla Bebault) (SMD)
(Entered: 02/06/2015)
with it. (CRB) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
02/10/2015 101 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on February 5, 2015 before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson. (28 pages). Court Reporter: Carla Bebault (E-mail:
Carla_Bebault@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone: 651-848-1220). Redaction Request
due 3/3/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/13/2015. Release of Transcript
Restriction set for 5/11/2015. For information on redaction procedures, please review
Local Rule 5.5. (CRB) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
02/12/2015 102 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert K Shelquist on behalf of Greg Adams, Rick Berry,
Richard Brodeur, Shawn Chambers, Todd Elik, Robert Goring, Mark Hardy, Michael
Hartman, Todd Harvey, Tony Horacek, Garry Howatt, Dave Hutchinson, Jean
Francois Jomphe, Edward Kennedy, Mike Lalor, Darren Langdon, Emmanuel Legace,
Jamie Lundmark, Sergio Momesso, Jeff Parker, Stephen Patrick, Craig Redmond,
Terry Ruskowski, Brian Savage, Jeffrey Shevalier, Turner Stevenson, German Titov,
Todd Warriner, Vernon Westfall. (Shelquist, Robert) (Entered: 02/12/2015)
02/12/2015 103 NOTICE of Appearance by W Joseph Bruckner on behalf of Greg Adams, Rick
Berry, Richard Brodeur, Shawn Chambers, Todd Elik, Robert Goring, Mark Hardy,
Michael Hartman, Todd Harvey, Tony Horacek, Garry Howatt, Dave Hutchinson,
Jean Francois Jomphe, Edward Kennedy, Mike Lalor, Darren Langdon, Emmanuel
Legace, Jamie Lundmark, Sergio Momesso, Jeff Parker, Stephen Patrick, Craig
Redmond, Terry Ruskowski, Brian Savage, Jeffrey Shevalier, Turner Stevenson,
German Titov, Todd Warriner, Vernon Westfall. (Bruckner, W) (Entered:
02/12/2015)
02/12/2015 104 NOTICE of Appearance by Rebecca A. Peterson on behalf of Greg Adams, Rick
Berry, Richard
Brodeur, Shawn Chambers, Todd
Elik, Robert Goring, Mark Hardy,
Michael Hartman, Todd Harvey, Tony Horacek, Garry Howatt, Dave Hutchinson,
Jean Francois Jomphe, Edward Kennedy, Mike Lalor, Darren Langdon, Emmanuel
Legace, Jamie Lundmark, Sergio Momesso, Jeff Parker, Stephen Patrick, Craig
Redmond, Terry Ruskowski, Brian Savage, Jeffrey Shevalier, Turner Stevenson,
German Titov, Todd Warriner, Vernon Westfall. (Peterson, Rebecca) (Entered:

02/12/2015)
02/12/2015 105 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Emmanuel Legace (Shelquist, Robert) (Entered:
02/12/2015)
02/13/2015 1Q6 ORDER re (105 in 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed

by Emmanuel Legace. Plaintiff Emmanuel Legace is dismissed without prejudice
from the above-entitled action. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 02/13/15.
Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM, 0:15-cv-00472-SRN-JSM(SMD)
(Entered: 02/13/2015)
02/18/2015 102 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 84 MOTION to Compel (Supplemental) filed by

Players'
(Entered: 02/18/2015)
02/18/2015 108 Declaration of Charles S. Zimmerman in Support of 102 Memorandum in Opposition

Players'
to Motion, filed by IN RE: National
Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4
Exhibit(s) 9, # 10 Exhibit(s) 10, # 11 Exhibit(s) 11)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered:
02/18/2015)
02/19/2015 109 BRIEF re 84 MOTION to Compel a Complete Response to Its First Set of
Interrogatories filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2
Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 02/19/2015)
02/19/2015 110 EXHIBIT re 102 Brief in Support of Its Motion to Compel a Complete Response to Its
First Set of Interrogatories by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)
1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Exhibit(s) 5, # 6 Exhibit(s) 6,
# 2 Exhibit(s) 7, # 8 Exhibit(s) 8, # 2 Exhibit(s) 9, # 10 Exhibit(s) 10, # 11 Exhibit(s)
11, # 12 Exhibit(s) 12, # la Exhibit(s) 13, # 14 Exhibit(s) 14)(Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 02/19/2015)
02/20/2015 111 ORDER Rescheduling March 2015 Case Management Conference to Wednesday,
March 4, 2015 at 1:00 pm. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 02/20/2015.
(SMD) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
Players'
Filing of Joint Preliminary Proposed Agenda for the March 4, 2015 Status
Conference (Attachments: # 1 Joint Preliminary Proposed Agenda)(Zimmerman,
02/24/2015 113 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Mark Hardy (Shelquist, Robert) (Entered:
02/24/2015)
02/26/2015 114 ORDER re (113 in 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed

by Mark Hardy. Plaintiff Mark Hardy is dismissed without prejudice from the
above-entitled action. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 02/26/2015.
(Entered: 02/26/2015)
Players'
02/27/2015 115 NOTICE by IN RE: National
Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation of
Plaintiffs'
Filing of Finalized Proposed Agenda for the March 4, 2015 Status
Plaintiffs'
Conference (Attachments: # 1 Finalized Proposed Agenda)(Zimmerman,
02/28/2015 116 NOTICE by National Hockey League (Attachments: # 1 Defendant NHL's Final
Proposed Agenda for March 4, 2015 Status Conference)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
02/28/2015)
Plaintiffs'
03/03/2015 112 NOTICE of Appearance by David A Goodwin on behalf of Executive
Committee. (Goodwin, David) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
Plaintiffs'
03/03/2015 118 NOTICE of Appearance by Joshua J Rissman on behalf of Executive
Committee. (Rissman, Joshua) (Entered: 03/03/2015)
03/04/2015)
03/06/2015 120 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 12: Order Regarding Informal Discovery Conference
Protocol and Scheduling Informal Discovery Conference for Monday, Mar. 16, 2015,
at 10:00 a.m. Counsel to check in with Judge Nelson's Chambers upon arrival. Signed
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(MJC) Modified docket text on 3/16/2015 (TSS).
(Entered: 03/06/2015)
03/11/2015 150 INFORMAL MOTION for Protective Order. (TSS) (Entered: 05/04/2015)
03/16/2015 122 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on March 4, 2015, before Judge Susan
03/16/2015 123 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 13: granting in part and denying in part (84) Motion to
Compel; granting (94) Motion for Leave to File Reply/Surreply in case
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard
(Entered: 03/16/2015)
03/16/2015 125 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Informal
Discovery Conference held on 3/16/2015. (SMD) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
03/17/2015 124 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: NOTICE of Setting Informal Discovery Conference: Informal
Discovery Conference set for 4/7/2015 at 09:30 AM. Counsel should check in with
the Judge's Chambers, Suite 774 (STP), and meet in the Jury Room to Courtroom 7B
with Judge Susan Richard Nelson. Please review Pretrial Order No. 12 120 for
submission deadlines and additional information on informal discovery conferences in
this matter. (SMD) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
03/25/2015 12fi ORDER denying in part and denying without prejudice in part 43 Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss Master Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
and 9(b). (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 3/25/15.
Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(LDB) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
03/25/2015 127 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Graham B. LippSmith on behalf of Plaintifs by

Greg Adams, Rick Berry, Richard Brodeur, Shawn Chambers, Todd Elik, Robert
Goring, Mark Hardy, Michael Hartman, Todd Harvey, Tony Horacek, Garry Howatt,
Dave Hutchinson, Jean Francois Jomphe, Edward Kennedy, Mike Lalor, Darren
Langdon, Emmanuel Legace, Jamie Lundmark, Sergio Momesso, Jeff Parker, Stephen
Patrick, Craig Redmond, Terry Ruskowski, Brian Savage, Jeffrey Shevalier, Turner
Stevenson, German Titov, Todd Warriner, Vernon Westfall. (Attachments: # 1
Certificate of Service)(LippSmith, Graham) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
Players'
03/25/2015 128 MEMORANDUM by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation in Opposition to Defendant NHI 's Motion to Preclude Deposition Fact
Players'
Witness Gary Bettman filed by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion
Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
03/25/2015 122 Declaration of Stephen G. Grygiel in Support of 128 Memorandum, filed by IN RE:
Players'
Exhibit(s) A-J)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
04/06/2015 130 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: NOTICE of Setting Hearing: The Status Conference
previously set for 4/16/2015 is canceled. Instead, a status conference will now take
place on 4/22/2015 at 03:00 PM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard
Nelson. (SMD) (Entered: 04/06/2015)
04/07/2015 W MOTION
Plaintifs'
to Appoint Counsel Robert K. Shelquist of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP
to Executive Committee (Unopposed) by IN RE: National Hockey League
Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation. (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
Players'
04/07/2015 132 NOTICE by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation re
m MOTION to Appoint
Plaintiffs'
Counsel Robert K. Shelquist of Lockridge Grindal Nauen,
PLLP to Executive Committee (Unopposed) (Zimmerman, Charles)
(Entered: 04/07/2015)
04/07/2015 133 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by IN RE: National Hockey

League
Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation re ) MOTION to Appoint Counsel
Plaintiffs'
Robert K. Shelquist of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, PLLP to Executive
Committee (Unopposed) (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
04/07/2015 134 ORDER granting )Plaintiffs'

Motion to Appoint Robert K. Shelquist of Lockridge Grindal
Nauen, P.L.L.P. to Executive Committee in case
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 04/07/2015.
Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(SMD) (Entered: 04/07/2015)
Discovery Conference held on 4/7/2015. See Minute entry (attached) for details and
deadlines outlined at the Conference. (Court Reporter -) (SMD) (Entered:
04/08/2015)
04/08/2015 135 ORDER canceling May 7, 2015 Case Management Conference and scheduling an
informal discovery conference for May 15, 2015 at 10:30 am. See Order for details.
Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 04/08/2015. (SMD) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
04/08/2015 132 REPLY re 128 Memorandum, in Support of Letter Brief Regarding Deposition of
Commissioner Gary Bettman filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
04/08/2015)
04/08/2015 138 EXHIBIT INDEX re 132 Reply by National Hockey League filed by National
Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4
Exhibit(s) 4)(Connolly, Daniel) Modified on 4/9/2015 (kt). (Entered: 04/08/2015)
Conference held on 4/22/2015. See Minute Entry for details. (Court Reporter Heather
04/22/2015 141 Amended Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson:
Status Conference held on 4/22/2015. (Court Reporter Heather Schueiz) (SMD)
(Entered: 04/23/2015)
04/23/2015 140 AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
04/23/15. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al. (SMD) (Entered:
04/23/2015)
04/27/2015 142 MOTION to Enforce Subpoenas Non-Party U.S. NHL Clubs by IN RE: National
Players'
Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Penny, Brian) Modified text
on 4/28/2015 (mF). (Entered: 04/27/2015)
04/27/2015 143 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 142 MOTION to Enforce Subpoenas

Non-Party U.S. NHL Clubs : Motion Hearing set for 6/4/2015 01:30 PM before
Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Penny, Brian) Modified text on 4/28/2015 (mF).
(Entered: 04/27/2015)
04/27/2015 144 MEMORANDUM re 142 MOTION

in Support to Enforce Subpoenas Non-Party
Players'
U.S. NHL Clubs filed
by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Penny, Brian) Modified text on 4/28/2015 (EF). (Entered: 04/27/2015)
04/27/2015 145 Declaration of Brian D. Penny in Support of 142 MOTION

to Compel Non-Party
Players'
U.S. NHL Clubs filed by IN RE: NationalHockey League
Concussion Injury
Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 (Part 1), # 2 Exhibit(s) 1 (Part 2), # a
Exhibit(s) 1 (Part 3), # 4 Exhibit(s) 1 (Part 4), # 5 Exhibit(s) 2, # 6 Exhibit(s)
3)(Penny, Brian) (Entered: 04/27/2015)
04/27/2015 M MEET and CONFER STATEMENT

Players'
re M Motion to Compel filedby IN RE:
National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Penny, Brian)
(Entered: 04/27/2015)
04/27/2015 M CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by IN RE: National Hockey

League
Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation re M MOTION to Compel Non-Party
U.S. NHL Clubs (Penny, Brian) (Entered: 04/27/2015)
05/01/2015 M CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-2) (AKL) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
05/01/2015 M LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by IN RE: National Hockey League

Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation . (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered: 05/01/2015)
05/05/2015 ) PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 14 granting in part and denying in part (150) Motion for
Protective Order in case 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM. Signed by Judge Susan
Richard Nelson on 05/05/15. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.
(SMD) (Entered: 05/05/2015)
05/07/2015 Receipt of record from the District of California Central, 8:15cv00621, 15-2294
SRN/JSM. (AKL) (Entered: 05/07/2015)
05/11/2015 ) NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated
05/11/2015 M TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on April 22, 2015, before Judge Susan
05/15/2015 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher J Schmidt on behalf of Anaheim Ducks

Hockey Club, LLC d/b/a
Anaheim Ducks, IceArizona Hockey Co LLC d/b/a Arizona
Coyotes Hockey Club, Boston Professional Hockey Association, inc. d/b/a Boston
Bruins, Hockey Western New York, LLC d/b/a Buffalo Sabers, Gale Force Holdings,
Limited Partnership d/b/a Carolina Hurricanes, Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team,
Inc. d/b/a Chicago Blackhawks, Colorado Avalanche, LLC d/b/a Colorado
Avalanche, COLHOC Limited Partnership d/b/a Columbus Blue Jackets, DSE
Hockey Club, LP d/b/a Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings, Inc. d/b/a Detroit Red
Wings, Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd. d/b/a Florida Panthers, Los Angeles
Kings Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a Los Angeles Kings, Minnesota Wild Hockey Club, LP
d/b/a Minnesota Wild, Nashville Hockey Club Limited Partnership d/b/a Nashville
Predators, New Jersey Devils, LLC d/b/a New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders
Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a New York Islanders, MSG Holdings, L.P. d/b/a New York
Rangers, Philadelphia Flyers, L.P. d/b/a Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh Penguins, LP
d/b/a Pittsburgh Penguins, San Jose Sharks, LLC d/b/a San Jose Sharks, St. Louis
Blues Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a St. Louis Blues, Lightning Hockey LP d/b/a Tampa
Bay Lightning, Lincoln Holdings, LLC d/b/a Monumental Sports & Entertainment
d/b/a Washington Capitals. (Schmidt, Christopher) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
05/15/2015 M Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Informal
Discovery Conference held on 5/15/2015. (SMD) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
05/18/2015 RESPONSE in Opposition re M MOTION to Compel Non-Party U.S. NHL Clubs

filed by Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club, LLC d/b/a Anaheim Ducks, Boston
Professional Hockey Association, inc. d/b/a Boston Bruins, COLHOC Limited
Partnership d/b/a Columbus Blue Jackets, Chicago Team, Blackhawk
Inc. Hockey
d/b/a Chicago Blackhawks, Colorado Avalanche, LLC
Avalanche, d/b/a Colorado
DSE Hockey Club, LP d/b/a Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings, Inc. d/b/a Detroit Red
Wings, Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd. d/b/a Florida Panthers, Gale Force
Holdings, Limited Partnership d/b/a Carolina Hurricanes, Hockey Western New York,
LLC d/b/a Buffalo Sabers, IceArizona Hockey Co LLC d/b/a Arizona Coyotes
Hockey Club, Lightning Hockey LP d/b/a Tampa Bay Lightning, Lincoln Holdings,
LLC d/b/a Monumental Sports & Entertainment d/b/a Washington Capitals, Los
Angeles Kings
Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a Los Angeles Kings, MSG Holdings, L.P.
d/b/a New York Rangers, Minnesota Wild Hockey Club, LP d/b/a Minnesota Wild,
Nashville Hockey Club Limited Partnership d/b/a Nashville Predators, New Jersey
Devils, LLC d/b/a New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a
New York Islanders, Philadelphia Flyers, L.P. d/b/a Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh
Penguins, LP d/b/a Pittsburgh Penguins, San Jose Sharks, LLC d/b/a San Jose Sharks,
St. Louis Blues Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a St. Louis Blues. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate Attachment 1)(Schmidt,
Christopher) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
05/18/2015 M Declaration of Willem Meeuwisse re M MOTION to Compel filed by Anaheim

Ducks Hockey Club, LLC d/b/a Anaheim Ducks, Boston Professional Hockey
Association, inc. d/b/a Boston Bruins, COLHOC Limited Partnership d/b/a Columbus
Blue Jackets, Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc. d/b/a Chicago
Blackhawks,
Colorado Avalanche, LLC d/b/a Colorado Avalanche, DSE Hockey Club, LP d/b/a
Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings, Inc. d/b/a Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers
Hockey Club, Ltd. d/b/a Florida Panthers, Gale Force Holdings, Limited Partnership
d/b/a Carolina Hurricanes, Hockey Western New York, LLC d/b/a Buffalo Sabers,
IceArizona Hockey Co LLC d/b/a Arizona Coyotes Hockey
Hockey Club, Lightning
LP d/b/a Tampa Bay Lightning, Holdings, Lincoln Sports &
LLC d/b/a Monumental
Entertainment d/b/a WashingtonCapitals, Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club, L.P.
d/b/a Los Angeles Kings, MSG Holdings, L.P. d/b/a New York Rangers, Minnesota
Wild Hockey Club, LP d/b/a Minnesota Wild, Nashville Hockey Club Limited
Partnership d/b/a Nashville Predators, New Jersey Devils, LLC d/b/a New Jersey
Devils, New York Islanders Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a New York Islanders,
Philadelphia Flyers, L.P. d/b/a Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh Penguins, LP d/b/a
Pittsburgh Penguins, San Jose Sharks, LLC d/b/a San Jose Sharks, St. Louis Blues
Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a St. Louis Blues. (Schmidt, Christopher) Modified on
5/19/2015 (kt). (Entered: 05/18/2015)
05/18/2015 M Declaration of Deborah Olson re M MOTION

to Compel filed by Anaheim Ducks
Hockey Club, LLC d/b/a Anaheim
Ducks, Boston Professional Hockey Association,
inc. d/b/a Boston Bruins, COLHOC Limited Partnership d/b/a Columbus Blue
Jackets, Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc. d/b/a Chicago Blackhawks, Colorado
Avalanche, LLC d/b/a Colorado Avalanche, DSE Hockey Club, LP d/b/a Dallas Stars,
Detroit Red Wings, Inc. d/b/a Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd.
d/b/a Florida Panthers, Gale Force Holdings, Limited Partnership d/b/a Carolina
Hurricanes, Hockey Western New York, LLC d/b/a Buffalo Sabers, IceArizona
Hockey Co LLC d/b/a Arizona Coyotes Hockey Club, Lightning Hockey LP d/b/a
Tampa Bay Lightning, Lincoln Holdings, LLC d/b/a Monumental Sports &
Entertainment d/b/a Washington Capitals, Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club, L.P.
d/b/a Los Angeles
Kings, MSG Holdings, L.P. d/b/a New York Rangers, Minnesota
Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a St. Louis Blues. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibit A
- Copies of responsive and redacted medical records)(Schmidt, Christopher)
Modified on 5/19/2015 (kt). Sealed document received on 5/19/2015 (JGK). (Entered:
05/18/2015)
05/18/2015 RESPONSE in Opposition re M MOTION to Compel Non-Party U.S. NHL Clubs

filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count
Compliance Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
05/18/2015 160 Declaration of William L. Daly n Opposition re MOTION to Compel M Non-Party

U.S. NHL Clubs filed
by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)
1(a)-(h), # 2 Exhibit(s) 2(a)-(e), # 3 Exhibit(s) 3(a)-(r), # 4 Exhibit(s)
4(a)-(j))(Connolly, Daniel) Modified on 5/19/2015 (kt). (Entered: 05/18/2015)
05/19/2015 161 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan B Potts on behalf of Anaheim Ducks Hockey
Club, LLC d/b/a Anaheim Ducks, Boston Professional Hockey Association, inc. d/b/a
Boston Bruins, COLHOC Limited Partnership d/b/a Columbus Blue Jackets, Chicago
Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc.
Blackhawks, d/b/a Chicago Avalanche, LLC Colorado
d/b/a Colorado Avalanche, Hockey Club, DSE
LP d/b/a Dallas Stars, Detroit Red
Wings, Inc. d/b/a Detroit
Red Wings, Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd. d/b/a
Florida Panthers, Gale Force Holdings, Limited Partnership d/b/a Carolina
d/b/a Los Angeles
Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a St. Louis Blues. (Potts, Jonathan) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
05/19/2015 162 NOTICE of Appearance

by Timothy J Hasken on behalf of Anaheim Ducks Hockey
Club, LLC d/b/a Anaheim Ducks, Boston Professional Hockey Association, inc. d/b/a
Boston Bruins, COLHOC Limited Partnership d/b/a Columbus Blue Jackets, Chicago
Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc. d/b/a Chicago Blackhawks, Colorado Avalanche, LLC
d/b/a Colorado Avalanche, DSE Hockey Club, LP d/b/a Dallas Stars, Detroit Red
Wings, Inc. d/b/a Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd. d/b/a
d/b/a Los Angeles
Kings, Holdings, MSG L.P. d/b/a New York Rangers, Minnesota
Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a St. Louis Blues. (Hasken, Timothy) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
05/26/2015 163 REPLY re 142 MOTION to Compel Non-Party U.S. NHL Clubs filed
by Plaintiffs.
(Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Penny, Brian)
Modified on 5/27/2015 (kt). (Entered: 05/26/2015)
05/26/2015 164 Declaration of BrianD. Penny in Support re MOTION to Compel Non-Party U.S.
Plaintiffs'
NHL Clubs filed
by Executive Committee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A,
# 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D)(Penny, Brian) Modified on
5/27/2015 (kt). (Entered: 05/26/2015)
05/27/2015 E MOTION For Issuance of Subpoena to Brendan Shanahan

Players'
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1783(a) by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation.
(Penny, Brian) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
05/27/2015 166 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION M MOTION For Issuance of Subpoena to

Brendan Shanahan Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1783(a) : Motion Hearing set for 6/17/2015
09:00 AM before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Penny, Brian) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
05/27/2015 W MEMORANDUM in Support re W MOTION For Issuance of Subpoena to Brendan

Shanahan Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1783(a) filed by IN RE: National
Hockey League
Players'
Compliance Certificate)(Penny, Brian) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
05/27/2015 168 Declaration of Brian D. Penny in Support of MOTION W

For Issuance of Subpoena
to Brendan Shanahan Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1783(a) filed by IN RE: National Hockey
Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2
Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5. Exhibit(s) 5, # 6 Exhibit(s) 6, # 2
11)(Penny, Brian) (Entered: 05/27/2015)
Players'
05/27/2015 169 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by IN RE: National Hockey League
Concussion Injury Litigation re W MOTION For Issuance of Subpoena to Brendan
Shanahan Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1783(a), 166 NOTICE, W MEMORANDUM in
Support, 168 DECLARATION in Support. (Penny, Brian) Modified on 5/27/2015
(kt). (Entered: 05/27/2015)
Players'
05/29/2015 170 NOTICE by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation re
W MOTION For Issuance of Subpoena to Brendan Shanahan Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1783(a) Letter To Withdraw Motion (Penny, Brian) (Entered: 05/29/2015)
06/01/2015 M PRETRIAL ORDER No. 15 re: Fact Sheets. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson
on 06/01/2015. (SMD) (Entered: 06/01/2015)
06/02/2015 M MOTION for Leave

to File Reply/Surreply by Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club, LLC
d/b/a Anaheim Ducks, Boston Professional Hockey Association, inc. d/b/a Boston
Bruins, COLHOC Limited Partnership d/b/a Columbus Blue Jackets, Chicago
Blackhawk Hockey Team, Inc. d/b/a Chicago Blackhawks, Colorado Avalanche, LLC
d/b/a Colorado Avalanche, DSE Hockey Club, LP d/b/a Dallas Stars, Detroit Red
Wings, Inc. d/b/a Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd. d/b/a
Entertainment d/b/a WashingtonCapitals, Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club, L.P.
d/b/a Los AngelesKings, MSG Holdings, L.P. d/b/a New York Rangers, Minnesota
Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a St. Louis Blues. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Non-Party
Clubs' Plaintiffs'
U.S. NHL Sur-Reply to Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion
to Enforce Subpoenas, # 2 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Schmidt, Christopher) (Entered: 06/02/2015)
06/02/2015 M MOTION for Leave to File Reply/Surreply by National

Plaintiffs'
Hockey League.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) NHL Sur-Reply to Reply Memorandum, # 2
06/02/2015)
06/04/2015 M Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: granting
Motion for Leave to File Reply/Surreply; granting Motion for Leave to File M
Reply/Surreply; Status Conference held on 6/4/2015. The Court took under
advisement the Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Subpoenas Directed to US NHL Clubs
[Doc. No. 142]. (Court Reporter Heather Schuetz) (SMD) (Entered: 06/04/2015)
06/09/2015 M NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated
06/09/2015 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference and motion hearing held on June 4, 2015, before
Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (60 pages). Court Reporter: Heather Schuetz (E-mail:
06/17/2015 M Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate
Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Informal Discovery Conference held on 6/17/2015. The
Court will move the July 2, 2015 status conference to 10:00 am central time. (SMD)
(Entered: 06/17/2015)
06/17/2015 AMENDED Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson
and Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Informal Discovery Conference held on
6/17/2015. The Court will move the July 2, 2015 status conference to 9:00 am central
time. Note change in time. (SMD) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
07/02/2015 M Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Status
Conference held on 7/2/2015. See Minutes for conference dates and deadlines. (Court
07/02/2015 M Amended Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson:
Status Conference held on 7/2/2015. See Minutes for conference dates and deadlines.
(Court Reporter Heather Schuetz) (SMD) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
parties'
07/08/2015 180 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: The proposal for addressing PMI objections as set
forth in Mr. Penny's letter of July 8, 2015 is acceptable to the Court. Approved by
Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 07/08/15. (SMD) (Entered: 07/08/2015)
07/10/2015 M LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by IN RE: National

-
Hockey League
Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation (Placeholder Filed Under Seal). (Gudmundson,

Brian) SEALED DOCUMENTS RECE1VED IN CLERK'S OFFICE on 7/10/2015
(las). (Entered: 07/10/2015)
07/10/2015 M Declaration of Brian C. Gudmundson in Support

Players'
of Letter to District Judge filedM
by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation.
(Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibits 1-7)(Gudmundson, Brian) SEALED
DOCUMENT'S RECE1VED IN CLERK'S OFFICE on 7/10/2015 (las). (Entered:
07/10/2015)
07/10/2015 E CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by IN RE: National Hockey League

Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation re M Declaration in Support, M Letter to District

Judge of Conventionally Filed/Sealed Documents (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered:
07/10/2015)
07/10/2015 M BRIEF
Plaintiffs'
Final Position Paper in Support of Motion to Enforce Subpoenas
Directed to U.S. NHL Club's Regarding Player Medical Information filed by IN RE:
Players'
(Entered: 07/10/2015)
07/10/2015 M BRIEF Non-Party U.S.

Clubs'
Position Paper Regarding Non-Party NHL
Players'
Medical Information filed by Anaheim Ducks Hockey Club, LLC d/b/a Anaheim
Ducks, Boston Professional Hockey Association, inc. d/b/a Boston Bruins, COLHOC
Limited Partnership d/b/a Columbus Blue Jackets, Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team,
Inc. d/b/a Chicago
Blackhawks, Colorado Avalanche, LLC d/b/a Colorado
Avalanche, DSE Hockey Club, LP d/b/a Dallas Stars, Detroit Red Wings, Inc. d/b/a
Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd. d/b/a Florida Panthers, Gale
Force Holdings, Limited Partnership d/b/a Carolina Hurricanes, Hockey Western New
York, LLC d/b/a Buffalo Sabers, IceArizona Hockey Co LLC d/b/a Arizona Coyotes
Hockey Club, Lightning Hockey LP d/b/a
Tampa Bay Lightning, Lincoln Holdings,
LLC d/b/a Monumental Sports & Entertainment d/b/a Washington Capitals, Los
Angeles Kings
Hockey Club, d/b/a Los AngelesL.P. Kings, MSG Holdings, L.P.
d/b/a New York Rangers, Minnesota Wild Hockey Club, LP d/b/a Minnesota Wild,
Nashville Hockey Club Limited Partnership d/b/a Nashville Predators, New Jersey
Devils, LLC d/b/a New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a
New York Islanders, Philadelphia Flyers, L.P. d/b/a Philadelphia Flyers, Pittsburgh
Penguins, LP d/b/a Pittsburgh Penguins, San Jose Sharks, LLC d/b/a San Jose Sharks,
St. Louis Blues Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a St. Louis Blues. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Schmidt, Christopher) (Entered:
07/10/2015)
07/10/2015 M BRIEF Defendant NHI 's Position Paper Regarding De-Identification of Databases
07/13/2015 182 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on July 2, 2015, before Judge Susan
07/13/2015 19_Q ORDER RESCHEDULING AUGUST 2015 CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE. The Conference will be held at 1:00 pm on Thursday, August 6,
2015. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 07/13/15. (SMD) (Entered:
07/13/2015)
Conference held on 7/14/2015. See minutes (attached) for details. (Court Reporter
Heather Schuetz) (SMD) (Entered: 07/15/2015)
07/15/2015 121 Second Amended Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard
Nelson: Status Conference held on 7/15/2015. This amendment corrects the date that
the NHL committed to completing production of documents from the Board of
Governors for nine teams. (Court Reporter Heather Schuetz) (SMD) (Entered:
07/15/2015)
07/20/2015 M TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on July, 14, 2015, before Judge Susan
07/22/2015 M CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-3) (AKL) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
07/31/2015 M ORDER granting in part and denying in part 142

Plaintiffs'
Motion to Enforce
Subpoenas Directed to U.S. NHL Clubs. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan
Richard Nelson on 07/31/15. (SMD) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
08/04/2015 M NOTICE by National Hockey League of Joint Proposed Status Conference Agenda
08/05/2015 198 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: The next status conference in this matter is scheduled for
August 6, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. (This entry corrects any discrepancies in the docket
regarding the start time of the status conference). (MJC) (Entered: 08/05/2015)
08/06/2015 2_Q1 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate
Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Status Conference held on 8/6/2015. (Court Reporter
08/10/2015 2_Q0 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on August 6, 2015, before Judges Susan
Richard Nelson and Janie S. Mayeron. (53 pages). Court Reporter: Heather Schuetz
(E-mail: Heather_Schuetz@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone: 651-848-1223).
Redaction Request due 8/31/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/10/2015.
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/9/2015. For information on redaction
procedures, please review Local Rule 5.5. (HAS) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
08/13/2015 2_Q2 SUMMONS Returned Executed by John Blue. (Shelquist, Robert) (Entered:
08/13/2015)
08/25/2015 2_Q3 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate
Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Informal Status Conference held on 8/25/2015. The formal
status conference previously scheduled for September 3, 2015 is Cancelled. (Court
Reporter: None) (SMD) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
09/03/2015 2_Q4 NOTICE of Appearance by Lawrence G Scarborough on behalf of Anaheim Ducks

Hockey Club, LLC d/b/a Anaheim Ducks, Boston Professional Hockey Association,
inc. d/b/a Boston Bruins, COLHOC
Limited Partnership d/b/a Columbus Blue
Jackets, Chicago Blackhawk
Hockey Team, Inc. d/b/a Chicago Blackhawks, Colorado
Avalanche, LLC d/b/a Colorado Avalanche, DSE Hockey Club, LP d/b/a Dallas Stars,
Detroit Red Wings, Inc. d/b/a Detroit Red Wings, Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd.
d/b/a Florida Panthers, Gale Force Holdings, Limited Partnership d/b/a Carolina
Entertainment d/b/a Washington
Capitals, Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club, L.P.
d/b/a Los Angeles
Hockey Club, L.P. d/b/a St. Louis Blues. (Scarborough, Lawrence) (Entered:
09/03/2015)
PRETRIAL ORDER - Defendant Fact Sheets. Signed

09/09/2015 2_Q5 16 by Judge Susan Richard
Nelson on 09/09/15. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A)(SMD) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
09/11/2015 2_Qfi CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-4) (AKL) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
09/11/2015 2_Q2 PROTECTIVE ORDER (BOOGAARD LITIGATION). Signed by Judge Susan

Richard Nelson on 09/11/2015. (SMD) (Attachment: # 1 Exhibit A)Modified docket
entry on 9/14/2015 (TSS). (Entered: 09/11/2015)
09/11/2015 2_Q8 MOTION for Protective Order by David Christian, Dan LaCouture, Reed Larson,
Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael Peluso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Material
proposed for use in Boogard)(Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 09/11/2015)
09/16/2015 2_Q9 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 6

- Deposition Protocol. Signed by Judge
Susan Richard Nelson on 09/16/2015. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM
et al.(SMD) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
09/16/2015 2_1._0 NOTICE of Appearance by Lee Albert on behalf of Cam Severson. (Albert, Lee)
(Entered: 09/16/2015)
09/16/2015 2_1._1 NOTICE of Appearance by Brian P Murray on behalf of Cam Severson. (Murray,
Brian) (Entered: 09/16/2015)
09/16/2015 3_30 AMENDED Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson
and Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Status Conference held on 9/16/2015
(Amended to correct date of hearing only). (Court Reporter Heather Schueiz) (SMD)
(Entered: 01/05/2016)
09/17/2015 2_12 NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated
09/17/2015 2_13 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on September 16, 2015, before Judges
Susan Richard Nelson and Janie S. Mayeron. (23 pages). Court Reporter: Heather
Schuetz (E-mail: Heather_Schueiz@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone: 651-848-1223).
09/18/2015 2_14 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate
Heather Schuetz for on the record portion) (SMD) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
09/22/2015 2_15 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 17: Establishing Status Conference Schedule. Signed by
09/22/2015 2_lfi MOTION to Dismiss/General for Failure to Submit Fact Sheets by National Hockey
09/22/2015 2_17 EXHIBIT Index by National Hockey League filed by National Hockey League.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 01, # 2 Exhibit(s) 02, # 3 Exhibit(s) 03, # 4 Exhibit(s)
09/23/2015 2_18 NOTICE of Appearance by Christine B Cesare on behalf of United States National
Hockey League Clubs. (Cesare, Christine) (Entered: 09/23/2015)
09/25/2015 2_19 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Robert Goring (Shelquist, Robert) (Entered:
09/25/2015)
09/25/2015 2_20 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by John Blue (Shelquist, Robert) (Entered:
09/25/2015)
09/25/2015 2_21 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by German Titov (Shelquist, Robert) (Entered:
09/25/2015)
09/25/2015 2_22 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Dan Fritsche (Penny, Brian) (Entered:
09/25/2015)
09/28/2015 2_23 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Blair James Stewart (Grygiel, Stephen) (Entered:
09/28/2015)
09/28/2015 2_24 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Bob Bourne (Grygiel, Stephen) (Entered:
09/28/2015)
09/28/2015 2_25 ORDER of DISMISSAL as to Plaintiff Robert Goring only re (219 in

0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Robert Goring.
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM, 0:15-cv-00472-SRN-JSM(SMD) (Entered:
09/28/2015)
09/28/2015 2_26 ORDER Of Dismissal as to Plaintiff John Blue only re 2_20 Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal filed by John Blue. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 09/28/2015.
(SMD) (Entered: 09/28/2015)
09/28/2015 2_27 ORDER of Dismissal as to Plaintiff GermanTitov only, re (221 in

0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by German Titov.
09/28/2015)
09/28/2015 2_28 ORDER of Dismissal as to Plaintiff Dan

Fritsche only, re (222 in
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Dan Fritsche.
09/28/2015)
09/29/2015 2_29 AMENDED ORDER

re (222 in 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal by filed
Dan Fritsche. This document relates to Fritsche, et al. v. National
Hockey League, 14-cv-3377 (SRN/JSM). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
09/29/2015. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM,
09/29/2015 2-3_Q ORDER of Dismissal as to Plaintiff Blair James Stewart only, re (223 in
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Blair James
Stewart. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 09/29/2015. Associated Cases:
09/29/2015)
09/29/2015 2_31 ORDER of Dismissal as to Plaintiff Bob

Bourne only, re (224 in
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Bob Bourne.
09/29/2015)
09/29/2015 2_32 NOTICE by National Hockey League re 2_16 MOTION to Dismiss/General for
Failure to Submit Fact Sheets of Withdrawal as Moot (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
09/29/2015)
10/05/2015 2_33 NOTICE by National Hockey League of Joint Proposed Agenda for October 6, 2015
Status Conference (Svitak, Linda) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
Plaintiffs'
10/05/2015 2_34 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency of Answers and Objections to the
NHL's First Set of Requests for Admissions and Supplemental Interogatory by
National Hockey League. (Svitak, Linda) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
10/05/2015 2_35 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 2_34 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency
Plaintiffs'
of Answers and Objections to the NHL's First Set of Requests for
Admissions and Supplemental Interogatory : Motion Hearing set for 11/5/2015 01:30
PM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Svitak, Linda)
(Entered: 10/05/2015)
10/05/2015 2_36 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 2_34 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by
10/05/2015 2_37 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2_34 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency of

Plaintiffs'
Answers and Objections to the NHL's First Set of Requests for Admissions
and Supplemental Interogatory filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Svitak, Linda) (Entered:

10/05/2015)
10/05/2015 2_38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by National Hockey League

Plaintiffs'
re 2_34 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency of Answers and Objections
to the NHL's First Set of Requests for Admissions and Supplemental Interogatory
Plaintiffs'
10/05/2015 2_32 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency of Answers and Objections to the
NHL's Second Set of Requests for Admissions and Supplemental Interrogatory by
10/05/2015 2_40 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 2_32 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency
Plaintiffs'
of Answers and Objections to the NHL's Second Set of Requests for
Admissions and Supplemental Interrogatory : Motion Hearing set for 11/5/2015 01:30
PM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Svitak, Linda)
(Entered: 10/05/2015)
10/05/2015 2_41 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 2_32 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by
10/05/2015 2_42 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2_32 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency of

Plaintiffs'
Answers and Objections to the NHL's Second Set of Requests for
Admissions and Supplemental Interrogatory filed by National Hockey League.
(Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Svitak, Linda)
(Entered: 10/05/2015)

Plaintiffs'
re 2_32 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency of Answers and Objections
to the NHL's Second Set of Requests for Admissions and Supplemental Interrogatory
10/05/2015 2_44 MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory/Letters of Request by IN RE: National
Players'
Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Penny, Brian) (Entered:
10/05/2015)
10/05/2015 245 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 244 MOTION for Issuance of Letters
Rogatory/Letters of Request : Motion Hearing set for 10/21/2015 01:30 PM in
Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Penny, Brian) (Entered:
10/05/2015)
10/05/2015 2_4fi MEMORANDUM in Support re 2_44 MOTION for Issuance of Letters

Players'
Rogatory/Letters of Request filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
Compliance Certificate)(Penny, Brian) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
10/05/2015 2_47 EXHIBIT INDEX re 2_44 MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory/Letters of
Players'
Request Index of Exhibits by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion
Players'
Injury Litigation filed by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 - Proposed Letter # 2
Rogatory (Alberta),
Exhibit(s) 2 - Proposed Letter Rogatory (British Columbia), # a Exhibit(s) 3
-
Proposed Letter Rogatory (Manitoba), # 4 Exhibit(s) 4 - Proposed Letter Rogatory

# - Proposed Letter
(Ontario), 5 Exhibit(s) 5 Rogatory (Quebec))(Penny, Brian)
Modified text on 10/5/2015 (kt). (Entered: 10/05/2015)
10/05/2015 248 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 244 Motion for Issuance of Letters
Players'
Rogatory/Letters of Request filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
Concussion Injury Litigation. (Penny, Brian) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
10/05/2015 2_42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by IN RE: National Hockey

Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation re 2_44 MOTION for Issuance of Letters
Rogatory/Letters of Request (Penny, Brian) (Entered: 10/05/2015)
Plaintiffs'
10/05/2015 2_50 EXHIBIT INDEX re 2_34 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency of
Answers and Objections to the NHL's First Set of Requests for Admissions and
Supplemental Interogatory by National Hockey League filed by National Hockey
League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3)(Svitak,
Linda) Modified on 10/5/2015 (kt). (Entered: 10/05/2015)
Plaintiffs'
10/05/2015 2_51 EXHIBIT INDEX re 2_39 MOTION to Determine theSufficiency of
Answers and Objections to the NHL's Second Set of Requests for Admissions and
Supplemental Interrogatory by National Hockey League filed by National Hockey
League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2)(Svitak, Linda) Modified on
10/5/2015 (kt). (Entered: 10/05/2015)
10/06/2015 2_72 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Status
Conference held on 10/6/2015. See attached minutes for details. (Court Reporter
10/06/2015 2_89 AMENDED Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson:
Status Conference held on 10/6/2015. See Attached Minutes for details. (Court
10/07/2015 2_52 ORDER re (9 in 0:15-cv-03666-SRN-JSM) Stipulation by Gregas to Service, filed

Terrion, Keith Brown, Kurt Walker, Michel
Petit, Davis, Malcolm
Gary McAdam,
Dennis Vaske, Steve Payne. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/07/2015.
(Entered: 10/07/2015)
10/08/2015 2_53 MOTION to Compel Confidentiality De-Designation by the NHL by David

Christian, Dan LaCouture, Reed Larson, Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael
Peluso. (Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
10/08/2015 2_54 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 2_53 MOTION to Compel Conf identiality
De-Designation by the NHL : Motion Hearing set for 10/22/2015 01:30 PM in
Courtroom 9E (MPLS) before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. (Cashman,
Michael) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
10/08/2015 2_55 MEMORANDUM re 2_51 MOTION

in Support to Compel Conf identiality
De-Designation by the NHL PLACEHOLDER filed by David Christian, Dan
LaCouture, Reed Larson, Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael Peluso.
(Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Cashman,
Michael) DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE 10/9/15. Modified on
10/14/2015 (JAM). (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/22/2020: # 2 Main
Document) (MMP). Document 255-2 QC'd by JME on 5/6/2020 (JME). (Entered:
10/08/2015)
10/08/2015 2_56 AFFIDAVIT of Michael R. Cashman in SUPPORT OF 2_53 MOTION to Compel

Conf identiality by the NHL PLACEHOLDER
De-Designation filed by David
Peluso. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibits A - Z, # 2 Placeholder for
PRN1-61)(Cashman, Michael) DOCUMENTS RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE
ON 10/9/15. Modified
on 10/14/2015 (JAM). (Additional attachment(s) added on
4/22/2020: # 3 Main
Document, # 4 Exhs A-Z) (MMP). (Additional attachment(s)
added on 5/7/2020: # 5 Exh 2 Pt 1-10, # 6 Exh 2 Pt 11-16, # 7 Exh2 pt 17A-17D, #
8 Exh2 pt 18-37, # 2 Exh2 pt 38-57, # 10 Exh2 pt 58-61) (MMP).Document 256-3
and 256-4 QC'd by JME on 5/6/2020 (JME). (Additional attachment(s) added as
256-4 cut off on 5/11/2020: # 11 256-4) (JME). Modified text on 5/11/2020 (JME).
Documents 256-5 through 10 QC'd by JME on 5/22/20 (JME). Modified text on
5/22/2020 (JME). (Entered: 10/08/2015)
10/08/2015 2_57 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 2_53 Motion to Compel filed by David
Peluso. (Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
10/09/2015 2_58 CERTIFICATE OF

SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by David Christian, Dan
LaCouture, Reed Larson, Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael Peluso re 2_53
MOTION to Compel Confidentiality De-Designation by the NHL (Cashman,
10/09/2015 2_52 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by David Christian, Dan LaCouture, Reed Larson,
Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael Peluso of Conventionally Filed/Sealed
Documents re 2_33 MOTION, 2_54 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion, 2_35
MEMORANDUM, 2_56 AFFIDAVIT, 2-5Z MEET AND CONFER STATEMENT.
(Cashman, Michael) Modified on 10/9/2015 (kt). (Entered: 10/09/2015)
10/09/2015 2_60 ORDER in case 0:14-cv-01140-SRN-JSM; granting (244) Motion for Issuance of
Letters Rogatory/Letters of Request in case 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM. Signed by

Conf dentiality De-Designation by the NHL filed by David Christian, Dan
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, #
5 Exhibit(s) E, # 6 Exhibit(s) F, # 2 Exhibit(s) G, # 8 Exhibit(s) H, # 2 Exhibit(s) I, #
10 Exhibit(s) J, # 11 Exhibit(s) K, # 12 Exhibit(s) L, # 13 Exhibit(s) M)(Cashman,
10/13/2015 2_62 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2_53 MOTION to Compel Conf dentiality

De-Designation by the NHL filed by David Christian, Dan LaCouture, Reed Larson,
Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael Peluso. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2
Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 10/13/2015)
10/13/2015 2_63 EXHIBIT N re 2_61 Affidavit in Support of Motion,,

of Michael R. Cashman by David
Christian, Dan LaCouture, ReedLarson, Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael
Peluso filed by David Christian, Dan LaCouture, Reed Larson, Gary Leeman, Bernie
Nicholls, Michael Peluso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit O, # 2 Exhibit P, # a Exhibit Q, #
4 Exhibit R, # 5 Exhibit S, # 6 Exhibit T, # 2 Exhibit U, # 8 Exhibit V, # 2 Exhibit W,
# 10 Exhibit X, # 11 Exhibit Y, # 12 Exhibit Z)(Cashman, Michael) Modified text on
10/13/2015 (MMP). (Entered: 10/13/2015)
10/13/2015 2_64 EXHIBIT NHL-PRN-1 re 2_61 Aflidavit in Support of Motion, of Michael R.

Cashman by David Christian, Dan LaCouture, Reed Larson, Gary Leeman, Bernie
Nicholls, Michael Peluso filed by David Christian, Dan LaCouture, Reed Larson,
Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael Peluso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit
NHL-PRN-2, # 2 Exhibit NHL-PRN-3, # 3 Exhibit NHL-PRN-4, # 4 Exhibit
NHL-PRN-5, # 5 Exhibit NHL-PRN-6, # 6 Exhibit NHL-PRN-7, # 2 Exhibit
NHL-PRN-8, # 8 Exhibit
NHL-PRN-9, # 2 Exhibit NHL-PRN-10, # 10 Exhibit
NHL-PRN-11, # 11 Exhibit NHL-PRN-12, # 12 Exhibit # 13
NHL-PRN-13,
Exhibit NHL-PRN-14, # 14 Exhibit NHL-PRN-15, # 15 Exhibit NHL-PRN-16, #
16 Exhibit NHL-PRN-17A, # 12 Exhibit NHL-PRN-17B, # 18 Exhibit
NHL-PRN-17C, # 12 Exhibit NHL-PRN-17D, # 20 Exhibit NHL-PRN-18, # 21
Exhibit NHL-PRN-19, # 22 Exhibit NHL-PRN-20)(Cashman, Michael) Modified
text on 10/13/2015 (MMP). (Entered: 10/13/2015)
10/13/2015 2_65 EXHIBIT NHL-PRN-21 re 2_61 Affidavit in Support of Motion, of Michael R.

Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael Peluso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)
NHL-PRN-22, # 2 Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-23, # a Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-24, # 4
Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-25, # 5 Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-26, # 6 Exhibit(s)
NHL-PRN-27, # 2 Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-28, # 8 Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-29, # 2
NHL-PRN-32, # 12 Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-33, # la Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-34, # 14
Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-40)(Cashman, Michael) Modified text on 10/13/2015 (MMP).
(Entered: 10/13/2015)
10/13/2015 2_66 EXHIBIT NHL-PRN-41 re 2_61 Affidavit in Support of Motion,, of Michael R.

Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael Peluso. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)
NHL-PRN-52, # 12 Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-53, # la Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-54, # 14
Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-60, # 20 Exhibit(s) NHL-PRN-61)(Cashman, Michael)
Modified on 10/13/2015 (MMP). (Entered: 10/13/2015)
10/14/2015 2_68 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on October 6, 2015, before Judge Susan
10/14/2015 2_63 STIPULATION by National Hockey League, Cam Severson. Jointly Signed by
Severson. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
10/14/2015 270 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Based on a telephone request from counsel, the Court will
cancel the October 21, 2015 informal status conference in this matter. The next status
conference will be held on November 5, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. central time in Courtroom
7B of the St. Paul courthouse. Approved by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
10/14/2015. (SMD) (Entered: 10/14/2015)
10/14/2015 2_21 ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS re ( 2_63 in

0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Stipulation filed by Cam Severson, National Hockey
League. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/14/2015. Associated Cases:
10/14/2015)
10/15/2015 2_23 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 2_53 MOTION to Compel Conf identiality

-
De-Designation by the NHL (Placeholder Filing Under Seal) filed by National
Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) Sealed document on 10/16/2015 (JGK). (Entered:
10/15/2015)
10/15/2015 2_74 Declaration of Gary B. Bettman in Support of 2_23 Memorandum in Opposition to

Motion filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) Sealed document on
10/16/2015 (JGK). (Entered: 10/15/2015)
10/15/2015 2_25 Declaration of Colin J. Campbell in Support of 2_23 Memorandum in Opposition to

Motion filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) Sealed document on
10/16/2015 (JGK). (Entered: 10/15/2015)
10/16/2015 2_26 LR7.1/LR72.2 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by National Hockey

League re 2_23 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by National Hockey
League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 10/16/2015)
10/16/2015 2_22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Hockey League re 2_74 Declaration in

Support, 2_23 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 2_25 Declaration in Support
10/16/2015 2_28 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew Stein on behalf of National Hockey League.
(Connolly, Daniel) Modified docket text on 10/16/2015 (ALM). (Entered:
10/16/2015)
10/19/2015 2_73 REPLY re 2_53 MOTION to Compel Confidentiality De-Designation by the NHL
Placeholder/Filed Under Seal filed by David Christian, Dan LaCouture, Reed Larson,
Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael Peluso. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2
Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Cashman, Michael) Sealed document received
in Clerk's Office on 10/20/2015. Modified on 10/20/2015 (JLW). (Entered:
10/19/2015)

Conf identiality De-Designation by the NHL Placeholder/Filed Under Seal filed by
David Christian, Dan LaCouture, Reed Larson, Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls,
Michael Peluso. (Attachments: # I Placeholder for Exhibits AA to AH)(Cashman,
Michael) Sealed document received in Clerk's Office on 10/20/2015. Modified on
10/20/2015 (JLW). (Entered: 10/19/2015)
10/21/2015 2_81 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 2_53 MOTION to Compel Conf identiality

De-Designation by the NHL [REDACTED] filed by National Hockey League.
10/21/2015 2_82 Declaration of Gary B. Bettman in Support of 2_81 Memorandum in Opposition to

Motion filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
10/21/2015 2_83 Declaration of Colin J. Campbell in Support of 2_81 Memorandum in Opposition to

Motion filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
10/22/2015 2_84 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2_34 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency of

Plaintiffs'
Players'
and Supplemental Interogatory filed by IN RE:National Hockey League
Compliance Certificate)(Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
10/22/2015 2-85 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2_32 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency of

Plaintiffs'
Answers and Objections to the NHL's Second Set of Requests for
Admissions and Supplemental Interrogatory filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
Players'
Compliance Certificate)(Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
10/22/2015 2_86 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Motion
Hearing held on 10/22/2015 re Motions taken under advisement as of October 22,
2015: Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Confidentiality De-Designation by the NHL
[Docket No. 253]. (Court Reporter Lori Simpson) (JAM) (Entered: 10/23/2015)
10/26/2015 2_87 Reply to Response to Motion re 2_53 MOTION to Compel Confidentiality

NHL **REDACTED** filed by David Dan
De-Designation by the Christian,
(Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Cashman,

Confidentiality De-Designation by the NHL filed by David Christian, Dan
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) AA, # 2 Exhibit(s) AB, # a Exhibit(s) AC, # 4 Exhibit(s)
AD **REDACTED**, # 5 Exhibit(s) AE, # 6 Exhibit(s) AF, # 7 Exhibit(s) AG, # 8
Exhibit(s) AH)(Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
Plaintiffs'
10/29/2015 2_20 REPLY re 2_34 MOTION to Determine the
Sufficiency of Answers and
Objections to the NHL's First Set of Requests for Admissions and Supplemental
Interogatory filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2
10/29/2015 2_21 EXHIBIT INDEX re 2_20 Reply, in Support of Motion Regarding the Sufficiency of
Plaintifs'
and Supplemental Interrogatory by National Hockey League filed by National
Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2)(Connolly, Daniel)
Plaintiffs'
10/29/2015 2_22 REPLY re 2_34 MOTION to Determine the
Sufficiency of Answers and
Objections to the NHL's First Set of Requests for Admissions and Supplemental
Plaintiffs'
Interogatory , 2_32 MOTION to Determine the Sufficiency of Answers and
Objections to the NHL's Second Set of Requests for Admissions and Supplemental
Interrogatory filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR 7.1 Word
Count Compliance Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) Modified text on 11/2/2015 (kt).
(Entered: 10/29/2015)
10/30/2015 2_23 ORDER re (7 in 0:15-cv-03904-SRN-JSM) Stipulation filed by Krzysztof Oliwa,

Rudy Poeschek, Deron Quint, Kevin Stevens. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson
on 10/30/2015. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM,
11/03/2015 2_24 NOTICE by National Hockey League of Proposed Status Conference Agenda and
Discovery Status Report (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 11/03/2015)
Conference held on 11/5/2015. Defendant's Motion to Determine the Sufficiency of
Plaintiffs'
and Supplemental Interrogatory [Doc. No. 234] is DENIED; and Defendant's Motion
Plaintiffs'
to Determine the
Sufficiency of Answers and Objections to the NHL's
Second Set of Requests for Admissions and Supplemental Interrogatory [Doc. No.
239] is DENIED. (Court Reporter Heather Schuetz) (SMD) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
11/06/2015 2_26 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 18: Revised Schedule Regarding Issues Related to Class
Certification. Signed
Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(SMD) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
11/09/2015 2_28 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on November 5, 2015, before Judge Susan
11/17/2015 2_22 MOTION to Intervene For Lmtd Purpose of Req De-Designation of Documents by
CTV, Dennis Lang. (Anfinson, Mark) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
11/17/2015 300 AFFIDAVIT of Mark R. Anfinson in SUPPORT OF 299 MOTION to Intervene For
Lmtd Purpose of Req De-Designation of Documents filed by CTV, Dennis Lang.
(Anfinson, Mark) (Entered: 11/17/2015)
11/17/2015 301 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2.22 MOTION to Intervene For Lmtd Purpose of Req
De-Designation of Documents filed by CTV, Dennis Lang. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Anfinson, Mark) (Entered:
11/17/2015)
11/25/2015 3_Q2 NOTICE by National Hockey League of Proposed Agenda for December 1, 2015
Status Conference (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 11/25/2015)
11/25/2015 3_Q3 STIPULATION re 2_22 MOTION to Intervene For Lmtd Purpose of Req
De-Designation of Documents by National Hockey League, CTV and Dennis Lang.
11/25/2015 3_Q4 MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory/Letters of Request by National Hockey
11/25/2015 305 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 304 MOTION for Issuance of Letters
Rogatory/Letters of Request : Motion Hearing set for 12/1/2015 09:30 AM in
Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 11/25/2015)
11/25/2015 3_Q6 MEMORANDUM in Support re 304 MOTION for Issuance of Letters

Rogatory/Letters of Request filed
by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR: REFILE SEPARATELY: Exhibit(s) 1, #
2DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR: REFILE SEPARATELY: Appendix A, # 3
DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR: REFILE SEPARATELY:Appendix B, # 4
Appendix C, # 5DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR: REFILE SEPARATELY:
Appendix D, # 6DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR: REFILE SEPARATELY:
Appendix E)(Connolly, Daniel) Modified on 11/30/2015 (kt). (Entered: 11/25/2015)
11/30/2015 3_Q7 EXHIBIT INDEX re 306 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by National
Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) A, # 3 Exhibit(s) B, # 4
Exhibit(s) C, # 5 Exhibit(s) D, # 6 Exhibit(s) E)(Connolly, Daniel) Modified text on
12/1/2015 (kt). (Entered: 11/30/2015)
11/30/2015 3-08 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by National Hockey League

re 304 MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory/Letters of Request (Connolly,
Plaintiffs'
12/01/2015 3_Q2 NOTICE of Appearance by Christopher P Renz on behalf of Executive
Committee. (Renz, Christopher) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
12/01/2015 3_10 ORDER granting 304 Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory/Letters of Request.
Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Status Conference held on 12/1/2015; granting 2_99 Motion
parties'
to Intervene pursuant to the Stipulation [Doc. No. 303]. (Court Reporter
Plaintiffs'
12/02/2015 3_12 NOTICE of Appearance by Wm Dane DeKrey on behalf of Executive
Committee. (DeKrey, Wm) (Entered: 12/02/2015)
12/05/2015 3_14 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on December 1, 2015, before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson and Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. (43 pages). Court Reporter:
Heather Schuetz (E-mail: Heather_Schuetz@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone:
651-848-1223). Redaction Request due 12/28/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline
set for 1/5/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/4/2016. For information
on redaction procedures, please review Local Rule 5.5. (HAS) (Entered: 12/05/2015)
12/09/2015 3_15 SEALED ORDER re: 2_53 Motion to Compel in case 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM.
Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 12/09/2015. (TSS) (lmb). (Entered:
12/09/2015)
12/10/2015 3_16 STIPULATION As To Service by National Hockey League. Jointly Signed by

Plaintiffs. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 12/10/2015)

re 3.16 Stipulation (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 12/10/2015)
12/11/2015 3_18 ORDER re (316 in 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Stipulation as to Service. Signed by

12/11/2015)
12/15/2015 312 ORDER Rescheduling January 2016 Informal Status Conference to 9:30 a.m. on
Thursday, January 21, 2016. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 12/15/2015.
(SMD) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
12/15/2015 3_20 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Informal
Status Conference held on 12/15/2015. (SMD) (Entered: 12/16/2015)
12/21/2015 3_21 NOTICE by National Hockey League re 32 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master

Complaint Based on Labor Law Preemption of Supplemental Authority (Connolly,
12/21/2015 322 EXHIBIT re 321 Notice (Other) of Supplemental Authority by National Hockey
League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/21/2015 323 STIPULATION re 315 Order on Motion to Compel by National Hockey League.
Jointly Signed by Plaintiffs. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 12/21/2015)

re 323 Stipulation (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 12/21/2015)
12/22/2015 325 MOTION Leave to File a Memorandum in Response to Defendant's Notice of

Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Authority re 321 Notice (Other) by Executive Committee.
(Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
12/22/2015 326 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 325 MOTION Leave to File a Memorandum
in Response to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority re 321 Notice (Other) :
at date and time to be determined. (Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2015)
Plaintiffs'
12/22/2015 3_22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by Executive
Committee re 325 MOTION Leave to File a Memorandum in Response to
Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority re 321 Notice (Other) (Cashman,
12/23/2015 3_28 ORDER granting 325 Motion for Leave to File a Memorandum in Response to
Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority. On or before January 15, 2016,
Plaintiffs may file a memorandum, not to exceed five (5) pages in length, in response
to Defendant's Notice of Supplemental Authority. Signed by Judge Susan Richard
Nelson on 12/23/2015. (SMD) (Entered: 12/23/2015)
12/23/2015 3_29 Order Regarding Deadlines for Review of Order (Doc. No. 315). 1. The deadline for
either party to seek review of the Order is extended from December 23, 2015 to
January 11, 2016. 2. Documents that are not the subject of any objections shall be
de-designated as described in the Order on or before January 14, 2016. 3. On or
before January 13, 2016, the parties shall confer and then send a joint letter to the
Court (or separate letters if they cannot
agree) indicating those portions of the Order,
if any, that should remain under
seal and the rationale for maintaining those portions
under seal. 4. Seven days after the Court, in whole or in part, unseals the Order, and
provided either Plaintiffs or the NHL seek review by Judge Nelson of the Order,
Intervenors CTV and Dennis Lang must file any submissions they wish Judge Nelson
to consider in any review of the Order. Defendant NHL will be permitted seven days
Intervenors'
to respond to submissions. Signed
by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron
on 12/23/2015. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(TSS) (Entered:
12/23/2015)
01/06/2016 3_31 NOTICE by National Hockey League of Joint Proposed Agenda for January 7, 2016
Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Formal Status Conference held on 1/7/2016. (Court Reporter
01/07/2016 3_33 CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO-5) (AKL) (Entered: 01/07/2016)
01/07/2016 3_34 STIPULATION Regarding Filing of First Amended Master Class Action Complaint
Players'
by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. Jointly
Signed by National Hockey League. (Davidson, Stuart) (Entered: 01/07/2016)
01/07/2016 3_35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by IN RE: National Hockey

Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation re 334 Stipulation (Davidson, Stuart)
(Entered: 01/07/2016)
01/07/2016 3_3fi ORDER re (334 in 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Stipulation Regarding Filing of First

Amended Master Class Action Complaint. This document relates to all actions.
01/07/2016 3_32 RESTRICTED TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on 10/22/15 before

Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. (59 pages). Court Reporter: Lori Simpson
(E-mail: Lori_Simpson@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone: 612-664-5104). (kt)
(Entered: 01/08/2016)
01/08/2016 3_32 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on January 7, 2016, before Judge Susan
651-848-1223). Redaction Request due 1/29/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set
for 2/8/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/7/2016. For information on
redaction procedures, please review Local Rule 5.5. (HAS) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
01/11/2016 3_40 APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge re

315 Order on Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count
Compliance Certificate)(Cashman, Michael) Sealed document received on 1/12/2016
(JGK). (Entered: 01/11/2016)
01/11/2016 3_41 Third AFFIDAVIT of Michael R. Cashman in SUPPORT OF 340

APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge re
PLACEHOLDER - FILED UNDER SEAL - filed
315 Order on Motion to Compel by
David Christian, Dan LaCouture, Reed Larson, Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls,
Michael Peluso. (Attachments: # I Placeholder for Exhibits AI and AJ - FILED
UNDER SEAL)(Cashman, Michael) Sealed document received on 1/12/2016 (JGK).

(Entered: 01/11/2016)
01/11/2016 3_42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by David Christian, Dan

LaCouture, Reed Larson, Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael Peluso re 340
313 Order on Motion to Compel (Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
01/11/2016 3_43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by David Christian, Dan LaCouture, Reed Larson,
Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, Michael Peluso re 341 Affidavit in Support of
Motion, 340 APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to
District Judge re 3_15 Order on Motion to Compel of Conventionally Filed/Sealed
Documents (Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 01/11/2016)
01/12/2016 3_44 MOTION to Stay Further Discovery Pending Resolution of the NHL's Motion to
Dismiss Master Complaint Based on Labor Law Preemption by National Hockey
01/12/2016 3_45 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 344 MOTION to Stay Further Discovery
Pending Resolution of the NHL's Motion to Dismiss Master Complaint Based on
Labor Law Preemption : at date and time to be determined. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 01/12/2016)
01/12/2016 3_46 MEMORANDUM in Support re 344 MOTION to Stay Further Discovery Pending
Resolution of the NHL's Motion to Dismiss Master Complaint Based on Labor Law
Preemption filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word
01/12/2016 3_42 EXHIBIT re 346 Memorandum in Support of Motion, (Index) by National Hockey
League filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2
Exhibit(s) 2)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 01/12/2016)
01/12/2016 3_48 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 344 Motion to Stay filed by National Hockey

re 344 MOTION to Stay Further Discovery Pending Resolution of the NHL's Motion
to Dismiss Master Complaint Based on Labor Law Preemption (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 01/12/2016)
01/13/2016 350 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Based on the emailed joint request of counsel, the Court
hereby cancels the informal status conference that was scheduled for January 21, 2016
in this matter. Approved by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 01/13/2016. (SMD)
(Entered: 01/13/2016)
Plaintiffs'
01/15/2016 3_31 AMENDED COMPLAINT First Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint against National Hockey League. Filed by IN RE: National Hockey
Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation. No summons requested. (Zimmerman,
01/15/2016 352 RESPONSE re 321 Notice

(Other) to Defendant NHL's Notice of Supplemental
Authority in Support of Motion to Dismiss Master Complaint Based on Labor Law
Players'
Preemption filed by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation. (Zimmerman, Charles) Sealed document received on 1/15/2016 (SAE).
(Entered: 01/15/2016)
01/15/2016 3_53 Declaration of Charles S. Zimmerman in Support of 352 Response, filed by IN RE:
Players'
Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Placeholder for Exhibits B-D and F, # 3 Exhibit(s) E)(Zimmerman,
Charles) Sealed document received on 1/15/2016 (SAE). (Entered: 01/15/2016)
01/15/2016 354 RESPONSE re 321 Notice

(Other) to Defendant NHL's Notice of Supplemental
Authority in Support of Motion to Dismiss Master Complaint Based on Labor Law
Players'
Preemption [REDACTED] filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
01/15/2016 355 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 354 RESPONSE, 353 DECLARATION by IN RE:

Players'
National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation of Conventionally
Filed/Sealed Documents (Zimmerman, Charles) Modified text on 1/19/2016 (kt).

(Entered: 01/15/2016)
01/19/2016 3_5fi ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 1/19/2016. (JAM)
(Entered: 01/19/2016)
01/19/2016 3_52 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR - REFILED at Docket Entry No. 359 in case
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM.. ORDER (Redacted). (JAM) Sealed per Magistrate
Judge Janie S. Mayeron. Modified on 1/19/2016 (TSS). (Entered: 01/19/2016)
DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR - Refiled at Docket

01/19/2016 3-58 Entry No. 359 in case
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM.: ORDER (Redacted) re: 253 Motion to Compel in case
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on
12/9/2015. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(TSS) Sealed per
Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. Modified on 1/20/2016 (TSS). (lmb). (Entered:
01/19/2016)
01/20/2016 3_52 ORDER (Redacted) re: 253 Motion to Compel in case 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM.
Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 12/9/2015. Associated Cases:
0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(TSS) (Entered: 01/20/2016)
01/20/2016 360 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re 344 MOTION TO STAY

FURTHER DISCOVERY PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE NHL'S MOTION TO
DISMISS MASTER COMPLAINT BASED ON LABOR LAW PREEMPTION:
Motion Hearing set for 2/16/16 at 9:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7B in St. Paul before Judge
Susan Richard Nelson. (Connolly, Daniel) Modified text on 1/20/2016 (kt). (Entered:
01/20/2016)
01/22/2016 3_fil BRIEF re 32 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master Complaint Based on Labor Law
Preemption as applied to Amended Master Complaint 35L filed by National Hockey
01/25/2016 3_62 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 340 APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE DECISION to District Judge re 315 Order on Motion to Compel filed by
National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) Sealed document received on 1/25/2016 (SAE).
(Entered: 01/25/2016)
01/25/2016 3_63 Declaration of Daniel J. Connolly in Opposition re 340 APPEAL/OBJECTION OF

MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge filed by National Hockey
League. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibits 1 and 2)(Connolly, Daniel)
Modified on 1/26/2016 (kt). Sealed document received on 1/25/2016 (SAE). (Entered:
01/25/2016)
01/27/2016 3_64 MOTION for Leave to File Reply/SurreplyRegarding the Supplemental Authority of
the Boogaard Case by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
01/27/2016)
01/27/2016 3_65 NOTICE by National Hockey League re 364 MOTION for Leave to File
Reply/SurreplyRegarding the Supplemental Authority of the Boogaard Case
01/27/2016 3_66 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 364 Motion for Leave to File Reply/Surreply
filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 01/27/2016)

re 364 MOTION for Leave to File Reply/SurreplyRegarding the Supplemental
Authority of the Boogaard Case (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
01/29/2016 3_68 ORDER granting 364 Motion for Leave to File Reply Regarding the Supplemental
Authority of the Boogaard Case. Defendant may file a memorandum, not exceeding
five (5) pages in length, on or before February 1, 2016. Signed by Judge Susan
02/01/2016 3_62 REPLY re 364 MOTION for Leave to File Reply/Surreply Regarding the
Supplemental Authority of the Boogaard Case filed by National Hockey League.
02/01/2016 3_20 Declaration of Adam M. LupionMOTION re 364

for Leave to File Reply/Surreply
Regarding the Supplemental
Authority of the Boogaard Case filed by National
Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 - Boogaard Amended Complaint, # 2
Exhibit(s) 2 - Boogaard Transcript of 9-16-15)(Connolly, Daniel) Modified text and
link on 2/1/2016 (kt). (Entered: 02/01/2016)
02/02/2016 3_21 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 344 MOTION to Stay Further Discovery Pending
Resolution of the NHL's Motion to Dismiss Master Complaint Based on Labor Law
Players'
Preemption filed by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
02/02/2016 3_22 Declaration of Charles S. Zimmerman in Opposition re 344 MOTION to Stay Further
Discovery Pending Resolution of the NHL's Motion to Dismiss Master Complaint
Players'
Based on Labor Law Preemption filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
Concussion Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A)(Zimmerman, Charles)
Modified text and link on 2/3/2016 (kt). (Entered: 02/02/2016)
02/08/2016 3_23 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 32 MOTION to Dismiss/General Master

Complaint Based on Labor Law Preemption and
3-61 Supplemental Memorandum of
Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss the Amended Master Complaint Based on Labor
Players'
Law Preemption filed by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Compliance)(Davidson, Stuart) (Entered:
02/08/2016)
Plaintifs'
02/08/2016 3_24 MOTION to Dismiss/General Counts V and VM of First Amended Master
Consolidated Class Action Complaint by National Hockey League. (Connolly,
02/08/2016 375 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 374 MOTION to Dismiss/General Counts VH

Plaintifs'
and VM of First Amended Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint :
Motion Hearing set for 3/22/2016 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge
Susan Richard Nelson. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
02/08/2016 3_26 MEMORANDUM in Support re 324 MOTION to Dismiss/General Counts VH and

Plaintiffs'
VIH of First Amended Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint filed
by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count

Plaintifs'
re 324 MOTION to Dismiss/General Counts VH and VIH of First Amended
Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
02/08/2016)
02/09/2016 328 REPLY re 344 MOTION to Stay Further Discovery Pending Resolution of the NHL's
Motion to Dismiss Master Complaint Based on Labor Law Preemption filed by
02/11/2016 3_29 NOTICE of Change of Address by Michael R Cashman (Cashman, Michael)

(Entered: 02/11/2016)
02/11/2016 3.80 NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine C Bischoff on behalf of Barry Scott Bjugstad,
Simon Danis-Pepin, Joe Dziedzic, Joe Murphy, Lance Pitlick, Sasha Populok, Jon
"Butch"
Rohloff, Warren Williams. (Bischoff, Katherine) (Entered: 02/11/2016)
02/12/2016 3.81 MOTION to Enforce Subpoena to The Chubb Corporation by IN RE: National
Players'
Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Penny, Brian) (Entered:
02/12/2016)
02/12/2016 3-82 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 3381 MOTION to Enforce Subpoena to The
Chubb Corporation : at date and time to be determined. (Penny, Brian) (Entered:
02/12/2016)
02/12/2016 3-83 MEMORANDUM in Support re 3381 MOTION to Enforce Subpoena to The Chubb
Players'
Corporation [Filed Under Seal] filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
Compliance Certificate)(Penny, Brian) Sealed document received on 2/12/2016
(SAE). (Entered: 02/12/2016)
02/12/2016 3_8.4 Declaration of Brian D. Penny in Support of 3B81 MOTION to Enforce Subpoena to
Players'
The Chubb Corporation filed by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion
Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # a Exhibit(s)
C)(Penny, Brian) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
02/12/2016 3_8.5 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 3881 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by
Players'
IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Penny,
02/12/2016 3_8.6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by IN RE: National Hockey

Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation re 3881 MOTION to Enforce Subpoena
to The Chubb Corporation (Penny, Brian) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
02/12/2016 3_8] CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE re 383 MEMORANDUM by IN RE: National Hockey

Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation of Conventionally Filed/Sealed
Documents (Penny, Brian) Modified on 2/12/2016 (kt). (Entered: 02/12/2016)
02/12/2016 3_8.8 STIPULATION As To Service by National Hockey League. Jointly Signed by

02/12/2016 3_83 NOTICE by National Hockey League of Joint Proposed Agenda for February 16,
2016 Status Conference (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
02/16/2016 3_9.0 ORDER re (388 in 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Stipulation filed by National

Hockey League. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 02/16/2016. Associated
Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM, 0:16-cv-00248-SRN-JSM(SMD) (Entered:
02/16/2016)
02/16/2016 3_9_1 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate
Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Formal Status Conference held on 2/16/2016. (Court
02/17/2016 3_9.2 ORDER setting briefing schedule and hearing date re 3_8_1MOTION to Enforce
Subpoena to The Chubb Corporation. The opposition memoranda of The Chubb
Corporation shall be filed no later than March 16, 2016. The Court will hear oral
argument on this motion at the March 22, 2016 status conference. Signed by Judge
Susan Richard Nelson on 02/17/2016. (SMD) (Entered: 02/17/2016)
02/24/2016 3_9.3 ORDER postponing April 5, 2016 informal Case Management Conference to
Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 9:30 am. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
02/23/2016. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al.(SMD) (Entered:
02/24/2016)
02/24/2016 3_9.4 MOTION to Amend Plaintiff Fact Sheet by National Hockey League. (Connolly,
02/24/2016 3_9.5 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 394 MOTION to Amend Plaintiff Fact Sheet :
02/24/2016 3_9.6 MEMORANDUM in Support re 394 MOTION to Amend Plaintiff Fact Sheet filed by
02/24/2016 3_93 EXHIBIT Index to Motion to Amend Plaintif Fact Sheet by National Hockey League
filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibits 1 and 6,
# 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5 Exhibit(s) 5, # 6 Exhibit(s)
7)(Connolly, Daniel) Sealed documents received on 2/25/2016 (SAE). (Entered:
02/24/2016)
02/24/2016 3-9.8 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 394 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by

re 394 MOTION to Amend Plaintif Fact Sheet (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
02/24/2016)
02/29/2016 4_Q0 MOTION to Compel Independent Medical Examinations of Plaintifs LaCouture,

Peluso, Leeman, Nicholls, and Ludzik by National Hockey League. (Connolly,
02/29/2016 4_Q1 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 4_Q0 MOTION to Compel Independent

Medical Examinations of Plaintifs LaCouture, Peluso, Leeman, Nicholls, and Ludzik
: Motion Hearing set for 3/22/2016 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge
02/29/2016 4_Q2 MEMORANDUM in Support re 4_Q0 MOTION to Compel Independent Medical

Examinations of Plaintifs LaCouture, Peluso, Leeman, Nicholls, and Ludzik filed by
02/29/2016 4_Q3 EXHIBIT INDEX re 4_QQ MOTION

to Compel Independent Medical Examinations of
Plaintifs LaCouture,
Peluso, Leeman, Nicholls, and Ludzik (INDEX) by National
Hockey League filed
by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2
Exhibit(s) 7, # 8 Exhibit(s) 8, # 9 Exhibit(s) 9, # 10 Exhibit(s) 10, # 11 Exhibit(s) 11,
# 12 Exhibit(s) 12, # 13 Exhibit(s) 13, # 14 Exhibit(s) 14, # 15 Exhibit(s)
15)(Connolly, Daniel) Modified on 3/1/2016 (kt). (Entered: 02/29/2016)
02/29/2016 4_Q4 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 4_Q0 Motion to Compel filed by National
02/29/2016 4_Q5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by National Hockey League

re 400 MOTION to Compel Independent Medical Examinations of Plaintifs
LaCouture, Peluso, Leeman, Nicholls, and Ludzik (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
02/29/2016)
03/03/2016 406 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Plaintiff's request for a seven-day extension of time in which
to respond to Defendant's Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examinations is
Plaintiffs'
GRANTED. response shall be due 14 days from the date of Defendant's
filing. By Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (JAM) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
03/03/2016 4_Q7 RESPONSE in Opposition re 394 MOTION to Amend Plaintif Fact Sheet filed by
Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee. (Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
Plaintiffs'
03/04/2016 4-Q8 SEALED ORDER THAT: 1. Appealof Confidentiality Rulings [Doc. No.
340] in the Magistrate Judges Order of December 9, 2015 [Doc. No. 315] is
GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and DENIED AS MOOT in part; 2. The Order
of December 9, 2015 [Doc. No. 315] is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part;
3. On or before April 3, 2016, the parties shall confer and send a joint letter to the
Court (or separate letters if they cannot agree) indicating those portions of the Order,
if any, that should remain under seal and the rationale for maintaining those portions
under seal. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 3/4/2016. (JAM) Modified text
on 3/7/2016 (kt). (Entered: 03/04/2016)
03/07/2016 4_Q2 NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated
03/07/2016 4_10 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on February 16, 2016, before Judge Susan
03/10/2016 4_11 RESPONSE in Opposition re 400 MOTION to Compel Independent Medical

Examinations of Plaintifs LaCouture, Peluso, Leeman, Nicholls, and Ludzik filed by
All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 03/10/2016)
03/10/2016 4_12 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Robert C. Cantu, M.D. in Opposition to 4_Q0

MOTION to Compel Independent Medical Examinations of Plaintifs LaCouture,
Peluso, Leeman, Nicholls, and Ludzik filed by All Plaintiffs. (Cashman, Michael)
NOTICE - Plaintifs'
03/11/2016 4_13 by Steven Ludzik re 351 Amended Complaint, Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal of Counts VH and VM of the First Amended Complaint Without
- (Entered:
Prejudice (Davidson, Stuart) 03/11/2016)
03/15/2016 4_15 Letter re: request for a protective order, filed by Michael Cashman on March 14,
2016. Document filed under seal per Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (TSS) (Entered:
03/15/2016)
03/15/2016 4_1fi Letter in response to 4_15 request for a protective order, filed by John Beisner on
March 14, 2016. Document filed under seal per Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (TSS)
(Entered: 03/15/2016)
03/15/2016 4_17 Email reply re: 4_15 request for a protective order, filed by Michael Cashman on
March 14, 2016.Document filed under seal per Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (TSS)
(Entered: 03/15/2016)
03/15/2016 4_3.2 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Telephone
Plaintiffs'
Conference held on 3/15/2016. letter request for a Protective Order was
granted. Written order to follow. (Court Reporter Lori Simpson) (SMD) (Entered:
03/21/2016)
03/16/2016 4_13 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 381 MOTION to Enforce Subpoena to The

Chubb Corporation filed
by The Chubb Corporation. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Walsh, Peter) SEALED
DOCUMENT RECEIVED IN CLERK'S OFFICE on 3/16/2016 (LPH). (Entered:
03/16/2016)
03/16/2016 4_19 DECLARATION of Stephen A. Loney, Jr. in Opposition re 381 MOTION to Enforce
Subpoena filed by The Chubb Corporation. (Walsh, Peter) Modified on 3/16/2016
(kt). SEALED DOCUMENT RECE1VED IN CLERK'S OFFICE on 3/16/2016
(LPH). (Entered: 03/16/2016)
03/16/2016 4_20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by The Chubb Corporation

re 331 MOTION to Enforce Subpoena to The Chubb Corporation (Walsh, Peter)
(Entered: 03/16/2016)
03/17/2016 4_21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The Chubb Corporation re 4_19 Declaration in

Opposition, 4_13 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion Documents Filed Under Seal
(Walsh, Peter) (Entered: 03/17/2016)
03/17/2016 4_22 MOTION for Leave to File Reply/Surreply by National Hockey League. (Connolly,
03/18/2016 4.23 ORDER Dismissing Counts VII and VIII of the First Amended Complaint, in
accordance with (413 in 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM) Notice (Other) filed by Steven
Ludzik. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 03/18/2016. Associated Cases:
03/18/2016 4_24 ORDER re (17 in 0:16-cv-00069-SRN-JSM) Stipulation as to Service. This

document relates to Montador v. National Hockey League, et al., file 16-ev-00069
(SRN/JSM). Signed
Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM, 0:16-cv-00069-SRN-JSM(SMD) (Entered:
03/18/2016)
03/18/2016 425 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Defendant's motion for leave to file a reply brief [Doc. No.
422] is GRANTED. The reply shall be limited to no more than 5 pages. Approved by
03/18/2016 4_2fi RESTRICTED TRANSCRIPT of Teleconference held on 3/15/16 before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson. (37 pages). Court Reporter: Lori Simpson (E-mail:
Lori_Simpson@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone: 651-848-1225). (kt) (Entered:
03/18/2016)
03/18/2016 4_27 REPLY in Support re 4_Q0 MOTION to Compel Independent Medical Examinations
of Plaintiffs LaCouture, Peluso, Leeman, Nicholls, and Ludzik filed
by National
Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) Modified text and link on 3/21/2016 (kt).
(Entered: 03/18/2016)
03/18/2016 4_28 EXHIBIT INDEX re 4_22 Reply filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) 1)(Connolly, Daniel) Modified text on 3/21/2016 (kt). (Entered:
03/18/2016)
03/19/2016 4.29 NOTICE by National Hockey League Joint Proposed Agenda for March 22, 2016
03/21/2016 4_30 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by National Hockey League Regarding Request for
Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration. (Connolly, Daniel) Sealed document
received on 3/21/2016 (SAE). (Entered: 03/21/2016)
03/21/2016 4_31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Hockey League re 4_30 Letter to District
Judge Regarding Request for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration (Connolly,
03/22/2016 4_13 UNSEALED PER CHAMBERS ON 4/26/16: ORDER. Signed by Judge Susan
Richard Nelson on 3/22/16. (kt) Modified text and restriction on 4/28/2016 (kt).
(Entered: 03/22/2016)
Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Formal Status Conference held on 3/22/2016. Defendants
request [Doc. No. 430] for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
order temporarily postponing certain Plaintiff depositions is denied.The Defendants
Motion to Amend Plaintiff Fact Sheet [Doc.No. 394] was submitted, argued, and
Plaintiffs counsel was ordered to file supplemental briefing no later than April 1,
2016. The Defendants Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examinations of
Plaintiffs LaCouture, Peluso,Leeman, Nicholls, and Ludzik [Doc. No. 400] was
Plaintiffs'
submitted, argued, and taken under advisement. Motion to Enforce
Subpoena to The Chubb Corporation [Doc. No. 381] was submitted, argued, and
taken under advisement. The parties are ordered to schedule a conference with
Magistrate Judge Mayeronpromptly to resolve the scope of any future production
pursuant to the subpoena in line with the guidance provided by the Court. (Court
03/29/2016 4-35 NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated
03/29/2016 4_36 PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT (Excerpt) of Formal Status Conference and Discovery
Status Report held on March 22, 2016, before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and
Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. (143 pages). Court Reporter: Heather Schueiz
(E-mail: Heather_Schuetz@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone: 651-848-1223).
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: Defendants Motion

03/29/2016 4_32
to Compel Independent Medical Examinations of Plaintiffs Lacouture, Peluso,
Leeman, and Nicholls [Docket No. 4_QQ ] is GRANTED in part and taken under
advisement in part. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 3/29/2016. (las)
(Entered: 03/29/2016)
03/29/2016 4_38 RESTRICTED PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT (Excerpt) of Status Conference held on

3/22/2016 before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate Judge Janie S.
Mayeron. (6 pages). Court Reporter: Heather Schuetz (E-mail:
Heather_Schuetz@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone: 651-848-1223). (lmb) (Entered:
03/29/2016)
03/29/2016 4_32 SEALED ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 3/29/2016. cc:
Counsel of Record. (las) DOCUMENT QC'd by KT on 4/14/16. (kt) (Entered:
03/29/2016)
Plaintiffs'
03/30/2016 440 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER ruling on unopposed letter request for an
extension of time to submit a supplemental memorandum in response to Defendants
Plaintiffs'
Motion to Amend Plaintiff Fact Sheet. request is granted. Plaintiffs shall
submit the supplemental memorandum no later than April 8, 2016. Signed by Judge
Susan Richard Nelson on 03/30/16. (MJC) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
04/01/2016 441 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER ruling on Defendant's unopposed letter request for an
extension of time for the parties to submit their joint or separate letters concerning the
portions of the Court's March 4, 2016 Order that should remain under seal. The
request is granted. The parties shall submit their letter(s) on or before Monday, April
4, 2016. Approved by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 04/01/2016. (SMD) (Entered:
04/01/2016)
04/05/2016 442 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORAL ORDER: Based

on an email from Counsel, the
Informal Status Conference scheduled
Thursday, Aprilfor
7, 2016 is now
CANCELLED. The next status conference in this case is set for Tuesday, April 19,
2016 at 9:30 a.m. Approved by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 04/05/2016. (SMD)
(Entered: 04/05/2016)
04/05/2016 4E REDACTED version of Order filed under seal on March 4, 2016 at EFC Docket No.
408 (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 03/04/2016.
(SMD) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
04/08/2016 4E MEMORANDUM in Opposition re M MOTION to Amend Plainti f Fact Sheet

(Supplemental) filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count
Compliance Certificate)(Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
04/11/2016 4_45 REDACTED version of Order filed under seal on April 8, 2016 at ECF Docket No.
439. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 3/29/16. (AKL) DOCUMENT
QC'd by KT on 4/13/16. (kt) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
04/12/2016 4E MOTION to Compel Production of Dr. Cantu's Examination Protocol and to Amend
Due Dates for Dr. Cantu's Reports by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 04/12/2016)
04/12/2016 4E NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 4 MOTION to Compel Production of Dr.

Cantu's Examination Protocol and to Amend Due Dates for Dr. Cantu's Reports :
04/12/2016 4E MEMORANDUM in Support re 4± MOTION to Compel Production of Dr. Cantu's

Examination Protocol and to Amend Due Dates for Dr. Cantu's Reports filed by
04/12/2016 4_49 EXHIBIT INDEX re 448 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by National
Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1-6)(Connolly, Daniel) Modified text
on 4/12/2016 (kt). (Entered: 04/12/2016)
04/12/2016 4_50 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 4 Motion to Compel filed by National

re 4_46 MOTION to Compel Production of Dr. Cantu's Examination Protocol and to
Amend Due Dates for Dr. Cantu's Reports (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/12/2016)
04/15/2016 4_52 NOTICE by National Hockey League Joint Proposed Agenda for April 19, 2016
04/18/2016 453 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting Defendant's request to file a response to
Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to the NHL's
concernng motion
Plaintiffs'
Fact Sheets. Defendant may file a memorandum of comparable length by
4:00 p.m. on April 18, 2016. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 04/18/16.
(MJC) (Entered: 04/18/2016)
04/18/2016 4_54 MEMORANDUM in Support re 394 MOTION to Amend Plaintiff Fact Sheet
(Supplemental) filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
04/18/2016)
04/19/2016 4_55 RESPONSE in Opposition re 4_46 MOTION to Compel Production of Dr. Cantu's
Examination Protocol and to Amend Due Dates for Dr. Cantu's Reports filed by All
Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Formal Status Conference Held on April 19, 2016. The
Defendant's Motion to Amend Plaintiff Fact Sheets 394 was denied. (Court Reporter
04/22/2016 4_5] MOTION to Compel Placeholder Motion to Compel Defendant NHL to Produce
Plaintiffs'
Documents Without Claim of Claw Back or Privilege by Executive
Committee. (Renz, Christopher) Sealed document received on 4/22/2016 (JGK).
(Entered: 04/22/2016)
04/22/2016 4_53 MEMORANDUM re 4_5] MOTION

in Support to Compel Placeholder Motion to
Compel Defendant NHL
to Produce Documents Without Claim of Claw Back or
Plaintiffs'
Privilege Placeholder filed by Executive Committee. (Renz, Christopher)
Sealed document received on 4/22/2016 (JGK). (Entered: 04/22/2016)
04/22/2016 4_59 Declaration of Christopher in Support of 4_5] MOTION

P. Renz to Compel
Placeholder Motion to Compel
Defendant NHL to Produce Documents Without Claim
Plaintiffs'
of Claw Back or Privilege filed by Executive Committee. (Renz,
Christopher) Sealed document received on 4/22/2016 (JGK). (Entered: 04/22/2016)
Plaintiffs'
04/22/2016 4_60 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 4_5] Motion to Compel filed by
Executive Committee. (Renz, Christopher) Sealed document received on 4/22/2016
(JGK). (Entered: 04/22/2016)
04/22/2016 4_61 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR-WILL REFILE-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by

Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee re 4_5] MOTION to Compel Placeholder Motion to
Compel Defendant NHL to Produce Documents Without Claim of Claw Back or
Privilege and Proposed Order (Renz, Christopher) Modified on 4/22/2016 (AKL).
(Entered: 04/22/2016)
Plaintiffs'
04/22/2016 4_62 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Executive Committee re 4_5] MOTION
to Compel Placeholder Motion to Compel Defendant NHL to Produce Documents
Without Claim of Claw Back or Privilege and Proposed Order (Renz, Christopher)
(Entered: 04/22/2016)
04/25/2016 4-64 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on April 19, 2016, before Judge Susan
04/26/2016 4_63 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Motion
Hearing held on 4/26/2016 re 4_46 MOTION to Compel Production of Dr. Cantu's
Examination Protocol and to Amend Due Dates for Dr. Cantu's Reports filed by
National Hockey League. The motion was submitted, argued, and denied. (Court
Chambers'
04/26/2016 Notice to Clerk's Office to UNSEAL Document: 4_33 Sealed Order (SMD)
(Entered: 04/26/2016)
with it. (LAS) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
04/26/2016 4_6] TRANSCRIPT of Teleconference Hearing held on 03/15/2016 before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson. (37 pages). Court Reporter: Lori Simpson (E-mail:
Lori_Simpson@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone: 651-848-1225). Redaction Request
due 5/17/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/27/2016. Release of Transcript
Restriction set for 7/25/2016. For information on redaction procedures, please review
Local Rule 5.5. (LAS) (Entered: 04/26/2016)
04/27/2016 4_69 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on April 26, 2016, before Judge Susan
04/27/2016 4_20 ORDER. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on
4/27/2016. (KNK) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
04/27/2016 4_21 ORDER granting 4_QQ Motion to Compel Independent Medical Examinations of
Plaintiffs Lacouture, Peluso, Leeman, and Nicholls. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie
S. Mayeron on 4/27/16. (AKL) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
05/01/2016 4_22 NOTICE of Appearance by Shawn D Stuckey on behalf of Sasha Populok. (Stuckey,
Shawn) (Entered: 05/01/2016)
05/01/2016 4_23 NOTICE of Appearance by Shawn D Stuckey on behalf of Simon Danis-Pepin.

(Stuckey, Shawn) (Entered: 05/01/2016)
05/01/2016 4_24 NOTICE of Appearance by Shawn D Stuckey on behalf of Joe Murphy. (Stuckey,
05/01/2016 4_25 NOTICE of Appearance by Shawn D Stuckey on behalf of Jon Rohloff. (Stuckey,
PRETRIAL ORDER No. 19: Establishing Status Conference June -

05/03/2016 4_26 Schedule,
December 2016. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 05/03/2016. (SMD)
(Entered: 05/03/2016)
05/04/2016 4_22 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron:
Telephone Conference held on 5/4/2016. (AKL) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
05/10/2016 4_28 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 19

- Establishing Status Conference
Schedule, June - December 2016. This order amends the date of the formal pretrial
status conference in June 2016. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
05/09/2016. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-JSM et al. (SMD) (Entered:
05/10/2016)
05/10/2016 4_80 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Cambronne, Karl) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
05/11/2016 4_81 ORDER that 1. The Chubb Corporation shall serve and file its supplemental brief on
or by May 20, 2016, regarding the need for notice
Hockey to National
League retirees
of its potential production of their IMEs to plaintiffs.2. Plaintiffs shall serve and file
parties'
their responsive brief on or before May 31, 2016.3. The briefs shall be limited
to five pages, double-spaced, in 12-point font. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S.
Mayeron on 5/11/16. (kt) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
05/16/2016 4_82 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Filed Under Seal). Signed by Judge
Susan Richard Nelson on 05/16/2016. (TSS) (Entered: 05/16/2016)
05/17/2016)
05/17/2016 4_85 TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status Conference held on May 17, 2016, before Judge
05/18/2016 4_86 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND DenyingORDER 3_2 Defendant's Motion to

Dismiss Master Complaint Based on Labor
Law Preemption; Denying as Moot 344
Defendant's Motion to Stay Further Discovery Pending Resolution of Its Motion to
Dismiss Master Complaint. This is a REDACTED public version of 4-82
Memorandum Opinion and Order Filed Under Seal on May 16, 2016. (Written
Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 05/16/2016. (SMD) (Entered:
05/18/2016)
AMENDED ORDER - Pursuant to the request of the NHL, the Order dated April
05/19/2016 4_82 27,
2016 4_20 is amended. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on
5/19/2016.(las) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
05/20/2016 4_88 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING NOTICE re 3381 MOTION to Enforce

Subpoena filedby the Chubb Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word
Count Compliance Certificate)(Walsh, Peter) Modified on 5/20/2016 (kt). (Entered:
05/20/2016)
05/20/2016 4_82 SECOND AMENDED ORDER amending 4_20 Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge
Janie S. Mayeron on 5/20/16. (KMM) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
05/20/2016 4_20 NOTICE by National Hockey League Joint Proposed Agenda for May 24, 2016
05/24/2016 4_21 MOTION to Quash Subpoena by CLS Strategies. (Gaskins, Steve) Sealed document
05/24/2016 4_22 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 4_21 MOTION to Quash Subpoena : Motion
Hearing set for 6/9/2016 03:00PM before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Gaskins,
Steve) Sealed document received on 5/24/2016 (SAE). (Entered: 05/24/2016)
05/24/2016 4_23 MEMORANDUM in Support re 4_21 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by CLS
Strategies. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Gaskins, Steve) Sealed document received on 5/24/2016 (SAE). (Entered:
05/24/2016)
05/24/2016 4_24 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 4_21 Motion to Quash filed by CLS Strategies.
(Gaskins, Steve) Sealed document received on 5/24/2016 (SAE). (Entered:
05/24/2016)
05/24/2016 4_25 DECLARATION of Robert Chlopak in SUPPORT OF 4_21 MOTION to Quash

Subpoena filed
by CLS Strategies. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1)(Gaskins, Steve)
05/24/2016)
05/24/2016 4_26 DECLARATION of Brian C. Gudmundson in SUPPORT OF 4_21 MOTION to Quash

Subpoena filed
by CLS Strategies. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-E)(Gaskins, Steve)
05/24/2016)
05/24/2016 4_22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by CLS Strategies re 4_21

MOTION to Quash Subpoena (Gaskins, Steve) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
05/24/2016 4_28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by CLS Strategies re 4_22 Notice of Hearing on

Motion, 4_23 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 4_21 MOTION to Quash Subpoena,
4-25 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 4_26 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 4_24 Meet
and Confer Statement of Conventionally Filed/Sealed Documents (Gaskins, Steve)
(Entered: 05/24/2016)
Judge Janie S. Mayeron: Formal Status Conference held on 5/24/2016. (Court
Plaintiffs'
05/26/2016 500 SUPPLEMENT (NOT Motion) Supplemental Brief Regarding Notice re
3881 MOTION to Enforce Subpoena to The Chubb Corporation filed by IN RE:
Players'
(Entered: 05/26/2016)
06/02/2016 E TRANSCRIPT of Formal Status Conference held on May 24, 2016, before Judge
Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. (35 pages). Court
Reporter: Heather Schuetz (E-mail: Heather_Schuetz@mnd.uscourts.gov /
Telephone: 651-848-1223). Redaction Request due 6/23/2016. Redacted Transcript
Deadline set for 7/5/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/31/2016. For
information on redaction procedures, please review Local Rule 5.5. (HAS) (Entered:
06/02/2016)
06/02/2016 504 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 4_21 MOTION to Quash Subpoena (Placeholder /

Filed Under Seal) filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2
Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) Sealed document received on
6/2/2016 (SAE). (Entered: 06/02/2016)
06/02/2016 505 EXHIBIT 1-4 re 504 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filedby National
Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) Sealed document received on 6/2/2016 (SAE).
06/06/2016 50fi MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 4_5] MOTION to Compel Placeholder Motion to

Compel Defendant NHL to Produce Documents Without Claim of Claw Back or
Privilege (Placeholder / Filed Under Seal) filed by National Hockey League.
Daniel) Sealed document received on 6/6/2016 (SAE). (Entered: 06/06/2016)
06/06/2016 507 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Telephone
06/07/2016)
06/07/2016 508 Reply to Response to Motion re 4_91 MOTION to Quash Subpoena [Under Seal] filed
by CLS Strategies. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Gaskins, Steve) Sealed document received on 6/7/2016 (SAE). (Entered:
06/07/2016)
06/07/2016 502 Declaration of Stuart A. Davidson in Support of 508 Reply to Response to Motion
filed by CLS Strategies. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhs. 1-4)(Gaskins,
Steve) Sealed document received on 6/7/2016 (SAE). (Entered: 06/07/2016)
06/07/2016 510 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Omnicom Group Inc. is a publicly-held
corporation owning 10 percent or more of stock of Miscellaneous CLS Strategies.
(Gaskins, Steve) (Entered: 06/07/2016)
06/07/2016 511 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by CLS Strategies re 502 Declaration in Support, 508
Reply to Response to Motion of Conventionally Filed Documents (Gaskins, Steve)
(Entered: 06/07/2016)
06/08/2016 512 THIRD AMENDED ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on
6/8/16. (kt) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
06/09/2016 524 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Motion
Hearing held on 6/9/2016 re 4_21 MOTION to Quash Subpoena filed by CLS
Strategies; Informal Status Conference held on 6/9/2016. (Court Reporter Heather
06/10/2016 513 Reply to Response to Motion re 4_5] MOTION to Compel Placeholder Motion to
Compel Defendant NHL to Produce Documents Without
Claim of Claw Back or
Plaintiffs'
Privilege with Rule 7.1 Compliance Certif icate filed by Executive
Committee. (Renz, Christopher) Modified on 6/14/2016 (JLW). Sealed document
received. (Entered: 06/10/2016)
Plaintiffs'
06/10/2016 514 EXHIBITS A-I re 513 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Executive
Committee. (Renz, Christopher) Modified text on 6/10/2016 (kt). Modified on
6/14/2016 (JLW). Sealed document received. (Entered: 06/10/2016)
06/10/2016 515 Supplemental Declaration of Christopher P. Renz in Support of 4_5] MOTION to

Plaintiffs'
Compel filed by Executive Committee. (Renz, Christopher) Modified on
6/10/2016 (kt). Modified on 6/14/2016 (JLW). Sealed document received. (Entered:
06/10/2016)
Plaintiffs'
06/10/2016 516 EXHIBITS A-E re 515 Declaration in Support filedby Executive
Committee. (Renz, Christopher) Modified text on 6/10/2016 (kt). Modified on
6/14/2016 (JLW). Sealed document received. (Entered: 06/10/2016)
Plaintiffs'
06/10/2016 517 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Executive Committee re 514 Exhibit, 516
Exhibit, 515 Declaration in Support, 511 Reply to Response to Motion, (Renz,
Christopher) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
06/10/2016 518 MOTION Keep Judicial Records Sealed re 4_21 MOTION to Quash Subpoena by CLS
Strategies. (Gaskins, Steve) Sealed document received on 6/10/2016 (SAE). (Entered:
06/10/2016)
06/10/2016 512 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 518 MOTION Keep Judicial Records Sealed
re 4_21 MOTION to Quash Subpoena : No Oral Argument Requested at date and time
to be determined. (Gaskins, Steve) Sealed document received on 6/10/2016 (SAE).
(Entered: 06/10/2016)
06/10/2016 520 MEMORANDUM in Support re 518 MOTION Keep Judicial Records Sealed re 4_21
MOTION to Quash Subpoena Under Seal filed by CLS Strategies. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Gaskins, Steve) Sealed
document received on 6/10/2016 (SAE). (Entered: 06/10/2016)
06/10/2016 521 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 513 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by
CLS Strategies. (Gaskins, Steve) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
06/10/2016 522 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by CLS Strategies re 512 Notice of Hearing on

Motion, 520 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 513 MOTION Keep Judicial
Records Sealed re 4_21 MOTION to Quash Subpoena of Conventionally Filed
Documents (Gaskins, Steve) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
06/10/2016 523 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by CLS Strategies re 518

MOTION Keep Judicial Records Sealed re 4_21 MOTION to Quash Subpoena
(Gaskins, Steve) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
06/14/2016 525 JOINT STIPULATION OF PLAINTIFFS AND NON-PARTY U.S. NHL CLUBS
AND PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 20: REGARDING PRIVATE MEDICAL
INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 06/14/2016. (SMD)
(Entered: 06/14/2016)
06/16/2016 526 RESTRICTED TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Conference held on 6/06/2016 before

Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (18 pages). Court Reporter: Heather Schuetz (E-mail:
Heather_Schuetz@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone: 651-848-1223). (TSS) (Entered:
06/16/2016)
06/16/2016 527 RESTRICTED TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on 06/09/2016 before Judge
Heather_Schuetz@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone: 651-848-1223). (TSS) (Entered:
06/16/2016)
06/17/2016 528 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 518 MOTION Keep Judicial Records Sealed re
-
4_21 MOTION to Quash Subpoena Placeholder Memorandum Under Seal filed
by
National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) Received sealed document on 6/20/2016
(JLW). (Entered: 06/17/2016)
06/17/2016 522 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Hockey League re 528 Memorandum in

Opposition to Motion (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/17/2016)
06/20/2016 530 LR7.1/LR72.2 WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE by National Hockey

League re 528 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by National Hockey
06/21/2016 511 SUPPLEMENT (NOT Motion) THE CHUBB CORPORATION'S SUPPLEMENTAL

BRIEF REGADING COST SHIFTING re 331 MOTION to Enforce Subpoena to The
Players'
Chubb Corporation filed by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion
Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Walsh, Peter) (Entered: 06/21/2016)
06/21/2016 532 Declaration of Stephen A. Loney, Jr. in Support of 511 Supplement, filed by The
Chubb Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibit A, # 2 Placeholder for
Exhibit B)(Walsh, Peter) Sealed document received on 6/21/2016 (JGK). (Entered:

06/21/2016)
06/21/2016 533 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR-WILL REFILE. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by

The Chubb Corporation re 532 Declaration in Support, 531 Supplement. (Walsh,
Peter) Modified text on 6/22/2016 (lmb). (Entered: 06/21/2016)
06/22/2016 534 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by The Chubb Corporation re 532 Declaration in

Support, 531 Supplement, (Walsh, Peter) (Entered: 06/22/2016)
Plaintiffs'
06/24/2016 535 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Oral ORDER ruling on letter request to file a reply
Strategies'
memorandum in support of Third Party CLS Motion
to Keep Judicial
Plaintiffs'
Records Sealed. request is granted. Plaintiffs may file a memorandum,
limited to three pages, by June 29, 2016. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
06/24/16. (MJC) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
06/24/2016 53fi NOTICE by National Hockey League Joint Proposed Agenda for June 28, 2016
06/27/2016 532 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF REGARDING COST-SHIFTING filed by IN RE:

Players'
06/27/2016 538 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR: WILL REFILE. Declaration of Brian D. Penny in
Plaintiffs'
Support of 532 Supplement, filed by Executive Committee. (Penny, Brian)
Plaintiffs'
06/27/2016 532 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Executive Committee re 532
Plaintifs'
Supplement, 538 Declaration in Support of Suppl. Brief Regarding
Cost-Shifting (Penny, Brian) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
06/27/2016 540 Supplemental Brief Regarding Cost-Shilling filed by Plaintiffs (Filed Under Seal).
(Penny, Brian) Modified text on 6/28/2016 (kt). (Entered: 06/27/2016)
06/27/2016 541 Declaration of Brian D. Penny in Support of 540 Supplemental Brief filed by
Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibit 1, # 2 Placeholder for Exhibit 2,
# 3 Placeholder for Exhibit 3)(Penny, Brian) Modified text on 6/28/2016 (kt).
(Entered: 06/27/2016)
06/28/2016 542 MOTION to Appoint Counsel M. Raiter

Shawn of Larson King, LLP and Charles J.
Plaintiffs'
LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert &LaDuca, LLP to Executive Committee
Players'
(Unopposed) by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation. (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
Players'
06/28/2016 543 NOTICE by IN RE: National
Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation re
542 MOTION to Appoint Counsel Shawn M. Raiter of Larson King, LLP and Charles
Plaintifs'
J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP to Executive Committee
(Unopposed) (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
06/28/2016 544 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by IN RE: National Hockey

Players'
League Concussion Injury re 542 MOTION
Litigation to Appoint Counsel
Shawn M. Raiter of Larson King, LLP and Charles J. LaDuca of Cuneo Gilbert &
Plaintifs'
LaDuca, LLP to Executive Committee (Unopposed) (Zimmerman, Charles)
(Entered: 06/28/2016)
06/28/2016 545 ORDER granting 542 Motion to Appoint Shawn M. Raiter of Larson King, LLP and
Charles J. Laduca of Cuneo, Gilbert & Laduca, LLP to Plaintiff's Executive
Committee. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 06/28/2016. (SMD) (Entered:
06/28/2016)
06/28/2016 551 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Formal Status
Conference held on 6/28/2016. See attached minutes sheet for rulings. (Court
06/29/2016 546 REPLY re 518 MOTION Keep Judicial Records Sealed re 4_21 MOTION to Quash
(Placeholder - Under filed
Subpoena Filed Seal) by IN RE: National Hockey League
Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation. (Zimmerman, Charles) Sealed document
06/29/2016 M EXHIBIT INDEX re M Reply filed by Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)

1)(Zimmerman, Charles) Modified text on 6/29/2016 (kt). (Entered: 06/29/2016)
06/29/2016 M CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by IN RE: National Hockey League

Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation re M Reply, (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered:

06/29/2016)
06/29/2016 549 NOTICE of Appearance by Steve W Gaskins on behalf of CLS Strategies. (Gaskins,
Steve) (Entered: 06/29/2016)
CHAMBERS'
06/30/2016 550 UNSEALED ON 1/30/2017 PER NOTICE: MEMORANDUM
OPINION AND ORDER (Filed Under Seal). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson
on 06/30/2016. (TSS) Modified text on 1/30/2017 (kt). (Entered: 06/30/2016)
07/06/2016 E TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference and motion hearing held on June 28, 2016,
before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron. (93
pages). Court Reporter: Heather Schuetz (E-mail:
07/12/2016 554 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Oral ORDER rescheduling the time of the informal status
conference set for 7/14/2016; it will now begin at 11:00 AM in St. Paul. Signed by
Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 07/12/16. (MJC) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
07/13/2016 555 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 21 - Revised Schedule Regarding Issues Related to Class
Certification. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 07/12/2016. (SMD)
(Entered: 07/13/2016)
07/13/2016 556 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 3_81 Motion to Enforce Subpoena to the
Chubb Corporation. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
07/13/2016. (SMD) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
07/14/2016 557 Letter to District Judge (Filed Under Seal). (KMM) Doc. QC'd on 7/21/2016 (LPH).
(Entered: 07/14/2016)
Status Conference held on 7/14/2016. The Court agreed to change the time of the July
28, 2016 Formal Status Conference to 11:00 am. (SMD) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
07/15/2016 559 ORDER rescheduling the hearing on class certification to Thursday, April 20, 2017 at
9:30 a.m. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 07/15/16. (SMD) (Entered:
07/15/2016)
07/22/2016 566..0 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J Flannery on behalf of Greg Adams, Bradley
Aitken, Scott Bailey, Darren Banks, Bruce Bell, Curt Bennett, William Bennett, Rick
Berry, Barry Scott Bjugstad, Richard Brennan, Richard Brodeur, Keith Brown,
Lyndon Byers, Jack Carlson, Gene Carr, Tom Cassidy, Shawn Chambers, David
Christian, Cam Connor, Simon Danis-Pepin, Malcolm Davis, Jason Doig, Bobby
Dollas, Harold Druken, Richard Dunn, Joe Dziedzic, Todd Elik, Chris Ferraro, Ron
Flockhart, Michael Hartman, Todd Harvey, Jim Hofford, Warren Holmes, Tony
Horacek, Garry Howatt, Dave Hutchinson, Jean Francois Jomphe, Dan Keczmer,
Edward Kennedy, Dan LaCouture, Sasha Lakovic, Mike Lalor, Dennis Lang, Darren
Langdon, Cory Larose, Reed Larson, Gary Leeman, Steven Ludzik, Jamie Lundmark,
Robert Manno, Dennis Maruk, Brad Maxwell, Gary McAdam, Sergio Momesso, Paul
Montador, Craig Muni,Don Murdoch, Robert Murdoch, Joe Murphy, Bernie
Nicholls, Krzysztof Oliwa, Jeff Parker, Scott Parker, Stephen Patrick, Steven Payne,
Michael Peluso, Michel Petit, Lance Pitlick, Michal Pivonka, Rudy Poeschek, Sasha
Populok, Deron Quint, Craig Redmond, Jon Rohloff, Allan Rourke, Terry Ruskowski,
Brian Savage, Cam Severson, Jeffrey Shevalier, Martin Simard, Frank Spring, Kevin
Stevens, Shayne Stevenson, Turner Stevenson, Blaine Stoughton, Greg Terrion,
Morris Titanic, Dennis Vaske, Kurt Walker, Todd Warriner, Vernon Westfall, Warren
"Butch"
Williams, Harry York, Tom Younghans. (Flannery, Michael) (Entered:
07/22/2016)
07/26/2016 E LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by National Hockey League concerning response to

letter from Senator Blumenthal (Dkt. 547-1). (Attachments: # 1 Response to Senator
Blumenthal from Commissioner Bettman)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
07/26/2016 E LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by IN RE: National Hockey League

Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-B)(Zimmerman,

07/26/2016 E NOTICE by National Hockey League Joint Proposed Agenda for July 28, 2016 Status
Conference (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
Players'
07/28/2016 MOTION to Add Class Representative by IN RE: National Hockey League
07/28/2016 W NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION MOTION to Add Class Representative :

at date and time to be determined. (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
07/28/2016 E MEMORANDUM in Support re E MOTION

Players'
to Add Class Representative filed by
(Entered: 07/28/2016)
07/28/2016 W Declaration of Charles S. Zimmerman in Supportof MOTION E

Players'
to Add Class
Representative filed
Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) - A and (Entered:
B)(Zimmerman, Charles)
07/28/2016)
07/28/2016 M MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re

Players'
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by
IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Zimmerman,
07/28/2016 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by IN RE: National Hockey

League
Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation re E MOTION to Add Class
Representative (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
Plaintifs'
07/28/2016 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney from Executive Committee
Players'
(Unopposed) by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation. (Levine, David) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
Plaintifs'
07/28/2016 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney from Executive Committee
(Unopposed) (Levine, David) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
07/28/2016 M CERTIFICATE
Players'
OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by IN RE: National Hockey
League Concussion Injury Litigation re MOTION to Withdraw as
Plaintiffs'
Attorney from Executive Committee (Unopposed) (Levine, David)
(Entered: 07/28/2016)
07/28/2016 M Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Status
07/28/2016)
07/28/2016 M ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion MOTION to Add Class Representative :

Motion Hearing set for 8/25/2016 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge
Susan Richard Nelson. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 07/28/2016. (SMD)
(Entered: 07/28/2016)
08/01/2016 m Supplemental Declaration of Charles S. Zimmerman in Support of EPlayers'

MOTION to
Add Class Representative filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
Concussion Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s)
B)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
08/01/2016 M Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron:
Telephone Conference held on 8/4/2016. Informal telephone conference to address a
dispute between plaintiffs and third-party Chubb Corporation regarding the scope of
redactions by Chubb of IMEs that Chubb had been ordered to produce. (KNK)
Modified on 8/30/2016 (KNK). (Entered: 08/04/2016)
08/02/2016 M TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on July 28, 2016, before Judge Susan
08/04/2016 5380 ORDER. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the disputes arising out of
the Order issued on July 13, 2016, are resolved as set forth above. Signed by
Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on 8/4/2016. (KNK) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
08/18/2016 5381 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE to Request Permission to Exceed Word/Line Limits
in connection with class certif ication brief ing. (Davidson, Stuart) Modified text on
8/18/2016 (kt). (Entered: 08/18/2016)
08/18/2016 5382 ORDER (Filed Under Seal). Signed by Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron on
08/18/2016. (TSS) DOCUMENT QC'd by KT on 8/24/16. (kt) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
08/18/2016 5383 LETTER RESPONSE of the NHL re 5B81 Letter to Request Permission to Exceed
Word/Line Limits. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
08/18/2016 5384 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 564 MOTION to Add Class Representative filed
by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count
08/18/2016 5385 EXHIBIT INDEX re 584 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Add Class
Representative (Index) by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)
1)(Connolly, Daniel) Modified on 8/22/2016 (kt). (Entered: 08/18/2016)
Plaintiffs'
08/19/2016 5386 ORDER re 5881 Letter to Request Permission to Exceed Word/Line Limits
filed by Gary Leeman, David Christian, Reed Larson, Dan LaCouture (Written
Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 08/19/16. (MJC) (Entered:
08/19/2016)
Plaintiffs'
08/23/2016 5382 MOTION for Leave to File Reply/Surreply by Executive Committee.
(Klobucar, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
08/23/2016 5388 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 5882 Motion for Leave to File Reply/Surreply
Plaintiffs'
filed by Executive Committee. (Klobucar, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
Plaintiffs'
08/23/2016 5389 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by Executive
Committee re 5382 MOTION for Leave to File Reply/Surreply (Klobucar, Jeffrey)
(Entered: 08/23/2016)
08/24/2016 520 ORDER REGARDING SERVICE OF PROCESS. This document relates to: Veitch,
et al. v. National Hockey League, et al., No. 16-cv-2683 (SRN/JSM). Signed by
08/24/2016)
08/24/2016 591 ORDER granting 5882 Motion for Leave to File Reply/Surreply. Signed by Judge
08/24/2016 522 REPLY re 584 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, 564 MOTION to Add Class
Players'
08/24/2016 593 Declaration of Steven D. Silverman in Support of 522 Reply, filed by IN RE: National
Players'
Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)
A)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
08/24/2016 524 Declaration of Thomas J. Byrne in Support of 522 Reply, filed by IN RE: National
Players'
Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Zimmerman, Charles)
(Entered: 08/24/2016)
08/25/2016 525 Declaration of William Sinclair in Support of 564 MOTION to Add Class
Players'
Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Exhibits 1-2)(Zimmerman, Charles)
Sealed document received on 8/25/2016 (SAE). Modified on 8/29/2016 (kt). (Entered:

08/25/2016)
Players'
08/25/2016 526 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by IN RE: National Hockey League
Concussion Injury Litigation re 525 Declaration in Support, (Zimmerman, Charles)
(Entered: 08/25/2016)
Hearing held on 8/25/2016 re 564 MOTION to Add Class Representative filed by IN
Players'
RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. The motion was
submitted, argued, and taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Tim Willette) (SMD)
(Entered: 08/25/2016)
09/01/2016 528 APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Judge re

582 Order on Motion to Compel (Renz, Christopher) Sealed document received on
9/02/2016 (JGK). (Entered: 09/01/2016)
with it. (TJW) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
Plaintiffs'
09/01/2016 6_Q0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Executive Committee re 528
582 Order on Motion to Compel Under Seal (Renz, Christopher) (Entered:
09/01/2016)
09/01/2016 6_Q1 NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated
with it. (TJW) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
Plaintiffs'
09/01/2016 6_Q2 TRANSCRIPT of Hearing on Motion to Add Class Representative [Docket
No. 564] held
on August 25, 2016 before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (47 pages).
Court Reporter: Tim Willette (E-mail: Tim_Willette@mnd.uscourts.gov / Telephone:
for 10/3/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/30/2016. For information
on redaction procedures, please review Local Rule 5.5. (TJW) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
09/07/2016 6_Q3 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Informal
09/08/2016 6_Q4 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 22 - Second Revised Schedule Regarding Issues Related to
Class Certification. See Order for revised deadlines and hearing date. Signed by Judge
09/08/2016 6_Q5 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER No. 22 - Second Revised Schedule Regarding
Issues Related to Class Certification (Amended to correct hearing date). Signed by
09/15/2016 6_Q6 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 528 APPEAL/OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE

JUDGE DECISION to District Judge re 582 Order on Motion to Compel ()iled under
seal) filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count
Compliance Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) Sealed document received on 9/15/2016
(SAE). (Entered: 09/15/2016)
09/15/2016 6_Q7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Hockey League re 606 Memorandum in

Opposition to Motion, (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 09/15/2016)
09/19/2016 6_Q8 ORDER Rescheduling Formal Status Conference. Signed by Judge Susan Richard
10/10/2016 6_Q2 NOTICE by National Hockey League JointProposed Agenda for the October 12,
2016 Status Conference (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 10/10/2016)
10/12/2016 6_1.Q Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate
Heather Schuetz) (SMD) Modified text on 10/12/2016 (KMM). (Entered: 10/12/2016)
10/13/2016 6_1.1 NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated
10/13/2016 6_12 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on October 12, 2016, before Judge Susan
for 11/14/2016. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/11/2017. For information
on redaction procedures, please review Local Rule 5.5. (HAS) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
Plaintiffs'
10/14/2016 6_13 ORDER granting 5664 Motion to Add a Class Representative. (Written
Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/14/2016. (SMD) (Entered:
10/14/2016)
10/17/2016 6_14 ORDER re (7 in 0:16-cv-03156-SRN-JSM) Stipulation Regarding Service of

Process. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/14/2016. Associated Cases:
10/17/2016)
Plaintiffs'
10/17/2016 6_15 AMENDED COMPLAINT Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint against National Hockey League. Filed by IN RE: National Hockey
Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation. No summons requested. (Zimmerman,
10/19/2016 6_16 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 23: Revising Status Conference Schedule. Signed by Judge
10/26/2016 6_17 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 24: 2017 Status Conference Schedule. Signed by Judge
10/28/2016 6_18 ORDER (Document Sealed). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/28/16.
(kt) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
11/03/2016 6_12 STIPULATION re 615 Amended Complaint, for Extension of Time to Answer
Plaintifs'
Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint by National
Hockey League. Jointly Signed by Plaintiffs. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
11/03/2016)

Plaintiffs'
re 619 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer Second Amended
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
Plaintiffs'
11/03/2016 6_21 ORDER re 6.19 Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Signed by Judge Susan Richard
11/11/2016 6_22 NOTICE by National Hockey League Joint Proposed Agenda for the November 15,
2016 Formal Status Conference (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 11/11/2016)
Conference held on 11/15/2016. Formal Status Conference Held. The January 31,
2017 informal status conference is canceled, and instead an informal status conference
will take place on Thursday, January 26, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. (Court Reporter Heather
Plaintiffs'
11/22/2016 6_24 MOTION to Compel Confidentiality De-Designation by the NHL by
11/22/2016 6_25 MEMORANDUM in Support re 624 MOTION to Compel Conf identiality

Plaintiffs'
De-Designation by the NHL filed by Executive Committee. (Attachments:
# 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Cashman, Michael) (Entered:
11/22/2016)
11/22/2016 626 AFFIDAVIT of Michael R. Cashman in SUPPORT OF 624 MOTION to Compel

Plaintiffs'
Conf identiality De-Designation by the NHL PLACEHOLDER liled by
Executive Committee. (Cashman, Michael) Sealed document received on 11/23/2016
(JGK). (Entered: 11/22/2016)
Plaintiffs'
11/22/2016 6_27 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 624 Motion to Compel filed by
Plaintiffs'
11/22/2016 6_28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Executive Committee re 626 Affidavit in
Support of Motion to Compel Conf dentiality De-Designation by the NHL (Cashman,
Plaintiffs'
Committee re 6_24 MOTION to Compel Conf dentiality De-Designation by the NHL
11/28/2016 632 NOTICE by National Hockey League Joint Proposed Agenda for the November 29,
Conference held on 11/29/2016. Formal Status Conference held. (Court Reporter
Plaintifs'
12/01/2016 6_34 ANSWER to Amended Complaint Second Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
12/01/2016)
12/06/2016 635 ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFF

DERON QU1NT ONLY. This document relates to: Oliwa, et al. v. National Hockey
League, File 15-cv-3904. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 12/05/2016.
(Entered: 12/06/2016)
12/08/2016 6_33 MOTION to Certify Class and MOTION for Appointment of Class Representatives
Players'
and Class Counsel by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation. (Zimmerman, Charles). Added MOTION on 12/9/2016 (kt). (Entered:
12/08/2016)
12/08/2016 6_39 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 638 MOTION to Certify Class and for
Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel : Motion Hearing set for
7/11/2017 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson.
(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 12/08/2016)
12/08/2016 6_40 MEMORANDUM in Support re 638 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment
of Class Representatives and Class Counsel (REDACTED) filed
by IN RE: National
Players'
Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder
for Memorandum, # 2 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Zimmerman, Charles) Sealed document received on 12/8/2016 (SAE).
(Entered: 12/08/2016)
12/08/2016 6_41 Declaration of Charles S. Zimmerman in Support of 633 MOTION to Certify Class
and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel filed by IN RE:
Players'
National Hockey League Concussion
Injury Litigation. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) 1, 3-4,7-9, 12-21, and 24-25, # 2 Exhibit(s) 26, # 3 Exhibit(s) 27, # 4
Exhibit(s) 28-37, and 40, # 5 Exhibit(s) 42, # 6 Exhibit(s) 44-45, 48-49, 51-54,
56-59, 62-68, and 70, # 7 Exhibit(s) 71, 73-77, 79, 82, 85, 87, 89-90, and 92,#8
Exhibit(s) 93, 95-105, and 108, # 2 Exhibit(s) 109, 111, and 113-114, # 10 Exhibit(s)
115, # 11 Exhibit(s) 118-122, # 12 Exhibit(s) 126-127, 129-130, 136-137, 139-142,
and 149-150, # la Placeholder for Exhibits 2, 5-6, 10-11, 22-23, 38-39, 41, 43,
46-47, 50, 55, 60-61, 69, 72, 78, 80-81, 83-84, 86, 88, 91, 94, 106-107, 110, 112,
116-117, 123-125, 128, 131-135, 138, and 143-148)(Zimmerman, Charles) Sealed
document received on 12/8/2016 (SAE). (Entered: 12/08/2016)
12/08/2016 6_42 Declaration of Dr. Dawn R. Comstock with Exhibits 1-2 in Support of MOTION
to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel
Players'
filed by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation.
(Zimmerman, Charles) Modified on 12/9/2016 (kt). (Entered: 12/08/2016)
12/08/2016 6.43 Declaration of D'Arcy Jenish with Exhibits 1-2 in Support of MOTION to
Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel filed
Players'
(Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Declaration)(Zimmerman, Charles) Sealed
document received on 12/8/2016 (SAE). Modified text on 12/9/2016 (kt). (Entered:
12/08/2016)
12/08/2016 6_44 Declaration of Stephen T. Casper with Exhibits A-D in Support of MOTION to
Players'
(Zimmerman, Charles) Modified text on 12/9/2016 (kt). (Entered: 12/08/2016)
12/08/2016 6_45 Declaration of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki with Exhibits 1-3 in Support of
MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class
Players'
Counsel filed by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion
Injury
Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Declaration)(Zimmerman, Charles)
Sealed document received on 12/8/2016 (SAE). Modified text on 12/9/2016 (kt).
(Entered: 12/08/2016)
12/08/2016 6_46 Declaration of Robert C. Cantu with Exhibits 1-3 in Support of 638 MOTION to
Players'
(Attachments: # 1 Placeholder for Declaration)(Zimmerman, Charles) Sealed
document received on 12/8/2016 (SAE). Modified text on 12/9/2016 (kt). (Entered:
12/08/2016)
12/08/2016 642 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 638 Motion to Certify Class filed by IN RE:
Players'
National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Zimmerman,
12/08/2016 6.48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by IN RE: National Hockey

Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation re 638 MOTION to Certify Class and
for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel (Zimmerman, Charles)
(Entered: 12/08/2016)
Players'
12/08/2016 6_42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
by IN RE: National Hockey League
Concussion Injury Litigation re 645 Declaration in Support, 641 Declaration in
Support,,, 640 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 646 Declaration in Support, 643
Declaration in Support, of Conventionally Filed/Sealed Documents (Zimmerman,
status conference held via teleconference on 12/14/2016. (SMD) (Entered:
12/14/2016)
12/15/2016 651 Supplemental AFFIDAVIT of Michael R. Cashman in SUPPORT OF 6_24 MOTION

Plaintiffs'
to Compel Conf dentiality De-Designation by the NHL filed by Executive
Committee. (Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 12/15/2016)
12/16/2016 652 MEMORANDUM in Opposition

re 624 MOTION to Compel Conf dentiality
De-Designation by the NHL Placeholder for Memorandum filed by National Hockey
Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) Sealed document received on 12/19/2016 (SAE).
(Entered: 12/16/2016)
12/16/2016 6_53 DECLARATION of William L. Daly in Opposition to 624 MOTION to Compel

Conf identiality De-Designation by the NHL filed by National Hockey League.
(Connolly, Daniel) Sealed document received on 12/19/2016 (SAE). (Entered:
12/16/2016)
12/19/2016 6_54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Hockey League re 652 Memorandum in

Opposition to Motion, 6_53 Declaration in Opposition (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
12/19/2016)
12/20/2016 655 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: The NHL's letter request for a telephonic conference with the
Court is denied. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in good faith about the
issue raised by the NHL in its December 16, 2016 letter to the Court. At the January
12, 2017 status conference, the parties shall be prepared to report to the Court about
their efforts to resolve this issue. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 12/20/16.
(MJC) (Entered: 12/20/2016)
12/28/2016 656 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER. The Court has received an email request to extend
plaintiffs'
the deadline for filing the reply memorandum in support of their Motion to
Compel Confidentiality De-Designation [Doc. No. 624]. The request is GRANTED.
Accordingly, the reply memorandum shall be filed on or before December 30, 2016.
12/30/2016 6_57 RESPONSE in Support re 624 MOTION to Compel Conf identiality De-Designation
Plaintiffs'
by the NHL (redacted) filedby Executive Committee. (Attachments: # 1
Plaintiffs'
Placeholder for Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel
Confidentiality De-Designation by the NHL, # 2 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count
12/30/2016 6_58 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of Michael R. Cashman in SUPPORT OF

624MOTION to Compel Confidentiality De-Designation by the NHL (Second
Plaintiffs'
Supplemental) filed by Executive Committee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s)
A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B)(Cashman, Michael) Modified on 1/3/2017 (kt). (Entered:
12/30/2016)
Plaintiffs'
12/30/2016 6_59 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Executive Committee re 652 Response in
Support of Motion, to Compel Conf identiality De-Designation by the NHL
01/10/2017 6_60 NOTICE by National Hockey League Joint Proposed Agenda and Discovery Status
Report for the January 12, 2017 Formal Status Conference (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 01/10/2017)
Plaintiffs'
01/11/2017 6_61 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Executive Committee for an Expedited
14-Day Transcript to Court Reporter Heather Schuetz. (Gudmundson, Brian)
(Entered: 01/11/2017)
01/11/2017 662 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by National Hockey League for an Expedited 14-Day
Transcript to Court Reporter Heather Schueiz. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
01/11/2017)
01/12/2017 6_63 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Formal Status
01/12/2017)
01/12/2017 664 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER

canceling status conference. As discussed on the
record at today's formal status
conference, the status conference previously set for
January 26, 2017 is CANCELED. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
01/12/2017. (SMD) (Entered: 01/12/2017)
Plaintiffs'
01/19/2017 665 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Executive Committee . (Zimmerman,
01/19/2017 666 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents from the Boston University CTE
Center by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
01/19/2017 6_67 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 666 MOTION to Compel Production of

Documents from the Boston University CTE Center : Motion Hearing set for
2/17/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson.
01/19/2017 6_68 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 666 Motion to Compel filed by National
01/19/2017 6_62 MEMORANDUM in Support re 666 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents

from the Boston University CTE Center filed by National Hockey League.
01/19/2017 6_20 Declaration of Daniel J. Connolly in Support of 666 MOTION to Compel Production
of Documents from the Boston University CTE Center filed by National Hockey
League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C, # 4
Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Exhibit(s) E)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
01/19/2017 6_21 Declaration of Rudy Castellani, MD in Support of 666 MOTION to Compel

Production of Documents from the Boston University CTE Center filed by National

re 666 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents from the Boston University
CTE Center (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 01/19/2017)
01/20/2017 673 CHANGE for 6_62 Transcript Request: Request ASCII/Text in addition to PDF as part
of Standing Order by National Hockey League to Court Reporter Heather Schuetz.
01/27/2017 6_24 Declaration of Daniel J. Connolly in Support re 666 MOTION to Compel filed by
National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A)(Connolly, Daniel)
Chambers'
01/30/2017 Notice to Clerk's Office to UNSEAL Document: 550 Order on Motion to
Quash, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief (SMD) (Entered: 01/30/2017)
01/30/2017 625 Motion for Special Permission to Appear Before US District Court by Lawrence
Elswit on behalf of Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center. (Elswit, Lawrence)
01/31/2017 6_22 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on January 12, 2017, before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson. (27 pages). Court Reporter: Heather Schueiz. For a copy of the
transcript, please file a Transcript Request under Other Filings/Other Documents.
For information on redaction procedures, please review Local Rule 5.5. Redaction
Transcript Restriction set for 5/1/2017. (HAS) (Entered: 01/31/2017)
02/03/2017 6_28 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by National Hockey League Regarding Expert
Discovery. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 02/03/2017)
Plaintiffs'
02/06/2017 6_22 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Executive Committee . (Gudmundson,
02/06/2017 6_80 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 666 MOTION to Compel Production of

Documents from the Boston University CTE Center filed by Trustees of Boston
University/CTE Center. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Elswit, Lawrence) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
02/06/2017 6_81 DECLARATION of Lawrence S. Elswit MOTION

re 666 to Compel by Trustees of
Boston University/CTE Center . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3
Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 2 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit
8)(Elswit, Lawrence) Modified on 2/7/2017 (kt). Modified text on 2/7/2017 (kt).
(Entered: 02/06/2017)
02/06/2017 6_82 AFFIDAVIT of Ann McKee re 666 MOTION to Compel by Trustees of Boston
University/CTE Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B)(Elswit,
Lawrence) Modified text on 2/7/2017 (kt). (Entered: 02/06/2017)
02/06/2017 6_83 AFFIDAVIT of Robert A. Stern re ]666] MOTION to Compel by Trustees of Boston
University/CTE Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Elswit, Lawrence) Modified
text and link on 2/7/2017 (kt). (Entered: 02/06/2017)
02/06/2017 6_84 AFFIDAVIT of Nigel Cairns re 6_66 MOTION to Compel by Trustees of Boston
University/CTE Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Elswit, Lawrence) Modified
text and link on 2/7/2017 (kt). (Entered: 02/06/2017)
02/06/2017 685 AFFIDAVIT of Ronald Petersen re 666 MOTION to Compel by Trustees of Boston
University/CTE Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Elswit, Lawrence) Modified
text on 2/7/2017 (kt). (Entered: 02/06/2017)
02/06/2017 686 FILED IN ERROR: TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Notice re: Non-Admitted Attorney
We have received documents

listing Kristin L. Bittinger as counsel of record. If he
or she wishes to be listed
as an attorney of record in this case, he or she must be
admitted to the bar of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota in accordance with Local
Rule 83.5 (a). (b) and (c) or temporarily admitted pro hac vice in accordance with
Local Rule 83.5 (d) or (e).
For more admissions information and forms, please see the Attorney Forms Section of
the courts website at
href-http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/FORMS/court_forms.shtml#attorneyforms. (kt)
02/06/2017 NOTICE OF DOCKETING CORRECTION for 686 Notice re: Non-Admitted

Attorney: Filed in error. (kt) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
02/06/2017 6_87 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by National Hockey League . (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit(s) 1)(Svitak, Linda) (Entered: 02/06/2017)
02/08/2017 6_8.8 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 666 MOTION to Compel Production of

Documents from the Boston University CTE Center and in Support of Trustees of
Plaintiffs'
Boston University's Opposition 20 filed by Executive Committee.
(Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Zimmerman,
02/08/2017 6_89 Declaration of Charles S. Zimmerman in Opposition re 666 MOTION to Compel filed
Plaintiffs'
by Executive Committee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s)
B)(Zimmerman, Charles) Modified text and link on 2/9/2017 (kt). (Entered:
02/08/2017)
02/10/2017 6_20 LETTER to Request Permission to Exceed Word/Line Limits . (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 02/10/2017)
02/10/2017 691 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: granting Defendant's letter request [Doc. No. 690] to exceed
the word limit for briefing on its Motion to Compel Production of Documents from
the Boston University CTE Center. Defendant is granted an additional 1,000 words to
respond to the filings. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 02/10/17. (MJC)
(Entered: 02/10/2017)
02/13/2017 6_22 Reply to Response to Motion re 666 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents
from the Boston University CTE Center filed by National Hockey League.
Daniel) Sealed document received on 2/14/2017 (SAE). (Entered: 02/13/2017)
02/13/2017 6-23 Declaration of Daniel

J. Connolly re 666 MOTION to Compel filed by National
Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Placeholder for
Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit(s) D, # 5 Placeholder for Exhibit E)(Connolly, Daniel)
Modified text and link on 2/14/2017 (kt). Sealed documents received on 2/14/2017
(SAE). (Entered: 02/13/2017)
02/13/2017 6_24 Reply to Response to Motion re 666 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents
from the Boston University CTE Center [Redacted Version] filed by National Hockey
02/13/2017 6_95 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Hockey League re Declaration in

Support, 692 Reply to Response to Motion, (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
02/14/2017 6_9fi MOTION to Strike Pleading Declaration in Support, Exhibit A (693-1) and
Plaintiffs'
Exhibit D (693-4) by Executive Committee. (Zimmerman, Charles)
(Entered: 02/14/2017)
02/14/2017 6_93 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 696 Motion to Strike Pleading filed by
Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee. (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
Plaintiffs'
Committee re 6_96 MOTION to Strike Pleading 693 Declaration in Support, Exhibit A
(693-1) and Exhibit D (693-4) (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 02/14/2017)
02/15/2017 6_92 NOTICE by National Hockey League Joint Proposed Agenda for the February 17,
02/15/2017 7_Q0 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 626 MOTION to Strike Pleading 693 Declaration
in Support, Exhibit A (693-1) and Exhibit D (693-4) filed by National Hockey
Plaintiffs'
Hearing held on 2/17/2017 MOTION
re 696 to Strike Pleading filed
by
Executive Committee, and 666 MOTION to Compel Production of Documents from
the Boston University CTE Center filed by National Hockey League. The motions
were submitted, argued, and taken under advisement. Formal status conference held.
(Court Reporter Lori Simpson) (SMD) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
02/18/2017 201 REAL-TIME OR DAILY TRANSCRIPT SERVICES REQUEST by National

Hockey League to Court Reporter Contract Court Reporter. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 02/18/2017)
02/21/2017 702 CHANGE for 201 Transcript Request: Delivery method changed to real-time
transcript and 7-day delivery for final transcript. (LAS) (Entered: 02/21/2017)
02/21/2017 203 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center for a

COPY OF TRANSCRIPT to Court Reporter Lori Simpson. (Elswit, Lawrence)
(Entered: 02/21/2017)
02/21/2017 7_Q4 ORDER denying Defendant's Letter Request [Doc. No. 678] to compel the production
of an annotated bibliography compiled by Plaintiff's expert, Dr. Stephen Casper
(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 02/21/17. (MJC)
(Entered: 02/21/2017)
02/22/2017 206 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Telephone
Conference held on 2/22/2017 re: Deposition of Dr. Casper. See Minutes for details.
(Court Reporter Lori Simpson) (SMD) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
02/22/2017 202 AMENDED Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson:
Motion Hearing held on 2/17/2017 re 696 MOTION to Strike Pleading filed by
Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee, and 666 MOTION to Compel Production of
Documents from the Boston University CTE Center filed by National Hockey
League. The motions were submitted, argued, and taken under advisement. Formal
status conference held. (Court Reporter Lori Simpson) (SMD) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
02/22/2017 7_Q8 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Telephone
Conference held on 2/22/2017 re: the deposition of Dr. Cantu. See minutes for details.
(Court Reporter Jeanne Anderson) (SMD) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
02/23/2017 202 REAL-TIME OR DAILY TRANSCRIPT SERVICES REQUEST by National

Hockey League to Court Reporter Lori Simpson. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
02/23/2017)

- Revising the 2017 Status Conference Schedule.
02/24/2017 Ill NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated
02/24/2017 M TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing and Formal Status Conference held on

02/17/2017 before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (71 pages). Court Reporter: Lori
Simpson. For a copy of the transcript, please file a Transcript Request under Other
Filings/Other Documents.
Transcript Restriction set for 5/25/2017. (LAS) (Entered: 02/24/2017)
with it. (JMA) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
02/27/2017 7_M TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Status Conference held on 02/22/2017 at 5:02 p.m.
before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (13 pages). Court Reporter: Jeanne Anderson.
For a copy of the transcript, please file a Transcript Request under Other
Filings/Other Documents.
Transcript Restriction set for 5/30/2017. (JMA) (Entered: 02/27/2017)
02/28/2017 716 TRANSCRIPT of Teleconference held on 02/22/2017 before Judge Susan Richard
Nelson. (15 pages). Court Reporter: Lori Simpson. For a copy of the transcript, please
file a Transcript Request under Other Filings/Other Documents.
Transcript Restriction set for 5/30/2017. (LAS) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
03/02/2017 M Supplemental AFFIDAVIT re MOTION to Compel submitted by Ann C. McKee,

M.D. (Elswit, Lawrence) Modified text and link on 3/3/2017 (kt). (Entered:
03/02/2017)
03/16/2017 M UNSEALED PER NOTICE TO CLERK'S OFFICE ON 3/27/17: ORDER. Signed by

Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 03/16/2017. (SMD) Modified text on 3/28/2017 (kt).
(Entered: 03/16/2017)
03/17/2017 M SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Compel

Production of Documents from the Boston University CTE Center
[SUPPLEMENTAL] filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) Modified on
3/17/2017 (kt). (Entered: 03/17/2017)
03/17/2017 7_20 Declaration of Daniel J. Connolly in Support of MOTION to Compel Production

of Documents from the Boston University CTE Center filed by National Hockey
League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A, # 2 Exhibit(s) B, # 3 Exhibit(s) C)(Connolly,
03/20/2017 M LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center.

(Elswit, Lawrence) Modified text on 3/20/2017 (kt). (Entered: 03/20/2017)
03/21/2017 722 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER GRANTING the letter request of Boston University
CTE Center [Doc. No.
721] for permission to file a response to the NHL's
Supplemental Memorandum in support of its Motion to Compel. The response may be
filed on or before April 7, 2017. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 03/21/17.
(SMD) (Entered: 03/21/2017)
03/27/2017
Chambers'
Notice to Clerk's Office to UNSEAL Document: M Order on Motion to
Compel (SMD) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
03/28/2017 M Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Informal
04/03/2017 m Second Declaration of Charles S. Zimmerman in Support of MOTION to Certify

Class and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel filed by
Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 10-11, 23, 34, 38-39,
43, # 2 Exhibit(s) 46-47, 55, 60-61, 69, 72, # 3 Exhibit(s) 78, 110, 112, 123-125,
128, 132-135, 138)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 04/03/2017)
04/03/2017 224 PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 26: Revising the 2017 Status Conference Schedule:
Changes to the April - June
2017 status conference schedule. Signed by Judge Susan
04/07/2017 226 RESPONSE re 666 MOTION to Compel filed by Trustees of Boston University/CTE
Center. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Elswit, Lawrence) Modified text and link on 4/7/2017 (kt). (Entered:
04/07/2017)
04/07/2017 222 DECLARATION of Lawrence S. Elswit re 666 MOTION to Compel by Trustees of

Boston University/CTE Center. (Attachments: # 1 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR:
REFILE SEPARATELY Exhibit(s))(Elswit, Lawrence) Modified text and link on
4/7/2017 (kt). (Entered: 04/07/2017)
04/07/2017 228 Second Supplemental Affidavit of Ann C. McKee, M.D. in Opposition re 666
MOTION to Compel by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center. (Elswit,
04/25/2017 222 ORDER of Reassignment of Related Cases that 17-cv-1299 DSD/HB has been
reassigned to Judge Susan Richard Nelson. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
4/24/17 and by Judge David S. Doty on 4/25/17. (kt) (Entered: 04/25/2017)
04/26/2017 23_Q LETTER TI DISTRICT JUDGE/STATUS REPORT by Trustees of Boston

University/CTE Center. (Elswit, Lawrence) Modified text on 4/26/2017 (kt).
(Entered: 04/26/2017)
04/26/2017 231 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 6_66 Defendant's Motion to Compel;
Plaintiffs'
denying 626 Motion to Strike Pleading (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge
Susan Richard Nelson on 04/26/17. (MJC) (Entered: 04/26/2017)
04/27/2017 232 DECLARATION of John H. Beisner in Opposition to 638 MOTION to Certify Class
and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel filed by National
Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) A-Brenner Declaration, # 2 Exhibit(s)
B-Cassidy Declaration, # a Exhibit(s) F-Funk Declaration, # 4 Exhibit(s)
G-Guskiewicz Declaration, # 5 Exhibit(s) I-Iverson Declaration, # 6 Exhibit(s)
J-Kwon Declaration, # 2 Exhibit(s) K-McCrory Declaration, # 8 Exhibit(s)
L-McKeag Declaration, # 2 Exhibit(s) M-Neale Declaration, # 10 Exhibit(s)
Q-Panzer Declaration, # 11 Exhibit(s) R-Randolph Declaration)(Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 233 SEALED EXHIBIT C-Castellani Declaration attached to Beisner Decl re 232
Declaration in Opposition,, filed by NHL.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 234 Redacted Document for 233 Exhibit C - Castellani Declaration attached to Beisner
Decl filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 235 SEALED EXHIBIT D - Finkel Supp Decl attached to Beisner Decl re 232
04/27/2017 236 Redacted Document for 235 Exhibit D - Finkel Suppl Decl attached to Beisner Decl
filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
Plaintiffs'
04/27/2017 232 SEALED EXHIBIT E - Finkel Reports attached to Beisner Decl re 232
04/27/2017 238 SEALED EXHIBIT H - Hazarati Declaration attached to Beisner Decl re 232
04/27/2017 232 Redacted Document for 238 Exhibit H - Hazarati Declaration attached to Beisner
- Norman Plaintiffs'
04/27/2017 240 SEALED EXHIBIT N Reports attached to Beisner Decl re 232
04/27/2017 M SEALED EXHIBIT O - Olanow Suppl Declaration attached to Beisner Decl re 232
04/27/2017 242 Redacted Document for 741 Exhibit O - Olanow Suppl Declaration attached to
Beisner Decl filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
04/27/2017)
Plaintiffs'
04/27/2017 243 SEALED EXHIBIT P - Olanow Report attached to Beisner Decl re 232
04/27/2017 244 SEALED EXHIBIT S - Sala Declaration attached to Beisner Decl re 232 Declaration
in Opposition,, filed by NHL.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 245 Redacted Document for 244 Exhibit S - Sala Declaration attached to Beisner Decl
04/27/2017 246 SEALED EXHIBIT T - Schneider Declaration attached to Beisner Decl re 232
04/27/2017 7_42 Redacted Document for 246 Exhibit T - Schneider Declaration attached to Beisner
SEALED EXHIBIT U - Yaffe Declaration

04/27/2017 248 attached to Beisner Decl re 232
Redacted Document for Exhibit U - Yaffe Declaration

04/27/2017 7_42 748 attached to Beisner Decl
04/27/2017 255..0 STATEMENT INSTEAD OF REDACTED DOCUMENT: Entire Document

Confidential for 7_40 , 232 , 243 Sealed Exhibits E, N, and P to the Declaration of
John H. Beisner filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 251 DECLARATION of William L. Daly in Opposition to 638 MOTION to Certify Class
and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Counsel filed by National
Class
Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1-Current Collective Bargaining, # 2
Exhibit(s) 2-Compendium of Excerpts 1975-1991, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3-NHL1331508, #
4 Exhibit(s) 4-NHLO221579, # 5 Exhibit(s) 5-NHL2183891, # 6 Exhibit(s)
6-NHLO217045, # 2 Exhibit(s) 7-NHL2189741,8-NHL0136529, # 8 Exhibit(s) # 2
Exhibit(s) 9-NHL0581018, # 10 Exhibit(s) 10-NHLO218800, # 11 Exhibit(s)
11-NHL0117893, # 12 Exhibit(s) 12-Compendium of Pre-Season Memos, # la
Exhibit(s) 13-NHL2184505, # 14 Exhibit(s) 14-NHL2078259, # 15 Exhibit(s)
15-NHLO217544, # 16 Exhibit(s) 16-NHL0120323, # 12 Exhibit(s)
17-NHL2328476, # 18 Exhibit(s) 18-NHLO513877, # 12 Exhibit(s)
19-NHL0545527, # 20 Exhibit(s) 20-NHL2174852, # 21 Exhibit(s)
63-NHL2044348, # 64 Exhibit(s) 64-NHL0524156, # 65 Exhibit(s) 65-2015-16
Protocol, # 66 Exhibit(s) 66-2016-17 Concussion Protocol, # 62 Exhibit(s)

69-NHLO217631, # 20 Exhibit(s) 70-NHLO218052, # 21 Exhibit(s) 71-File
Produced Natively, # 22 Exhibit(s) 72-File Produced Natively, # la Exhibit(s)
73-NHL2080601, # 24 Exhibit(s) 74-NHL Concussion Education Program Brochure
2016)(Price, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 252 SEALED EXHIBIT 75-Post Daly Releases attached to Declaration of William L.
Daly re 251 Declaration in Opposition filed by NHL.(Price, Joseph) Modified text on
4/28/2017 (kt). (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 253 SEALED EXHIBIT 76-Pre Daly Releases attached to Declaration of William L.
Daly re 251 Declaration in Opposition filed by NHL.(Price, Joseph) Modified text on
4/28/2017 (kt). (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 254 STATEMENT INSTEAD OF REDACTED DOCUMENT: Entire Document

Confidential for252 , 253 Sealed Exhibits 75 and 76 to the Declaration of William L.
Daly filed by National Hockey League.(Price, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 255 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of D½rcy Jenish filed by National Hockey
04/27/2017 256 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 255 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony
of D½rcy Jenish : Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2017 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7B
(STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 252 MEMORANDUM in Support re 255 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of

D½rcy Jenish filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2
04/27/2017 258 Declaration of Daniel J. Connolly in Support of 255 MOTION to Exclude Expert
Testimony of D½rcy Jenish filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # a Exhibit(s) 3)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 259 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 255 Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
04/27/2017 260 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 255 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of
D½rcy Jenish filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 E MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Stephen T. Casper, Ph.D. filed by National
Hockey League. (Price, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 262 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony

of Stephen T. Casper, Ph.D. : Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2017 09:30 AM in
Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Price, Joseph) (Entered:
04/27/2017)

Stephen T. Casper, Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Price, Joseph) (Entered:
04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 264 Declaration of Daniel

J. Connolly in Support of 261 MOTION to Exclude Expert
Testimony of Stephen T. Casper, Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # a Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5
Exhibit(s) 10, # 11 Exhibit(s) 11, # 12 Exhibit(s) 12, # la Exhibit(s) 13, # 14
Exhibit(s) 14, # 15 Exhibit(s) 15, # 16 Exhibit(s) 16, # 12 Exhibit(s) 17)(Price,
Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 265 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re M Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony
filed by National Hockey League.(Price, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 266 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of

Stephen T. Casper, Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League.(Price, Joseph) (Entered:
04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Robert C. Cantu, M.A., M.D., FACS,
FAANS, FICS, FACSM filed by National Hockey League. (Price, Joseph) (Entered:
04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 268 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony

of Robert C. Cantu, M.A., M.D., FACS, FAANS, FICS, FACSM: Motion Hearing set
for 7/11/2017 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson.
(Price, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 262 MEMORANDUM in Support re M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of

Robert C. Cantu, M.A., M.D., FACS, FAANS, FICS, FACSM filed by National
Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Price, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 7_20 Declaration of Daniel J. Connolly in Support of 267 MOTION to Exclude Expert
Testimony of Robert C. Cantu, M.A., M.D., FACS, FAANS, FICS, FACSM filed by
National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 2, # 2 Exhibit(s) 3, # 3
Exhibit(s) 4, # 4 Exhibit(s) 5, # 5 Exhibit(s) 6, # 6 Exhibit(s) 7)(Price, Joseph)
(Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 Ill SEALED EXHIBIT 1 attached to 7_20 Declaration of Daniel J. Connolly ISO NHL's
Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Robert C. Cantu filed by NHL.(Price, Joseph)
04/27/2017 M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of R. Dawn Comstock Ph.D. filed by

04/27/2017 223 Redacted Document for 221 Exhibit 1 attached to Declaration of Daniel J. Connolly
ISO NHL's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Robert C. Cantu filed by National
Hockey League.(Price, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 7_24 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony

of R. Dawn Comstock, Ph.D. : Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2017 09:30 AM in
(Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 M MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re M Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony

filed by National Hockey League.(Price, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 7_26 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of

Robert C. Cantu, M.A., M.D., FACS, FAANS, FICS, FACSM filed by National
Hockey League.(Price, Joseph) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 M MEMORANDUM in Support re M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of R.

Dawn Comstock, Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 M Declaration of Daniel

J. Connolly in Support of MOTION M
to Exclude Expert
Testimony of R. Dawn Comstock Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2, # 3 Exhibit(s) 3, # 4 Exhibit(s) 4, # 5
Exhibit(s) 10, # 11 Exhibit(s) 11)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 2880 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of

R. Dawn Comstock, Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 2881 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D. filed by
04/27/2017 2882 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 2881 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony
of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D. : Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2017 09:30 AM in
(Entered: 04/27/2017)

Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 284 Declaration of Daniel

Testimony of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League.
Exhibit(s) 10, # 11 Exhibit(s) 11, # 12 Exhibit(s) 12, # la Exhibit(s) 13, # 14
Exhibit(s) 14, # 15 Exhibit(s) 15, # 16 Exhibit(s) 16, # 12 Exhibit(s) 17, # 18
04/27/2017 286 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 781 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of
Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 282 SEALED MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 638 MOTION to Certify Class and for
Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel filed by NHL.
04/27/2017 288 Redacted Document for 282 Class Certification Opposition Memorandum filed by
National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 282 DECLARATION of Daniel J. Connolly re 282 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion

by National Hockey League . (Attachments: 4, # 2 Exhibit(s)
# 1 Exhibit(s) 5, # a
Exhibit(s) 6, # 4 Exhibit(s) 7, # 5 Exhibit(s) 8, # 6 Exhibit(s)
9, # 2 Exhibit(s) 10, # 8
15, # la Exhibit(s) 16, # 14 Exhibit(s) 17, # 15 Exhibit(s) 18, # 16 Exhibit(s) 19, # 12
Exhibit(s) 75, # 46 Exhibit(s) 85)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 220 SEALED EXHIBIT 1 re 282 DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

NHL.(Connolly, Daniel) Modified text and link on 4/28/2017 (kt). (Entered:
04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 221 Redacted Document for 220 Exhibit 1 filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly,

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 E SEALED EXHIBIT 28 re E DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 7_9.8 SEALED EXHIBIT 29 re E DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 800 SEALED EXHIBIT 31 re E DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 8Q9 SEALED EXHIBIT 40 re E DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 8.10 SEALED EXHIBIT 64 re E DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

64.(Connolly, Daniel) Modified text and link on 4/28/2017 (kt). (Entered:
04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 ) SEALED EXHIBIT 65 re E DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 M SEALED EXHIBIT 66 re E DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

NHL.(Connolly, Daniel) Modified text and link on 4/28/2017 (kt). Modified text on
5/1/2017 (kt). (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 ) SEALED EXHIBIT 67 re E DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 M SEALED EXHIBIT 68 re M DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 SEALED EXHIBIT 70 re M DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 Redacted Document for M Exhibit 71 to Connolly Declaration filed by National

Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 Redacted Document for Exhibit 74 to Connolly Declaration filed by National

Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 E SEALED EXHIBIT 76 re M DECLARATION in Opposition to Motion filed by

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)

04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 E STATEMENT INSTEAD OF REDACTED DOCUMENT: Entire Document

Confidential for , M , M , M ,E,m,M, ,M,m ,
Statement of Confidentiality (Exhibits 2-3, 68-70, 72-73, 76-77, 83-84) filed by
National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 E STATEMENT INSTEAD OF REDACTED DOCUMENT: Entire Document

Confidential for M , M , 296 ,M,M,M,
, ,M,M,M,M,
,7_94,E, 7.9..8, E , 7_99 , M , M Statement of Confidentiality (Exhibits 23,
26-40, 64-67) filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
04/27/2017)
04/27/2017 B STATEMENT INSTEAD OF REDACTED DOCUMENT: Entire Document

Confidential for m ,M ,M ,m , Statement of Confidentiality (Exhibits
78-82) filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/27/2017)
05/04/2017 Q ORDER setting Teleconference set for 5/8/2017 at 11:00 AM before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson. Instructions for joining the conference have sent to counsel by email.
See Order for additional deadlines. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
05/04/2017. (SMD) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
05/05/2017 E LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by National Hockey League related to Court Order
(Dkt. 835). (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
05/05/2017 E LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by

Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee related to Court
Order (Dkt. 835). (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 05/05/2017)
05/08/2017 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center.

05/08/2017 THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT of Ann C. McKee, M.D. re B LETTER

TO DISTRICT JUDGE. (Elswit, Lawrence) Modified text on 5/8/2017 (kt). (Entered:
05/08/2017)
05/08/2017 M EXPEDITED DAILY TRANSCRIPT SERVICES REQUEST by National Hockey

League to Court Reporter Heather Schuetz. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 05/08/2017)
05/08/2017 M Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Telephone
05/09/2017)
05/09/2017 M TRANSCRIPT of Telephone Status Conference held on May 8, 2017, before Judge
Susan Richard Nelson. (34 pages). Court Reporter: Heather Schueiz. For a copy of the
05/09/2017 M TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for a COPY OF M Transcript(s) to Court Reporter

Heather Schuetz. (JGK) (Entered: 05/09/2017)
05/10/2017 M MOTION forAttorney Fees filed by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center.

(Elswit, Lawrence) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
05/10/2017 M MEMORANDUM in Support re M MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Trustees of

Boston University/CTE Center. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count
Compliance Certificate)(Elswit, Lawrence) (Entered: 05/10/2017)
05/10/2017 M AFFIDAVIT of Lawrence S. Elswit in SUPPORT OF M MOTION for Attorney

Fees filed by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center.(Elswit, Lawrence) (Entered:
05/10/2017)
05/10/2017 M AFFIDAVIT of Kristin L. Bittinger in SUPPORT OF M MOTION for Attorney

05/10/2017)
05/10/2017 M AFFDAVIT of Benjamin M. Greene in SUPPORT OF M MOTION for Attorney

05/10/2017)
05/10/2017 AFFDAVIT of Erika Geetter in SUPPORT OF MOTION for Attorney Fees filed
by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center.(Elswit, Lawrence) (Entered:
05/10/2017)
05/10/2017 E AFFDAVIT of Daryl J. Lapp in SUPPORT OF MOTION for Attorney Fees

filed by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center.(Elswit, Lawrence) (Entered:
05/10/2017)
05/10/2017 E AFFDAVIT of Scott J. Connolly in SUPPORT OF M MOTION for Attorney Fees

filed by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center.(Elswit, Lawrence) (Entered:
05/10/2017)
05/10/2017 E AFFDAVIT of Michael S. Gardener in SUPPORT OF M MOTION for Attorney

05/10/2017)
05/10/2017 CERTIFICATION re MOTION for Attorney Fees by Lawrence Elswit on behalf

of Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(Elswit,
05/10/2017 NOTICE by National Hockey League Joint Proposed Agenda and Discovery Status
Report for the May 12, 2017 Formal Status Conference (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
05/10/2017)
05/11/2017 ORDER of Reassignment of Related Cases. Case reassigned to Magistrate Judge

Becky R. Thorson for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron no
longer assigned to case. NOTE: the new case number is 14-md-2551 SRN/BRT.
Please use this case number for all subsequent pleadings. Signed by Judge Susan
Richard Nelson on 5/11/17. (kt) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
05/12/2017 E Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate
Judge Becky R. Thorson: Formal Status Conference held on 5/12/2017. (Court
05/12/2017 M EXPEDITED DAILY TRANSCRIPT SERVICES REQUEST by National Hockey

League to Court Reporter Heather Schuetz. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
05/15/2017 ORDER setting briefing schedule re M MOTION for Attorney Fees. Defendant's
Response due: May 25, 2017. Movant's Reply due: May 31, 2017. Signed by Judge
05/16/2017 NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated
05/16/2017 E TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on May 12, 2017, before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson and Magistrate JudgeBecky R. Thorson. (37 pages). Court Reporter:
Heather Schuetz. For a copy of the transcript, please file a Transcript Request under
Other Filings/Other Documents.
05/19/2017 M LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by National Hockey League . (Connolly, Daniel)

(Entered: 05/19/2017)
05/20/2017 E LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by National Hockey League . (Connolly, Daniel)

(Entered: 05/20/2017)
05/23/2017 864 TEXT ONLY ORDER: The Court adopts the amended briefing schedule for Boston
University's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expenses [Doc. No. ], M
as proposed in
the letter at Doc. No. . The NHL's response must be filed on or before June 5,
2017. Boston University must file its reply on or before June 16, 2017. Signed by
05/23/2017 865 TEXT ONLY ORDER: Canceling the Informal Status Conference scheduled for May
24, 2017. As requested by the parties in the letter at Doc. No. 863 , the informal status
conference scheduled for May 24, 2017 is canceled. Signed by Judge Susan Richard
05/23/2017 866 ORDER re (7 in 0:17-cv-01586-SRN-BRT) Stipulation, filed by Frederick Ahern,

Craig Norwich, Stewart Randall Holt, Perry Anderson, Scott Daniels, George Pesut,
Guillaume Latendresse, William Harris, Paul Andrea, Harvey Bennett, James
Krulicki, Christopher Simon. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 05/23/2017.
Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT, 0:17-cv-01586-SRN-BRT(SMD)
(Entered: 05/23/2017)
PRETRIAL ORDER No. - Schedule Motions. Signed

05/24/2017 862 27 Regarding by Judge Susan
05/25/2017 868 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center .

06/05/2017 862 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re B45 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by
06/05/2017 820 DECLARATION of Daniel J. Connolly in Opposition to B45 MOTION for Attorney
Fees filed
by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 01, # 2 Exhibit(s)
02, # 3 Exhibit(s) 03, # 4 Exhibit(s) 04, # 5 Exhibit(s) 05, # 6 Exhibit(s) 06, # 2
11, # 12 Exhibit(s) 12, # la Exhibit(s) 13, # 14 Exhibit(s) 14, # 15 Exhibit(s) 15, # 16
Exhibit(s) 28, # 22 Exhibit(s) 29, # 30 Exhibit(s) 30, # 31 Exhibit(s) 31)(Connolly,
06/09/2017 822 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Defendanes Experts for Purposes of
Plaintifs' Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification filed by Executive Committee.

Plaintiffs'
Defendanes Experts for Purposes of Motion for Class Certif ication filed by
Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count
06/09/2017 824 MOTION For Leave To File For Summary Judgment filed by National Hockey
06/09/2017 875 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 874 MOTION For Leave To File For
Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing set for 7/11/2017 09:30 AM in Courtroom 7B
(STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
06/09/2017 826 MEMORANDUM in Support re 824 MOTION For Leave To File For Summary
Judgment filed
by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word
06/09/2017 822 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 824 MOTION For Leave To File For Summary
Judgment filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
Attorneys'
06/16/2017 828 RESPONSE re 845 Motion for Award of Fees to Boston University filed by
Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word
Count Compliance Certificate)(Elswit, Lawrence) Modified text and link on
6/22/2017 (kt). (Entered: 06/16/2017)
06/23/2017 822 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center.

06/23/2017 880 TEXT ONLY ORDER: Based on an emailed joint request of counsel, the informal
pretrial conference scheduled for June 27, 2017 is cancelled. Signed by Judge Susan
06/30/2017 E MEMORANDUM in Opposition re E MOTION

Plaintiffs'
to Exclude Expert Testimony of
Defendanes Experts for Purposes of Motion for Class Certif ication filed by
Certificate)(Price, Joseph) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
06/30/2017 M PRETRIAL
Plaintiffs'
ORDER NO. 28
- Schedule Regarding
Plaintiffs'
the NHL's Daubert motions and
the Motion for Class Certification. responses to Daubert motions
due September 8, 2017; NHL's reply in support of Daubert motions due October 6,
Plaintiffs'
2017; reply in support of their motion for Class Certification due October 6,
2017. Ahearing on these motions will be held on Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at
9:30 am in Courtroom 7B [StP] before Judge Nelson. Signed by Judge Susan Richard
06/30/2017 M MEMORANDUM in Opposition

Plaintiffs'
re MOTION For Leave To File For Summary
Judgment filed by Executive Committee. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2
Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Raiter, Shawn) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
07/07/2017 8884 NOTICE by National Hockey League Joint Proposed Agenda for the July 11, 2017
Formal Status Conference (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
07/11/2017 M Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate
Judge Becky R. Thorson: Formal Status Conference and Motion Hearing held on
7/11/2017 re E
MOTION For Leave To File For Summary Judgment filed by
National Hockey League,
Plaintiffs'
MOTIONM to Exclude Expert Testimony of Defendanes
Plaintiffs'
Experts for Purposes of Motion for Class Certif ication filed by
Executive Committee. The motions were submitted, argued, and taken under
advisement. The informal status conference scheduled for July 25, 2017 is
CANCELED. (Court Reporter Heather Schuetz) (SMD) (Entered: 07/11/2017)
07/13/2017 E NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript. This filing has 1 transcript(s) associated
07/13/2017 M TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference and Motion Hearing held

on July 11, 2017,
before Judge Susan Richard Nelson and Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. (46
pages). Court Reporter: Heather Schuetz. For a copy of the transcript, please file a
Transcript Request under Other Filings/Other Documents.
07/19/2017 REPORT Letter to the Court by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center. (Elswit,
Lawrence) (Entered: 07/19/2017)
07/21/2017 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by National Hockey League Concerning Filing Due
Date of Any Expert Rebuttal Reports. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
07/24/2017 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice (874) Motion
for Leave to File for Summary Judgment in case 0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT
(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 07/24/2017. Associated
Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT, 0:14-cv-03233-SRN-BRT (SMD) (Entered:
07/24/2017)
07/24/2017 891 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER approving the proposed deadline for plaintiffs to file
any rebuttal expert reports, as submitted by the parties in a letter [Doc. No. ]. Any
such reports shall be filed on or before September 8, 2017. Signed by Judge Susan
07/24/2017 M MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part M
Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan
07/26/2017 M NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney for Wm Dane DeKrey (Gudmundson, Brian)

(Entered: 07/26/2017)
07/31/2017 M MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 845
Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Boston University CTE Center. (Written Opinion).
08/02/2017 M ORDER Rescheduling Informal Status Conference on October 24, 2017 to 3:00 pm.
08/11/2017 896 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Based on the joint request of counsel, the formal status
conference scheduled for August 15, 2017 is canceled. Signed by Judge Susan
Richard Nelson on 08/11/17. (MJC) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
08/29/2017 897 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER Based on the joint request of counsel, the informal
status conference scheduled for August 30, 2017 is canceled. Signed by Judge Susan
09/08/2017 M STIPULATION re BB2 Order,, by

Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee. Jointly Signed by
National Hockey League. (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
09/08/2017 M PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re M Stipulation. (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered:

09/08/2017)
09/11/2017 9_Q0 ORDER granting M Stipulation to Amend Pretrial Order No. 28. Signed by Judge
09/12/2017 901 TEXT-ONLY ORDER: The formal status conference scheduled for September 13,
2017 is canceled. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 09/12/2017. (SMD)
(Entered: 09/12/2017)
09/25/2017 902 TEXT-ONLY ORDER: The informal status conference scheduled for September 26,
(Entered: 09/25/2017)
10/05/2017 9_Q3 STATUS REPORT by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center. (Elswit,

Lawrence) (Entered: 10/05/2017)
10/06/2017 9_Q4 ORDER Rescheduling Status Conference and Motion Hearing. The October 11, 2017
formal status conference in this matter will be postponed to December 7, 2017 at 1:30
p.m. At that time, in addition to holding a formal status conference, the Court will
Plaintiffs'
also entertain the NHL's Daubert motions and motion for class certification.
Additionally, as a result of this new date, there is no need for the December 5, 2017
informal status conference and it is canceled. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson
on 10/05/2017. (SMD) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
10/12/2017 9_Q5 SECOND ORDER AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 28, re BB2 Schedule
Plaintiffs'
Regarding the NHL's Daubert motions and the Motion for Class
Certification. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/12/17. (SMD) (Entered:
10/12/2017)
10/17/2017 906 TEXT-ONLY ORDER: The informal status conference scheduled for October 24,
(Entered: 10/17/2017)
11/02/2017 907 TEXT-ONLY ORDER: The formal status conference scheduled for November 7,
(Entered: 11/02/2017)
11/15/2017 908 TEXT-ONLY ORDER: The informal status conference scheduled for November 21,
2017 is canceled.. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 11/15/2017. (SMD)
(Entered: 11/15/2017)
11/28/2017 909 TEXT-ONLY ORDER: The formal status conference and motion hearing scheduled
for December 7, 2017 is CANCELED. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
11/28/2017. (SMD) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
11/29/2017 9_1.0 STATUS REPORT Letter to the Court by Trustees of Boston University/CTE Center.
12/15/2017 9_1.1 ORDER Motion Hearing set for 2/12/2018 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before
Judge Susan Richard Nelson on: MOTION M to Certify Class and for Appointment
of Class Representatives and Class Counsel;
M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of R. Dawn Comstock, Ph.D.;

M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Robert C. Cantu, M.A., M.D., FACS,
FAANS, FICS, FACSM;
MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of D'Arcy Jenish; and
MOTION to Exclude Expert
Testimony of Stephen T. Casper, Ph.D.
See Order for briefing schedule. Additionally, the informal status conference
scheduled for December 19, 2017 is CANCELED. Signed by Judge Susan Richard
ORDER - Fourth Order Pretrial Order No.

01/09/2018 9_12 Amending 28; Motion Hearing set for
3/13/2018 at 1:00 PM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson on:
638 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Representatives and
Class Counsel,
m MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of R. Dawn Comstock, Ph.D.,
MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of D'Arcy Jenish,
MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Stephen T. Casper,
Ph.D.,
MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D.
See Order for briefing schedule. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
01/09/2018. (SMD) (Entered: 01/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_13 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re

Plaintiffs'
M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of R.
Dawn Comstock, Ph.D. filed by Executive Committee. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Penny, Brian) (Entered:
02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_14 DECLARATION of Brian D. Penny in Opposition to MOTION

Plaintiffs'
to Exclude M
Expert Testimony of R. Dawn Comstock, Ph.D. filed by Executive
Committee. (Attachments: DOCUMENT ATTACHED IN ERROR. TO BE
REFILED//# 1 Exhibit(s) A (Comstock Transcript), # 2 Exhibit(s) B (Randolph
Transcript Excerpt))(Penny, Brian) Modified text on 2/9/2018 (ACH). (Entered:
02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_15 Rebuttal Declaration of R. Dawn Comstock in Support of 638 MOTION to Certify
Class and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel filed by
Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee.(Penny, Brian) Modified text on 2/9/2018 (kt).
(Entered: 02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_16 EXHIBIT A (Comstock Transcript) re 214 Declaration in Opposition, filed by

Plaintiffs'
Executive Committee.(Penny, Brian) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_17 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re M MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony

Plaintiffs'
of
Robert C. Cantu, M.A., M.D., FACS, FAANS, FICS, FACSM filed by
Executive Committee. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
02/09/2018 9_18 DECLARATION of Robert C. Cantu, MD in Opposition to M MOTION to Exclude

Expert Testimony of Robert C. Cantu, M.A., M.D., FACS, FAANS, FICS, FACSM
filed by Plaintiffs Executive Committee.(Cashman, Michael) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_12 Redacted Document for 218 Supplemental Declaration of Robert C. Cantu, MD filed
Plaintiffs'
by Executive Committee.(Cashman, Michael) Modified text on 3/6/2018
(kt). (Entered: 02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_20 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re

Plaintiffs'
MOTION E to Exclude Expert Testimony of
Stephen T. Casper, Ph.D. filed by Executive Committee. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered:
02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_21 DECLARATION of David M. Cialkowski in Opposition to W

Plaintiffs'
MOTION to Exclude
Expert Testimony of Stephen T. Casper, Ph.D. filed by Executive
Committee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 (Casper Transcript Excerpt))(Zimmerman,
02/09/2018 222 REBUTTAL DECLARATION of Stephen T. Casper re 638 MOTION to Certify

Class and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel, E
Plaintiffs'
MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Stephen T. Casper, Ph.D. by
Executive Committee (Rebuttal). (Zimmerman, Charles) Modified text on 2/9/2018
(kt). (Entered: 02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_23 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 255 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of

Plaintiffs'
D½rcy Jenish filed by Executive Committee. (Attachments: # 1
LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered:
02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_24 DECLARATION of David M. Cialkowski in Opposition to 255 MOTION to Exclude

Plaintiffs'
Expert Testimony of D½rcy Jenish filed by Executive Committee.
(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 (Jenish Transcript Excerpt))(Zimmerman, Charles)
(Entered: 02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_25 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 281 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of

Plaintiffs'
Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D. filedby Executive Committee.
(Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Zi mmerman,
02/09/2018 9_26 Redacted Document for 225 Sealed Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to
Plaintiffs'
Exclude Expert Testimony of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D. filed by
Executive Committee.(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_22 DECLARATION of David M. Cialkowski in Opposition to 281 MOTION to Exclude

Plaintiffs'
Expert Testimony of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D. filed by Executive
Committee. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 2 (Letter))(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered:
02/09/2018)
Plaintiffs'
02/09/2018 228 EXHIBIT 1 re 222 Declaration in Opposition, filed by Executive
Committee.(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 222 STATEMENT INSTEAD OF REDACTED DOCUMENT: Entire Document

Plaintiffs'
Confidential for 9.28 Sealed Exhibit 1 filed by Executive
02/09/2018 9_30 DECLARATION of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D. in Support of 6_38 MOTION to
Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel, and in
Opposition of 281 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Thomas B laine
Plaintiffs'
Hoshizaki, Ph.D. filed by Executive Committee.(Zimmerman, Charles)
Modified text on 2/12/2018 (ACH). (Entered: 02/09/2018)
02/09/2018 9_31 Redacted Document for 230 Sealed Declaration of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D.
Plaintiffs'
filed by Executive Committee.(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered:
02/09/2018)
Plaintiffs'
02/21/2018 232 ORDER moving motion hearing for to Certify Motion
Class and for
Appointment of Class Representatives and
Counsel; Class
Defendant's Daubert
motions to Friday, March 16, 2018 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 7B of the St. Paul
Plaintiffs'
Courthouse. Each side will be allowed 40 minutes to argue the Motion for
Class Certification. Each side will be allowed 50 minutes to argue the Defendant's
Daubert motions. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 2/21/2018. (SMD)
(Entered: 02/21/2018)
02/28/2018 9_33 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by National Hockey League . (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 02/28/2018)
03/01/2018 934 TEXT-ONLY ORDER GRANTING Defendant's letter request [Doc. No. 933] to
submit a reply brief with 1,000 additional words in support of its motion to exclude
the testimony of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D. Approved by Judge Susan Richard
03/05/2018 9_35 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney James Keyte for National Hockey League
03/07/2018 9_36 SEALED REPLY re 638 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class
Plaintiffs'
Representatives and Class Counsel filed by Executive Committee.
(Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Zimmerman,
03/07/2018 9_32 Redacted Document for 236 Sealed Reply in Support of Motion for Class
Certification and
for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel filed
Players'
Litigation.(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
03/07/2018 9_33 Supplemental Declaration of Charles S. Zimmerman in Support of 638 MOTION to

Players'
Exhibit(s) 6, # 6 Exhibit(s) 7, # 2 Exhibit(s) 10, # 8 Exhibit(s) 12, # 2 Exhibit(s) 13, #
10 Exhibit(s) 14, # 11 Exhibit(s) 15, # 12 Exhibit(s) 16)(Zimmerman, Charles)
(Entered: 03/07/2018)
Plaintiffs'
03/07/2018 9_32 SEALED EXHIBIT 2 re 9_33 Declaration in Support,, filed by Executive
Plaintiffs'
03/07/2018 9_40 SEALED EXHIBIT 8 re 9_33 Declaration in Support,, filed by Executive
Plaintiffs'
03/07/2018 9.41 SEALED EXHIBIT 9 re 9_33 Declaration in Support,, filed by Executive
Plaintiffs'
03/07/2018 9_42 SEALED EXHIBIT 11 re 233 Declaration in Support,, filed by Executive
03/07/2018 9_43 Redacted Document for 242 Exhibit 11 filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation.(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
Plaintiffs'
03/07/2018 244 SEALED EXHIBIT 17 re 238 Declaration in Support,, filed by Executive
Plaintiffs'
03/07/2018 9_45 SEALED EXHIBIT 18 re 233 Declaration in Support,, filed by Executive
03/07/2018 9_46 STATEMENT INSTEAD OF REDACTED DOCUMENT: Entire Document

Confidential for 9_41 , 9_40 , 9_44 , 232 , 245 filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
Players'
03/07/2018 9_42 REPLY re 222 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of R. Dawn Comstock Ph.D.
Testimony of R. Dawn Comstock Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League.
04, # 5 Exhibit(s) 05, # 6 Exhibit(s) 06, # 2 Exhibit(s) 07, # 8 Exhibit(s) 08, # 2
Exhibit(s) 09, # 10 Exhibit(s) 10, # 11 Exhibit(s) 11)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
03/07/2018)
03/07/2018 9_42 REPLY re 7_62 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Robert C. Cantu, M.A.,
M.D., FACS, FAANS, FICS, FACSM filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments:
# 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
03/07/2018)
03/07/2018 250 Declaration of Daniel J. Connolly in Support of 7_62 MOTION to Exclude Expert
Testimony of Robert C. Cantu, M.A., M.D., FACS, FAANS, FICS, FACSM filed by
National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 01, # 2 Exhibit(s) 03, # a
Exhibit(s) 04, # 4 Exhibit(s) 05, # 5 Exhibit(s) 06)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
03/07/2018)
03/07/2018 9_51 SEALED EXHIBIT 02 re 250 Declaration in Support, filed by National Hockey
League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
03/07/2018 252 Redacted Document for 251 Sealed Exhibit 02 filed by National Hockey
03/07/2018 9_33 REPLY re 261 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Stephen T. Casper, Ph.D.
03/07/2018 9_54 Declaration of Daniel

Testimony of Stephen T. Casper, Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League.
04, # 5 Exhibit(s) 05)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
03/07/2018 9_55 REPLY re 781 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki,
Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word
03/07/2018 9_56 Declaration of Daniel

Testimony of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki, Ph.D. filed by National Hockey League.
03/07/2018 9_52 REPLY re 255 MOTION to Exclude Expert Testimony of D'Arcy Jenish liled by
Testimony of D'Arcy Jenish liled by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1
03/08/2018 9_52 MOTION to Strike Pleading the NHL's Improper Sur-Rebuttal Expert Reports liled
Players'
(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
03/08/2018 9_60 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 9_52 MOTION to Strike Pleading the NHL's
Improper Sur-Rebuttal Expert Reports : Motion Hearing set for 3/16/2018 at 01:00
PM before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered:
03/08/2018)
03/08/2018 9_61 MEMORANDUM in Support re 9_52 MOTION to Strike Pleading the NHL's
Improper Sur-Rebuttal Expert Reports filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
Players'
Compliance Certificate)(Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
03/08/2018 9_62 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 252 Motion to Strike Pleading filed by IN
Players'
RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation.(Zimmerman,
03/08/2018 9_63 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 9_52 MOTION to Strike Pleading the NHL's
Improper Sur-Rebuttal Expert Reports filed by IN RE: National Hockey League
Players'
03/09/2018 9_64 SEALED REPLY re 638 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class
Plaintiffs'
Representatives and Class Counsel (Corrected) filed by Executive
Committee. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Plaintiffs'
03/09/2018 9_65 Redacted Document for 264 Corrected Reply filed by IN RE: National
Players'
Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation.(Zimmerman, Charles)
(Entered: 03/09/2018)
Players'
03/09/2018 9_66 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by IN RE: National Hockey League
Plaintifs'
Concussion Injury Litigation regarding Corrected Reply in Support of
Motion for Class Certif ication and for Appointment of Class Representatives and
Class Counsel. (Zimmerman, Charles) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
03/09/2018 9_62 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 252 MOTION to Strike Pleading the NHL's
Improper Sur-Rebuttal Expert Reports filed by National Hockey League.
03/16/2018 9_68 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson: Motion
Hearing held on 3/16/2018.
The following motions were submitted, argued, and taken under advisement:
* Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the Class and For Appointment of Class
Representatives and Class Counsel [Doc. No. 638];
* Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of D'Arcy Jenish [Doc. No. 755];
* Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Stephen T. Casper [Doc. No. 761];
and
* Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Robert C. Cantu [Doc. No. 767].
The following motions were taken under advisement on the written submissions,
without oral argument:
* Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of R. Dawn Comstock [Doc. No.
772];
* Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki [Doc.
No. 781]; and
* Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike the NHL's Improper Sur-Rebuttal Expert Reports [Doc.
No. 959].
(Court Reporter Carla Bebault) (SMD) (Entered: 03/20/2018)
03/16/2018 9_fi2 Amended Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Susan Richard Nelson:
Motion Hearing held on 3/16/2018.
The following motions were submitted, argued, and taken under advisement:
Plaintiffs'
Motion to Certify the Class and For Appointment of Class Representatives
and Class Counsel [Doc. No. 638];
Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of R. Dawn Comstock [Doc. No. 772];
Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Thomas Blaine Hoshizaki [Doc. No.
781]; and
Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Robert C. Cantu [Doc. No. 767].
The following motions were taken under advisement on the written submissions,
without oral argument:
Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of D'Arcy Jenish [Doc. No. 755];
Defendant's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Stephen T. Casper [Doc. No. 761];
and
Plaintiffs'
Motion to Strike the NHL's Improper Sur-Rebuttal Expert Reports [Doc.
No. 959].
(Court Reporter Carla Bebault) (SMD) (Entered: 03/20/2018)
03/20/2018 9_20 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for an Expedited 7-Day Transcript of 9_fi8 Motion
Hearing, 9_62 Motion Hearing, to Court Reporter Carla Bebault. (JGK) (Entered:
03/20/2018)
03/21/2018 9_21 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for an Expedited Daily Transcript (by 8am following day)
of 9_62 Motion Hearing, to Court Reporter Carla Bebault. (JGK) (Entered:
03/21/2018)
03/23/2018 9_23 TRANSCRIPT of Motions Hearing held on March 16, 2018 before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson. (120 pages). Court Reporter: Carla Bebault. For a copy of the
Transcript Restriction set for 6/21/2018. (CRB) Modified text on 6/21/2018 (LEG).
(Entered: 03/23/2018)
04/02/2018 974 JOINT MOTION REGARDING CONTINUED SEALING re 925 Memorandum in

Opposition to Motion, 228 Exhibit, 21..8 Declaration in Opposition, 230 Declaration in
Plaintiffs'
Opposition, filed by Executive Committee. (Renz, Christopher) (Entered:
04/02/2018)
04/03/2018 225 MOTION to Supplement Record filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly,
05/10/2018 976 (Text-Only) ORDER granting 9_25 Motion to Supplement Record. The Defendant
may file the entirety of each deposition transcript identified. Signed by Judge Susan
05/16/2018 9_73 Declaration of Daniel Connolly in Support of 275 MOTION to Supplement Record
filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 2, # 2 Exhibit(s)
05/16/2018 9_7..8 SEALED EXHIBIT 1 re 9_73 Declaration in Support filed by National Hockey
05/16/2018 9_73 Redacted Document for 278 Sealed Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Daniel Connolly in
Support of Defendant National Hockey League's Motion to Supplement the Record
07/13/2018 9_80 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 638 Motion for Class
Certification and for Appointment of Class Representatives and Class Counsel.
(Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 7/13/2018. (SMD)
(Entered: 07/13/2018)
08/14/2018 9_81 ORDER Setting Status Conference. Status Conference set for 8/30/2018 at 09:30 AM
in Courtroom 7A (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. Signed by Judge Susan
08/15/2018 9_82 ORDER granting 274 Joint Motion Regarding Continued Sealing.
Document Number(s) to be UNSEALED: 918, 925, 928, and 930.

Order on continued sealing becomes final on 9/12/2018 unless further timely
submissions are filed.
Signed by Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson on 8/15/2018. (MSK) (Entered:

08/15/2018)
08/29/2018 9_83 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Pearson, Clifford) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
08/29/2018 9_84 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Warshaw, Daniel) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
08/29/2018 9_85 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Pearson, Michael) (Entered: 08/29/2018)
Conference held on 8/30/2018. (Court Reporter Carla Bebault) (SMD) (Entered:
08/30/2018)
08/30/2018 9_8] TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by National Hockey League for an Expedited 3-Day
Transcript of 9_86 Status Conference to Court Reporter Carla Bebault. (Connolly,
08/31/2018 9_83 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on August 30, 2018 before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson. (19 pages). Court Reporter: Carla Bebault. For a copy of the
Transcript Restriction set for 11/29/2018. (CRB) (Entered: 08/31/2018)
09/05/2018 9_20 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for a COPY OF 2882 Transcript(s) to Court Reporter Carla
Bebault. (JGK) (Entered: 09/05/2018)
09/13/2018 991 (Text-only) ORDER granting request for extension of time in which to submit status
letters to the Court, as discussed at the August 30, 2018 status conference, which were
previously due on September 13, 2018. The parties may submit their letters by 5:00
pm (CDT) on September 21, 2018. Ordered by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
9/13/2018. (MJC) (Entered: 09/13/2018)
09/18/2018 9_22 NOTICE of Appearance by Howard Silber on behalf of Greg Adams, Rick Berry,
Richard Brodeur, Shawn Chambers, Todd Elik, William Harris, Michael Hartman,
Todd Harvey, Tony Horacek, Garry Howatt, Jamie Huscroft, Dave Hutchinson, Jean
Francois Jomphe, Edward Kennedy, Mike Lalor, Darren Langdon, Jamie Lundmark,
Sergio Momesso, Jeff Parker, Stephen Patrick, Michael Peluso, Craig Redmond,
Terry Ruskowski, Brian Savage, Jeffrey Shevalier, Turner Stevenson, Todd Warriner,
Vernon Westfall. (Silber, Howard) (Entered: 09/18/2018)
09/21/2018 993 (Text-only) ORDER granting request for extension of time in which to submit status
letters to the Court, as discussed at the August 30, 2018 status conference, which were
previously due on September 21, 2018. The parties may submit their letters by 5:00
pm (CDT) on September 26, 2018. Ordered by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
9/21/2018. (SMD) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
09/26/2018 9_24 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by National Hockey League . (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit(s) A)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 09/26/2018)
Plaintiffs'
09/26/2018 9_25 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Executive Committee Regarding
Bellwether Trial Selection Protocol. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s))(Klobucar, Jeffrey)
(Entered: 09/26/2018)
12/11/2018 9_96 STIPULATION as to Service by National Hockey League. Jointly Signed by

12/11/2018 9_92 ORDER on 226 Stipulation as to Service.

This Document Relates to: Carcillo, et al. v. Natl Hockey League, et al., No.
18-cv-01715 (SRN/BRT). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 12/11/2018.
(SMD) (Entered: 12/11/2018)
02/07/2019 9_2.8 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Silber, Howard) (Entered: 02/07/2019)
02/19/2019 9_22 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Michael Peluso. (Davidson, Stuart)
(Entered: 02/19/2019)
02/19/2019 1000 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 9_22 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney :

Date and time to be determined. (Davidson, Stuart) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
02/19/2019 1001 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 9_22 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by
Michael Peluso.(Davidson, Stuart) (Entered: 02/19/2019)
02/25/2019 1002 BRIEFING ORDER re: 9_22 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Response due by
3/22/2019. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 2/25/2019. (SMD) (Entered:
02/25/2019)
03/14/2019 1003 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Matthew Stein for NHL) (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 03/14/2019)
04/03/2019 1004 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Todd Harvey. (Shelquist, Robert)
(Entered: 04/03/2019)
04/03/2019 1005 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1904 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by

Todd Harvey. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Shelquist, Robert) (Entered: 04/03/2019)
04/03/2019 1006 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re Motion to Withdraw as Counsel as to Plaintiff

Todd Harvey 1904 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. (Shelquist, Robert) (Entered:
04/03/2019)
04/04/2019 1007 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Todd Harvey re 1904 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney
(Shelquist, Robert) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
04/04/2019 1008 MOTION to Establish a Qualified Settlement Fund filed by IN RE: National Hockey
Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation. (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered:
04/04/2019)
04/04/2019 1002 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1008 MOTION to Establish a Quahjied Settlement

Players'
Fund filed
(Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance Certificate)(Gudmundson,
04/04/2019 1010 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re Motion to Establish a Qualified Settlement Fund
1.008 Motion for Miscellaneous Relief. (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
04/04/2019 1011 ORDER granting 1008 Motion to Establish a Qualified Settlement Fund. Signed by
04/04/2019 1012 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Christopher Simon (Gudmundson, Brian)

(Entered: 04/04/2019)
04/05/2019 1013 BRIEFING ORDER re: 1004 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Response due by
4/26/2019. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 4/5/2019. (SMD) (Entered:
04/05/2019)
04/05/2019 1014 ORDER granting 222 Motion of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP to Withdraw
as Attorney for Plaintiff Michael Peluso. This document relates to: LaCouture, et al.
v. National Hockey League, case 14-cv-03234 (SRN/BRT). Signed by Judge Susan
04/05/2019 1015 ORDER DISMISSING Plaintiff Christopher Simon. This Document Relates to:
Simon, et al. v. National Hockey League, et al., case file 17-cv-1586. Signed by
04/19/2019 1016 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Multiple Plaintifs by National

04/19/2019 1012 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Dale Purinton by National Hockey
04/19/2019 1018 FILED IN ERROR. TO BE REFILED//PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 1016

Stipulation of Dismissal, 1912 Stipulation of Dismissal. (Connolly, Daniel) Modified
text on 4/19/2019 (ACH). (Entered: 04/19/2019)
04/19/2019 1012 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 1016 Stipulation of Dismissal, 1012 Stipulation
of Dismissal. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/19/2019)
04/22/2019 1020 ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the Claims of Gary Dillon, Jack Egers,
Robert Flockhart, Link Gaetz, Steve Jensen, Grant Ledyard, Dale Purinton, Michael
Robitaille, Paul Stewart, Nikos Tselios, Shawn Anderson and Doug Barrie. Pursuant
to the Stipulations of Dismissal filed with the Court [Doc. Nos. 1016, 1017]. This
Document Relates to: Ledyard, et al. v. Natl Hockey LeagueNo. 16-cv-00248
(SRN/BRT). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 4/22/2019. Associated Cases:
0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT, 0:16-cv-00248-SRN-BRT(SMD) (Entered:
04/22/2019)


04/22/2019 1923 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Michael Pivonka by National Hockey
of Dismissal, 1923 Stipulation of Dismissal. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/22/2019)

04/22/2019 1026 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Dennis Vaske by National Hockey
04/22/2019 1022 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Keith Brown by National Hockey
04/22/2019 1922 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Iain Duncan. (Gudmundson, Brian)
(Entered: 04/22/2019)
04/22/2019 1930 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1922 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by

Iain Duncan. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2 Word Count Compliance
Certificate)(Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered: 04/22/2019)
04/22/2019 1031 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re Motion to Withdraw as Counsel as to Plaintiff

Iain Duncan 1029 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered:
04/22/2019)
04/22/2019 1032 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Iain Duncan re 1022 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney
(Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered: 04/22/2019)
04/23/2019 1033 BRIEFING ORDER re: (1029

in 0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT) Motion to Withdraw
as Attorney for Plaintiff Duncan. Iain
Response due by 5/24/2019. Signed by Judge
Susan Richard Nelson on 4/23/2019. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT,
0:16-cv-02683-SRN-BRT(SMD) (Entered: 04/23/2019)
04/23/2019 1034 ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the Claims of Barry Scott Bjugstad,
Lyndon Byers, Gene Carr, Tom Cassidy, Cam Connor, Jason Doig, Bobby Dollas,
Harold Druken, Joe Dziedzic, Ron Flockhart, Jim Hofford, Sasha Lakovic, Dennis
Maruk, Craig Muni, Don Murdoch, Lance Pitlick, Michal Pivonka, Martin Simard,
"Butch"
Frank Spring, Shayne Stevenson, Warren Williams, and Harry York.
Pursuant to Stipulations of Dismissal filed with the Court [MDL Doc. Nos. 1921,
1.022 and 1023 ]. This Document Relates
to: Muni, et al. v. Natl Hockey League, No.
(Entered: 04/23/2019)
04/23/2019 1035 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by William Bennett by National Hockey
04/23/2019 1036 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by David Christian by National Hockey
04/23/2019 1032 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Reed Larson by National Hockey
04/24/2019 1032 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Joe Murphy by National Hockey
04/24/2019 1040 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 1032 Stipulation of Dismissal. (Connolly,

04/24/2019 1041 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Jon Rohloffby National Hockey
04/24/2019 1942 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 1Q41 Stipulation of Dismissal. (Connolly,

04/24/2019 1043 ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the claims of Plaintiffs Keith Brown,
Malcolm Davis
Gary McAdam, Steve Payne, Michel Petit, Greg Terrion, Dennis
Vaske, and Kurt Walker, pursuant to Stipulations of Dismissal [MDL Doc. Nos. 1025
, 1026 , and 1022 ]. This Document Relates to: Petit, et al. v. Natl Hockey League,
case no. 15-cv-3666 (SRN/BRT) . Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
4/23/2019. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT,
04/24/2019 1044 ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the claims of Plaintiffs William Bennett,
David Christian, and Reed Larson, based on Stipulations of Dismissal [MDL Doc.
Nos. 1035 , 1036 , and 1032 ]. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 4/24/2019.
(Entered: 04/24/2019)

04/24/2019 1046 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Todd Warriner by National Hockey
04/24/2019 1048 ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the claims of Plaintiff Jon Rohloff,
pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal [MDL Doc. No. 1041]. This Document
Relates to: Jon Rohlof v. Nael Hockey League, No. 14-cv-3038 (SRN/BRT). Signed
04/24/2019)
04/24/2019 1949 ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the claims of Plaintiff Joe Murphy
pursuant to Stipulation of Dismissal [MDL Doc. No. 1039]. This Document Relates
to: Joe Murphy v. Nat'l Hockey League, No. 14-cv-4132 (SRN/BRT). Signed by
0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT, 0:14-cv-04132-SRN-BRT(SMD) Modified text on
4/24/2019 (SMD). (Entered: 04/24/2019)
04/25/2019 1050 ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the claims of Plaintiffs

Greg Adams,
Rick Berry, Richard Brodeur, Shawn Chambers, Michael Hartman, Tony Horacek,
Garry Howatt, Dave Hutchinson, Jean Francois Jomphe, Edward Kennedy, Mike
Lalor, Darren Langdon, Jamie Lundmark, Sergio Momesso, Jeff Parker, Stephen
Patrick, Craig Redmond, Terry Ruskowski, Brian Savage, Jeffrey Shevalier, Turner
Stevenson, Todd Warriner, and Vernon Westfall, based on Stipulations of Dismissal
[MDL Doc. Nos. 1045 and 1046 ]. This Document Relates to: Adams, et al. v. Natl
Hockey League, No. 15-cv-472 (SRN/BRT). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson
on 4/25/2019. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT,
04/25/2019 1051 STIPULATION of Dismissal without Prejudice by Plaintiff Todd Elik by National

04/25/2019 1053 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintif Cam Severson by National

04/25/2019 1055 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Christian, et al. v. National Hockey League, file
number 14-cv-1140 (SRN/BRT). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
04/25/2019 1056 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Ledyard, et al. v. National Hockey League, case
04/25/2019 1052 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintifs Krzysztof Oliwa and Kevin
Stevens by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
04/25/2019 1058 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Rudy Poeschek by National Hockey
04/25/2019 1059 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Muni, et al. v. National Hockey League, case
04/25/2019 1061 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Petit, et al. v. National Hockey League, case
04/25/2019 1062 ORDER Dismissing the matter of JonRohloff v. National Hockey League, case
04/25/2019 1963 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Joe Murphy v. National Hockey League, case no.
(Entered: 04/25/2019)
04/25/2019 1064 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Cory Larose by National Hockey

04/25/2019 1966 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plainitifs Sasha Pokuluk and Simon
Danis-Pepin by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/25/2019)

04/25/2019 1068 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintif Chris Ferraro by National
04/25/2019 1062 ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the claims of plaintiff Todd Elik,
pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal [MDL Doc. No. 1051 ]. This Document
Relates to: Adams, et al. v. Nael Hockey League, No. 15-cv-472 (SRN/BRT). Signed
04/25/2019)

04/25/2019 1921 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintifs Scott Bailey, Richard
Brennan, Jack Carlson, Dan Keczmer, Dan LaCouture, Brad Maxwell, Allan Rourke
and Tom Younghans by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
04/25/2019)

04/25/2019 1923 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintifs Bradley Aitken, Darren
Banks, Bruce
Bell, Curt Bennett, RIchard Dunn, Warren Holmes, Gary Leeman,
Robert Manno, Bernie Nicholls, Scott Parker and Morris Titanic by National Hockey
04/25/2019 1024 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 1023 Stipulation of Dismissal,. (Connolly,

04/25/2019 1925 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by George Bradley, as administrator of

the Estate of Lazarus Zeidel by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 04/25/2019)

04/25/2019 1922 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintifs Ernie Hicke, Bruce Hofort,
William Billy Huard, Jamie Huscroft, Sheldon Kannegiesser, Robert Liddington,
Robert McClanahan, John Wayne Rivers, John Stewart, Darren Veitch, James
Watson, and Ronald Zanussi by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 04/25/2019)
04/25/2019 1028 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintifs Francis Frank Lessard,
Daniel Sexton, Marc-Andre Bourdon, Ray Schultz, and Garrett Burnett by National
04/25/2019 1022 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintif Steven Dubinsky by National
04/25/2019 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintif Perry Pelensky by National

04/25/2019 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintif Robert Robins by National

04/25/2019 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re Stipulation of Dismissal, Stipulation

of Dismissal, Stipulation of Dismissal, Stipulation of Dismissal,
Stipulation of Dismissal,. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
04/25/2019 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintifs Frederick Ahern, Perry

Anderson, Paul Andrea, Harvey Bennett, James Krulicki, Craig Norwich, and George
Pesut by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
04/25/2019 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintif Scott Daniels by National

04/25/2019 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintifs William Harris and

Guillaume Latendresse by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
04/25/2019)
04/25/2019 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintif Stewart Randall Holt by

04/25/2019 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re Stipulation of Dismissal, Stipulation

of Dismissal, Stipulation of Dismissal, Stipulation of Dismissal.
04/25/2019 ORDER setting status conference for Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 11:30 a.m. central
time in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Hon. Susan Richard Nelson. Signed by Judge
04/26/2019 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Cam Severson v. National Hockey League, case
04/26/2019 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Cory Larose v. National Hockey League, file
number 14-cv-3410. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 4/26/2019.
(Entered: 04/26/2019)
04/26/2019 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Pokuluk, et al. v. National Hockey League, case
04/26/2019 ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the claims of plaintiffs Marc-Andre

Bourdon, Garrett Burnett, Steven Dubinsky, Ernie Hicke, Bruce Hoffort, William
"Billy"
Huard, Jamie Huscroft, Sheldon Kannegiesser, Frank Lessard, Robert
Liddington, RobertMcClanahan, Perry Pelensky, John Wayne Rivers, Robert Robins,
Ray Schultz, Daniel Sexton, John Stewart, Darren Veitch, James Watson, and Ron
Zanussi, pursuant to Stipulations of Dismissal [MDL Nos. , , ,
and ]. This Document Relates to: Veitch, et al. v. Natl Hockey League, File No.
(Entered: 04/26/2019)
04/26/2019 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Fritsche, et al. v. National Hockey League, case
04/26/2019 ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the claims of plaintiffs Bradley Aitken,
Darren Banks, Bruce Bell, Curt Bennett, Richard Dunn, Warren Holmes, Gary
Leeman, Robert Manno, Bernie Nicholls, Scott Parker, and Morris Titanic, pursuant
to Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice [MDL Doc. No. ]. This Document
Relates to: Leeman, et al. v. Natl Hockey League, No. 14-cv-3233 (SRN/BRT).
0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT, 0:14-cv-03233-SRN-BRT (SMD) (Entered:

04/26/2019)
04/26/2019 1025 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Bradley v. National Hockey League, case
(Entered: 04/26/2019)
04/26/2019 1026 ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the claims of plaintiffs Scott Bailey,
Richard Brennan, Jack Carlson, Dan Keczmer, Dan LaCouture, Brad Maxwell, Allan
Rourke, and Tom Younghans, pursuant to Stipulation of Dismissal [MDL Doc. No.
1071]. This Document Relates to: LaCouture, et al. v. Natl Hockey League No.
(Entered: 04/26/2019)
04/26/2019 1922 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Simon, et al. v. National Hockey League, case
05/06/2019 1028 Letter re: withdrawal of motion re 1022 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney from
Brian C. Gudmundson. (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered: 05/06/2019)
05/08/2019 1922 ORDER dismissing the matter of Krzysztof Oliwa v. National Hockey League, case
no. 15-cv-3904 (SRN/BRT). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 5/8/2019.
(Entered: 05/08/2019)
05/08/2019 1100 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Steven Ludzik v. National Hockey League, case
number 15-cv-3110 (SRN/BRT). Signed
by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
05/08/2019 1101 ORDER Dismissing the matter of Gary Leeman v. National Hockey League, case
05/10/2019 1102 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintif Iain Duncan and by National

05/13/2019 1104 MOTION for Protective Order for Purposes of Lien Resolution (Unopposed) filed by
Players'
IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation.
05/13/2019 1105 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 1104 Motion for Protective Order.
05/14/2019 1106 ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the claims of plaintiff Iain Duncan,
pursuant to Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice [MDL Doc. No.
1102 ]. This
document relates to: Veitch, et al. v. Natl Hockey League, file number 16-cv-2683
(SRN/BRT). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 5/13/2019. Associated Cases:
05/14/2019)
05/14/2019 1107 QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR PURPOSES OF LIEN RESOLUTION,

granting 1104 Motion for Protective Order. This document relates to: All Actions.
Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 5/14/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)
(SMD) Modified text on 5/15/2019 (SMD). (Entered: 05/14/2019)
06/13/2019 1108 ORDER granting 1904 Motion of Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P. and The Law
Office of Howard F. Silber to Withdraw as Counsel of record for Plaintiff Todd
Harvey. This Document Relates to: Greg Adams et al. individually, and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. National Hockey League, case

Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT, 0:15-cv-00472-SRN-BRT (SMD)
(Entered: 06/13/2019)
06/14/2019 1102 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Todd Harvey re 1108 Order on Motion to Withdraw as
Attorney, (Shelquist, Robert) (Entered: 06/14/2019)
06/17/2019 1110 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction [Motion to Dismiss Andre Deveaux's
Claims for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction or,in the alternative, to Transfer Venue to
the Southern District of New York] filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly,
06/17/2019 1111 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 1110 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction [Motion to Dismiss Andre Deveaux's Claims for Lack
of Personal
Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of New
York] : Date and time to be determined. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
06/17/2019 1112 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1110 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
[Motion to Dismiss Andre Deveaux's Claims for of Personal Lack Jurisdiction or, in
the alternative, to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of New York] filed by
06/17/2019 1113 Declaration of Daniel J. Connolly in Support of 1110 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack
of Jurisdiction [Motion to Dismiss Andre Deveaux's Claims for Lack of Personal
York] filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1 Plaintiff Fact
Sheet [redacted])(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
06/17/2019 1114 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 1110 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction,
06/17/2019 1115 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 1110 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction [Motion to Dismiss Andre Deveaux's Claims for Lack
of Personal
York] filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
06/17/2019 111fi ANSWER to Complaint [Answer to Amended Complaint in Veitch v. NHL) filed by
National Hockey League, National Hockey League Board of Governors. (Connolly,
06/18/2019 1117 (Text-only) NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 1110 MOTION to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction [Motion to Dismiss Andre Deveaux's Claims for Lack of Personal
York] : Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2019 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before
Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (SMD) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
Conference held on 6/18/2019. (Court Reporter Carla Bebault) (SMD) (Entered:
06/18/2019)
06/18/2019 1119 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for a COPY OF TRANSCRIPT 1118 Status Conference
to Court Reporter Carla Bebault. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
06/28/2019 1120 MOTION to Transfer/Change Venue Çoint) filed by Nicholas Boynton, Daniel
Carcillo, National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1121 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 1120 MOTION to Transfer/Change Venue

Çoint) : Çointly signed by Daniel Carcillo and Nicholas Boynton) Motion Hearing set
for 9/10/2019 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard
Nelson. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1122 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1120 MOTION to Transfer/Change Venue goint)

Çointly signed by Daniel Carcillo and Nicholas Boynton) filed by National Hockey
06/28/2019 1123 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 1120 Motion to Transfer/Change Venue filed
by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1124 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 1120 MOTION to Transfer/Change Venue

(Joint) filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1125 ANSWER to Amended Complaint filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly,
06/28/2019 1126 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by National Hockey League.
06/28/2019 1127 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 1126 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction : Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2019 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 7B (STP)
before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1128 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1126 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
06/28/2019 1129 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 1126 Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
06/28/2019 1130 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 1126 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1131 MOTION to Remand to Transferor District Court (MDL) filed by National Hockey
06/28/2019 1132 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 1131 MOTION to Remand to Transferor

District Court (MDL) : Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2019 at 01:30 PM in Judge's
Chambers, Suite 772 (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1133 MEMORANDUM in Support re 1131 MOTION to Remand to Transferor District

Court (MDL) filedby National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1 LR7.1/LR72.2
06/28/2019 1134 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 1131 Motion to Remand to Transferor
District Court (MDL) filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1135 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 1131 MOTION to Remand to Transferor

District Court (MDL) filed by National Hockey League.(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1136 ANSWER to Complaint filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1

Certificate of Service) (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1132 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

by National Hockey League re 1126 MOTION to
Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
, 1130 Proposed Order to Judge, 1122 Meet and
Confer Statement, 1128 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 1127 Notice of Hearing
on Motion on Unrepresented Parties (Todd Harvey) (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1138 ANSWER to Complaint filed by National Hockey League. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1139 ANSWER to Complaint filed by National Hockey League. (Attachments: # 1

Affidavit of Service) (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
06/28/2019 1140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Hockey League re 1131 MOTION to

Remand to Transferor District Court (MDL) , 1133 Memorandum in Support of
Motion, 1132 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 1134 Meet and Confer Statement, 1135
Proposed Order to Judge Susan R. Nelson (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
07/01/2019 1141 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 1131 MOTION to Remand to Transferor

District Court (MDL) : Motion Hearing set for 9/10/2019 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom
7B (STP) before Judge Susan Richard Nelson. (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:
07/01/2019)
07/02/2019 1142 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion: (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered:

07/02/2019)
07/02/2019 1143 AMENDED NOTICE of Hearing on Motion: (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of

Service)(Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 07/02/2019)
07/03/2019 1144 NOTICE of Withdrawal as Attorney (Anderson, James) (Entered: 07/03/2019)
08/09/2019 1145 ORDER VACATING CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER 6 (CTO-6) (kt)

(Entered: 08/09/2019)
09/05/2019 1147 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on June 18, 2019 before Judge Susan
Richard Nelson. (21 pages). Court Reporter: Carla Bebault. Fora copy of the
Transcript Restriction set for 12/4/2019. (CRB) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
09/05/2019 1148 ORDER Canceling Motion Hearing. The September 10, 2019 hearing is
CANCELED. Thepending motions will be decided on the papers, without oral
argument; and the National Hockey League must provide notice of this cancelation to
pro se plaintiffs Todd Harvey and Michael Peluso. Signed by Judge Susan Richard
09/05/2019 1149 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Hockey League of Unrepresented Parties

(Michael Peluso) (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
09/05/2019 1150 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by National Hockey League of Unrepresented Parties

(Todd Harvey) (Connolly, Daniel) (Entered: 09/05/2019)
09/10/2019 1151 ORDER granting 1120 Motion to Transfer/Change Venue in case

0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT; granting 9 Motion to Transfer/Change Venue in case
0:18-cv-01715-SRN-BRT. Case 0:18-cv-01715-SRN-BRT is to be transferred to
the Northern District of Illinois. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 9/10/2019.
(Entered: 09/10/2019)
09/27/2019 1152 SEALED EXHIBIT 1 re 1113 Declaration in Support, filed by National Hockey
10/10/2019 1153 ORDER granting 1110 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Andre
Deveaux. (Written Opinion) This document relates to: Veitch et al. v. National
Hockey League et al., 16cv2683 (SRN/BRT). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson
on 10/10/2019. (MR) Modified text on 10/11/2019 (SMD). (Entered: 10/10/2019)
10/10/2019 1154 ORDER granting 1126 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to Todd Harvey.
This document relates to: Adams et al. v. National Hockey League, 15cv00472
(SRN/BRT). (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 10/10/2019.
(MR) Modified text on 10/11/2019 (SMD). (Entered: 10/10/2019)
10/18/2019 1155 ORDER ON SUGGESTION OF REMAND granting (1131) Motion for Suggestion of
Remand to Transferor District Court (MDL) in case 0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT;
granting (51) Motion for Suggestion of Remand to Transferor District Court (MDL)
in case 0:14-ev-03234-SRN-BRT; granting (22) Motion for Suggestion of Remand
to Transferor District Court (MDL) in case 0:16-cv-00069-SRN-BRT(Written
Opinion) Signed
0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT, 0:14-cv-03234-SRN-BRT,
10/31/2019 1156 STIPULATION of Dismissal with Prejudice by Plaintif Michael Peluso by National
Hockey League. Jointly Signed by Michael Peluso, Pro Se. (Connolly, Daniel)
(Entered: 10/31/2019)
10/31/2019 IM ORDER on (63 in 0:14-ev-03234-SRN-BRT) Stipulation of Dismissal. The claims

brought in the above-captioned action by plaintiiTMichael Peluso are dismissed with
prejudice, each party bearing its own attorneys fees and costs. Signed by Judge Susan
Richard Nelson on 10/31/2019. Associated Cases: 0:14-md-02551-SRN-BRT,
06/26/2020 [M STIPULATION re 1909 Memorandum in Support of Motion,

Players'
to Establish a Qualified
Settlement Fund by IN RE: National Hockey League Concussion Injury
Litigation. (Gudmundson, Brian) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
06/26/2020 1152 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re 1 Stipulation. (Gudmundson, Brian)

(Entered: 06/26/2020)
06/26/2020 1160 ORDER on IM Stipulation to Amend 1011 ORDER Granting Motion to Establish a
Qualified Settlement Fund. Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on
6/26/2020.(SMD) (Entered: 06/26/2020)
EXHIBIT 11
FILED: NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022 06:13 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
FILED : NEW : a
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO. 285
NO. 308 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/02/2022
PRIV1LEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL

White and
Williants tte
Michael 0. Kassak
UbertyView | 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 400 { Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-2220

Direct 856.317.3653 | Fax 856.317.3603
kassakm@whileandwilliams.com | whiteandwilliams.com
October 6, 2017
VIA Courier and e-mail
Julie Grand, Esquire

Senior Vice President / Deputy General Counsel
1 185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
RE: National Hockey League Concussion Litigation
Dear Ms. Grand:
In connection with the primary policies of insurance issued to the National Hockey League by
Federal Insurance Company ("Federal"), Vigilant Insurance Company ("Vigilant"), and Chubb
Insurance Company of Canada ("CICC") (collectively and singularly "Chubb"), enclosed please
Und an interim payment of $10,188,292.98 for attorney's fees and costs incurred by the NHL's
independently chosen attorneys, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP ("Skadden"),
Proskauer Rose LLP ("Proskauer"), and Faegre Baker Daniels ("Faegre"), for the defense of the
NH L in connection with the litigation ("Tendered Lawsuits"). The Tendered Lawsuits have been
commenced by certain former/retired players of the NHL or their estates who seek compensation
for injuries or fatalities, or other equitable or declaratory relief, as a result of multiple serious
concussive or sub-concussive hits or blows to the head during their playing careers in the NHL.
This interim payment represents a percentage of the post-tender, reasonable, and necessary
attorney's fees and costs paid by the NHL for the defense of these lawsuits from their outset
through March 2017. The considerations which Chubb has taken into account in arriving at
early
the amount of this payment are discussed below.
Reasonable and Necessary Defense Costs
Since 2014, Chubb, with AIG and TIG, have been requesting copies of the NHL's defense
along
invoices. See e.R., correspondence dated December 8, 2014; January 23, 2015; February 6,
28, 2015; April 23, 2015; 8, 2015; and June 16, 2015. Included with our
2015; February May
prior correspondence was Chubb's Litigation Management Guidelines. On March 30, 2017, you
"attorneys' vendors'
forwarded copies of the NHL's and fees, costs and disbursements in

19417138v3
FILED: NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK OS/92/2022
11/08/2022 SS:
06:13 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
FILED : NEW BS Pli
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO. 285
NO. 308 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/02/2022

October 6, 2017
Page 2
Litigation,"
defending the above referenced Concussion which the NHL paid as of March 8,
2017, totaling $50,645,224.03. During the last few months, we have undertaken a detailed
review of those invoices. Our review uncovered substantial non-compliance with our Guidelines
and raised significant questions and issues regarding the reasonableness and necessity of the
NHL's incurred fees and costs. While the number of invoices and entries which raise these
issues and questions is too large to comprehensively detail in this letter, several categories of
items are worth noting now for illustrative purposes.
First, there are a number of attorney's fees and expenses that are not reasonable, including but
not limited to approximately $2.1 million of billings at hourly rates for the performance of
clerical or administrative tasks and approximately $580,000 in law firm overhead expenses.
Second, there is approximately $450,000 in attorney's fees expended on collective bargaining

and labor issues billed by a firm other than Proskaucr. Given that the NHL insisted on retaining
Proskauer specifically to address collective bargaining and labor issues, it is unclear why there
would be substantial fees billed on these same issues by the two other firms. Moreover, it
appears that Skadden's own fees related to addressing collective bargaining and labor issues
actually exceed Proskauer's fees. Third, timekeepers from all three law firms have regularly
engaged in the inflationary practice of block billing, with more than $20 million in fees that have
been block-billed. Fourth, there are multiple lawyers from multiple law firms attending the same
events, and a significant amount of time has been billed for intra-office conferences. Fifth, there
are substantial amounts billed with generic and vague task descriptions. Sixth, there are a
number of questions regarding the overall fees billed for document review work. There appears
to be significant overlap in document-review efforts of all three firms, as well as outside vendors.
Sufficiently detailed descriptions for this work are lacking, and there is wide variability in hourly
billing rates for what appears to be the same type of document review work. Seventh, the sheer
number of timekeepers (over 300 individual timekeepers) and hours spent (over 70,000 hours)
raises significant questions about the reasonableness of staffing and the resulting reasonableness
and necessity of the defense fees.
Reasonable Hourly Rates
As you are aware, the duty to defend only obligates an insurer to pay reasonable attorney's fees
and costs. As you will recall, at the outset of the litigation, the primary carriers collectively
agreed to pay an hourly rate of $350 per hour. As reflected in the recently shared bills, lead
counsel at the NHL's chosen firms, Skadden and Proskauer, have been charging hourly rates in
excess of $1,000 an hour. The hourly rates for more junior partners, associates, and paralegals
are similarly high when viewed in relation to comparable attorneys and paralegals. It is Chubb's
position that the rates charged by the NHL's chosen firms are excessive and unreasonable given
the prevailing market rates for attorneys and litigation pending in Minnesota, and that the NHL
has offered no explanation regarding why the rates charged by its firms are reasonable and
necessary.
19417138v.1
FILED: NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK OS/G2/2022
11/08/2022 BB:
06:13 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
FILED : NEW & B Ply
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO. 285
NO. 308 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
OS/02/2022

October 6, 2017
Page 3
Total Period of Risk
As you will recall, soon after these cases were tendered, the primary carriers sought to enter into
a defense cost agreement with the NHL. Without those efforts- in complete
sharing recounting
detail, they included a significant amount of correspondence and conversation among counsel, as
well as the exchange of several draft agreements. The primary carrier group proposed dividing
the coverage block through all of the years implicated by the allegations in the class action
complaints, which go back to the start of the NHL in 1917. The NHL took the position that the
coverage block effectively should begin in 1982. The midway point between these years is
roughly 1949. Chubb also notes that the earliest any named plaintiff played in the NHL (Larry
Zeidel) was 1951.
On a without-prejudice basis and subject to a full reservation of rights, we have calculated

Chubb's share of defense costs based on a coverage block start date of 1951. Calculating the
total period of risk from 1951 through the end of 2013 (when the first lawsuit was filed) for the
years TIG, AIG, and Chubb issued primary insurance and the years the NHL decided not to
purchase insurance or purchased insurance which it is not pursuing, results in the following
percentages: Chubb - AIG - 9.77%; TIG - and NHL - 50.07%.
38.42%; 1.77%;
In consideration of the concerns regarding the reasonableness and necessity of defense costs, the
reasonableness of hourly rates, and the total period of risk, Chubb has issued this first interim
payment in the amount of $10,188,292.98.
In your June 23, 2017 correspondence, you indicated that "the NHL's view that interest is
payments."
accruing at the New York statutory rate of 9% on outstanding As you know, Chubb
has been requesting copies of the NHL's defense bills since 2014. Since that time, Chubb had
also worked to negotiate a confidentiality agreement and defense cost share agreement with the
NHL. However, it was not until the spring of this year that the NHL, for the first time, produced
over three years of bills from three law firms and dozens of vendors, amounting to more than $50
million. Having delayed disclosure of the bills for years, the NHL's view on interest is not
reasonable. Chubb is entitled to review and assess the defense fees and costs submitted for
payment, and doing so in a thorough and comprehensive manner takes time.
Chubb would like to schedule a time for an in-person meeting to discuss the issues raised in this
letter and renew efforts to reach a defense cost sharing arrangement. We have discussed this
with counsel for AIG and TIG, who join in the r:quest for such a meeting.
Chubb is in the process of reviewing the second set of invoices recently forwarded. Further, it is
anticipated that the NHL will submit additional invoices for the defense of the Tendered
Lawsuits. Chubb will consider any such additional invoices for payment, subject to its right to
review and audit defense fees and costs submitted for payment consistent with the Guidelines
and to adjust interim payments consist with those reviews and audits.
19417138v.1
FILED: NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK OS/92/2022
11/08/2022 SS:
06:13 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
FILED : NEW BS Pli
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO. 285
NO. 308 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/02/2022

October 6, 2017
Page 4
Chubb renews its requests that Skadden, Proskauer, and Faegre make efforts to comply with the
Guidelines, which are once again attached for your reference. As part of those Guidelines,
Chubb renews its requests that Skadden, Proskauer, and Faegre promptly prepare a detailed
budget of anticipated attomey's fees and costs for the defense of Tendered Lawsuits. Chubb also
reserves the right to conduct an audit of defense fees and costs submitted for payment consistent
with the Guidelines and to adjust interim payments consist with those audits.
Further, any interim payment, including any assumptions, formulas, or methods of calculation by
Chubb, shall not in any way constitute an admission that such amount or percentage share is the
amount legally owed by Chubb, nor shall any of these govern or control any future agreement or
obligation on allocation of the cost and expense of the defense of the Tendered Lawsuits. Chubb
reserves its right to revisit or adjust the amount or percentage share of any interim payment.
Moreover, Chubb reserves its right to seek reimbursement, a credit, or reallocation of any portion
of any interim payment from any insured, other insurers, or any non-party based upon, among
other things, any court ruling or future agreement that may be reached between the insured or the
insurer group on allocation of the cost and expense of the defense of the Tendered Lawsuits or if
new or different information becomes available.
Further, Chubb reserves its right to withdraw from the defense of the Tendered Lawsuits if it is
determined that no such defense is owed. Chubb also reserves its right to seek resolution of its
parties'
rights and obligations through the pending declaratory judgment action to determine the
rights and obligations. Under the circumstances addressed herein, should the Tendered Lawsuits
proceed to trial, it may be necessary to seek an allocated verdict, through the use of a special
verdict sheet, to identify what portion of any verdict (and resulting judgment), if any, is allocable
to uncovered claims and damages. Special interrogatories also may be necessary to resolve
factual issues that affect insurance coverage. Chubb reserves all of its rights in connection with
requiring the NHL to pursue a special verdict sheet or special interrogatories, in order to achieve
these objectives. Chubb also reserves the right to intervene in the Tendered Lawsuits or the
consolidated Multidistrict Litigation proceedings for purposes of, among other things,
participating in discovery and pursuing a special verdict sheet and/or special interrogatories.
Chubb again reserves its right to assert any and all defenses under the applicable policies, as
more fully set forth in prior correspondence, including letters dated May 2, 2014, February 1 1,
2015, and January 14, 2016. This letter is therefore not intended as a waiver, modification, or
alteration of any of the terms, conditions, limitations, endorsements or exclusions of the
applicable policies. Chubb does not waive, and shall not be estopped from asserting, any
defenses available under the applicable policies. Any defense, investigation, claims handling, or
other conduct by Chubb or its employees/agents regarding this matter is subject to all the terms,
conditions, limitations, endorsements or exclusions of the applicable policies and/or at law, and
is undertaken subject to a full reservation of rights without any further obligation.
19417138v.1
FILED: NEW YORK
YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK OS/G2/2022
11/08/2022 39:13
06:13 PM|
PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
FILED : NEW
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO. 308
NO. 285 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
OS/02/2022

October 6, 2017
Page 5
Finally, Chubb reserves the right to supplement or amend the positions taken in this letter for any
reason, including, without limitation, if new or different information becomes available.
Should you have any questions or concerns after reading this letter, please feel free to contact me
at any time.
Sincerely,
/s/ Michael O. Kassak
Michael O. Kassak
cc: Peter Luneau, Esquire

Steve Gilford, Esquire
19417138v.1
EXHIBIT 12
FILED:
FILED: NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/G2/2022 06:13
BB:&m PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
28 6 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/G2/2022
AIG
AIG Property Casualty

September 25, 2017
PO Box 2430
Alpharetta, GA30023-2430
"""'8°°"
Via E-Mail and First Class Mail
Julie Grand, Esq.
DA en8el
Senior Vice President / Deputy General Counsel
jacharx
ComplexCasmity National Hockey League
1185 Avenue of the Americas
8 82
zachary.mengel@aig.com New York, NY 10036
jgrand@nhl.com
Players'
Re: Claims: In re National Hockey Concussion
Injury Litigation, MDL No. 2551 ("Concussion
Litigation")
Policies: American Home Assurance Company
Policy No. 9208320 (10/31/82-10/31/83)
Policy No. 9209049 (10/31/83-10/31/84)
Policy No. S1895603 (10/31/84-11/30/85)
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.
Policy No. GLA 5830813 (1/1/91-1/1/92)

Policy No. GLA 5830817 (1/1/92-1/1/93)
Policy No. GLA 5830848 (1/1/93-1/1/94)
Claim No.: 683-592432
Dear Ms. Grand:

Casualty, Inc., is the claims administrator handling claims arising under the
above-referenced policies issued by American Home Assurance Company
("American Home") and National Union Fire Insurance Company of
Pittsburgh, Pa. ("National Union") (American Home and National Union are
referred to collectively as the "Insurers") to the National Hockey League
("NHL"). As you are aware, I am the adjuster handling this claim, and all
future correspondence should be directed to my attention. This letter
responds to correspondence dated March 30, 2017, from Peter Luneau,
Esq., counsel for the NHL forwarding the first wave of NHL defense invoices
dated December 31, 2013, through March 8, 2017 (the "Invoices"), to various
NHL.'
insurers of the The Insurers are presently reviewing a second wave of
invoices that were forwarded by Mr. Luneau by letter dated June 29, 2017.
The Insurers will address the second wave invoices in a subsequent letter
after they have completed their review.
Mr. Luneau and counsel for American Home and National Union have also
communicated directly over the past several months regarding the NHL's first wave
of invoices.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/G2/2022 06:13
99: 18 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
286 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/G2/2022
AIG
Page 2
The Invoices are voluminous, consisting of 298 separate statements
comprising thousands of pages and totaling $50,645,224.03. Some Invoices

are incomplete, and backup for millions of dollars of costs were not provided.
The Invoices span over three years of services and involve billings by four
law firms and twenty-nine vendors (e.g. document processing firms,
examining physicians, numerous experts, a court reporter, an investigator
and mediator). It has taken AIG Claims months to review these documents
to determine what fees and costs are reasonable and necessary to the NHL's
defense in the Concussion Litigation. Based upon that review the Insurers
will be forwarding under separate cover payment to the NHL in the amount of
$2,477,729.87 for their share of the Invoices after taking into account various
factors and discounts discussed below. We look forward to further
discussions with the NHL concerning these and subsequent invoices to reach
consensus with the NHL and its other insurers regarding a defense cost
share agreement that the parties discussed in 2014 and 2015.
The Concussion Litigation involves various putative class actions. On

December 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed their motion and memorandum supporting
class certification identifying two classes they seek to certify: all living retired
NHL players and all retired NHL players (or representative claimants if they
are deceased) who have been clinically diagnosed with a neurological
disease, disorder or condition. The NHL was formed in or about 1917, and
thus, the putative class includes NHL players (or their representative
claimants) who played in the NHL at any time from 1917 to present.
The American Home and National Union policies insure the NHL for only six
of the 100 years the NHL has existed, and the policy period for the last of
these policies ended on January 1, 1994.
In reviewing the Invoices a number of issues were identified that relate to

fees and costs that are not reasonable or necessary. We take the
opportunity to discuss these not only to explain the basis for how the
forthcoming payment was determined, but to identify issues that we hope the
NHL and its insurers will discuss to avoid any future issues regarding defense
fees and costs. We are committed to working with the NHL to resolve these
matters as soon as possible.
The Invoice issues fall into the following categories:
1. Law Firm Overhead/Administrative/Clerical Charges

In two letters dated September 15, 2014, and March 27, 2015, the
undersigned advised the NHL (David Zimmerman) that National Union and
American Home, respectively, do not pay for administrative costs or costs
associated with insurance coverage matters. Those letters further forwarded
copies of the AIG General Litigation Management Guidelines detailing what
billing practices are reasonable. The NHL (and its counsel) did not object to
these guidelines or otherwise advise the Insurers that they would not follow
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/G2/2022 06:13
99: 18 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
286 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/G2/2022
AIG
Page 3
the guidelines. The Invoices, however, include charges of $2,681,326.21, for
overhead, administrative and clerical matters, which the Insurers are
deducting from the $50,645,224.03 sought. Examples of the overhead,

administrative and clerical matters include: deliver hard drives to technology,
entry of case information in docketing system, assist with preparation of
binders, assist at printers, print, tabbed and QC'd documents for large binder,
organize/distribute pleadings and correspondence, create labels, help vendor
unload boxes, place documents back in boxes, bringing documents back to
office and duplicating on site for same purpose, litigation support,
computerized research, proofreading, telephone, word processing,
courier/express/postage, computer legal research, overtime, USB flash
drives, support staff services, and telecommunications.
2. Missing Pages from Law Firm Invoices

The Faegre law firm billed $81,976.00 in fees for which no invoice pages
were provided (i.e. missing pages 2-4 from invoice 21101642, missing page 2
from invoice 2113784, and missing page 9 from invoice 21124591). The
Insurers are deducting the sum of $81,976.00 from the $50,645,224.03
sought. If the missing information is provided, we shall reconsider payment
upon further review.
We also seek clarification regarding Proskauer invoice 150130219A, in which

$127,508.75 in fees are billed, but the invoice provides itemization for only
$42,463.75, a difference of $85,045.00. Please explain the difference in the
$85,045.00.
3. Legal Fees for Insurance Coverage Matters

As noted above, the undersigned sent two letters to the NHL in 2014 and
2015 respectively, in which it informed the NHL that the Insurers would not
pay for insurance coverage work performed by counsel for the NHL. The
Skadden and Proskauer firms billed a total of $19,773.36 for insurance
coverage matters that the Insurers will deduct from the $50,645,224.03
sought. Examples of the time entries involving insurance coverage work
include: T/C JB, T. Reynolds, DZ, JG about insurance coverage issues, conf.
call DZ, BD, JG & BD re insurance coverage, research privilege issues
related to insurance liability consultant, compile notes of meeting with
insurance company for S. Goldfein, pulling documents related to our
presentation re: Chubb's insurance coverage for concussions, emails re:
insurance calls, assemble for attomey review all deposition exhibits for
insurance litigation, telephone conference re MDL, insurance coverage
issues, emails S. Gilford re: preemption, review/analysis correspondence re:

insurance coverage/workers comp, discuss status of tolling and
confidentiality (S. Gilford), and emails S. Gilford re: confidentiality agreement.
4. Labor Preemption Work by Skadden and Faegre Firms

FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/G2/2022 06:13
99: 18 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
286 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/G2/2022
AIG
Page 4
On May 23, 2014, the NHL and its coverage counsel met with
representatives of the NHL's primary insurers (Chubb, TIG, American Home
and National Union). During that meeting the insurers raised concerns about
the number of law firms the NHL independently retained for its defense of the
Concussion Litigation. The NHL and its counsel advised that while multiple
firms were involved, there would be no duplication of effort, and that the
Proskauer firm would be dedicated to labor preemption issues, and other
matters would be handled by the Skadden firm. The Invoices include
substantial billing by the Skadden and Faegre firms for work on labor
preemption matters, however, in addition to the billings by Proskauer. Based
on the descriptive time entries by the three firms, Proskauer billed
$180,912.71 to collective bargaining/labor issues, whereas Skadden and
Faegre billed $444,865.45 and $27,471.68 respectively. While the Insurers
are not discounting at this time the sums billed
by Skadden and Faegre, they
request that the NHL provide an explanation to whyas Skadden and Faegre
billed these sums to matters that we were advised would be handled by the
Proskauer firm. The Insurers reserve their rights to seek reimbursement of
the amounts paid to the NHL representing the sums charged by Skadden and
Faegre for these services, or to apply the forthcoming payment as a credit
towards other defense fees or costs sought by the NHL.
5. Law Firm Block Billing

The Insurers require time
entry in tenths of an hour, and do not permit block
billing, where a timekeeper's multiple tasks are lumped together and

assigned a total time. This practice precludes one from determining whether
the time devoted to a single task is reasonable and necessary. Three of the
NHL's defense law firms billed collectively over $24 million by block billing
one hour or more per time entry (Skadden: $21,618,911.03, Proskauer:
$929,417.50, Faegre: $1,682,793.50). While the Insurers are

discounting not
at this time the sums block billed, they request that going forward they bill in
tenths of an hour as to discrete tasks. The Insurers reserve their rights to
seek reimbursement of the amounts paid to the NHL for the block billed
amounts, or to apply the forthcoming payment as a credit towards other

defense fees or costs sought by the NHL.
6. Law Firm Hourly Rates

As early as September 24, 2014, counsel for Chubb (Luke Repici) informed
NHL counsel (Tim Reynolds) by email that the primary insurers were willing
to pay an hourly rate of $350.00 for defense counsel. This follows the
Insurers'
arrangement with the Nixon Peabody firm to defend the NHL at an
attorney rate of $335.00 per hour. The NHL's defense firms have charged far
in excess of the rates the Insurers could have defended the NHL. In some
instances, the partners retained by the NHL are charging as high as $1,283
an hour (a second-year associate billed at $660 per hour). The Insurers will
reimburse the NHL based upon application of the $350 per hour rate (a rate
higher than Nixon Peabody would have charged) for attorneys, and $125 per
hour for non-attorneys. Applying these rates, the Insurers will pay their share
of: $17,681,580 for Skadden attorneys and $1,513,282.50 for Skadden non-
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/G2/2022 06:13
99: 18 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
286 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/G2/2022
AIG
Page 5
attorneys; $1,291,937.50 for Proskauer attomeys and $52,718.75 for

Proskauer non-attorneys; and $2,151,030 for Faegre attorneys and
$108,637.50 for Faegre non-attorneys. This represents a discount of
$22,495,827.17 from the $50,645,224.03 sought. The Insurers remain willing
to discuss with the NHL a different rate structure for the NHL's defense.
7. Multiple Attendance at Hearings/Depositions

The Invoices charge for an excessive number of persons attending hearings
and depositions. By way of example seven persons attended the same
hearing on the following dates: April 17, 2014, March 4, 2015, April 22, 2015,
August 6, 2015, November 5, 2015 and February 16, 2016; eight persons
attended the same hearing on September 18, 2014; and eleven persons
attended and billed for the same hearings on July 2, 2015, and on March 22,
2016. For the April 14, 2016 deposition of David Christian, two Skadden
attorneys both noted in their time entry that each took the deposition, while
two more Skadden employees attended and billed for that deposition. Three
Skadden employees attended and billed for depositions taken on April 20,
2016 (Reed Larson), August 3, 2016 (Julie Grand), August 9, 2016 (Bill
Daly), and on September 8, 2016 (Gary Leeman), and four Skadden

employees attended and billed for the August 12, 2016 deposition (John
Rizas). This attendance is excessive and unreasonable. While the Insurers
are not discounting at this time the sums billed by the defense firms, they
request that the NHL refrain from permitting an excessive number of counsel
to attend hearings and depositions. The Insurers reserve their rights to seek
reimbursement of the amounts paid to the NHL representing the sums
charged by the defense firms where they send numerous counsel and legal
assistants to hearings and depositions, or to apply the forthcoming payment
as a credit towards other defense fees or costs sought by the NHL.
8. Missing Law Firm Expense Documentation

The Invoices do not include supporting expense documentation for charges
of $1,044,622. While the Insurers are not discounting the $1,044,622 at this
time, they request that the NHL provide the supporting documentation for all
expenses billed. The Insurers reserve their rights to seek reimbursement of
the amounts paid to the NHL representing the unsubstantiated expenses, or
to apply the forthcoming payment as a credit towards other defense fees or
costs sought by the NHL.
9. Miscellaneous Law Firm Billing Issues

While the discussion above identifies the majority of billing issues associated
with the law firms, there are additional issues involving potential double billing
for some tasks, numerous transient billers (many persons who worked limited
hours that are insufficient todevelop knowledge of issues to achieve
efficiencies in subsequent work on NHL matters), intra-firm conferences
attended by multiple employees of the same firm, and vaguely described
services and expenses. The Insurers are not discounting its payment for
these issues at this time, but wish to raise concerns so that future billing
practices will be minimized. The insurers reserve their rights to seek
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/G2/2022 06:13
99: 18 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
286 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/G2/2022
AIG
Page 6

charged for these services, or to apply the forthcoming payment as a credit
towards other defense fees or costs sought by the NHL.
10. NHL Vendor Fees and Costs

There are a number of issues with various invoices and charges of vendors
retained by the NHL to assist it in the Concussion Litigation. These issues
are categorized as follows:
a. Granite Legal
Granite Legal invoices are missing various pages providing detail for
$216,965. While the Insurers are not discounting the amount billed by
Granite Legal at this time, they request that the NHL provide a complete copy
of the Granite Legal invoices. The Insurers reserve their rights to seek
charged by Granite Legal to the extent the missing documentation is not
provided or the services detailed are later determined to not be reasonable or
necessary, or to
apply the forthcoming payment as a credit towards other
b. Dr. Finkel
The Invoices contain a charge by Dr. Finkel in the amount of $4,925
described as continuing medical education. This charge is not reasonable,
and the Insurers will not pay for the continuing education of experts retained
by the NHL in the defense of the Concussion Litigation. The Insurers will
deduct their share of this charge from the amount it will reimburse the NHL.
c. Dr. Olanow
This expert charged $600 for a car service and $1,960 for expenses without
documentation. While the Insurers are not discounting the amount billed by
Dr. Olanow at this time, they request that the NHL provide an explanation for
the necessity of the $600 car service, and provide the supporting
documentation for the $1,960 in other expenses. The Insurers reserve their
rights to seek reimbursement of the amounts paid to the NHL representing
these sums charged by Dr. Olanow to the extent that an appropriate
explanation is not provided, and the missing documentation is not forwarded
to the undersigned, or to apply the forthcoming payment as a credit towards
other defense fees or costs sought by the NHL.
d. Naviaant
There is $1,952 in expenses charged by Navigant without detail as to the
identity of the timekeeper or travel date, or with supporting documentation.

While the Insurers are not
discounting this $1,952, they request that the NHL
provide the
missing information (identity of timekeeper and travel dates, and
supporting documentation regarding the charges). The Insurers reserve their

rights to seek reimbursement of the amounts paid to the NHL representing
Insurers'
the share of the $1,952 to the extent that the requested information
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/G2/2022 06:13
99: 18 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
286 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/G2/2022
AIG
Page 7
and documentation are not provided, or to apply the forthcoming payment as

a credit towards other defense fees or costs sought by the NHL.
e. Benchmark Reporting
This court reporting service billed $804 in late payment charges in connection
with services they performed for the NHL defense. The Insurers will not pay
for late charges, and will deduct this amount from the total sought by the
NHL.
f. Non-Work Travel Time

Various experts collectively billed an excessive $36,000 for non-work travel.
While the Insurers are not discounting this $36,000 they at this
request time,
that the NHL provide an explanation for the arrangements they have made
with experts to bill non-work travel time, whether there is a discount for non-
work travel time compared to substantive work, and why so much has been
billed for such non-work. The Insurers reserve their rights to seek
Insurers'
reimbursement of the amounts paid to the NHL representing the
share of the $36,000 to the extent that the requested explanations are not
provided, or to apply the

forthcoming payment as a credit towards other
g. Dr. Cassidy
The Invoices contain excessive charges by Dr. Cassidy, who billed $1,107 for
a cab and one night at a hotel, and $3,448 for airfare for a brief trip to meet
with NHL counsel. While the Insurers are not discounting these sums at this
time, they request that the NHL provide an explanation for the excessive
hotel and airfare charges. The Insurers reserve their rights to seek
reimbursement of the amounts paid to the NHL for these expenses to the
extent that an appropriate explanation is not provided, or to apply the
forthcoming payment as a credit towards other defense fees or costs sought
by the NHL.
11. Untimely Submission of Defense Invoices

The Insurers made six written requests to the NHL for NHL defense invoices
beginning approximately three years ago. By letters dated September 15,

2014, December 8, 2014, March 20, 2015, March 27, 2015, April 10, 2015,
and July 28, 2015, the Insurers requested itemized invoices to enable the
Insurers to determine what billed fees and costs were reasonable and
necessary. Despite these requests (and similar requests in meetings and
telephone calls), the NHL did not provide its invoices to the Insurers until
March 20, 2017, more than thirty months after the invoices were first
requested, and more than thirty-nine months after the first such invoice was
issued to the NHL.
A great number of the billing issues discussed above could have been
discussed and likely resolved years earlier had the invoices been provided in
the normal course. Further, by letter dated September 14, 2014, National
Union provided the NHL with the AIG General Litigation Management
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
09/G2/2022 06:13
99: 18 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
286 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
02/G2/2022
AIG
Page 8
Guidelines. Those guidelines (as well as the Chubb guidelines also

forwarded to the NHL in 2014), discuss accepted billing practices. The NHL
and its counsel did not object to the AIG Guidelines, nor inform the Insurers
that they declined to follow them. We reiterate our sincere hope that the NHL
and its insurers will discuss and resolve in the very near future application of
billing guidelines and reach consensus on addressing the billing issues

discussed in this letter.
Based upon the issues and discount factors above, the Insurers will pay their
allocated share of $25,360,592.29. As noted above, the Insurers insured the
NHL for six of the one hundred years at issue in the Concussion Litigation
and putative class at issue. In discussions in 2014 between the NHL and its
more recent primary insurers (Chubb, TIG, and the Insurers), the insurers
proposed allocating defense based on the years at issue, /.e. between 1917
and 2013 (the year the first putative class action was filed). The NHL
proposed to allocate defense between 1982 and 2013. As a compromise
position, the Insurers will allocate between 1951 (the year named plaintiff
(estate), Larry Zeidel, first played in the NHL, not 1949 (the midpoint between
1917 and 1982), or the earlier 1940s, when the oldest living NHL putative
class member is believed to have played in the NHL.
Insurers'
Based on the allocation period from 1951 to 2013, the share of the
Insurers'
NHL's defense is 9.77%. The forthcoming payment of
$2,477,729.87 is based on their 9.77% share of $25,360,592.29.
Insurers'
The calculation and payment of $2,477,729.87 shall not constitute
an admission that such calculation or payment is the amount legally owed by
the Insurers. Further, the calculation and payment shall not govern any
future agreement between the NHL, Insurers or co-insurers as to the
allocation of defense fees and costs of the NHL's law firms and vendors in
the Concussion Litigation. The Insurers reserve their rights to recalculate
amounts owed or to adjust the allocation period and underlying assumptions
used to determine the present or future payment amount. Further, the
Insurers reserve their rights to seek reimbursement of the amounts paid to
the NHL, or to apply the forthcoming payment(s) as a credit towards other
This letter is not, and should not be construed as, a waiver of any terms,
conditions, exclusions or other policy provisions, or any other insurance
policies issued by AlG Property Casualty member companies. American
Home and National Union expressly reserve all of their rights under the
policies referenced above, including the right to assert additional defenses to
any claims for coverage or requests for reimbursement of defense fees and
costs.
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
08/92/2022 06:13
BS : E U PM
INDEX
INDEX NO. 653421/2020
NO. 653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
286 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
03/02/2022
AlG
Page 9
you.
Very truly yours,
Zachary A. Mengel
Complex Director
EXHIBIT 13

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________________Ç
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, NHL BOARD OF
GOVERNORS and NHL ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Index No. 653421/2020
Plaintiffs,
-against-

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; CHUBB
PITTSBURGH, PA.; VIGILANT INSURANCE
COMPANY; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE
COMPANY; AVIVA INSURANCE COMPANY OF
CANADA, as successor to COMMERCIAL UNION
ASSURANCE CO., LTD.; and ZURICH INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________Ç
PLAINTIFFS NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, NHL BOARD OF

GOVERNORS AND NHL ENTERPRISES, INC.'S FIRST SET OF
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANTS
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY AND NATIONAL
UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Article 31 of the New York Civil Practice Law
and Rules, Plaintiffs National Hockey League, NHL Board of Governors and NHL Enterprises,
Inc., by and through their attorneys, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Proskauer
Rose LLP, request that Defendants American Home Assurance Company and National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. produce for inspection, copying, reproduction,
photographing, testing or sampling the following specified documents or other tangible things in
their possession, custody or control. Production of all such documents and other tangible things
shall be made within twenty (20) days of service of these requests, at the office of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Attention: Peter Luneau, One Manhattan West, New York, New
York 10001.
DEFINITIONS
These document requests are subject to the following defmitions:
File"
1. The term "Claims means all Documents concerning any liability claim(s)
against a Person insured by You, including but not limited to all Documents concerning the
question of whether insurance coverage applies to the claim(s) and fmancial reserves with respect
File"
to any such claim(s). "Claims includes, but is not limited to, all Documents concerning the
administration, handling, management, investigation, coverage, denial, reservation of rights,
defense (including the cost of such defense and attorney hourly rates paid, agreed to or
reimbursed), negotiation, settlement or other disposition of occurrences, claims, suits or events
noticed, reported or tendered to You.
"concerning"
2. The term means constituting, referring to, discussing, analyzing,
comprising, embodying, recording, evidencing or containing any information pertaining to the
subject matter addressed in the document request.
"CU"
3. The term means Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. and its parents,
affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, subgroups, sections, contractors, third-party claims
administrator or handling agent, partnerships, joint ventures, successors, predecessors, acquired
entities, assignees, agents, attorneys, merged entities and other business units, and its present and
former directors, officers, trustees, employees, representatives and agents.
"Document"
4. The term includes, but is not limited to, the original, drafts and all
non-identical versions or copies (whether different from originals by reason of notations made on
such copies or otherwise) of all written, electronic or graphic material, however produced or
reproduced, in Your possession, custody or control, including but not limited to writings, drawings,
2
graphs, charts, photographs, sound or mechanical recordings or tapes, information stored on
computer systems, electronic mail, computer printouts, computer punch cards and other data
compilations from which information can be obtained or translated, if necessary through the use
"Document"
of detection devices, into reasonably usable form. also includes any label, heading,
title or other identification of the file drawer, folder, file, or the like, in which the Document is
"Document" Information"
located. For clarity, includes "Electronically Stored as defined below
and any communication captured or recorded in a manner listed above or by any other medium.
Information"
5. The term "Electronically Stored includes but is not limited to, any
emails, texts, intemet posts, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings,
images, and other data or data compilations stored in any medium from which information can be
obtained.
Claims"
6. The term "Individual means any Proceeding brought by or on behalf of
any current or former National Hockey League player against the National Hockey League, NHL
Board of Governors and/or NHL Inc. for alleged due to concussive and sub-
Enterprises, injury
concussive impact sustained during the course of their hockey careers, including but not limited to
the actions captioned:
a. Leeman, et al. v. NHL, et al., 1:13-cv-01856 (D.D.C. 11/25/2013);
b. LaCouture, et al. v. NHL, 1:14-cv-02531 (S.D.N.Y. 4/9/2014);
c. Christian, et al. v. NHL, 0:14-cv-01140 (D. Minn. 4/15/2014);
d. Ludzik v. NHL, et al., 1:15-cv-04816 (N.D. Ill. 6/1/2015);
e. Fritsche, et al. v. NHL, 1:14-cv-05732 (S.D.N.Y. 7/25/2014);
f. Rohloff v. NHL, 0:14-cv-03038 (D. Minn. 7/29/2014);
g. Larose v. NHL, 0:14-cv-03410 (D. Minn. 9/8/2014);
3
h. Pokulok, et al. v. NHL, 0:14-cv-03477 (D. Minn. 9/17/2014);
i. Murphy v. NHL, 0:14-cv-04132 (D. Minn. 10/2/2014);
j. Adams, et al. v. NHL, 0:15-cv-00472 (D. Minn. 2/9/2015);
k. Blue v. NHL, 0:15-cv-02294-SRN-JSM (C.D. Cal. 4/20/2015);
1. Severson v. NHL, 2:15-cv-06411 (C.D. Cal. 8/21/2015);
m. Petit, et al. v. NHL, 0:15-cv-03666 (D. Minn. 9/14/2015);
n. Oliwa, et al. v. NHL, et al., 0:15-cv-03904 (D. Minn. 10/20/2015);
o. Muni, et al. v. NHL, et al., 0:15-cv-04191 (D. Minn. 11/23/2015);
p. Montador v. NHL, et al., 1:15-cv-10989 (N.D. Ill. 12/8/2015);
q. Ledyard, et al. v. NHL, et al., 0:16-cv-00248 (D. Minn. 2/3/2016);
r. Veitch, et al. v. NHL, et al., 0:16-cv-02683 (D. Minn. 8/9/2016);
s. Bradley (Estate of Zeidel) v. NHL, et al., 0:16-cv-03156 (D. Minn. 9/22/2016);
t. Simon, et al. v. NHL, et al., 0:17-cv-01586 (D. Minn. 5/12/2017);
u. Carcillo, et al. v. NHL, et al., 0:18-cv-01715 (D. Minn., transferred to N.D. Ill.
6/21/2018);
v. Berard v. NHL, et al., BC718095 (L.A. Super. Ct. 8/15/2018);
w. Butcher v. NHL, et al., BC718250 (L.A. Super. Ct. 8/15/2018);
x. Cullen v. NHL, et al., BC718249 (L.A. Super. Ct. 8/15/2018);
y. Hardy v. NHL, et al., BC718093 (L.A. Super. Ct. 8/15/2018);
z. Turnbull v. NHL, et al., BC718251 (L.A. Super Ct. 8/15/2018);
aa. J.P., et al. v. NHL, et al., BC719056 (L.A. Super Ct. 8/23/2018);
bb. Quinn v. NHL, et al., BC719462 (L.A. Super Ct. 8/27/2018); and
cc. Ewen v. NHL, et al., 2:19-CV-03656 (C.D. Cal. 4/30/2019).
4
Policy"
7. The term "Liability Insurance means any policy of insurance affording
coverage for an insured's actual or alleged liability for bodily injury, personal injury, property
damage, products hazard, completed operations, or products liability, whether designated as a
comprehensive general liability policy, commercial general liability policy, blanket liability
policy, products liability policy, excess liability policy, umbrella policy, binder, cover note,
quotation, endorsement, rider, side-bar agreement or otherwise, including primary, umbrella, and
excess policies, and all endorsements or proposed endorsements thereto.
Guidelines"
8. The term "Litigation means manuals, forms, instructions, guidelines,
materials or other Documents - whether formal or informal, internal

policies, procedures, training
or published or non-published - practices for the defense of a Proceeding

external, concerning
and/or indemnity or allocation of a settled Proceeding, including with respect to case staffmg,
billing and time entry practices, hourly rates, internal and external expenses and all other case and
cost management issues.
"MDL"
9. The term means the coordinated pre-trial multidistrict litigation Proceeding
held in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and captioned In Re: National Hockey
Players'
League Concussion Injury Litigation, No. 2551.
"NCAA"
10. The term means the National Collegiate Athletic Association and its
predecessors, and any affiliates thereof.
Litigation"
11. The term "NCAA Concussion means any Proceeding brought by or on
behalf of current or former NCAA players against the NCAA for alleged injury due to concussive
and sub-concussive impact sustained during the course of their football careers.
"NFL"
12. The term means the National Football League and its predecessors,
including but not limited to the American Football League, and any of their affiliates.
5
Litigation"
13. The term "NFL Concussion means any Proceeding brought by or on
behalf of current or former NFL players against the NFL for alleged injury due to concussive and
sub-concussive impact sustained during the course of their football careers.
"NHL"
14. The term means National Hockey League, NHL Board of Governors and
NHL Enterprises, Inc., and their respective subsidiaries, divisions, departments, groups,
subgroups, sections, acquired entities, assignees and merged entities, predecessor entities and their
present and former directors, officers, trustees, employees, representatives and agents, when acting
in such capacity.
Policy" Policies"
15. The terms "NHL or "NHL shall mean each and every Liability
Insurance Policy issued, offered or proposed to be issued to or for the benefit of the NHL from
1917 to present.
Counsel"
16. The term "Outside means the attorneys that represented the NHL in the
Individual Claims and the MDL, including Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (lead
attorneys: Shepard Goldfein and John Beisner), Proskauer Rose LLP (lead attorneys: Joseph
Baumgarten and Adam Lupion) and Faegre Baker Daniels LLP (lead attorney: Daniel Connolly).
"Person" "Persons"
17. The terms and are used herein in their broadest sense and
include any natural person, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, association, joint venture,
governmental or other public entity, or any other form of organization or legal entity, and all their
officials, shareholders, directors, officers, managers, employees, representatives, successors,
subsidiaries, assigns, and agents.
"Proceeding"
18. The term means any current or previous judicial or administrative
litigation, lawsuit, declaratory judgment action, dispute, arbitration, mediation or claim.
6
"Sport"
19. The term means any sporting or athletic activity, including but not limited
to football, boxing, hockey and soccer, and including but not limited to matches, games, contests,
exhibitions, events, practices and training.
Manufacturer"
20. The term "Sports Equipment means any manufacturer of equipment
or paraphernalia used by participants during sporting events, practices or games, including but not
limited to helmets, uniforms, shoes, protective gear, balls and instruments used by participants
during the course of the sporting event, practice or game.
League"
21. The term "Sports means any league, conference, association, or governing
body of youth, scholastic, collegiate, recreational or professional sports teams, including but not
limited to the NHL, NFL and NCAA.
Team"
22. The term "Sports means any collegiate or professional sports team,
including but not limited to any NHL member clubs.
Matters"
23. The term "Underlying means the Individual Claims and the MDL,
collectively.
Settlement"
24. The term "Underlying means the settlement agreement entered into on
Plaintiffs'
or about November 6, 2018 between the NHL (as defined therein) and the Counsel (as
defined therein) with respect to the MDL and the Underlying Matters, including all amendments
thereto.
Files"
25. The term "Underwriting means any and all Documents generated, received,
solicited, and/or maintained by You in connection with the application for, or underwriting,
negotiation, drafting, binding or issuance of, an NHL Policy, whether or not ultimately issued to
the NHL.
7
"You" "Your"
26. The terms and mean American Home Assurance Company and
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., their parents, affiliates, subsidiaries,
divisions, groups, subgroups, sections, contractors, third-party claims administrator or handling
agent, partnerships, joint ventures, successors, predecessors, acquired entities, assignees, agents,
attorneys, merged entities and other business units, and their present and former directors, officers,
trustees, employees, representatives and agents.
"Zurich"
27. The term means Zurich Insurance Company, Ltd. and its parents,
INSTRUCTIONS
1. These requests cover all Documents in Your possession, custody or control,
wherever located, including those Documents that You have the effective power to obtain.
2. Each request seeks Documents from 1970 to present unless stated otherwise
therein.
"and" "or"
3. As used herein, the words and shall be construed either conjunctively or
disjunctively as required by the context to bring within the scope of these requests any Document
that might be deemed outside the scope of the requests by another construction.
4. The singular form of a word shall be interpreted as plural, and the plural form of a
word shall be interpreted as singular, whichever is appropriate so as to bring within the scope of
these requests any information or Documents which might otherwise be considered to be beyond
their scope.
8
5. The use of a verb in the present tense shall be construed to include the use of a verb
in the past tense and vice versa.
"including" to"
6. All phrases following the terms and "including but not limited are
intended to illustrate the kinds of Documents responsive to each request. Such examples are not
intended to be exhaustive of the materials sought by the request and shall not in any way be read
to limit the scope of the request.
7. Each request herein for Documents to be produced requires production of the
Documents in their entirety without abbreviation or expurgation.
8. Each paragraph herein shall be construed independently and not with reference to
any other paragraph for the purposes of limitation.
9. Each Document requested herein shall be produced as it is kept in the ordinary
course of business.
10. If any Document requested herein was formerly in Your possession, custody or
control and has been lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, submit in lieu of each such
Document a written statement which:
a. describes the nature of the Document and its contents;
b. identifies the Persons who prepared or authored the Document, and, if applicable,
the Persons to whom the Document was sent;
c. specifies the date on which the Document was prepared or transmitted; and
d. specifies the date on which the Document was lost, destroyed or otherwise disposed
of and the conditions or any reasons for such destruction or other disposition.
11. If You withhold any Document covered by these requests, identify each such
Document and state the following information with respect to each such Document:
9
a. the reason for the withholding;
b. the date of the Document;
c. the names of its authors or preparers, and an identification by employment and title
of each such Person;
d. the name of each Person who was sent or furnished with, or who received, viewed
or has had custody of the Document or a copy thereof;
e. a description of the nature and content of the Document;
f. a statement of facts constituting the basis for the withholding; and
g. the number of each paragraph of these requests to which the Document responds.
12. These requests are continuing in nature and, to the extent that Your responses may
be enlarged, diminished or otherwise modified by information or Documents acquired subsequent
to the production of Your initial responses hereto, You are required to promptly produce
supplemental responses and/or Documents.
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
1. Copies of all NHL Policies.
2. Your Underwriting Files concerning the NHL Policies.
3. Your Claims Files concerning the Underlying Matters.
4. All loss control, engineer or risk assessment Documents concerning the NHL or the
NHL Policies.
5. All Documents, including any manuals, forms, instructions, guidelines, policies,
practices and procedures, You used or considered in the evaluation, defense, handling and
administration of the NHL's insurance claim with respect to the Underlying Matters, including all
Documents You used or considered in reaching or evaluating Your coverage positions with respect
10
to coverage for (a) defense costs incurred and paid in the Underlying Matters and/or (b) the
Underlying Settlement.
6. All Documents concerning audits, studies, valuations, estimates, projections,
speculation or discussions concerning amounts incurred or paid by the NHL in the defense of the
Underlying Matters.
speculation or discussions concerning amounts incurred or paid by the NHL in the Underlying
Settlement.
speculation or discussions concerning Your potential coverage obligations to the NHL with respect
to the Underlying Matters.
9. All Documents concerning financial claim reserves with respect to the NHL's
insurance claim concerning the Underlying Matters, including but not limited to Documents
concerning the amount of any such reserves and the decision of whether to set such reserves,
regardless of whether or not You set any such reserves for defense or indemnity.
10. All Documents concerning the issue of class certification in the MDL, including
any analysis or discussion concerning the importance of securing a denial of class certification, the
likelihood of such a denial and Your reaction to the denial.
11. Your Claims Files concerning the NFL Concussion Litigation.
12. Your Claims Files concerning the NCAA Concussion Litigation.
13. All Documents concerning both the Underlying Matters and the NFL Concussion
Litigation, including but not limited to Documents comparing, contrasting or considering together
the Underlying Matters and the NFL Concussion Litigation.
11
14. All Documents concerning both the NCAA Concussion Litigation and the
Underlying Matters, including but not limited to Documents comparing, contrasting or considering
together the Underlying Matters and the NCAA Concussion Litigation.
15. All Documents concerning the attorney hourly billing rates paid, reimbursed,
funded or otherwise accepted or allowed by You in the NCAA Concussion Litigation, the NFL
Concussion Litigation, and/or any other claim against a Sports Team or Sports League alleging
concussive or sub-concussive injury sustained by participants.
16. All Documents concerning any meetings, conferences, discussions or
communications that You had with other insurers (including defendants herein), insurance brokers
or agents concerning insurance coverage for the NHL with respect to the Underlying Matters.
17. With respect to any NHL Policy actually, allegedly, or potentially issued by You
or any other insurer as to which complete copies were not produced by You in response to Request
No. 1, all such Liability Insurance Policies, including but not limited to parts of such NHL Policies,
fragmentary or isolated pages, declaration pages, schedules, endorsements, and drafts thereof.
No. 1, all Documents concerning the actual or potential existence, terms, limits, premiums,
issuance, brokerage, underwriting, placement or renewal of all such NHL Policies.
or any other insurer to or for the benefit of the NHL as to which complete copies were not produced
by You in response to Request No. 1, all binders, certificates of insurance, cancellation and
premium notices, listing summaries or other Documents conceming all such NHL Policies.
12
by You in response to Request No. 1, all reinsurance contracts, policies, treaties, or agreements
providing reinsurance with respect to such Liability Insurance Policies and any Documents
concerning communications with reinsurers, retrocessionaires or reinsurance intermediaries
concerning all such NHL Policies.
21. To the extent not produced by You in response to the above requests, all Documents
concerning any NHL Policy with a policy inception date that is prior to October 1982, including
but not limited to:
a. Copies of any such NHL Policy actually, allegedly or potentially issued by CU or
Zurich;
b. Internal or external correspondence concerning any such NHL Policy, including
any communications with other insurers, reinsurers, brokers or any other Person;
c. Bills, invoices, receipts, checks or other Documents concerning the NHL's
payment of premiums under any such NHL Policy;
d. Documents concerning any Proceedings noticed or pursued under any such NHL
Policy;
e. Documents concerning policy number 123 C 713 issued by CU and policy numbers
890-1503 and 8170635 issued by Zurich; and
f. Documents concerning searches for any such Liability Insurance Policy actually,
allegedly or potentially issued by You, CU or Zurich.
22. All Documents concerning the insurance policy forms, language, sections,
provisions and endorsements that You utilized in Liability Insurance Policies issued between 1970
13
and 1980, including copies of any such Liability Insurance Policies utilizing such standard
insurance policy forms or specimen policy forms.
23. All Documents concerning the drafting, development, meaning, approval and
defend"
implementation of the "duty to as used in the NHL Policies.
24. All Documents concerning Your review, consideration, interpretation and/or
understanding of (a) the duty to defend, (b) reasonable defense costs or (c) allocation as provided
in any NHL Policies.
25. All Documents concerning Document storage or retention policies, practices, or
procedures, including but not limited to storage or retention of email and other electronic files.
26. To the extent that You take the position that You do not have a duty to defend in
full one or more of the Underlying Matters, all Documents concerning, bearing on, supporting,
affecting or contradicting any such position.
27. All Documents concerning instances in which You paid, reimbursed, funded or
otherwise accepted attorney hourly billing rates in excess of $350 per hour with respect to the
defense of a claim against any Person that You insured under a Liability Insurance Policy,
including the identification of the law firms involved, the subject matter of the Proceeding, billing
records, cost submissions and checks.
otherwise accepted non-attorney legal staff hourly billing rates in excess of $125 per hour with
respect to the defense of a claim against any Person that You insured under a Liability Insurance
Policy, including the identification of the law firms involved, the subject matter of the Proceeding,
billing records, cost submissions and checks.
14
otherwise accepted legal invoices with respect to the defense of a claim against any Person that
You insured under a Liability Insurance Policy, where the legal invoices contained:
billed" -
a. "Block time entries i.e., time entries that combined multiple tasks into a
single time entry and assigned a total time to those collective tasks;
Attorneys'
b. fees billed in quarter-hour, half-hour or whole-hour increments;
c. Time entries that did not comply, in whole or in part, with Your Litigation
Guidelines;
d. Time entries You deemed as administrative or clerical tasks;
e. Time entries You deemed vague;
f. Overhead charges;
g. Multiple intra-office conferences; or
h. More than 20 timekeepers.
30. Your Litigation Guidelines, including all drafts and versions of the Litigation
Guidelines, discussions concerning the Litigation Guidelines and any Documents reviewed,
referred to, considered or otherwise utilized in the preparation of the Litigation Guidelines.
31. All manuals, forms, instructions, guidelines, policies, procedures, training materials
attorneys'
or other Documents concerning payment, reimbursement or approval of bills for fees
and expenses, including those that do not adhere, in one or more respects, to Your Litigation
Guidelines, including any factors considered when approving such a bill and any processes
involved in the approval of such a bill.
32. To the extent not encompassed by the requests above, all manuals, forms,
instructions, guidelines, policies, procedures or other Documents that You use or have used in
15
connection with determining the reasonableness of a given attorney hourly billing rate, billing
practice, staffing practice or expensing practice.
33. All Documents in which You expressed any view or reaction whatsoever, whether
positive, negative, or neutral, to the NHL's choice of Outside Counsel to represent it in the
Underlying Matters.
positive, negative, or neutral, to Outside Counsel's handling of the Underlying Matters, including
overall strategy, discovery, motion practice, depositions, oral arguments, procedural issues,
opposition to class certification and settlement negotiation.
35. All Documents concerning calculation or determination of payments made to date
to the NHL for reimbursement of defense costs incurred in connection with the Underlying
Matters.
36. All Documents concerning communications between or among You and any other
insurer concerning any NHL Policy.
insurer concerning any claims by the NHL for insurance coverage for the Underlying Matters.
38. All Documents concerning the July 19, 2018 meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
between the NHL and certain of its insurers, including You.
39. All Documents concerning the telephone calls and meetings that You attended in
which the NHL provided an update with respect to any of the Underlying Matters.
40. All Documents concerning any coordination, working group, task force, point
person or other formal or information practice, policy or procedure for sharing information
16
between or among You and any other insurer conceming claims that in any way relate to or concern
concussions or sub-concussive impacts from participating in any Sport.
41. All Documents concerning any risk of head, brain, or neurocognitive injury arising
from participation in any Sport.
42. All Documents concerning any risk of insurance exposure arising out of or related
to concussions or sub-concussive impacts arising from participation in any Sport.
43. All Documents concerning any risk of insurance exposure for bodily injury
associated with insuring or potentially insuring any Sports League, Sports Team, or Sports
Equipment Manufacturer.
44. Documents sufficient to identify all Sports Leagues, Sports Teams or Sports
Equipment Manufacturers to which You issued a Liability Insurance Policy, the identities of the
insureds and the applicable policy periods.
45. All Documents, including Claims Files, concerning Your handling of a claim
against any Sports League that alleged or alleges liability against that Sports League for bodily
injury arising out of or related to participation in any Sport.
against any Sports Team that alleged or alleges liability against that Sports Team for bodily injury
arising out of or related to participation in any Sport.
against any Sports Equipment Manufacturer that alleged or alleges liability against that Sports
Equipment Manufacturer for bodily injury arising out of or related to participation in any Sport.
48. All Documents concerning the interpretation of Liability Insurance Policy language
concerning participants in Sports.
17
49. All Documents concerning regulatory approval or consideration of any Liability
Insurance Policy language addressing participants in Sports, including but not limited to any
exclusion."
"participant(s)
50. All Documents concerning when or whether any bodily injury arising from
"expected" "intended."
participation in any Sport is or should be considered to be or
participation in any Sport does or should be considered to arise out of intentional wrongdoing.
participation in any Sport does or should be considered to arise out of an accident or fortuitous
event.
53. All Documents concerning each reservation of rights letter You transmitted to the
NHL in connection with the Underlying Matters, including but not limited to drafts of such letters,
materials used or referenced in the preparation of such letters and any communications related to
such letters.
54. All Documents concerning any insurance policy clause, condition, exclusion,
endorsement, or other term that allegedly or potentially limits or bars coverage for the NHL under
any NHL Policy for defense costs, settlement costs or any liability incurred in the Underlying
Matters to the extent not already provided.
55. All Documents supporting or otherwise concerning each defense or potential
defense to coverage that You have asserted or plan to assert in the instant litigation.
56. All Documents supporting or otherwise concerning the allegations set forth in the
Complaint filed in the action captioned TIG Insurance Company f/k/a Transamerica Insurance
18
Company v. National Hockey League, et al., Index No. 651162, filed on or about April 15, 2014
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the "TIG Lawsuit").
57. To the extent not produced in response to the requests above, all Documents
concerning: (a) the NHL; (b) the NHL Policies; (c) the Underlying Matters and/or the Underlying
Settlement; (d) coverage under the NHL Policies for defense and/or settlement of the Underlying
Matters; (e) Outside Counsel; or (f) the TIG Lawsuit.

October 8, 2020

& FLOM LLP
Peter D. Luneau
Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
-and-
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

Marc Eric Rosenthal, pro hac vice forthcoming
(312) 962-3550

National Hockey League, NHL Board of Governors
and NHL Enterprises, Inc.
19
To: Charles J. Scibetta

Andrew L. Poplinger
CHAFFETZ LINDSEY LLP
33rd
1700 Broadway, FlOOr
Attorneys for Defendants

and American Home Assurance Company
20
EXHIBIT 14

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________________Ç
Index No. 653421/2020
Plaintiffs,
-against-

CANADA,assuccessorto COMMERCIAL UNION
COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________Ç

REQUESTS FORPRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANT
AVIVA INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA,ASSUCCESSOR
TO COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO., LTD.
Rose LLP, request that Defendant Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, as successor to
Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. produce for inspection, copying, reproduction,
its possession, custody or control. Production of all such documents and other tangible things shall
be made within twenty (20) days of service of these requests, at the office of Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, Attention: Peter Luneau, One Manhattan West, New York, New York
10001.
DEFINITIONS
These document requests are subject to the following deñnitions:
File"
question of whether insurance coverage applies to the claim(s) and ñnancial reserves with respect
File"
"concerning"
"Document"
"Document"
title or other identiñcation of the Ele drawer, folder, Ele, or the like, in which the Document is
2
Information"
obtained.
Claims"
Enterprises, injury
3
6/21/2018);
Policy"
4
Guidelines"


"MDL"
Players'
"NCAA"
Litigation"
"NFL"
Litigation"
"NHL"
5
in such capacity.
Policy" Policies"
1917 to present.
Counsel"
"Person" "Persons"
"Proceeding"
"Sport"
Manufacturer"
6
League"
Team"
Matters"
collectively.
Settlement"
Plaintiffs'
thereto.
Files"
the NHL.
"You" "Your"
25. The terms and mean Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, as
successor to Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd., its parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions,
groups, subgroups, sections, contractors, third-party claims administrator or handling agent,
partnerships, joint ventures, successors, predecessors, acquired entities, assignees, agents,
attorneys, merged entities and other business units, and its present and former directors, officers,
7
"Zurich"
INSTRUCTIONS
therein.
"and" "or"
their scope.
"including" to"
8
course of business.
9
NHL Policies.
Underlying Matters.
10
Settlement.
11
premium notices, listing summaries or other Documents concerning all such NHL Policies.
12
but not limited to:
a. Copies of any such NHL Policy actually, allegedly or potentially issued by You or
Zurich;
Policy;
e. Documents concerning policy number 123 C 713 issued by You and policy
numbers 890-1503 and 8170635 issued by Zurich; and
allegedly or potentially issued by You or Zurich.
defend"
13
billed" -
14
Attorneys'
Guidelines;
attorneys'
Underlying Matters.
15
Matters.
between the NHL and certain of its insurers.
between or among You and any other insurer concerning claims that in any way relate to or concern
16
exclusion."
"participant(s)
17
event.
such letters.
54. All Documents conceming any insurance policy clause, condition, exclusion,
18

October 8, 2020

& FLOM LLP
Peter D. Luneau
Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
-and-
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

(312) 962-3550

To: Thomas R. Maeglin
Abrams, Gorelick, Friedman & Jacobson, LLP

4d¹
One Battery Park Plaza, Floor
Attorneys for Defendant

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, as successor to
Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd.
19
EXHIBIT 15

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________________Ç
Index No. 653421/2020
Plaintiffs,
-against-

COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________Ç

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO DEFENDANTS
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CHUBB INSURANCE
COMPANY OF CANADA AND VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY
Rose LLP, request that Defendants Federal Insurance Company, Chubb Insurance Company of
Canada and Vigilant Insurance Company produce for inspection, copying, reproduction,
their possession, custody or control. Production of all such documents and other tangible things
shall be made within twenty (20) days of service of these requests, at the office of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Attention: Peter Luneau, One Manhattan West, New York, New
York 10001.
DEFINITIONS
File"
File"
"concerning"
"CU"
"Document"
2
"Document"
Information"
obtained.
Claims"
Enterprises, injury
3
6/21/2018);
4
Policy"
Guidelines"


"MDL"
Players'
"NCAA"
Litigation"
"NFL"
5
Litigation"
"NHL"
in such capacity.
Policy" Policies"
1917 to present.
Counsel"
"Person" "Persons"
"Proceeding"
6
"Sport"
Manufacturer"
League"
Team"
Matters"
collectively.
Settlement"
Plaintiffs'
thereto.
Files"
the NHL.
7
"You" "Your"
26. The terms and mean Federal Insurance Company, Chubb Insurance
Company of Canada and Vigilant Insurance Company, their parents, affiliates, subsidiaries,
"Zurich"
INSTRUCTIONS
therein.
"and" "or"
their scope.
8
"including" to"
course of business.
9
NHL Policies.
10
Underlying Matters.
Settlement.
11
premium notices, listing summaries or other Documents conceming all such NHL Policies.
12
but not limited to:
a. Copies of any such NHL Policy actually, allegedly or potentially issued by CU or
Zurich;
Policy;
allegedly or potentially issued by You, CU or Zurich.
13
defend"
14
billed" -
Attorneys'
Guidelines;
attorneys'
15
Underlying Matters.
Matters.
between the NHL and certain of its insurers, including You.
16
between or among You and any other insurer conceming claims that in any way relate to or concern
17
exclusion."
"participant(s)
event.
such letters.
54. All Documents concerning any insurance policy clause, condition, exclusion,
18

October 8, 2020

& FLOM LLP
Peter D. Luneau
Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
-and-
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

(312) 962-3550

19
To: Robert Wright

Michael Kassak
Luke Repici
7 Times Square
Suite 2900
New York, New York 10036-6524

Federal Insurance Company, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada
and Vigilant Insurance Company
20
EXHIBIT 16

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________________Ç
Index No. 653421/2020
Plaintiffs,
-against-

COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________Ç

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO
DEFENDANT ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.
Rose LLP, request that Defendant Zurich Insurance Company, Ltd. produce for inspection,
copying, reproduction, photographing, testing or sampling the following specified documents or
other tangible things in its possession, custody or control. Production of all such documents and
other tangible things shall be made within twenty (20) days of service of these requests, at the
office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Attention: Peter Luneau, One Manhattan
West, New York, New York 10001.

DEFINITIONS
File"
File"
"concerning"
"CU"
"Document"
2
"Document"
Information"
obtained.
Claims"
Enterprises, injury
3
J. Adams, et al. v. NHL, 0:15-cv-00472 (D. Minn. 2/9/2015);
6/21/2018);
Policy"
4
Guidelines"


"MDL"
Players'
"NCAA"
Litigation"
"NFL"
5
Litigation"
"NHL"
in such capacity.
Policy" Policies"
1917 to present.
Counsel"
"Person" "Persons"
"Proceeding"
6
"Sport"
Manufacturer"
League"
Team"
Matters"
collectively.
Settlement"
Plaintiffs'
thereto.
Files"
the NHL.
7
"You" "Your"
26. The terms and mean Zurich Insurance Company, Ltd., its parents,
INSTRUCTIONS
therein.
"and" "or"
their scope.
"including" to"
8
course of business.
9
NHL Policies.
Underlying Matters.
10
Settlement.
11
premium notices, listing summaries or other Documents concerning all such NHL Policies.
12
but not limited to:
CU;
Policy;
890-1503 and 8170635 issued by You; and
allegedly or potentially issued by You or CU.
defend"
13
billed" -
14
Attorneys'
Guidelines;
attorneys'
Underlying Matters.
15
Matters.
between the NHL and certain of its insurers.
between or among You and any other insurer concerning claims that in any way relate to or concern
16
exclusion."
"participant(s)
17
event.
such letters.
54. All Documents conceming any insurance policy clause, condition, exclusion,
18

October 8, 2020

& FLOM LLP
Peter D. Luneau
Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
-and-
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

(312) 962-3550

To: Steven Stieber

Stieber Berlach LLP
186
130 Adelaide Street West, Floor
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3P5
Attorneys for Defendant,

Zurich Insurance Company, Ltd.
19
EXHIBIT 17

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
Index No. 653421/2020
Plaintiffs,
Crane, J.
-against-

COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
_______________________________«
CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

AND VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY'S
PLAINTIFFS'
ANSWERS TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
Defendants, Federal Insurance Company, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada and Vigilant
Insurance Company, (hereinafter "Chubb Defendants"), by their attorneys, White and Williams LLP,
Plaintiffs'
hereby respond under CPLR 3133 to First Set of Interrogatories, dated May 24, 2021.
As discovery is continuing, the answers herein are based upon such information and
documents that Chubb Defendants have thus far identified, have presently available and/or are
known to Chubb Defendants. The fact that Chubb Defendants may respond to a particular
interrogatory with reference to documents shall not be taken as a representation by Chubb
Defendants that responsive documents exist. Instead, it should be taken as a representation only
that Chubb Defendants are conducting a reasonable search for responsive documents and, if any
27189371v.1
are located, will produce such documents subject to their other objections stated herein, including
but not limited to privilege objections. Chubb Defendants reserve the right to amend or
supplement the answers contained herein and produce subsequently discovered documents, as
necessary.
Defendants' Plaintiffs'
Chubb counsel is willing to meet with counsel at a mutually
agreeable time and place in order to try and resolve any of the objections set forth herein and to
clarify any vague terms in the discovery requests.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Plaintiffs'
1. Chubb Defendants respond to Interrogatories without waiving:
(a) any objection as to competency, relevancy, materiality, and admissibility as evidence for
any purpose in any proceeding or the trial of this civil action;
(b) the right to object on any ground at any time to a demand for a further answer to these
Interrogatories or the subject matter to which they relate;
(c) the right at any time to revise, correct, supplement or clarify any of the answers
propounded herein; and
(d) the right to make additional objections as may be deemed appropriate upon further review
of information or documents.
Plaintiffs'
2. Chubb Defendants object on the grounds that Interrogatories are designed to cause Chubb
Defendants unreasonable expense or undue burden.
Plaintiffs'
3. Chubb Defendants object on the grounds that Interrogatories are designed to unreasonably
annoy, and/or harass.
4. Chubb Defendants construe each discovery request not to seek the identification or contents of
documents or information exchanged between or among counsel for the parties to this civil action;
letters and communication between or among Chubb Defendants and their counsel; and other such
27189371v.1
documents and communications that have come into existence because of the commencement of this
civil action or the prior coverage action.
5. The word uses and sentence structure may be that of the attorneys assisting in the preparation of these
answers and, thus, do not necessarily represent to be the precise language of Chubb Defendants.
Plaintiffs'
6. Chubb Defendants object to the extent Interrogatories seek information, documents or
tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by Chubb Defendants in connection
with this civil action or the prior coverage action.
Plaintiffs'
7. Chubb Defendants object to the extent Interrogatories seek information protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense
privilege, or any other rule of privilege, protection, or confidentiality. To the extent any document or
tangible thing properly subject to privilege or other protection from disclosure is inadvertently
produced in answer to an interrogatory, such a production is not to be construed as a waiver of such
privilege or protection.
Plaintiffs'
8. Chubb Defendants object to the extent Interrogatories seek information or documents that
constitute trade secrets, proprietary information, or other sensitive or confidential business
information of Chubb Defendants, or that of third parties who have a reasonable expectation of
privacy.
Plaintiffs'
9. Chubb Defendants object to the extent Interrogatories contain terms or phrases that are
undefined and are, therefore, vague, ambiguous, and capable of various interpretations.
10. Chubb Defendants object to the definitions, instructions, and rules of construction provided by
Plaintiffs'
Interrogatories to the extent they purport to modify either court rules or the ordinary
meaning of words.
Plaintiffs'
11. Chubb Defendants object to the extent Interrogatories are improper insofar as they request
further clarification on unambiguous contract terms that speak for themselves.
12. Chubb Defendants object to the extent the discovery sought exceeds the permissible scope of
electronically stored information ("ESI") discovery, pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.12(b) and (c)(3).
27189371v.1
Plaintiffs'
13. Chubb Defendants object to the Interrogatories insofar as they exceed the permissible
number of interrogatories pursuant to the newly enacted Uniform Rules of the Supreme and County
courts, effective February 1, 2021.
INTERROGATORIES
1. Identify all Persons with knowledge of the affirmative defenses asserted by You in
the Answer.
RESPONSE: Objection. Chubb Defendants object to this Interrogatory because it is based

on attorney work product; involves the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal
Defendants'
theories of Chubb attorneys and is accordingly absolutely protected from
discovery. Chubb Defendants further object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
information protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, or the joint defense
privilege.
Without waiver of any objections, Chubb Defendants will identify a person(s)

knowledgeable to speak to any non-privileged aspect of this Interrogatory, if any, at an
appropriate time. Chubb Defendants reserve the right to supplement this production if new
or different information becomes available.
2. Identify all Persons who were involved with the underwriting of the primary NHL
Policies actually or allegedly issued by You.
RESPONSE: Objection. Chubb Defendants object to this Interrogatory because it seeks

information not material, necessary, or relevant under CPLR 3101 and it is further
objected to insofar as discovery is sought on matters beyond the scope of the dispute, claims
made in the Complaint, and is not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence. Chubb Defendants further object to this Interrogatory as vague.
"involved"
Chubb Defendants also object to the phrase as vague, overly broad, and unduly
burdensome.
Without waiver of any objections, the names of Chubb employees who performed
Defendants'
underwriting of NHL policies are included in Chubb Responses and
Plaintiffs'
Objections to Requests No. 1 and No. 2 of First Set of Request for Production of
Documents, which are incorporated herein by reference. Chubb Defendants reserve the
right to supplement this answer as discovery is continuing and as new or different
information becomes available.
agreeable time and place in order to try and resolve any of the objections set forth herein
and to clarify any vague terms in the discovery requests.
27189371v.1
3. Identify all Persons who were involved with the evaluation, defense, handling and
administration of the NHL's insurance claim with respect to the Underlying Matters under the
NHL Policies actually or allegedly issued by You.
RESPONSE: Objection. Chubb Defendants object to this Interrogatory to the extent it

seeks information not material, necessary, or relevant under CPLR 3101 and it is further
of admissible evidence. Chubb Defendants further object to this Interrogatory as vague.
Without waiver of any objections, Chubb Defendants direct Plaintiffs to those individuals
Plaintiffs'
identified within the documents produced by Chubb Defendants in response to
First and Second Requests for Production of Documents, including but not limited to
Plaintiffs'
Request No. 3 of First Set of Request for Production of Documents, which are
incorporated herein by reference. Chubb Defendants reserve the right to supplement this
answer as discovery is continuing and as new or different information becomes available.
4. Identify all Persons with knowledge of Your Claims Files, if any, concerning the
NFL Concussion Litigation, including, but not limited to, the attorney and legal assistant hourly
billing rates submitted, paid, reimbursed, funded or otherwise accepted or allowed by You with
respect to the defense of such litigation.

of admissible evidence. The NHL's request for information of other Chubb insureds, who
are competitors of the NHL, in other matters and lawsuits is beyond the scope of
permissible discovery. Chubb Defendants further object to this Interrogatory because the
Files"
phrase "knowledge of Your Claims is vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
"concerning"
Chubb Defendants further object to this Interrogatory because the phrase is
vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
Chubb Defendants also object to this Interrogatory because it seeks matters protected from
disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or the joint
defense privilege. Chubb Defendants further object to the extent this Interrogatory seeks
the disclosure of information, which is confidential, proprietary, or contains trade secrets.
Defendants'
Without waiver of any objections, Chubb counsel is willing to meet with
Plaintiffs'
counsel at a mutually agreeable time and place in order to try and resolve any of
the objections set forth herein and to clarify any vague terms in the discovery requests.
Chubb Defendants further reserve the right to supplement this answer as discovery is
continuing and as new or different information becomes available.
27189371v.1
5. Identify all Persons with knowledge of Your Claims Files, if any, concerning the
NCAA Concussion Litigation, including, but not limited to, the attorney and legal assistant
hourly billing rates submitted, paid, reimbursed, funded or otherwise accepted or allowed by You
with respect to the defense of such litigation.

of admissible evidence. The NHL's request for information of other Chubb insureds, who
are competitors of the NHL, in other matters and lawsuits is beyond the scope of
permissible discovery. Chubb Defendants further object to this Interrogatory because the
Files"
phrase "knowledge of Your Claims is vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
Chubb Defendants further object to this Interrogatory because similarly the phrase
"concerning"
is vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome
Defendants'
Plaintiffs'
the objections set forth herein and to clarify any vague terms in the discovery requests.
Chubb Defendants further reserve the right to supplement this answer as discovery is
6. Identify all written audit reports, studies, valuations or estimates performed by

You or on Your behalf concerning amounts incurred or paid by the NHL in the defense of the
Underlying Matters or for the Underlying Settlement.

of admissible evidence. Chubb Defendants further object to this Interrogatory because it is
"concerning"
vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and the phrase is vague, overly
broad, and unduly burdensome.
Chubb Defendants also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks disclosure
of mental impressions of counsel. Chubb Defendants further object to this Interrogatory
because it is premature and/or seeks information that is beyond permissible discovery
regarding opinions held by experts.
27189371v.1
Without waiver of any objections, see documents produced, or to be produced, by Chubb

Plaintiffs'
Defendants in response to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents,
which are incorporated herein by reference. Chubb Defendants have not yet determined
which, if any, expert(s) may be called to testify at trial. This answer will be supplement in
accordance with the applicable rules when such a determination is made.
Defendants'
Chubb Defendants refer to the Chubb Policies with policy periods effective
from November 30, 1985 to November 30, 1989 and January 1, 1994 to January 1, 2014,
Defendants'
and Chubb previous correspondence to the NHL, including but not limited to
the correspondence dated May 8, 2014, February 11, 2015 and January 14, 2016, including
Guidelines"
Chubb's "USA Litigation Management attached as an exhibit and/or referred
to those letters, and correspondence as to interim payments, dated October 6, 2017,
January 12, 2018, July 27, 2018, October 16, 2018 and April 20, 2020, which are
incorporated herein by reference. By way of illustrative example, as referenced in the
correspondence, numerous categories of the defense costs submitted are unreasonable,
including but not limited to clerical or administrative tasks, law firm overhead expenses,
block billing, overstaffing, excessive hours, vague and generic task descriptions, and
document review billing. Chubb Defendants reserve the right to supplement this answer as
discovery is continuing and as new or different information becomes available.
Defendants'
By way of further response and without waiver of any objections, Chubb
Plaintiffs'
counsel is willing to meet with counsel at a mutually agreeable time and place in
order to try and resolve any of the objections set forth herein and to clarify any vague
terms in the discovery requests.
7. Identify all Persons who performed any such audits, studies, valuations or
estimates identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6.
RESPONSE: Objection. Chubb Defendants refer Plaintiffs to their Answer to
Interrogatory No. 6, above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
8. Identify all Persons involved in the determination of what defense costs, including
attorney and legal assistant hourly rates, are considered reasonable with respect to the defense of
the Underlying Matters.

of admissible evidence. Chubb Defendants further object to this Interrogatory because it
seeks matters protected from disclosure the attorney-client the work-
by privilege, attorney
product doctrine, or the joint defense privilege. Chubb Defendants further object to the
extent this Interrogatory seeks the disclosure of information, which is confidential,
proprietary, or contains trade secrets. Chubb Defendants also object to this Interrogatory
on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of mental impressions of counsel. Chubb Defendants
27189371v.1
further object to this Interrogatory because it is premature and/or seeks information that is
beyond permissible discovery regarding opinions held by experts.
Without waiver of any objections, Chubb Defendants refer Plaintiffs to their Answer to
Interrogatory No. 3 and 6, above, which is incorporated herein by reference. By way of

further response, Chubb Defendants have not yet determined which, if any, expert(s) may
be called to testify at trial. This answer will be supplemented in accordance with the
applicable rules when such a determination is made. Chubb Defendants reserve the right to
supplement this answer as discovery is continuing and as new or different information
becomes available.
9. Identify all Persons with knowledge of the calculation or determination of

payments made by You to date to the NHL for reimbursement of defense costs paid in connection
with the Underlying Matters.

further object to this Interrogatory because it is premature and/or seeks information that is
beyond permissible discovery regarding opinions held by experts.
Without waiver of any objections, see documents produced by Chubb Defendants in

Plaintiffs'
response to First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, which are
incorporated herein by reference. Chubb Defendants refer Plaintiffs to their Response to
Interrogatory No. 8, above, which is incorporated herein by reference. Chubb Defendants

reserve the right to supplement this answer as discovery is continuing and as new or
different information becomes available.
10. Identify all Persons with knowledge of instances in which You paid, reimbursed,
funded or otherwise accepted or allowed attorney hourly billing rates in excess of $350 per hour
or legal assistant hourly billing rates in excess of $125 per hour with respect to the defense of a
claim against any Person that You insured under a Liability Insurance Policy.

27189371v.1
on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of mental impressions of counsel. way of further
By
objection, the NHL's request for information regarding other Chubb insureds, who may be
competitors of the NHL, in other matters and lawsuits is beyond the scope of permissible
discovery.
Without waiver of any objections, as to the bills of the NHL's three law firms in the
underlying matter, Chubb Defendants paid and otherwise reimbursed the NHL, on an
interim basis under a full reservation of rights, for certain defense costs billed at hourly
rates in excess of $350 per hour for attorneys and in excess of $125 per hour for
paraprofessionals. As to the bills of the NHL's three law firms in the underlying matter, on
an interim basis under a full reservation of rights, Chubb Defendants took a 30% reduction
off of the hourly rates charged by the NHL's three law firms. This was in addition to
firms'
reductions taken for the NHL's three law unreasonable, unnecessary, and
inflationary billing practices, including but not limited to block billing, vague descriptions,
billing for administrative tasks and overhead expenses, and billing in increments of time
greater than 0.1 hours. Chubb Defendants reserve the right to supplement this answer as
11. Identify all Persons involved with the decision of whether to set financial claim
reserves with respect to the NHL's insurance claim concerning the Underlying Matters, including
the amount of any such reserves.

reserves"
vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and the phrase "financial claim is
vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Chubb Defendants also object to this
Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of information that is confidential,

private and may contain trade secrets in which Chubb Defendants maintain a proprietary
interest, the disclosure of which could be detrimental to their business.
12. Identify all Persons with knowledge of the law firms retained and the attorney and
legal assistant hourly rates paid by You with respect to any litigation in which You have been
named as a defendant for the period 2014-present.

vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant. Chubb Defendants further object
to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of information that is
confidential and private. Chubb Defendants also object to this Interrogatory because it
seeks information of third parties who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Chubb
27189371v.1
Defendants reserve the right to supplement this answer as discovery is continuing and as
new or different information becomes available.
13. Identify all Persons with knowledge of Your Litigation Guidelines.

vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome. Chubb Defendants also objectonthe grounds
that this Interrogatory seeks disclosure of information that is confidential and private.
Without waiver of any objections, the Litigation Guidelines are in writing and speak for
themselves. Chubb Defendants refer Plaintiffs to their Answer to Interrogatory No. 3,
above, which is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further response, the Litigation
Guidelines were provided to the NHL early in the underlying case, such that the NHL has
had access to the Litigation Guidelines for over seven years. Chubb Defendants reserve the
14. Set forth a computation of each category of damages sought in the Counterclaim,
including all assumptions, methodologies and calculations used to compute each category of
purported damages.

seeks information that is beyond permissible discovery regarding opinions held by experts.
Without waiver of any objections, Chubb Defendants have not yet determined which, if
any, expert(s) may be called to testify at trial. This answer will be supplement in accordance
with the applicable rules when such a determination is made. Further, Chubb Defendants
have not determined which, if any, fact witnesses will be called to testify at trial. Similarly,
this answer will be supplemented in accordance with the applicable rules once such a
determination is made.
Defendants'
Chubb Defendants refer to the Chubb Policies with policy periods effective
from November 30, 1985 to November 30, 1989 and January 1, 1994 to January 1, 2014,
Defendants'
and Chubb previous correspondence to the NHL, including but not limited to
the correspondence dated May 8, 2014, February 11, 2015 and January 14, 2016, including
Guidelines"
Chubb's "USA Litigation Management attached as an exhibit and/or referred
27189371v.1
to those letters, and correspondence as to interim payments, dated October 6, 2017,
January 12, 2018, July 27, 2018, October 16, 2018 and April 20, 2020, which are
incorporated herein by reference. By way of illustrative example, as referenced in the
correspondence, numerous categories of the defense costs submitted are unreasonable,
including but not limited to clerical or administrative tasks, law firm overhead expenses,
block billing, overstaffing, excessive hours, vague and generic task descriptions, and
document review billing. Chubb Defendants reserve the right to supplement this answer as
15. Identify all Persons with knowledge concerning Your claim that "the defense costs
submitted by the NHL Parties were unreasonable and excessive, including, but not limited to
spent"
excessive hourly rates, improper billing practices, and excessive staffing and time as
alleged in paragraph 12 of the Counterclaim.

product doctrine, or the joint defense privilege. Chubb Defendants object to the extent this
Interrogatory seeks the disclosure of information, which is confidential, proprietary, or
contains trade secrets. Chubb Defendants also object to this Interrogatory on the grounds
that it seeks disclosure of mental impressions of counsel. Chubb Defendants further object
to this Interrogatory because it is premature and/or seeks information that is beyond
permissible discovery regarding opinions held by experts.
Without waiver of any objections, Chubb Defendants refer Plaintiffs to their Answer to
Interrogatory No. 3, above, which is incorporated herein by reference. Further, Chubb

Defendants refer to published opinions finding excessive rates charged and improper billing
practices utilized by the firm(s) representing the NHL in this matter. Chubb Defendants
reserve the right to supplement this response with specific individuals, as their identity is
not always clear from the published opinions.
By way of further response and without waiver of any objections, Chubb Defendants have
not yet determined which, if any, expert(s) may be called to testify at trial. This answer will
be supplement in accordance with the applicable rules when such a determination is made.
Chubb Defendants have not determined which, if any, fact witnesses will be called to testify
at trial. Similarly, this answer will be supplemented in accordance with the applicable rules
once such a determination regarding fact witnesses is made. Chubb Defendants reserve the
27189371v.1
16. Identify all Persons with knowledge of the insurance policy forms, language,
sections, provisions and endorsements that You utilized in primary Liability Insurance Policies
issued between 1970 and 1982.

of admissible evidence. The NHL's Complaint specifically referred to Chubb's "primary
CGL insurance policies, with policy periods effective from November 30, 1985 to November
2014."
30, 1989 and January 1, 1994 to January 1, Chubb Defendants further object to this
Interrogatory because it seeks matters protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or the joint defense privilege. Chubb
Defendants also object to the extent this Interrogatory seeks the disclosure of information,
which is confidential, proprietary, or contains trade secrets.
Without waiver of any objections, to the extent this interrogatory appears directed to other
parties, no response from Chubb is necessary. Chubb Defendants reserve the right to
becomes available.
17. Identify all Persons with knowledge of any workers compensation claim by any
current or former NHL player actually or allegedly arising out of concussive or sub-concussive
injuries.

product doctrine, or the joint defense privilege. Chubb Defendants also object to the extent
this Interrogatory seeks the disclosure of information, which is confidential, proprietary, or
contains trade secrets. Chubb Defendants object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
information of third parties who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, Chubb Defendants object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks
information that is in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiffs.
Defendants'
Plaintiffs'
the objections set forth herein, to clarify any vague terms in the discovery requests, and to
discuss how to appropriately focus this request to allow for the production of relevant
information regarding settling claimants. Chubb Defendants reserve the right to
becomes available.
27189371v.1
18. To the extent not identified in response to any other Interrogatory, identify all
Persons with knowledge of information that may be material and necessary to the subject matter
of this action.
RESPONSE: Objection. Chubb Defendants further object to this Interrogatory because it

proprietary, or contains trade secrets. Chubb Defendants object to this Interrogatory on
the grounds that it seeks disclosure of mental impressions of counsel. Chubb Defendants
further object to this Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome.
Chubb Defendants also object to the extent this Interrogatory seeks the disclosure of
information, which is confidential, proprietary, or contains trade secrets. Chubb

Defendants further object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information of third
parties who have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Without waiver of any objections, Chubb Defendants refer Plaintiffs to those documents
Plaintiffs'
identified and/or produced through their Response to First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents. Chubb Defendants reserve the right to supplement this answer
as discovery is continuing and as new or different information becomes available.
19. To the extent not identified in response to any other Interrogatory, identify all
Documents that may be material and necessary to the subject matter of this action.
RESPONSE: Objection. Chubb Defendants object to this Interrogatory because it seeks

matters protected from disclosure the attorney-client the work-
object to this Interrogatory as is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome. Chubb
Defendants also object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information of third
Without waiver of any objections, Chubb Defendants refer Plaintiffs to those documents
Plaintiffs'
identified and/or produced through their Response to Requests for Production of
Documents. Chubb Defendants reserve the right to supplement this answer as discovery is
WIIITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
By:
hael O. Kassak, Esquire

Luke A. Repici, Esquire
Rafael Vergara, Esquire
27189371v.1
7 Times Square Suite 2900

Attorneys for Defendants Chubb

Insurance Company of Canada, Federal
Insurance Company and Vigilant Insurance
Company
Dated: June 14, 2021
To:
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

Peter D. Luneau, Esquire
Rebekah J. Mott, Esquire
One Manhattan West
-and-
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

Marc Eric Rosenthal, Esquire
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,

KENNEDYS CMK LLC

Christopher R. Carroll, Esquire
Heather E. Simpson, Esquire
Mark F. Hamilton, Esquire
120 Mountain View Boulevard

Post Office Box 650
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920

TIG Insurance Company f/k/a
Transamerica Insurance Company
27189371v.1

Charles J. Scibetta, Esquire
Andrew L. Poplinger, Esquire
33"l
1700 Broadway, Floor
New York, NY 10019
Attorneys for Defendants,

National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, PA and

American Home Assurance Company
ABRAMS, GORELICK, FRIEDMAN

& JACOBSON LLP
Thomas P. Maeglin, Esquire
46

Aviva Insurance Company of Canada,
as successor to Commercial Union
Assurance Co., Ltd.
COUGHLIN DUFFY, LLP

Kevin T. Coughlin, Esquire
Steven D. Cantarutti, Esquire
286
88 Pine Street, Floor
Wall Street Plaza
New York, NY 10005

Zurich Insurance Company Ltd.
27189371v.1
EXHIBIT 18
White and
Williallis tte
Michael 0. Kassak
LibertyView | 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 400 | Cheny Hill, NJ 08002-2220

Direct 856.317.3653 | Fax 856.317.3603
February 11, 2022
Via e-mail
Peter Luneau, Esquire Marc Rosenthal, Esquire

Rebekah Mott, Esquire PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, 70 West Madison, Suite 3800
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Chicago, Illinois 60602
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001

Hockey League, Co.,
Dear Counsel:
parties'
Pursuant to the agreement memorialized by email dated February 9, 2022, please accept
this letter on behalf of Federal Insurance Company, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada and
Vigilant Insurance Company (hereinafter "Chubb Defendants"), identifying individuals in
Plaintiffs'
response to Interrogatory nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, and 15. Subject to and without waiver of any
and all previously asserted responses and objections, the Chubb Defendants provide the following
responses:
Interrogatory No. 3 - Identify all Persons who were involved with the evaluation, defense,
handling and administration of the NHL's insurance claim with respect to the Underlying
Matters under the NHL Policies actually or allegedly issued by You.
Without waiver of any previously asserted objections, Donald Sonlin and James Biondolillo.
Interrogatory No. 7 - Identify all Persons who performed any such audits, studies, valuations
or estimates identified in response to Interrogatory No. 6.
Without waiver of any previously asserted objections, James Biondolillo with expert opinion from
Michael Brychel of Stuart Maue and John Pierce of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

28460600v.1
February 9, 2022
Page 2
Interrogatory No. 8 - Identify all Persons involved in the determination of what defense costs,
including attorney and legal assistant hourly rates, are considered reasonable with respect
to the defense of the Underlying Matters.
Interrogatory No. 9 - Identify all Persons with knowledge of the calculation or determination
of payments made by You to date to the NHL for reimbursement of defense costs paid in
connection with the Underlying Matters.
Interrogatory No. 15 - Identify all Persons with knowledge concerning Your claim that "the
defense costs submitted by the NHL Parties were unreasonable and excessive, including, but
not limited to excessive hourly rates, improper billing practices, and excessive staffing and
spent"
time as alleged in paragraph 12 of the Counterclaim.
Sincerely,
/s/ Michael O. Kassak
Michael O. Kassak
Adam M. Berardi
cc: Charles Scibetta, Esq./Andrew L. Poplinger, Esq.

-2-
28460600v.1
EXHIBIT 19

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________________________________________ x
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, NHL BOARD OF Index No.: 653421/2020
Plaintiff, RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET
OF INTERROGATORIES
TO AVIVA
-against-

COMPANY; AMERICAN HOME INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________x
COUNSELORS:
Defendant AVIVA INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, as successor to
COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO., LTD. (hereinafter "Aviva"), by its attorneys,
ABRAMS, GORELICK, FRIEDMAN & JACOBSON, LLP, hereby responds to Plaintiff's
National Hockey League, NHL Board Of Governors and NHL Enterprises, Inc.'s First Set of
Interrogatories to Defendant Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, as successor to Commercial
Union Assurance Co., Ltd. dated May 24, 2021 as follows, upon information and belief:
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
Each and every demand for discovery propounded by plaintiffs is responded to by Aviva,
subject to the following objections :
1. Aviva objects to each and every demand to the extent it calls for production of
documents and/or information prepared for or generated in anticipation of litigation or which
reflects attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product materials or confidential
communications.
2. Aviva objects to each and every demand to the extent it seeks discovery of
information not relevant to the issues in the litigation and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence.
3. Aviva objects to each and every demand to the extent it is vague or overly broad.
4. Aviva objects to each and every demand to the extent it is burdensome or oppressive
in that: (a) it is repetitious of discovery already provided; (b) it seeks information already in
plaintiff's possession or is known or readily available to the plaintiff from sources other than
defendant; or, (c) it is impossible to respond in any reasonable manner or amount of time.
5. Aviva objects to each and every demand to the extent it seeks disclosure of opinions,
mental impressions, conclusions or legal theories of Aviva or its representatives and/or counsel.
6. Aviva objects to each and every demand to the extent it requires production of
documents or information beyond Aviva's custody, control, or possession.
plaintiffs'
7. The documents produced in response to Request are based on information
adduced to date in connection with this action. Since discovery is not yet completed, the responses
herein are not intended to be all inclusive nor meant to imply the non-existence of other documents
in support of the responses given.

"you" "your"
8. Aviva objects to each and every demand that uses the terms or on the
ground that the terms are vague, unclear, ambiguous in regard to Aviva and fail to specify and
distinguish Aviva Insurance Company of Canada or Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd.
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
Policies"
1. Aviva objects to the definition of "NHL to the extent it refers to policies
other than those at issue in this lawsuit, including policies issued to entities other than the
Plaintiffs and policies other than general liability policies, which are not relevant to the subject
matter of this litigation.
RESPONSES
1. Identify all Persons with knowledge of the affirmative defenses asserted by You in the
Answer.
Response:
Objection. Aviva objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad, and unduly
burdensome. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it is based on attorney
work product; involves the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions and legal theories of
Aviva'
attorneys and is accordingly absolutely protected from discovery. Aviva further
objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected from disclosure by
the attorney-client privilege, or the joint defense privilege.
Without waiver of any objections, Aviva will identify a person(s) knowledgeable to speak to
any non-privileged aspect of this Interrogatory, if any, at an appropriate time.
2. Identify all Persons who were involved with the underwriting of the primary NHL Policies
actually or allegedly issued by You.
Response:
Objection. Aviva objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information not material,
necessary, or relevant under CPLR 3101 and it is further objected to insofar as discovery is
sought on matters beyond the scope of the dispute, claims made in the Complaint, and is
not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Aviva
further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it assumes the existence of an
insurance policy issued to Plaintiffs by Aviva, or others, before Plaintiffs have satisfied
their burden of proving the existence of a policy, and terms and provisions of a policy.
Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory as vague. Aviva also objects to the phrase
"involved"
as vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
Without waiving those or other objections, Aviva been unable to identify any individual
who was involved with underwriting of any policy alleged in the Complaint.
3. Identify all Persons who were involved with the evaluation, defense, handling and administration
of the NHL's insurance claim with respect to the Underlying Matters under the NHL Policies
actually or allegedly issued by You.
Response:
Objection. Aviva object to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information not
material, necessary, or relevant under CPLR 3101 and it is further objected to insofar as
discovery is sought on matters beyond the scope of the dispute, claims made in the
Complaint, and is not otherwise reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. Aviva objects to this interrogatory because it assumes the matter was reported to
Aviva in a manner or at a time to permit Aviva to participate in the evaluation, defense,
handling and administration of the NHL's insurance claim. Aviva further objects to this
Interrogatory as vague.
Without waiving these or other objections, Mark Royko is the representative of Aviva to
whom the NHL's claim was assigned upon receipt by Aviva.
4. Identify all Persons with knowledge of Your Claims Files, if any, concerning the NFL Concussion
Litigation, including, but not limited to, the attorney and legal assistant hourly billing rates
submitted, paid, reimbursed, funded or otherwise accepted or allowed by You with respect to the
defense of such litigation.
Response:
Objection. Aviva objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information not
evidence. Aviva objects to this interrogatory to the extent it assumes Aviva had any
involvement with the NFL Concussion Litigation. Aviva further objects to this
Files"
Interrogatory because the phrase "knowledge of Your Claims is vague, overly broad,
and unduly burdensome. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because the phrase
"concerning"
is vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Aviva also objects to this
Interrogatory because it seeks matters protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or the joint defense privilege. Aviva further
objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks the disclosure of information, which is
confidential, proprietary, or contains trade secrets.

Without waiver of any objections, Aviva had no involvement with the NFL Concussion
Litigation.
5. Identify all Persons with knowledge of Your Claims Files, if any, concerning the NCAA
Concussion Litigation, including, but not limited to, the attorney and legal assistant hourly billing
rates submitted, paid, reimbursed, funded or otherwise accepted or allowed by You with respect to
the defense of such litigation.
Response:
evidence. Aviva objects to this interrogatory to the extent it assumes Aviva had any
involvement with the NCAA Concussion Litigation. Aviva further objects to this
Files"
Interrogatory because the phrase "knowledge of Your Claims is vague, overly broad,
and unduly burdensome. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because similarly the
"concerning"
phrase is vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Aviva also objects to
this Interrogatory because it seeks matters protected from disclosure by the attorney-client
privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or the joint defense privilege. Aviva further
objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks the disclosure of information, which is
confidential, proprietary, or contains trade secrets.

Without waiver of any objections, Aviva had no involvement with the NCAA Concussion
Litigation.
6. Identify all written audit reports, studies, valuations or estimates performed by You or on Your
behalf concerning amounts incurred or paid by the NHL in the defense of the Underlying Matters or
for the Underlying Settlement.
Response:
handling and administration of the NHL's insurance claim. Aviva objects to this
interrogatory because it assumes the existence of such audit reports, studies, valuations or
estimates. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad,
"concerning"
unduly burdensome, and the phrase is vague, overly broad, and unduly
burdensome. Aviva also objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks matters protected
from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, or the
joint defense privilege. Aviva further objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks the
disclosure of information, which is confidential, proprietary, or contains trade secrets.
Aviva also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of mental
impressions of counsel. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it is premature
and/or seeks information that is beyond permissible discovery regarding opinions held by
experts.
Without waiver of any objections, Aviva has not identified any discoverable information
responsive to this request. Aviva have not yet determined which, if any, expert(s) may be
called to testify at trial. This answer will be supplement in accordance with the applicable
rules when such a determination is made. Aviva reserves the right to refer to all prior
correspondence of the defendants in this matter identifying categories of unreasonable
defense costs, including but not limited to clerical or administrative tasks, law firm
overhead expenses, block billing, overstaffing, excessive hours, vague and generic task
descriptions, and document review billing.
7. Identify all Persons who performed any such audits, studies, valuations or estimates identified in
response to Interrogatory No. 6.
Response:
Objection. Aviva refer Plaintiffs to their Answer to Interrogatory No. 6, above, which is
incorporated herein by reference.
8. Identify all Persons involved in the determination of what defense costs, including attorney and
legal assistant hourly rates, are considered reasonable with respect to the defense of the Underlying
Matters.
Response:
handling and administration of the NHL's insurance claim. Aviva objects that this
Interrogatory is premature to the extent it assumes Aviva has a duty to identify such
persons before Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving the existence of a policy,
and terms and provisions of a policy. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it
product doctrine, or the joint defense privilege. Aviva further objects to the extent this
Interrogatory seeks the disclosure of information, which is confidential, proprietary, or

contains trade secrets. Aviva also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks
disclosure of mental impressions of counsel. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory
because it is premature and/or seeks information that is beyond permissible discovery
regarding opinions held by experts.
Without waiver of any objections, Aviva refer Plaintiffs to their Answer to Interrogatory
No. 3 and 6, above, which is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further response,
Aviva have not yet determined which, if any, expert(s) may be called to testify at trial. This
answer will be supplemented in accordance with the applicable rules when such a
determination is made.
9. Identify all Persons with knowledge of instances in which You paid, reimbursed, funded or
otherwise accepted or allowed attorney hourly billing rates in excess of $350 per hour or legal
assistant hourly billing rates in excess of $125 per hour with respect to the defense of a claim against
any Person that You insured under a Liability Insurance Policy.
Response:
evidence. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks matters protected
Aviva also objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of mental
impressions of counsel. By way of further objection, the NHL's request for information
regarding other Aviva insureds, who may be competitors of the NHL, in other matters and
lawsuits is beyond the scope of permissible discovery.
10. Identify all Persons involved with the decision of whether to set financial claim reserves with
respect to the NHL's insurance claim concerning the Underlying Matters, including the amount of
any such reserves.
Response:
handling and administration of the NHL's insurance claim. Aviva further objects to this
Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and the phrase
reserves"
"financial claim is vague, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. Aviva also
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of information that is
confidential, private and may contain trade secrets in which Aviva maintain a proprietary
interest, the disclosure of which could be detrimental to their business.
11. Identify all Persons with knowledge of the law firms retained and the attorney and legal assistant
hourly rates paid by You with respect to any litigation in which You have been named as a defendant
for the period 2014-present.
Response:
evidence. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and irrelevant. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it seeks disclosure of information that is confidential and private. Aviva also
objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information of third parties who have a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
12. Identify all Persons with knowledge of Your Litigation Guidelines.
Response:
evidence. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad,
unduly burdensome. Aviva also objects on the grounds that this Interrogatory seeks
disclosure of information that is confidential and private.
Without waiver of any objections, Aviva's Litigation Guidelines are in writing and speak
for themselves. Aviva refer Plaintiffs to their Answer to Interrogatory No. 3, above, which
is incorporated herein by reference.
13. Identify the steps that You took to locate any primary Liability Insurance Policy actually,
allegedly or potentially issued to the NHL by You from 1917-2013, including, but not limited to,
policy number 123 C 713.
Response:
evidence. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it assumes the
existence of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiffs by Aviva, or others, before Plaintiffs
have satisfied their burden of proving the existence of a policy, and terms and provisions of
a policy. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague, overly broad,
Without waiver of any objections, Aviva has undertaken a reasonable search of its records
for any documents reflecting the existence of the policy alleged in the Complaint.
14. Identify all Persons who performed any such steps identified in response to Interrogatory No. 13.
Response:
Without waiver of any objections, Aviva's search of its records for any documents
reflecting the existence of the policy alleged in the Complaint was performed by certain
employees and agents of Aviva.
15. Identify all Persons with knowledge of Your document retention policies, procedures and/or
practices to maintain, preserve, and/or store any primary Liability Insurance Policies actually,
allegedly or potentially issued to the NHL by You from 1917-2013, including policy number 123 C
713.
Response:
Without waiver of any objections, Aviva has not identified any person with knowledge of
policies, procedures and/or practices pertaining to the policy alleged in the Complaint.
16. Identify all Persons with knowledge of the insurance policy forms, language, sections, provisions
and endorsements that You utilized in primary Liability Insurance Policies issued between 1970 and
1982.
Response:
evidence. The NHL's Complaint alleges that Commercial Union Assurance Company, Ltd.
issued "general liability insurance policy number 123 C 713 to the National Hockey League
... for the periods September 1, 1974 to September 1, 1975 and September 1, 1975 to
1976."
September 30, Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it
assumes the existence of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiffs by Aviva, or others, before
Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving the existence of a policy, and terms and
provisions of a policy. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks matters
protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product
doctrine, or the joint defense privilege. Aviva also objects to the extent this Interrogatory
seeks the disclosure of information, which is confidential, proprietary, or contains trade
secrets.
forms, language, sections, provisions and endorsements pertaining to the policy alleged in
the Complaint. to the extent this interrogatory appears directed to other parties, no
response from Aviva is necessary.
17. Identify all Documents concerning the actual, alleged or potential existence, terms, limits,
premiums, issuance, brokerage, underwriting, placement or renewal of any primary Liability
Insurance Policy actually, allegedly or potentially issued by You to the NHL from 1917-2013,
including, but not limited to, policy number 123 C 713.
Response:
unduly burdensome, and irrelevant. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory on the
grounds that it seeks disclosure of information that is confidential and private. Aviva also
objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks information of third parties who have a
reasonable expectation of privacy. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Aviva objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that is in the possession, custody or control
of Plaintiffs.
18. Identify all Persons with knowledge of the actual, alleged or potential existence, terms, limits,
premiums, issuance, brokerage, underwriting, placement or renewal of any primary Liability
Insurance Policy actually, allegedly or potentially issued by You to the NHL from 1917-2013,
including, but not limited to, policy number 123 C 713.
Response:
policies, procedures and/or practices pertaining to the policy alleged in the Complaint.
19. Identify all Persons with knowledge of any workers compensation claim by any current or former
NHL player actually or allegedly arising out of concussive or sub-concussive injuries.
Response:
evidence. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks matters protected
joint defense privilege. Aviva also objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks the
Aviva objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information of third parties who
have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Aviva objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it
seeks information that is in the possession, custody or control of Plaintiffs.
20. To the extent not identified in response to any other Interrogatory, identify all Persons with
knowledge of information that may be material and necessary to the subject matter of this action.
Response:
Objection. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks matters protected
Aviva objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of mental
impressions of counsel. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory because it is vague,
overly broad, unduly burdensome. Aviva also objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks
Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information of third
Without waiver of any objections, Aviva refer Plaintiffs to those documents identified
Plaintiffs'
and/or produced through their Response to First Set of Requests for Production
of Documents.
21. To the extent not identified in response to any other Interrogatory, identify all Documents that
may be material and necessary to the subject matter of this action.

Response:
Objection. Aviva objects to this Interrogatory because it seeks matters protected from
defense privilege. Aviva further objects to the extent this Interrogatory seeks the disclosure
of information, which is confidential, proprietary, or contains trade secrets. Aviva also
objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of mental impressions
of counsel. Aviva further objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it assumes the
a policy. Aviva objects to this interrogatory because it assumes the matter was reported to
handling and administration of the NHL's insurance claim. Aviva objects to this
Interrogatory as is vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome. Aviva also objects to this
Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information of third parties who have a reasonable
expectation of privacy.
Without waiver of any objections, Aviva refer Plaintiffs to those documents identified
Plaintiffs'
and/or produced through their Response to Requests for Production of
Documents.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Aviva reserves the right to amend and/or supplement the
foregoing responses as discovery is continuing and as new or different information may become
available.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that, without waiver of any objections, Aviva's
Plaintiffs'
counsel is willing to meet with counsel at a mutually agreeable time and place in order
to try and resolve any of the objections set forth herein, to clarify any vague terms in the
discovery requests, and to discuss how to appropriately focus this request to allow for the
production of relevant information.
June 25, 2021
ABRAMS, GORELICK, FRIEDMAN &

JACOBSON, LLP
AVIVA INSURANCE COMPANY OF

CANADA, as successor to
COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE
CO.
By: n .
Glenn co son, Esq.
One Par laza - 4th Floor New

Battery
York, New York 10004
(212) 422-1200
File No.: 32132
To: SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
ATTN: Peter D. Luneau and Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
New York, New York, 10001
PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP
ATTN: Marc Eric Rosenthal
Chicago, Illinois, 60602
Christopher R. Carroll
Mark F. Hamilton
Heather E. Simpson
KENNEDYS CMK LLC
Post Office Box 650
Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920

TIG Insurance Company f/k/a Transamerica Insurance Company
Robert Wright
Michael Kassak
Luke Repici
7 Times Square
Suite 2900
Charles J. Scibetta
Andrew L. Poplinger

1700 Broadway, 33rd Floor
Kevin T. Coughlin, Esq.

Steven D. Cantarutti, Esq.
COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP
Wall Street Plaza
88 Pine Street, 28th Floor
Ph: (212) 483-0105
kcoughlin@coughlinduffy.com
scantarutti@coughlinduffy.com
Zurich Insurance Company Ltd
EXHIBIT 20

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________________Ç
Index No. 653421/2020
Plaintiffs,
-against-

COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________Ç

GOVERNORS AND NHL ENTERPRISES, INC.'S SECOND
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO
DEFENDANT AVIVA INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
Rose LLP, request that Defendant Aviva Insurance Company of Canada produce for inspection,
copying, reproduction, photographing, testing or sampling the following specified documents or
other tangible things in their possession, custody or control. Production of all such documents and
other tangible things shall be made within twenty (20) days of service of these requests, at the
office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Attention: Peter Luneau, One Manhattan
West, New York, New York 10001.

DEFINITIONS
"concerning"
"Document"
"Document"
located. For clarity, includes "Electronically Stored as deñned below
Information"
obtained.
Claims"
Enterprises, injury
2
3
6/21/2018);
Policy"
"MDL"
Players'
Policy" Policies"
1917 to present.
4
"Person" "Persons"
"Proceeding"
Matters"
collectively.
Settlement"
Plaintiffs'
thereto.
"You" "Your"
12. The terms and mean Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, as
successor to Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd., and its parents, affiliates, subsidiaries,
5
INSTRUCTIONS
"and" "or"
their scope.
"including" to"
course of business.
6
7
1. As to any and all actual or alleged NHL Policies issued by You that were in effect
at any time from 1917 to 2014, including policies of which the NHL is aware but has not located
complete copies of to date, all Documents concerning the locations where any such NHL Policy
was accepted by the NHL, including any agents or representatives who were acting on its behalf.
complete copies of to date, all Documents concerning where any such NHL Policy was negotiated
by the NHL and You, including any agents or representatives who were acting on behalf of any
such party.
complete copies of to date, all Documents concerning the location from which insurance premiums
were paid by the NHL or any agent or representative acting on the NHL's behalf.
complete copies of to date, all Documents concerning the location of the subject matter of any
insured risk.
5. All Documents concerning any claim made by the NHL, or any agent or
representative acting on the NHL's behalf, at any time between 1917 and the present under any
actual or alleged NHL Policy issued by You that was in effect at any time from 1917 to 2014,
including policies of which the NHL is aware but has not located complete copies of to date.
8
6. Complete and accurate copies of any and all Documents reviewed or consulted in
preparing Your responses to interrogatories served by any party to this action.
7. All Documents, including lists, databases, claim materials, or other records,
concerning any workers compensation claim by any current or former NHL player actually or
allegedly arising out of concussive or sub-concussive injuries.
May 24, 2021

& FLOM LLP
By:
Peter Luneau
Rebekah Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
-and-
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

Marc Eric Rosenthal, pro hac vice
(312) 962-3550

9
TO: ABRAMS, GORELICK, FRIEDMAN & JACOBSON LLP

Glenn Jacobson
Thomas Maeglin
46
New York, NY 10004
gjacobson@agfjlaw.com
tmaeglin@agfjlaw.com
(212) 422-1200
Attorneys for Defendant Aviva Insurance Company of Canada
10
EXHIBIT 21

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________________Ç
Index No. 653421/2020
Plaintiffs,
-against-

COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________Ç
PLAINTIFFS NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, NHL BOARD

OF GOVERNORS AND NHL ENTERPRISES, INC.'S SECOND
SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO DEFENDANT ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
Rose LLP, request that Defendant Zurich Insurance Company Ltd produce for inspection, copying,
reproduction, photographing, testing or sampling the following specified documents or other
tangible things in their possession, custody or control. Production of all such documents and other
tangible things shall be made within twenty (20) days of service of these requests, at the office of
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Attention: Peter Luneau, One Manhattan West, New
York, New York 10001.

DEFINITIONS
"concerning"
"Document"
"Document"
located. For clarity, includes "Electronically Stored as deñned below
Information"
obtained.
Claims"
Enterprises, injury
2
3
6/21/2018);
Policy"
"MDL"
Players'
Policy" Policies"
1917 to present.
4
"Person" "Persons"
"Proceeding"
Matters"
collectively.
Settlement"
Plaintiffs'
thereto.
"You" "Your"
12. The terms and mean Zurich Insurance Company Ltd and its parents,
entities, assignees, agents, attorneys, merged entities and other business units, and their present
and former directors, officers, trustees, employees, representatives and agents.
INSTRUCTIONS
"and" "or"
5
their scope.
"including" to"
course of business.
6
complete copies of to date, all Documents concerning the locations where any such NHL Policy
was accepted by the NHL, including any agents or representatives who were acting on its behalf.
7
complete copies of to date, all Documents concerning where any such NHL Policy was negotiated
by the NHL and You, including any agents or representatives who were acting on behalf of any
such party.
complete copies of to date, all Documents concerning the location from which insurance premiums
were paid by the NHL or any agent or representative acting on the NHL's behalf.
complete copies of to date, all Documents concerning the location of the subject matter of any
insured risk.
5. All Documents concerning any claim made by the NHL, or any agent or
representative acting on the NHL's behalf, at any time between 1917 and the present under any
actual or alleged NHL Policy issued by You that was in effect at any time from 1917 to 2014,
including policies of which the NHL is aware but has not located complete copies of to date.
6. Complete and accurate copies of any and all Documents reviewed or consulted in
preparing Your responses to interrogatories served by any party to this action.
7. All Documents, including lists, databases, claim materials, or other records,
concerning any workers compensation claim by any current or former NHL player actually or
allegedly arising out of concussive or sub-concussive injuries.
8
May 24, 2021

& FLOM LLP
By:
Peter Luneau
Rebekah Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
-and-
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

(312) 962-3550

TO: COUGHLIN MIDLIGE GARLAND LLP

Kevin Coughlin
Steven Cantarutti
Jourdan Dozier
2881
88 Pine Street, Floor
New York, NY 10005
kcoughlin@cmg.law
scantarutti@cmg.law
jdozier@cmg.law
(212) 483-0105
Attorneys for Defendant Zurich Insurance Co. Ltd
9
EXHIBIT 22

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
-__-___________________---___------ __------ __------ _______----_____- x

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET
OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
-against-

COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendant.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
COUNSELORS:
National Hockey League, NHL Board Of Governors and NHL Enterprises, Inc.'s First Set of
Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, as
successor to Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. dated October 8, 2020 as follows, upon
information and belief:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
communications.
plaintiffs'

"you" "your"
Policies"
"Sport," Manufacturer,"
2. Aviva objects to the definitions of "Sports Equipment
League," Teams"
"Sports and "Sports to the extent they seek information relating to entities
other than the Plaintiffs, which are not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
RESPONSES
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it is vague, unclear, ambiguous, overbroad
and unduly burdensome. Aviva further objects to this Request in that it seeks information
Plaintiffs'
in the possession and control. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent
that it assumes the existence of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiffs by Aviva, or others,
before Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving the existence of a policy, and terms
and provisions of a policy. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva. Aviva
also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks discovery of policies not at issue in this
lawsuit, or policies issued by other insurers. Aviva further object to this Request to the
extent that it calls for the production of publicly available information insofar as
documents evidencing or supporting the underlying claim(s) of injuries/damage have been
filed with the Court in the action captioned TIG Insurance Company f/k/a Transamerica
Insurance Company v. National Hockey League, et aL, Index No. 651162, filed on or about
April 15, 2014 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, or in
this action, some of which are filed and publicly available in electronic form with NYSCEF.
Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva has no documents
responsive to this request. Aviva reserves the right to amend or supplement this response
up to and including the time of trial.
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it is vague, overbroad and unduly
burdensome in that it is unlimited in time or scope and calls for files unrelated to the
policies at issue in this lawsuit. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it
assumes the existence of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiff by Aviva, or others, before
provisions of a policy. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks discovery of underwriting files for policies
not at issue in this lawsuit, or policies issued by other insurers. Without prejudice to or
waiver of these or other objections, Aviva has no documents responsive to this request.
Aviva reserves the right to amend or supplement this response up to and including the time
of trial.
Response:
Aviva objects to this demand as vague, unclear, ambiguous, overbroad and unduly
burdensome. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks confidential,
proprietary, and/or privileged information. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or
other objections, non-privileged documents responsive to this Request are annexed hereto
as Exhibit "A". Aviva's Privilege Log is annexed hereto as Exhibit "B".
4. All loss control, engineer or risk assessment Documents concerning the NHL or the NHL
Policies.
Response:
burdensome. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it assumes the
existence of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiff by Aviva, or others, before Plaintiffs
a policy. Aviva further objects to this Request on the basis that it seeks disclosure of
confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva that is not relevant to

the current dispute. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva has
no documents responsive to this request. Aviva reserves the right to amend or supplement
this response up to and including the time of trial.
5. All Documents, including any manuals, forms, instructions, guidelines, policies, practices and
procedures, You used or considered in the evaluation, defense, handling and administration of
the NHL's insurance claim with respect to the Underlying Matters, including all Documents You
used or considered in reaching or evaluating Your coverage positions with respect to coverage
for (a) defense costs incurred and paid in the Underlying Matters and/or (b) the Underlying
Settlement.
Response:
burdensome. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is palpably
improper. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it assumes the existence
of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiff by Aviva, or others, before Plaintiffs have satisfied
their burden of proving the existence of a policy, and terms and provisions of a policy.
Aviva further objects to this Request on the basis that it seeks disclosure of confidential,
proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva that is not relevant to the current
dispute. Defendant Aviva further objects that this demand is properly directed to co-
defendants who were provided with information concerning (a) defense costs incurred and
paid in the Underlying Matters and/or (b) the Underlying Settlement during the pendency
of the Underlying Matters. Aviva further object that this demand calls for the production
of publicly available information insofar as documents evidencing or supporting the
underlying claim(s) of injuries/damage have been filed with the Court in the Underlying
Matters, some of which are filed and publicly available in electronic form. Without
prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva has no documents responsive to
this request. Aviva reserves the right to amend or supplement this response up to and
including the time of trial.
6. All Documents concerning audits, studies, valuations, estimates, projections, speculation or
discussions concerning amounts incurred or paid by the NHL in the defense of the Underlying
Matters.
Response:
and unduly burdensome. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
palpably improper. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it assumes the
confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information of Defendant Aviva that is not
relevant to the current dispute. In addition, Defendant Aviva objects on the grounds that it
is unduly burdensome and impracticable for Defendant Aviva to identify all documents
responsive to this request. Aviva further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks
documents protected by the attorney-client, work-product, joint-defense, or any other
applicable privilege. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva has
discussions concerning amounts incurred or paid by the NHL in the Underlying Settlement.
Response:
palpably improper. Aviva further objects to this Request on the basis that it seeks
disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva that is not
relevant to the current dispute. Aviva further objects to this request to the extent that it
seeks documents protected by the attorney-client, work-product, joint-defense, or any
other applicable privilege. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections,
Aviva has no documents responsive to this request. Aviva reserves the right to amend or
supplement this response up to and including the time of trial.
discussions concerning Your potential coverage obligations to the NHL with respect to the
Underlying Matters.
Response:
palpably improper. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it assumes the

confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva. In addition, Aviva

objects on the grounds that this request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client,
work-product, joint-defense, or any other applicable privilege. Without prejudice to or
of trial.
9. All Documents concerning financial claim reserves with respect to the NHL's insurance claim
concerning the Underlying Matters, including but not limited to Documents concerning the
amount of any such reserves and the decision of whether to set such reserves, regardless of
whether or not You set any such reserves for defense or indemnity.
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to
the subject matter of the pending action and that is not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that
it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks information not material to the issues in this
case and palpably improper. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it
assumes the existence of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiff by Aviva, or others, before
further objects to this request to the extent that it seeks documents protected by the
attorney-client or work-product or any other applicable privilege. Without prejudice to or
of trial.
10. All Documents concerning the issue of class certification in the MDL, including any analysis
or discussion concerning the importance of securing a denial of class certification, the likelihood
of such a denial and Your reaction to the denial.
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks disclosure of confidential,
proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva that is not material and necessary to
the prosecution or defense of this action. Aviva further objects to this Request on the
grounds that it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, seeks documents containing legal
opinions and conclusions and is palpably improper. Aviva further objects on the grounds
that this Request seeks documents protected the joint-

by attorney-client, work-product,
defense, or any other applicable privilege. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other
objections, Aviva was not a party to said Litigation and, therefore, has no documents
Response:
proprietary, or sensitive business information regarding, or belonging to, other insureds,

which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that
is not material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of this action. Aviva further
objects to this Request on the grounds it seeks documents regarding a sport other than
hockey, which is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, and to the extent that it


Response:
proprietary, or sensitive business information regarding, or belonging to, other insureds,
which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that
is not material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of this action. Aviva further
13. All Documents concerning both the Underlying Matters and the NFL Concussion Litigation,
including but not limited to Documents comparing, contrasting or considering together the
Underlying Matters and the NFL Concussion Litigation.
Response:
burdensome, to the extent that it seeks disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or sensitive
business information of Aviva regarding, or belonging to, other insureds, which is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that is not
material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of this action. Defendant Aviva
further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is palpably improper. Aviva further
14. All Documents concerning both the NCAA Concussion Litigation and the Underlying
Matters, including but not limited to Documents comparing, contrasting or considering together
the Underlying Matters and the NCAA Concussion Litigation.
Response:
business information regarding, or belonging to, other insureds, which is not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that is not material and
necessary to the prosecution or defense of this action. Aviva further objects to this Request
on the grounds that it is palpably improper. Aviva further objects to this Request on the
grounds it seeks documents regarding a sport other than hockey, which is not relevant to
the subject matter of this litigation, and to the extent that it seeks documents protected by
the attorney-client, work-product, joint-defense, or any other applicable privilege. Without
15. All Documents concerning the attorney hourly billing rates paid, reimbursed, funded or
otherwise accepted or allowed by You in the NCAA Concussion Litigation, the NFL Concussion
Litigation, and/or any other claim against a Sports Team or Sports League alleging concussive or
sub-concussive injury sustained by participants.
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it is vague, unclear, overbroad and unduly
improper. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks disclosure of
confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information regarding, or belonging to,

other insureds. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that is not
material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of this action. Aviva further objects to
this Request on the grounds it seeks documents regarding a sport other than hockey, which
is not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation, and to the extent that it seeks
16. All Documents concerning any meetings, conferences, discussions or communications that
You had with other insurers (including defendants herein), insurance brokers or agents
concerning insurance coverage for the NHL with respect to the Underlying Matters.
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent it seeks communications relating to the
Matters or this which are protected the work-
Underlying litigation, by attorney-client,
product, joint-defense, or any other applicable privilege. Aviva further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is palpably improper. Without prejudice to or waiver of

these or other objections, other than any responsive documents within the non-privileged,
non-confidential and otherwise non-objectionable portions of its claim file for the
Underlying Matters produced in response to Request 3, Aviva has no documents responsive

to this request. Aviva reserves the right to amend or supplement this response up to and
17. With respect to any NHL Policy actually, allegedly, or potentially issued by You or any other
insurer as to which complete copies were not produced by You in response to Request No. 1, all
such Liability Insurance Policies, including but not limited to parts of such NHL Policies,
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it is vague, unclear, overbroad and seeks
Plaintiffs'
information in the possession and control. Aviva further objects to this Request
on the grounds that it is palpably improper. Aviva further objects to this Request to the
extent that it assumes the existence of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiffs by Aviva, or
others, before Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving the existence of a policy, and
terms and provisions of a policy. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it
seeks disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva.
Aviva also objects to this Request to the extent it seeks discovery of policies not at issue in
this lawsuit, or policies issued by other insurers. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or
other objections, Aviva has no documents responsive to this request. Aviva reserves the
right to amend or supplement this response up to and including the time of trial.
insurer as to which complete copies were not produced by You in response to Request No. 1, all
Documents concerning the actual or potential existence, terms, limits, premiums, issuance,
brokerage, underwriting, placement or renewal of all such NHL Policies.
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it is vague, overbroad and seeks information
Plaintiffs'
in the possession and control. Aviva further objects to this Request on the
grounds that it is palpably improper. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent
before Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving the existence of a policy and its
terms, conditions and provisions. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it
insurer to or for the benefit of the NHL as to which complete copies were not produced by You
in response to Request No. 1, all binders, certificates of insurance, cancellation and premium
notices, listing summaries or other Documents concerning all such NHL Policies.
Response:
Plaintiffs'
before Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving the existence of a policy, and its
terms, conditions and provisions. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it
insurer to or for the benefit of the NHL as to which complete copies were not produced by You
in response to Request No. 1, all reinsurance contracts, policies, treaties, or agreements providing
reinsurance with respect to such Liability Insurance Policies and any Documents concerning
communications with reinsurers, retrocessionaires or reinsurance intermediaries concerning all
such NHL Policies.
Response:
Plaintiffs'
lawsuit, or policies issued by other insurers. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or

but not limited to:
Zurich;
Response:
a policy. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks disclosure of
confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva. Aviva also objects to

this Request to the extent it seeks discovery of policies not at issue in this lawsuit, or policies
issued by other insurers. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections Aviva
has no documents responsive to this request. Aviva reserves the right to amend or
b. Internal or external correspondence concerning any such NHL Policy, including any
communications with other insurers, reinsurers, brokers or any other Person;
Response:

issued by other insurers. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections,
c. Bills, invoices, receipts, checks or other Documents concerning the NHL's payment of
premiums under any such NHL Policy;
Response:

Policy;
Response:
of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiffs by Aviva, or others, before Plaintiffs have
satisfied their burden of proving the existence of a policy, and terms and provisions of a
policy. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks disclosure of

e. Documents concerning policy number 123 C 713 issued by You and policy numbers
Response:


allegedly or potentially issued by You or Zurich.
Response:

22. All Documents concerning the insurance policy forms, language, sections, provisions and
endorsements that You utilized in Liability Insurance Policies issued between 1970 and 1980,
including copies of any such Liability Insurance Policies utilizing such standard insurance policy
forms or specimen policy forms.
Response:
Plaintiffs'
policy. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it is burden to
prove the existence of policy forms, language, sections, provisions and endorsements and to
the extent it may be claimed that such forms, language, sections, provisions and
endorsements establish the existence of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiff by Aviva,
which Aviva denies. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it presumes
the existence of a policy of insurance issued to Plaintiff that employed standard forms,
language, sections, provisions and endorsements, rather than a policy containing
manuscripted forms, language, sections, provisions and endorsements. Aviva further
objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks manuscript or other non-standard
forms, language, sections, provisions and endorsements used by Aviva in the relevant time
period and, therefore, seeks the disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or sensitive
business information of Aviva's insureds who are not parties to this action. Aviva further
objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or
sensitive business information of Aviva. Aviva also objects to this Request to the extent it
seeks discovery of policies not at issue in this lawsuit, or policies issued by other insurers.
Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, a copy of a Comprehensive
Liability Rider form L-76 (1-76) that may have been used in 1976 and for an unknown
period of time thereafter is annexed hereto as Exhibit "C". Aviva reserves the right to
amend or supplement this response up to and including the time of trial.
23. All Documents concerning the drafting, development, meaning, approval and implementation
defend"
of the "duty to as used in the NHL Policies.
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent it seeks to discover documents which are not in
the possession of Aviva, that relate to insurance policies issued by other insurers, and are
more easily obtainable from some other source or party. Aviva further objects to this
Request on the grounds that it is palpably improper. Aviva further objects to this Request
to the extent that it assumes the existence of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiffs by
Aviva, or others, before Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden of proving the existence of a
policy, and terms and provisions of a policy. Aviva further objects to this Request to the
extent that it seeks disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information
of Aviva, which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
and that is not material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of this action. Finally,
in the event that Plaintiffs produce a true and complete copy of a policy that is alleged to
have actually been purchased by Plaintiffs and issued by Aviva, Aviva objects on the
grounds that the language of the Aviva Policy will be shown to be unambiguous and speak
for itself. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva has no
documents responsive to this request. Aviva reserves the right to amend or supplement
24. All Documents concerning Your review, consideration, interpretation and/or understanding
of (a) the duty to defend, (b) reasonable defense costs or (c) allocation as provided in any NHL
Policies.
Response:
proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva, which is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that is not material and necessary to the
prosecution or defense of this action. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds
that it is palpably improper. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it
assumes the existence of an insurance policy issued to Plaintiffs by Aviva, or others, before
25. All Documents concerning Document storage or retention policies, practices, or procedures,
including but not limited to storage or retention of email and other electronic files.
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that the phrase "all Documents Concerning
procedures"
Document storage or retention policies, practices, or is overbroad and unduly
burdensome if construed literally. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that
it is palpably improper. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections,
Defendant Aviva has no documents responsive to this request. Aviva reserves the right to
26. To the extent that You take the position that You do not have a duty to defend in full one or
more of the Underlying Matters, all Documents concerning, bearing on, supporting, affecting or
contradicting any such position.
Response:
palpably improper. Aviva objects to this Request on the grounds that it seeks documents
relating to Defendant Aviva's legal contentions in this litigation and/or information that is
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine or any other
applicable privileges. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva
27. All Documents concerning instances in which You paid, reimbursed, funded or otherwise
accepted attorney hourly billing rates in excess of $350 per hour with respect to the defense of a
claim against any Person that You insured under a Liability Insurance Policy, including the
identification of the law firms involved, the subject matter of the Proceeding, billing records,
cost submissions and checks.
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is confidential and
proprietary or otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege and that is irrelevant to

the current litigation. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
palpably improper. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information regarding, or
belonging to, other insureds, which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence, and that is not material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of
this action. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva has no
accepted non-attorney legal staff hourly billing rates in excess of $125 per hour with respect to
the defense of a claim against any Person that You insured under a Liability Insurance Policy,
including the identification of the law firms involved, the subject matter of the Proceeding,
Response:
accepted legal invoices with respect to the defense of a claim against any Person that You
insured under a Liability Insurance Policy, where the legal invoices contained:
billed" -
Attorneys'
c. Time entries that did not comply, in whole or in part, with Your Litigation Guidelines;
Response:

30. Your Litigation Guidelines, including all drafts and versions of the Litigation Guidelines,
discussions concerning the Litigation Guidelines and any Documents reviewed, referred to,
considered or otherwise utilized in the preparation of the Litigation Guidelines.
Response:
burdensome. Aviva further objects to this Request on the basis that it seeks disclosure of

the current dispute. Aviva also objects to this Request on the basis that it is not limited in
time or scope, and seeks documents in effect before commencement or after settlement of
the Underlying Matters. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva
31. All manuals, forms, instructions, guidelines, policies, procedures, training materials or other
attorneys'
Documents concerning payment, reimbursement or approval of bills for fees and
expenses, including those that do not adhere, in one or more respects, to Your Litigation
Response:
burdensome. Aviva further objects to this Request on the basis that it seeks disclosure of

the current dispute. Aviva also objects to this Request on the basis that it is not limited in
time or scope. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva has no
32. To the extent not encompassed by the requests above, all manuals, forms, instructions,
guidelines, policies, procedures or other Documents that You use or have used in connection
with determining the reasonableness of a given attorney hourly billing rate, billing practice,
staffing practice or expensing practice.
Response:
burdensome. Specifically, the phrases "all manuals, forms, instructions, guidelines, policies,
Documents" "reasonableness"
procedures or other and is overbroad, vague, and uses
undefined phraseology. Aviva further objects to this Request on the basis that it seeks
disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva that is not
relevant to the current dispute. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other
objections, Aviva has no documents responsive to this request. Aviva reserves the right to
33. All Documents in which You expressed any view or reaction whatsoever, whether positive,
negative, or neutral, to the NHL's choice of Outside Counsel to represent it in the Underlying
Matters.
Response:
improper. Aviva further objects to this Request on the basis that it seeks disclosure of

34. All Documents in which You expressed any view or reaction whatsoever, whether positive,
negative, or neutral, to Outside Counsel's handling of the Underlying Matters, including overall
strategy, discovery, motion practice, depositions, oral arguments, procedural issues, opposition to
class certification and settlement negotiation.
Response:

35. All Documents concerning calculation or determination of payments made to date to the
NHL for reimbursement of defense costs incurred in connection with the Underlying Matters.
Response:

the current dispute. In addition, Aviva objects on the grounds that this Request seeks
36. All Documents concerning communications between or among You and any other insurer
concerning any NHL Policy.
Response:
Aviva objects to the extent this Request seeks communications between the insurers
to the Matters or this which are protected the joint-
relating Underlying litigation, by
defense privilege. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is palpably
improper. In addition, the Request seeks information that is more easily obtainable from
some other party or source. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections,
37. All Documents concerning communications between or among You and any other insurer
concerning any claims by the NHL for insurance coverage for the Underlying Matters.
Response:
Aviva objects on the grounds this Request seeks communications between the insurers
to the Matters or this which are protected the attorney-
client, work-product, joint-defense, or any other applicable privilege. Aviva further
objects to this Request on the grounds that it is palpably improper. Without prejudice to
or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva has no documents responsive to this request.
of trial.
38. All Documents concerning the July 19, 2018 meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania between
the NHL and certain of its insurers.
Response:
Aviva objects to the extent this Request seeks communications between the insurers
to the Matters or this which are protected the joint-
defense privilege. In addition, this Request seeks information that is more easily obtainable
from some other party or source. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that
it is palpably improper. Aviva objects that this demand is more properly directed to those
insurers that participated in the July 19, 2018 meeting and not to Aviva, which did not.
39. All Documents concerning the telephone calls and meetings that You attended in which the
NHL provided an update with respect to any of the Underlying Matters.
Response:
Aviva objects to the extent that this Request is vague, overbroad and unduly burdensome.
Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is palpably improper. Aviva
further objects to the extent this Request seeks communications relating to the Underlying
Matters or this litigation, which are protected by the joint-defense privilege, attorney-client
privilege, work-product privilege, or any other applicable privilege. In addition, Request
No. 39 seeks information that is more easily obtainable from some other party or source.
40. All Documents concerning any coordination, working group, task force, point person or other
formal or information practice, policy or procedure for sharing information between or among
You and any other insurer concerning claims that in any way relate to or concern concussions or
sub-concussive impacts from participating in any Sport.
Response:
Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is palpably improper. In
addition, Aviva objects to the extent that this Request seeks information pertaining to
sports other than hockey, which are not relevant to the current litigation. In addition,
Aviva objects on the grounds that this Request seeks documents protected by the attorney-
client, work-product, joint-defense, or any other applicable privilege. Without prejudice to
of trial.
41. All Documents concerning any risk of head, brain, or neurocognitive injury arising from
participation in any Sport.
Response:

of trial.
42. All Documents concerning any risk of insurance exposure arising out of or related to
concussions or sub-concussive impacts arising from participation in any Sport.
Response:

of trial.
43. All Documents concerning any risk of insurance exposure for bodily injury associated with
insuring or potentially insuring any Sports League, Sports Team, or Sports Equipment
Manufacturer.
Response:
Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is palpably improper. Aviva
further objects to the extent this Request seeks information pertaining to Sports Leagues,
Sports Teams and Sports Equipment Manufacturers other than the Plaintiffs, which are
not relevant to the current litigation. In addition, Aviva objects on the grounds that this
Request seeks documents protected by the attorney-client, work-product, joint-defense, or
any other applicable privilege. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections,
Defendant Aviva has no documents responsive to this request. Aviva reserves the right to
44. Documents sufficient to identify all Sports Leagues, Sports Teams or Sports Equipment
Manufacturers to which You issued a Liability Insurance Policy, the identities of the insureds
and the applicable policy periods.
Response:
on the grounds it seeks documents regarding a sport other than hockey, which is not
relevant to the subject matter of this litigation. In addition, Aviva objects on the grounds
that this request seeks documents protected the joint-
45. All Documents, including Claims Files, concerning Your handling of a claim against any
Sports League that alleged or alleges liability against that Sports League for bodily injury arising
out of or related to participation in any Sport.
Response:
Sports Team that alleged or alleges liability against that Sports Team for bodily injury arising out
of or related to participation in any Sport.
Response:
Sports Equipment Manufacturer that alleged or alleges liability against that Sports Equipment
Manufacturer for bodily injury arising out of or related to participation in any Sport.
Response:
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it is vague, overbroad, and unduly
burdensome in that it is unlimited in time or scope and is not reasonably calculated to lead
to the discovery of admissible evidence. Aviva further objects to this Request on the
grounds that it is palpably improper. Additionally, Aviva objects to this Request to the
extent that it seeks documents protected the joint-
49. All Documents concerning regulatory approval or consideration of any Liability Insurance
Policy language addressing participants in Sports, including but not limited to any "participant(s)
exclusion."
Response:
proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva, regarding any sport other than
hockey and other insureds, which is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is palpably
improper. Additionally, Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks documents
protected by the attorney-client, work-product, joint-defense, or any other applicable
privilege. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva has no
50. All Documents concerning when or whether any bodily injury arising from participation in
any Sport is or should be considered to be or
Response:
admissible evidence. Aviva further objects to this Request on the grounds that it is
palpably improper. Additionally, Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
any Sport does or should be considered to arise out of intentional wrongdoing.
Response:

any Sport does or should be considered to arise out of an accident or fortuitous event.
Response:
53. All Documents concerning each reservation of rights letter You transmitted to the NHL in
connection with the Underlying Matters, including but not limited to drafts of such letters,
such letters.
Response:
Plaintiffs'
in the possession and control. Aviva further objects to this Request on the
grounds that it is palpably improper. Defendant Aviva further objects to this Request to
the extent that it seeks disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or sensitive business
information of Aviva. Finally, Aviva objects to this Request to the extent it seeks documents
protected by the attorney-client, work-product, or any other applicable privilege.
Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, documents responsive to this
request are annexed hereto within Exhibit "A". Aviva reserves the right to amend or
54. All Documents concerning any insurance policy clause, condition, exclusion, endorsement,
or other term that allegedly or potentially limits or bars coverage for the NHL under any NHL
Policy for defense costs, settlement costs or any liability incurred in the Underlying Matters to
the extent not already provided.
Response:
proprietary, or sensitive business information of Aviva which is not reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Aviva further objects to this Request on the
grounds that it is palpably improper. In addition, Aviva objects on the grounds that this
Plaintiffs'
Request seeks to shift burden to prove the existence of a policy issued by Aviva
to the Plaintiffs and all applicable provisions, terms and conditions. Without prejudice to
of trial.
55. All Documents supporting or otherwise concerning each defense or potential defense to
coverage that You have asserted or plan to assert in the instant litigation.
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request in that it is premature as discovery is ongoing. Aviva reserves
concerning"
the right to rely on any documents "supporting or otherwise any defense to
coverage it may assert in the instant litigation. Aviva further objects to this Request on the
grounds that it is palpably improper. Aviva further objects to this Request to the extent it
seeks documents relating to its legal contentions in this litigation and/or information that is
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine or any other
applicable privileges. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva
56. All Documents supporting or otherwise concerning the allegations set forth in the Complaint
filed in the action captioned TIG Insurance Company f/k/a Transamerica Insurance Company v.
National Hockey League, et al., Index No. 651162, filed on or about April 15, 2014 in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (the "TIG Lawsuit").
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad.
addition, Aviva notes that Plaintiffs and their counsel are well aware the Aviva was not a
party to the TIG lawsuit and, therefore, objects on the grounds that the allegations set
forth in the Complaint in the TIG Lawsuit speak for themselves. Aviva further objects to
this Request on the ground that it is palpably improper, seeks information that is not
relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and that is not reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or
57. To the extent not produced in response to the requests above, all Documents concerning: (a)
the NHL; (b) the NHL Policies; (c) the Underlying Matters and/or the Underlying Settlement; (d)
coverage under the NHL Policies for defense and/or settlement of the Underlying Matters; (e)
Outside Counsel; or (f) the TIG Lawsuit.
Response:
Aviva objects to this Request to the extent that is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad, unduly
burdensome and palpably improper. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant reserves the right to amend and/or supplement
the foregoing responses should additional information become available.
December 7, 2020

JACOBSON, LLP
CO.
Glenn Ja ob on, Esq.
One Park - 4th Floor New

Battery
(212) 422-1200
File No.: 32132

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP


Mark F. Hamilton
Heather E. Simpson
KENNEDYS CMK LLC
Post Office Box 650

Robert Wright
Michael Kassak
Luke Repici
7 Times Square
Suite 2900
Charles J. Scibetta
Andrew L. Poplinger

COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP
Wall Street Plaza
Ph: (212) 483-0105
EXHIBIT 23

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

PLAINTIFF'S SECOND
SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS TO AVIVA
-against-

COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendant.
_________________________________---------------..__Ç
COUNSELORS:
National Hockey League, NHL Board Of Governors and NHL Enterprises, Inc.'s Second Set of
Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, as
successor to Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. dated May 24, 2021 as follows, upon
information and belief:

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
communications.
plaintiffs'

"you" "your"
Policies"
"Sport," Manufacturer,"
2. Aviva objects to the definitions of "Sports Equipment
League," Teams"
"Sports and "Sports to the extent they seek information relating to entities
other than the Plaintiffs, which are not relevant to the subject matter of this litigation.
RESPONSES
1.As to any and all actual or alleged NHL Policies issued by You that were in effect at any time
from 1917 to 2014, including policies of which the NHL is aware but has not located complete
copies of to date, all Documents concerning the locations where any such NHL Policy was
accepted by the NHL, including any agents or representatives who were acting on its behalf.
Response:
Plaintiffs'
Insurance Company v. National Hockey League, et al., Index No. 651162, filed on or about
2. As to any and all actual or alleged NHL Policies issued by You that were in effect at any time
copies of to date, all Documents concerning where any such NHL Policy was negotiated by the NHL
and You, including any agents or representatives who were acting on behalf of any such party.
Response:
Plaintiffs'
copies of to date, all Documents concerning the location from which insurance premiums were paid
by the NHL or any agent or representative acting on the NHL's behalf.
Response:
Plaintiffs'

All documents responsive to this Request are in the possession of Plaintiffs.
copies of to date, all Documents concerning the location of the subject matter of any insured risk.
Response:
Plaintiffs'
5. All Documents concerning any claim made by the NHL, or any agent or representative acting on
the NHL's behalf, at any time between 1917 and the present under any actual or alleged NHL Policy
issued by You that was in effect at any time from 1917 to 2014, including policies of which the NHL
is aware but has not located complete copies of to date.
Response:
Plaintiffs'
Aviva further object to this Request to the extent that it is duplicative and calls for
Plaintiffs'
production of documents requested in First Request for Production of
Documents. Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, Aviva has no
6. Complete and accurate copies of any and all Documents reviewed or consulted in preparing Your
responses to interrogatories served by any party to this action.
Response:
Objection to the extent this Request seeks documents that are subject to Attorney-client
Privilege, or are privileged as Work Product, or Material Prepared in Anticipation of

Litigation.
Without prejudice to or waiver of these or other objections, see the documents annexed to
Plaintiffs'
Aviva's Response to First Request for Production of Documents, dated
December 7, 2020. Aviva reserves the right to amend or supplement this response up to
and including the time of trial.
7. All Documents, including lists, databases, claim materials, or other records, concerning any
workers compensation claim by any current or former NHL player actually or allegedly arising out of
concussive or sub-concussive injuries.
Response:
Plaintiffs'
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that defendant reserves the right to amend and/or supplement
the foregoing responses should additional information become available.
June 25, 2021

JACOBSON, LLP
CO.
By:
Gle J obson, Esq.
One P Plaza - 4th Floor New

Battery
(212) 422-1200
File No.: 32132

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP

Mark F. Hamilton
Heather E. Simpson
KENNEDYS CMK LLC
Post Office Box 650

Robert Wright
Michael Kassak
Luke Repici
7 Times Square
Suite 2900
Charles J. Scibetta
Andrew L. Poplinger

COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP
Wall Street Plaza
Ph: (212) 483-0105
EXHIBIT 24

ONE MANHATTAN WEST
FIRM/AFFILIATE
OFFICES
NEW YORK, NEW YORK I 000 I -8602
BOSTON
CHICAGO
TEL: (2 I 2) 735-3000 HOUSTON
I-OSANGEI-9ES
FAX: (2 I 2) 735-2000
www.skadden.com D.C.
WASHINGTON,
DIRECTDIAL WILMINGTON
(2 I 2) 735-29 I 7
BEIJING
DIRECTFAX BRUSSELS
(9 I 7) 777-29 I 7 FRANKFURT
EMAILADDRESS HONGKONG
PETER.LUNEAU@SKADDEN.COM LONDON
MOSCOw
MUNICH
PARIS
SÃOPAULO
2022 s U
January 31,
SINGAPORE
SYDNEY
VIA EMAIL TO°O"°O
To Counsel to the Insurers on Schedule A
Re: National Hockey League v. TIG Insurance Company,

Index No. 653421/2020 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.)
Dear Counsel:
We write regarding deficiencies with respect to Chubb, AIG and

2022.1
TIG's privilege logs served on January 28, We also write regarding
deficiencies the NHL previously raised with respect to Aviva and Zurich's privilege
logs. Given the February 2, 2022, deadline for the submission of pre-conference
letters regarding discovery disputes in advance of the February 4, 2022, conference,
we propose to meet and confer today (Monday, January 31, 2022), or Tuesday,
February 1, 2022, to discuss these issues.
A. Chubb.
Buried in a footnote, Chubb states that "[a]ll communication between

Chubb and White and Williams LLP and/or Clyde & Co. that were withheld from
log."
production are excluded from this privilege There is no basis for Chubb to
unilaterally exclude this significant swath of documents from its privilege log, nor
has the NHL agreed to a categorical exclusion of these documents from log
requirements. We also disagree with Chubb's blanket and unsupported assertion that
all such communications are entitled to privilege or work product protection,
regardless of their subject or other recipients. Under well-settled New York law,
I "Insurers"
The include Chubb Insurance
defendants Company of Canada, Federal Insurance
Company and Vigilant Insurance
Company (collectively, "Chubb"); National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. and American Home Assurance Company (collectively,
"AIG"); TIG Insurance Companyf/k/a Transamerica Insurance Company ("TIG"); Aviva
Insurance Company of Canada, as successor to Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. ("Aviva")
and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd ("Zurich").
Counsel to the Insurers Listed in Schedule A

January 31, 2022
Page 2
insurer materials prepared by "attorneys before the decision is made to pay or reject
a claim are not privileged and [are] discoverable, even when those reports are
litigation."
mixed/multi-purpose reports, motivated in part by the potential for See
Bombard v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 11 A.D.3d 647, 648 (2d Dep't 2004). As you know,
the Insurers had a good faith obligation to investigate and adjust the NHL's claims,
apart from any coverage defenses for which they may have sought advice from
counsel in anticipation of litigation. In all events, we are entitled to test Chubb's
designations.
In light of the low volume of documents that Chubb has included on

its privilege log (and the very broad privilege claims Chubb appears to have made
with respect to claims handling/adjusting materials), please advise whether Chubb
has withheld from production but omitted from its privilege log any other responsive
documents or categories of documents.
Chubb's privilege log also is not accompanied by a certification, as

required by the Commercial Division Rules, and does not include a list of attorneys
and their respective firm affiliations and titles, making it impossible to tell whether
documents involve attorneys at all.
Descriptions"
Chubb's "Category are also impermissibly vague and
"or"
ambiguous. Just by way of example, each and every Category Description uses
"and/or"
and conjunctions, making it impossible to discern the actual topic to which
any set of documents pertains. For one, Category 3 claims protection based on legal
advice regarding separate and distinct subject matters: "[i] the subpoena served on
Chubb in the underlying concussion litigation or [ii] regarding the NHL's claims
action."
and/or [iii] the coverage dispute giving rise to this We are entitled to know
which categories are being claimed, particularly given that claims adjustment and
investigation documents as part of an insurance company's business functions do not
become privileged by adding attorneys to the communications.
Along the same lines, many entries (including Category 3) provide

that withheld documents reflect "litigation strategy in connection with NHL's claim
action."
and/or the coverage dispute giving rise to this We are entitled to know which
documents concern (i) the NHL's claim (which are clearly not privileged), (ii) the
NHL's claim and coverage litigation (which are also not privileged) and
(iii) exclusively advice in connection with litigation. Chubb's descriptions make
assessing this distinction impossible. But we note that, for certain categories, all
documents long-predate this litigation (or even Chubb's coverage determination).
We do not agree with Chubb's apparent contention that it can withhold these
documents based on a dormant declaratory judgment action brought by another
Insurer against Chubb and the NHL, among other parties. Moreover, we would like

January 31, 2022
Page 3
to understand how documents dating from 1994 to 2000 could "discuss[] or reflect[]
action"
legal strategy of . . . the coverage dispute giving rise to this (Category 5).
More generally, Chubb's privilege log groups together sets of

Type[s]."
documents and then claims a series of purported "Privilege For example,
Category 1 comprises 127 documents spanning more than two years. Chubb claims
with respect to these documents protection on grounds of attorney-client privilege,
trial"
attorney work product, "Prepared in anticipation of litigation or and
Communication."
"Settlement Is Chubb's position that each of those Privilege Types
pertains to every document in that category? In other words, does Chubb claim
Communication"
"Settlement protection over each of these documents? Does Chubb
claim that documents dating back to December 2013 were prepared "in anticipation
of . . . trial"? If not, this grouping is insufficient. This apparent defect applies to each
and every one of Chubb's privilege categories.
We note that there are no documents in Chubb's privilege log over

which it purports to assert a joint defense or common interest privilege. Please
confirm that Chubb is not withholding any documents on that basis.
Please also confirm that Chubb's privilege log contains all documents
that were redacted based on the attorney client privilege or work product protection.
B. AIG.
AIG's privilege log contains so few documents-a grand total of

76-that it cannot possibly be complete. Please advise whether AIG has withheld
from production but omitted from its privilege log any responsive documents or
categories of documents not contained on its privilege log. Needless to say, that
would include, among other things, correspondence between AIG and outside
counsel and between AIG and other Insurers, which must be produced or logged so
that the NHL can test AIG's privilege claim.
As noted previously and reiterated above, we do not agree that

documents relating to claims handling or adjustment are protected by privilege or
work product. Given that we are at impasse on that issue, we intend to raise with the
Court.
We also disagree with the preamble to AIG's privilege log. Among

other things, AIG appears to take the unilateral position that claims
handling/adjustment and other documents the NHL has sought are not relevant. We
of course do not agree. All such documents are discoverable. To the extent you have
taken the position that documents that relate to AIG's assessment of the NHL's
insurance claim-including evaluation of, among other things, allocation, reasonable

January 31, 2022
Page 4
"relevant"
defense rates and reasonableness of defense costs-are not and have
therefore withheld those or other responsive documents on that basis (without
logging them in your privilege log), please inform us immediately.
AIG's privilege log also is not accompanied by a certification, as

required by the Commercial Division Rules, and does not include a list of attorneys.
We note that there are no documents in AIG's privilege log over

which it purports to assert a joint defense or common interest privilege. Please
confirm that AIG is not withholding any documents on that basis.
Lastly, please confirm that AIG's privilege log contains all documents
protection.2
that were redacted based on the attorney client privilege or work product
C. TIG.
With respect to Category 1 (Claims Notes), there appear to be a

number of unexplained redactions. For example, TIG appears to have redacted
"budget[s]"
(e.g., TIG0029189, TIG0029206); notes reflecting a call between
primary carriers from 2015 (TIG0029204); notes reflecting what appears to be a

discussion between the NHL's counsel and the Insurers (TIG0029072); and many
"POA"
notes concerning (presumably Plan of Action) (e.g., TIG0029049). This list
is not comprehensive and the NHL reserves the right to challenge all other redactions
in the document.
In addition, TIG's privilege log contains descriptions that are
impermissibly vague and ambiguous. Just by way of example, the Descriptions for
Categories 1, 2 and 6 refer to documents purportedly relating to legal advice "in
connection with the NHL's claim and/or the coverage disputes that gave rise to and
Insurers."
are the subject of the pending coverage action between the NHL and the
These documents must be broken out so that privilege can be tested separately as to
each. And, to this point, Category 1 includes only one document, making this
"and/or"
description not only needlessly vague but also inexplicable. TIG uses other
and/or conjunctions that likewise render its log vague and ambiguous.
Moreover, TIG's privilege log groups together sets of documents and

Bas[es]."
then claims a series of purported "Privilege To take one example, Category
7 comprises 2,970 documents spanning more than six years, over which TIG claims
2 A precise number of redacted ESI documents is not possible because AIG has failed (despite
notice from
the NHL) to produce its documents with the metadata fields as required under the
ESI Stipulation in this case. We continue to reserve the right to compel production in the agreed-
upon format.

January 31, 2022
Page 5
Client," Product,"
privilege or protection under "Attorney "Attorney Work "Work
Product" Communication."
and "Settlement Is TIG's position that each and every
one of these documents is a protected "Settlement Communication"? Is work
product? If not, this grouping renders the entries insufficient for the NHL to test the
claimed privilege (which the NHL cannot determine at all).
As noted previously and reiterated above, we do not agree that

documents relating to claims handling or adjustment are protected by privilege or
work product and we disagree that all documents beyond April 15, 2014, fall within
those protections. Given that we are at impasse on that issue we intend to raise with
the Court as to all Insurers.
Please explain TIG's basis for withholding documents on grounds of

"Irrelevant/Non-Responsive" "Irrelevant."
and These do not appear to be valid
grounds for withholding documents. Please explain also TIG's basis for withholding
reserves information.
D. Aviva and Zurich.
Aviva. As set forth in our April 8, 2021, and January 10, 2022, letters,
and as conveyed on a July 21, 2021, meet and confer, Aviva's privilege log does not
comply with the CPLR because it fails to identify the general subject matter and the
purported basis for the privilege asserted with respect to any document. See CPLR
3122(b). It is also unclear from Aviva's privilege log which of the individuals listed
are attorneys. Without this baseline information, it is impossible to evaluate Aviva's
claims of privilege or protection.
Zurich. As set forth in our January 10, 2022, letter, Zurich's privilege
log is also deficient in numerous respects. For starters, there are many withheld
communications between Zurich or an affiliate of Zurich and the NHL's insurance
broker that could not possibly be privileged. There are likewise many withheld
communications between Zurich and the NHL or its counsel. Please advise as to how
or why these documents are subject to protection.
"irrelevant."
There are also numerous documents withheld as
Relevance is not a basis for withholding or redacting documents; to the extent that
"privilege,"
these are the grounds for the we request that these documents be
produced without redactions. Zurich's contention in its January 19, 2022, letter that
because these documents involve excess coverage they are not relevant misses the
point.

January 31, 2022
Page 6
Moreover, Zurich has withheld correspondence between Zurich and

coverage counsel regarding what appears to be claims handling analysis. As noted
above, these documents are not privileged.
Zurich's privilege log is also unduly vague as to the basis for

privilege with respect to numerous documents. We do not agree with Zurich's stated
position that the NHL is required to individually identify each deficient entry. The
following, however, are a few illustrative examples:
" ZIC 002235, ZIC 002239, ZIC 002425, ZIC 002930, ZIC
002949 and ZIC 002965 withheld on the grounds that they
advice."
were communications "seeking legal
" ZIC 002662, withheld on grounds that it was "regarding

opinions."
" ZIC 002726, withheld on grounds that it was "regarding

research."
opinion and
* * *
We are available to meet and confer today or on February 1, 2022,
regarding the above defects. The issues raised above are based on a preliminary
Insurers'
review of the privilege logs. The NHL reserves all of its rights and waives
none. We look forward to your responses.
Sincerely,
Peter Luneau
cc: Marc E. Rosenthal


January 31, 2022
Page 7
Schedule A
Counsel for Chubb: Counsel for AIG:

Michael 0. Kassak Charles Scibetta
Adam M. Berardi Andrew Poplinger
White and Williams LLP Ted DeBonis
7 Times Square, Suite 2900 Chaffetz Lindsey LLP

33"1
New York, NY 10036 1700 Broadway, Floor
kassakm@whiteandwilliams.com New York, NY 10019
berardia@whiteandwilliams.com c.scibetta@chaffetzlindsey.com
a.poplinger@chaffetzlindsey.com
ted.debonis@chaffetzlindsey.com
Counsel for TIG: Counsel for Zurich:

Heather E. Simpson Kevin Coughlin
Mark F. Hamilton Steven Cantarutti
Kennedys CMK LLP Jourdan I. Dozier
120 Mountain View Boulevard Coughlin Midlige & Garland LLP
P.O. Box 650 88 Pine Street, 28th Floor
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 Wall Street Plaza

heather.simpson@kennedysemk.com New York, NY 10005
mark.hamilton@kennedysemk.com kcoughlin@cmg.law
scantarutti@cmg.law
jdozier@cmg.law
Counsel for Aviva:

Glenn Jacobson
Thomas R. Maeglin
Abrams, Gorelick, Friedman & Jacobson LLP

481
New York, NY 10004
gjacobson@agfjlaw.com
tmaeglin@agfjlaw.com
EXHIBIT 25

ONE MANHATTAN WEST
FIRM/AFFILIATE
OFFICES
NEW YORK, NEW YORK I 000 I -8602
BOSTON
CHICAGO
TEL: (2 I 2) 735-3000 HOUSTON
I-OSANGEES
FAX: (2 I 2) 735-2000
www.skadden.com D.C.
WASHINGTON,
DIRECTDIAL WILMINGTON
(2 I 2) 735-29 I 7
B G
DIRECTFAX BRUSSELS
(9 I 7) 777-29 I 7 FRANKFURT
EMAILADDRESS O DON
PETER.LuNEAu@SKADDEN.COM MOSCOw
MUNICH
PARIS
2, 2022 S°eOU
February
SINGAPORE
SYDNEY
TOKYO
""°""
VIA NYSCEF

County of New York

Re: Nat'l Hockey League, et al. v. TIG Ins. Co., et al.,

Index No. 653421/2020
Dear Justice Crane:
We write on behalf of plaintiff the NHL1, pursuant to Part 60's Rule 8.A and
the Court's email dated January 25, 2022, to raise disputes regarding extensive
Insurers'
deficiencies in the defendant discovery responses.
A. Documents and Information Relating to the Handling,

Investigation and Adjustment of the NHL's Claims
Insurers'
Underpinning this action is the failure to meet their coverage
obligations for the Concussion Litigation by drastically discounting defense payments
to the NHL and failing to pay anything toward the settlements of the underlying
claims. As set forth in letters to the NHL in 2017 and 2018, the Insurers slashed
payments to the NHL by more than 75% by (i) allocating defense costs to the NHL for
Insurers'
years of non-coverage; (ii) capping reimbursement based on the unilateral
view of reasonable hourly rates ($350/hour for attorneys); and (iii) reducing payments
1
Capitalized terms are defined in the complaint, NYSCEF No. 2 ("Complaint").
February 2, 2022
Page 2
on account of various purported challenges to defense counsel's bills, such as "block

billing."2
(See Ex. A at 2-3; Ex. B at 2-8.)
Despite being the core issues in this case, the Insurers have withheld virtually
all documents purportedly supporting their coverage positions, including, among other
things, (i) internal communications and analyses, (ii) third-party analyses (with limited
Insurers.3
exceptions) and (iii) communications between the (Ex. C at 1-5.)
The Insurers argue that they can withhold these documents because they reflect
advice"
"legal and involved lawyers and thus are purportedly privileged or work
product. (Ex. D.) The Insurers are incorrect. It is well-settled that "documents . . .
companies'
prepared in the ordinary course of [an] insurance business of evaluating
discoverable]" attorneys."
claims [are even if that evaluation "was performed by
Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 23 A.D.3d 190, 191 (1st Dep't
2005); see also Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. TransCanada, 119 A.D.3d
492, 511 (1st Dep't 2014) (affirming order to produce documents relating to coverage
analysis prepared by outside counsel); Otsuka Am., Inc v. Crum & Forster Specialty
Ins. Co., No. 650463/2018, 2019 WL 4131024, at *2-4 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Aug. 30,
2019) (same).
The Insurers also assert work product protection because they were purportedly
anticipating litigation beginning in 2014 when TIG sued for a declaration of the
parties'
obligations in connection with the Concussion Litigation. See TIG Ins. Co. v.
Nat'l Hockey League, No. 651162/2014 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. filed Apr. 15, 2014) (the
"D J Action"); Ex. E. The Insurers elide that no responsive pleadings were filed in the
DJ Action, which was stayed for virtually its entire six-year lifespan. In any event,
claims handling and adjusting analyses conducted before an insurer denies coverage
"resisting"
are not shielded from disclosure. The reason is that an insurer is not yet
the claim until coverage is denied. Landmark Ins. Co. v. Beau Rivage Restaurant, Inc.,
121 A.D.2d 98, 101 (2nd Dep't 1986). The Insurers had not even evaluated the NHL's
defense costs until years after the DJ Action was filed. Moreover, even if certain of
Insurers' litigation,"
the claims analysis were "prepared with an eye toward as AIG
"mixed/multi-purpose"
claims, (Ex. D), the documents are nevertheless materials and
therefore discoverable, Bombard v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 11 A.D.3d 647, 648 (2d Dep't
2004).
2
TIG has taken discounts on only the first of these three grounds. (Ex. F at 1-2.)
CU and Zurich have made no payments at all.
3
The NHL also seeks claims manuals used by CU and Zurich in the relevant periods
and Chubb's claims notes. In addition, the NHL reserves its rights regarding its
request for documents reflecting hourly rates paid by the Insurers to other insureds
in connection with litigation similar to the Concussion Litigation.
February 2, 2022
Page 3
Chubb and AIG admit that two third-party firms conducted analyses in
connection with their claims evaluation in or before 2017. (Ex. D.) Yet these Insurers
argue that, because they may retain one or both of those firms as experts in this matter
(they have not yet decided), discovery into their analyses conducted as part of
adjustment of the NHL's claim is premature. (Id.) This argument is without merit.
Documents and communications concerning analyses conducted as part of Chubb and
AIG's claims - a business function - have to do with expert
handling nothing
discovery. The Insurers should be ordered to produce them now.
B. Interrogatory Responses
The parties (with the exception of Commercial Union (CU)) have agreed to
resolve their disputes with respect to interrogatories through an exchange of
information that the parties have agreed will take place on February 9, 2022. (Ex. G.)
Insurers'
The NHL reserves its rights with respect to the interrogatory responses
Insurers'
pending review of the forthcoming disclosure.
C. Knowledge-Based Defenses Discovery
The Insurers have asserted knowledge-based defenses - such as the NHL

intended" players'
"expected or the former alleged injuries, knew of such injuries
before the policies incepted, and/or withheld the nature of the alleged risk from the
Insurers'
Insurers. (See, e.g., NYSCEF No. 15 at 23.) The own knowledge of these
alleged risks is thus relevant to assessing these defenses. The Insurers have not
searched for and refused to produce any documents relating to their knowledge of
similar risks. These documents must be produced.
D. Privilege Logs
The Court should require the Insurers to supplement their privilege logs to cure
the material deficiencies outlined below.
" Omissions. Chubb and AIG appear to claim privilege over but have
unilaterally excluded from their privilege logs communications

between them and other of the Insurers. (See Exs. H at 3, I, J.) And
these Insurers have not produced any such communications.
After the NHL raised the low volume of documents on AIG's privilege
log (Exs. H at 3, K), AIG admitted that it was incomplete and served
an amended log with several hundred additional entries. But, as AIG
concedes, the amendment does not cure the fact that AIG has
apparently not searched or logged documents from custodians who
undoubtedly have relevant materials, including communications

between attorneys within AIG.
February 2, 2022
Page 4
" No Certifications or Lists. Chubb served a categorical

Attorney
privilege log that is not accompanied by a certification, as required by
the Commercial Division Rules. (Ex. I.) Chubb's privilege log also
does not include a list of attorneys and their respective firm affiliations
and titles. (Id.)
" Vague and Ambiguous Entries. As set forth above, the Insurers have
taken an overbroad view of privilege and work product and have
grouped claims handling documents (which are not privileged or
protected) with documents reflecting legal advice pertaining to

coverage litigation. (Exs. I (Chubb), J (AIG), L (TIG), M (CU), N
(Zurich).) The Insurers must provide sufficient detail as to the nature
of the documents withheld to enable the NHL and the Court to evaluate
Insurers'
the claims of privilege and protection.
To this point, Chubb, in its original log, designated many documents as
involving work "in connection with NHL's claim and/or the coverage
action."
dispute giving rise to this (Ex. O.) When asked to clarify
claim"
which documents concerned the "NHL's and which concerned
dispute,"
"the coverage (Ex. H at 2), Chubb produced an amended log
and/or" -
that simply deleted "NHL's claim meaning that they now
appear to take the position that none of these documents relate to
evaluating the NHL's claim. (Ex. P (redline); Ex. I (Amended Log).)

This alteration confirms that Chubb is now attempting to shield
business-function claims handling documents as privileged or work
product.
Zurich's privilege log is also unduly vague as to the basis for privilege
- advice"
e.g., withheld as communications "seeking legal or
opinions"
"regarding without more. (Ex. N.)
" on Impermissible Grounds. TIG and Zurich have

Withholding
withheld documents on impermissible grounds, including grounds of
relevance. (Exs. L, N.)
"Lost"
E. Policy Documents
"missing" "lost"
CU and Zurich issued policies that are or and contend they
have been unable to locate copies of the policies. CU also represents that it has been
"specimen"
unable to locate even insurance policy forms, provisions and
endorsements that Zurich used in general liability insurance policies it issued between
1970 and 1980 (excepting a single policy rider). The NHL reserves its rights with
respect to CU and Zurich's searches.
* * *
February 2, 2022
Page 5
The parties have met and conferred and are at impasse on the above except
where otherwise noted. The NHL reserves rights on other issues with respect to which
the Insurers have represented that they will cure defects as well as issues relating to
subpoenas.4 Insurers'
third-party The NHL also reserves the right to challenge the
privilege log designations once their logs are amended to enable the NHL to
Insurers'
appropriately evaluate the respective privilege and protection claims.
Peter Luneau
Encls.
cc: All Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)
4 other we reserve the right to apply to the Court for an order that the
Among things,
Insurers must pay all of the fees, costs and expenses associated with responding to
subpoenas to third party law firms. See The Walt Disney Co. v. Peerenboom, No.
151788/2018, 2019 WL 295234, at *5 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. Jan. 17, 2019) (holding
attorneys'
that party must pay subpoena expenses, "which may include fees").
EXHIBIT 26
White and
Williams tte
Michael 0. Kassak
LibertyView | 457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 400 | Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-2220

Direct 856.317.3653 | Fax 856.317.3603
February 2, 2022
Via e-NYSCEF
County of New York


Hockey League, Co.,
Dear Justice Crane:
Please accept this letter on behalf of Insurer-Defendants as their joint Rule 14 submission
in advance of the February 4, 2022 conference before Your Honor.
INSURERS'
DISCOVERY ISSUES
Document Productions
Insurers'
Years prior to discovery requests in this action, NHL provided nearly 300,000
documents (totaling approximately 3 million pages) from the underlying litigation to Insurers
("Underlying Production"). In response to 38 document requests from Insurers, NHL responded
only by suggesting responsive documents may be contained in the Underlying Production. NHL
has advised that no index of the Underlying Production exists and has refused to supplement its
written discovery responses to provide any specificity whatsoever as to which documents may
actually contain responsive information. The Insurers request that the Court order NHL to do so.
Subpoenas to NHL Law Firms in Concussion Litigation
On May 24, 2021, Insurers issued subpoenas to three law firms representing NHL in the
underlying litigation seeking documents concerning case management and billing practices
relevant to this coverage dispute. The law firms have not yet produced their responsive documents,
but have indicated that they will commence doing so soon. The Insurers reserve their rights to
review those documents and raise any issues that arise as a result of that review.

February 2, 2022
Page 2
The law firms have further indicated that they intend to ask the Court to order the Insurers
attorneys'
to pay fees for the time spent by their attorneys reviewing and producing the documents.
While CPLR 3122(d) provides for the potential recovery of reasonable production expenses of a
attorneys'
non-party witness, the rule does not provide for the payment of fees, and the law firms
are not the ordinary non-party bystander the Rule is intended to protect in any event. Indeed, the
law firms are the specific source of the contentious defense costs that are at the core of this dispute
and (with one exception) are serving as counsel for the NHL in this coverage action. See CPLR
3103(a). Under these circumstances, shifting the costs to the Insurers is not appropriate.
Privilege Logs
file"
The NHL has indicated that it is withholding the underlying "defense but has only
logged 16 documents concerning legal advice with respect to the underlying litigation on its logs.
There appears to be a significant amount of communications or documents unaccounted for
concerning the underlying litigation. These materials should be produced or identified on a

privilege log.
Interrogatories
The parties have conferred regarding issues regarding responses to interrogatories served
by the NHL and the Insurers. The parties are continuing to work through these issues and are
nearing a resolution. The Insurers reserve their right to seek Court intervention if the parties
ultimately cannot reach a resolution.
INSURERS'
RESPONSE TO NHL'S ANTICIPATED DISCOVERY ISSUES
Privileged and Otherwise Protected Documents
The NHL made its claim for insurance coverage arising out of underlying concussion
litigation in December 2013. By no later than April 2014, it was clear to all involved that the
Insurers and the NHL were in the midst of a serious dispute that would not be resolved in the
ordinary course of business. Litigation was required.
On April 15, 2014, therefore, TIG commenced coverage litigation. The parties agreed to
stay the litigation starting at the end of 2014. But that stay did not erase the fact that litigation had
commenced, nor eliminate the need for litigation to resolve this

dispute. Since the filing of the
business"
TIG action, the parties have never reverted to their "ordinary course of that was disrupted
when this dispute crystallized back in 2014. Instead, since then, the parties have been
communicating primarily through outside coverage litigation counsel, and all steps taken in this
dispute have been taken in the context of an ongoing-not merely anticipated-dispute in
litigation.
On these facts, which the Insurers will lay out in more detail should briefing on this issue
preparation"
become necessary, New York's privileges and protections for "trial (CPLR 3101(d))
attached to this case no later than upon the filing of TIG's complaint on April 15, 2014. Under
discoverable"
those privileges and protections, "materials otherwise are protected from disclosure
February 2, 2022
Page 3
when they are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial once litigation has commenced.
3101(d)(2). Further, disclosure concerning expert materials prepared for litigation is narrowly
proscribed to disclosure of the identity of the expert, the subject matter of the facts and opinions,
the expert's qualifications, and a summary of the grounds for the expert's opinion. 3101(d)(1)(i).
Any further discovery of litigation materials requires a showing of "substantial need for the
materials"
and that the party seeking discovery cannot obtain the information on its own without
hardship."
"undue 3101(d)(2). And any further discovery concerning expert materials "may be
circumstances[.]"
obtained only by court order upon a showing of special 3101(d)(1)(iii). NHL
has not made these showings.
preparation"
In this case, the Insurers have invoked New York's "trial protections in two
categories that the NHL disputes. First, the Insurers have withheld from their productions
communications involving their litigation counsel that were created following the commencement
action.1
of the TIG Second, Chubb and AIG have withheld certain materials prepared by or at the
direction of experts that they retained to analyze the NHL's claims and to provide testimony at
case.2
trial in this
The NHL contends that, as insurers, the Insurers are not entitled to the protections afforded
under New York's discovery rules for trial preparation materials because the litigation lawyers and
"handling"
the experts engaged by the Insurers were merely the NHL's claim, in the ordinary
course of the business function of an insurance company. In support of its position, the NHL has
cited the Second Department's decision in Bombard v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., to argue that insurer
materials prepared by "attorneys before the decision is made to pay or reject a claim are not
privileged and [are] discoverable, even when those reports are mixed/multi-purpose reports,
litigation."
motivated in part by the potential for 11 A.D.3d 647, 648 (2d Dep't 2004).
The NHL's mistake is that the holding fromBombard does not apply here, where there was
litigation,"
more than simply a "potential for as existed in Bombard. Here, litigation had
parties'
commenced, and the dispute was actual, not potential, by no later than April 14, 2014.
I
The Insurers have all withheld as litigation
documents materials
and communications with their in-house and outside
counsel. AIG has not collected or logging for production
documents that are maintained in-
solely in the files of its
house litigation counsel (just as the parties have not collected for production or logging files maintained solely in the
possession of outside litigation counsel). The files of AIG's in-house litigation counsel should be treated the same as
outside litigation counsel because those inside AIG counsel are not involved in ordinary-course-of business claims
handling. They are engaged only on matters where litigation is anticipated or pending. Here, they were engaged only
after litigation was actually pending. Collection of their files would
be unduly burdensome and unlikely to lead to the
disclosure of non-privileged information, since the files were solely created because of the litigation.
2
The Insurers withheld have
the documents at issue here because they are protected under the trial preparation
protection of CPLR
3101(d) and/or the privilege protection of CPLR 3101(b) and/or work product protection of CPLR
3101(c). We address the 3101(d) protection in this letter because, on the facts here, it provides the broadest protection
for the documents at issue. If the NHL's overly narrow view of the trial preparation protection were to prevail, the
Insurers would have to review their withheld documents to parse them for those that are privileged and/or work
product, as opposed to privileged, work product and/or protected as trial preparation materials. Privileged materials
and work product are not subject to disclosure, regardless of whether litigation is anticipated.
February 2, 2022
Page 4
The NHL's position that litigation was not anticipated when litigation was already
commenced is unsustainable. So too is its position that it was ordinary course of business for it to
reject the defense counsel offered by insurers, reject the reimbursable rate offered by insurers,
reject any obligation to comply with litigation guidelines aimed at controlling defense costs, and
then dump tens of millions of dollars in non-compliant defense invoices on the Insurers. This was
Insurers'
not ordinary course of business, and the instruction of litigation counsel and experts to
assist it with this extraordinary defense cost dispute is entitled the trial material protections
afforded under New York law.
Insurers'
Subpoenas to Experts
Insurers'
NHL has issued subpoenas to the above-discussed experts, John S. Pierce of
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP and Stuart Maue, who were retained by Chubb and AIG, through
coverage counsel, to review and opine on the invoices finally submitted by the NHL. For the
reasons discussed above, the scope of these subpoenas exceeds the permissible scope of expert
disclosures under CPLR 3101(d). Plus, expert discovery is not permitted via subpoena. Any
further expert discovery should take place during the time directed on this Court's Scheduling
Insurers'
Order. NHL should be ordered to withdraw the subpoenas directed to experts.
Michael O. Kassak
Rafael Vergara
cc: Charles Scibetta, Esq./Andrew L. Poplinger, Esq.

Peter Luneau, Esq./Rebekah Mott, Esq.
Marc Rosenthal, Esq.
28429643v.1
EXHIBIT 27
|FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02 /02/2022 11: 40 INDEX NO. 653421/2020
PlÆ
National Hockey League, et al. v. TIG Insurance Co., et al. - Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, Index No. 653421/2020
Chubb Defendants' Revised Privilege Log

February 1, 2022
1 | 12/3/2013 | email; word | Paul Bech; James Biondolillo; John Caims; | Communication of in-house Attorney-client privilege. 127
to | Christopher Celentano; James Gunson; Mark | counsel reflecting legal advice Attorney Work Product.
3/17/2016 | | Greenberg; Neha Hannan; Daryl Hines; Kim | and/or litigation strategy in Prepared in anticipation of
Hogrefe; Lily Kornijenko; John Mahony; JeE | connection with the coverage litigation.
Miller; Dee Anne Nunley; Tracey Primmer; | dispute giving rise to this action. Settlement Communication.
Liam Ryan; Don Sonlin; Carol Weber; and
Daniela Verdino.
2 | 12/4/2013 | email; pdf; | Stephen Ballinger; Sylvia Bell; Dean Bender; Linda | Intemal documents and/or Prepared in anticipation of | 207
to | word; excel | Bento; James Biondolillo; Christopher Celentano; | communication containing litigation.
3/11/2020 | | Elizabeth Centeno; Samuel Codispoti; Jorge Diaz; | information prepared by, at the Attorney-client privilege.
Claudia Gheorghiu; Dawn Gillespie; Kevin Guinan; | direction of, or on behalf of Attorney Work Product.
Scott Gunter; Steven Hernandez; Kim Hogrefe; | counsel in connection with the Settlement Communication.
Tirzah Johnston; Mike Kalady; Sophia Karnavas; | coverage dispute giving rise to
Edward Kinzer; Frank Lattal; Kevin Leidwinger; | this action.
Lloyd Lisk; John Mahoney; James Martuscelli; Sean
McCarthy; Matthew Merna; Lauren Meserino; Lisa
Mikruk; Jeffrey Miller; Donna Monper; Dee Ann
Nunley; Maria O'Rourke; Thomas Olsen; JeE
Pasternack; Mary Beth Pittinger; Brian Powers;
Tracey Primmer; Benjamin Rockwell; Sherron
Rowe-Hohn; Preeti Shankar; Leslie Shapiro; Don
Sonlin; Wendy Strober; Julie Stuart; Jeff Trimachi;
Cynthia Turner-Thomas; Richard Ughetta; Delma
Vazquez; Daniela Verdino; John Watkins; Carol
Weber; and Xin Zheng.
3 5/12/2014 email; word Outside counsel: Jonathan Hacker; Mike Kassak; Communication with outside Attorney-client privilege. 67
to Edward Koch; Stephen Loney; Eric Magnuson; counsel providing, requesting, or Attorney Work Product.
9/21/2018 James McGuire; Nate Moore; David Newman; reflecting legal advice regarding
the subpoena served on Chubb in
28407863v.1
|FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2022 11:40 INDEX NO. 653421/2020
PlÆ
Thomas Nixon; Luke Repici; and Andrew the underlying concussion Prepared in anticipation of
Sanfillippo. litigation or in connection with litigation.
the coverage dispute giving rise
Client: Deanna Beacham; James Biondolillo; to this action.
Christopher Celentano; Brian Clemens; Yaira
Dubin; James Gunson; Neha Hannan; Debra
Hochron; Kim Hogrefe; Lily Komijenko; Frank
Lattal; John Mahony; Anton Metlisky; Jeffrey
Miller; Kevin Murphy; Dee Ann Nunley; Steve
Papadogiannis; Mary Beth Pittinger; Preeti Shankar;
Don Sonlin; Julie Stuart; David Subramanian; JefT
Trimarchi; John Watkins; and Michael Zeoli.
4 12/11/2013 email; pdf James Biondolillo; Christine Brown; Christopher Intemal communication and Confidential and/or 49
to Celentano; Jorge Diaz; Terry Dyben; Kelly Gale; documents regarding coverage proprietary information.
10/11/2019 Amy Goodell; Kim Hogrefe; Mark Korsgaard; litigation strategy or confidential Prepared in anticipation of
Frank Lattal; Michelle Lemieux; JefTrey Miller; Dee and proprietary business or litigation.
Ann Nunley; Thomas Olson; Mary Beth Pittinger; financial information. Attorney-client privilege.
Gina Spinella; JefT Trimarchi; Debbie Warchal; John Attorney Work Product.
Watkins; and Carol Weber. Settlement Communication.
5 1994 pdf J. Angerami; Michelle Baker; Matthew Campbell; Communication and Attorney-client privilege. 5
to Frank Culhane; Timothy Diveley; Tom Fazio; David memorandum of in-house Attorney Work Product.
2000 Firstenberg; W. Guzzo; William Harwood; Margaret counsel discussing or reflecting Document not relevant,
Klose; Mark Korsgaard; D. Lombardi; Thomas legal advice regarding legal material, or necessary.
McCormack; Mike McManus; Lou Nagy; Bob issues unrelated to coverage Confidential and/or
Raf Terty; Virginia Spiller; Paul Stewman; J. Stites; dispute giving rise to this action. proprietary information.
Jim Talley; Steve Tasy; Paula Umreiko; Carol
Weber; Boynton Weekes; and Matthew Wilson.
6 11/18/2015 email; pdf; Attorneys: Barbara Almeida; Shane Calendar; Communication and documents Attorney-client privilege. 14
to word Michael Kassak; Edward Koch; Daren McNally; with outside counsel - Clyde and
2/6/2019 Luke Repici; and John Vieira. Co. - providing, requesting, or
reflecting legal advice in
Client: Linda Bento; James Biondolillo; Christopher connection with the coverage
Celentano; Krista Glenn; Frank Lattal; John dispute giving rise to this action.
Mahony; JefTrey Miller; Donna Monper; Liam
-2-
28407863v.1
|FILED : NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 02/02/2022 11:40 INDEX NO. 653421/2020
PlÆ
Ryan; Julia Stuart; Wendy Strober; and Jeff

Trimarchi.
7 11/26/2013 email; word; Attorneys: Katrina Gibson; Laura Hutchinson; Communication and documents Attorney-client privilege. 5525
to pdf Michael Jervis; Johnathan Hacker; Michael Kassak; with outside counsel - White and Attorney Work Product.
7/31/2020 Edward Koch; Gregory LoCasale; Stephen Loney; Williams - providing, requesting, Settlement Communication.
Eric Magnuson; Nathaniel Moore; Daren McNally; or reflecting legal advice in
Luke Repici; Andrew Sanfilippo; Rafael Vergara; connection with the coverage
and Robert Wright. dispute giving rise to this action.
Client: Linda Bento; James Biondolillo; Christopher

Celentano; Barbara De Paolis; Krista Glenn; Kim
Hogrefe; Tirzah Johnston; Lily Kornijenko; Frank
Lattal; John Mahoney; John Mastrantonio; Jeffrey
Miller; Donna Monper; Annette Mortillaro; Dee
Ann Nunley; Thomas Olson; Andrew Palmer; JefT
Pasternack; Mary Beth Pittinger; Michael Ragosta;
Liam Ryan; Don Sonlin; Wendy Strober; Julia
Stuart; Jeff Trimarchi; Cynthia Turner-Thomas;
Delma Vazquez; and John Watkins.
-3-
28407863v.1
EXHIBIT 28
DOWDBENNETT LLP
J. Russell Jackson Direct Dial: (314) 889-7379 rjackson@dowdbennett.com
February 17, 2022
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Michael J. Brychel, J.D.

Stuart Maue Ltd.
3840 McKelvey Road
St. Louis, Missouri 63044
mbrychel@smmj.com
RE: National Hockey League et al., v. TIG Insurance Company, et al., 22SL-CC00696
Dear Mr. Brychel:
As you are aware, Stuart Maue Ltd. was served yesterday with the lawfully-issued subpoena in
the above-referenced matter. Unfortunately, when our process server was at your office to
deliver the subpoena packet, none of your employees would allow him to hand the packet to
them. Instead, your receptionist told him that she had been instructed by her supervisor not to
service"
"accept of the subpoena. He asked to speak with a manager, and she said none were
available. Our process server then went back to his office, called Stuart Maue's general number,
and asked to speak with a manager. He was given your number, and he spoke to you directly,
asking how you wanted him to deliver the subpoena to Stuart Maue. You informed him that one
of Stuart Maue's clients that is a party to the New York litigation had instructed your firm not to
service"
"accept of the subpoena.
As you know, our process server returned to your office yesterday around 1 p.m. The receptionist
refused to let him enter the building, but spoke with him on the sidewalk. She would not let him
leave the subpoena with her, and when he asked if anyone at Stuart Maue would do so, she
service"
responded no, explaining that they had been directed not to "accept of the subpoena. He
then, in her presence, used clear box tape to affix the subpoena to the glass front door of Stuart
Maue's office.
You have a law degree and are presumably aware that a company cannot simply will away a
lawful subpoena delivered to it at its corporate office. The subpoena has been delivered to your
company; Stuart Maue thus has been served, and it ignores the deadlines stated in the subpoena
at its peril.
I urge you to telephone Peter Luneau of Skadden at (212) 735-2917, who stands ready to provide
reasonable accommodations regarding the timing for Stuart Maue's compliance with the
subpoena.
7733 FORSYTH SUITE 1900 - ST. MISSOURI 63105

BOULEVARD, LOulS,
· FAX 314.863.2111 -
314.889.7300 WWW.DOWDBENNETT.COM
February 17, 2022

Page 2
Because of your firm's antics, you will receive multiple copies of the subpoena packet from me
through various channels so that there is no way you can credibly claim that Stuart Maue did not
actually receive the subpoena. Unless the cover letter says otherwise, these packets are identical
"trick"
copies; there is no buried inside the documents that require comparison with the first
packet Stuart Maue received yesterday. I regret having to burden you with multiple copies of the
same packet.
Regards,
J. Russell Jackson
Enclosures: Subpoena for Depositions - St. Louis Missouri

Taking County,
Subpoena Duces Tecum and Ad Testificandum - New York New York
County,
Schedule A - Documents to Produce
Exhibit A - Complaint
Exhibit B - Stipulation for the Exchange of Electronically-Stored Information
Order Granting Special Process Server Request
Business Records AfEdavit
cc: Via e-mail:

Peter Luneau
Shaud G. Tavakoli
Rebekah Mott
Marc Eric Rosenthal
Michael O. Kassak
Rafael Vergara
Charles Scibetta
Andrew L. Poplinger
Heather E. Simpson
Mark F. Hamilton
Thomas P. Maeglin
Kevin T. Coughlin
Steven D. Cantarutti
EXHIBIT 29

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________ x

. Index No.: 653421/2020
Plaintiff, :
(Crane, J.)
-v- :
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA; .

COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO., LTD.; :
.
Defendants.
.
________________________________________________________________ x
TO: Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Attn: John (Jack) S. Pierce
1881
One California Street, Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, pursuant to Article 23 and Rule 3120 of the New
York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"), to produce for inspection and copying, all books,
papers, documents, electronic documents, or other tangible things within Your possession,
custody, or control, which are listed in Schedule A, annexed hereto, within twenty days of the
date of service, at the offices of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Attention: Peter
Luneau, One Manhattan West, New York, New York, 10001.
Plaintiffs the National Hockey League, NHL Board of Governors and NHL Enterprises,
Inc. (collectively, "NHL"), seek Your documents described in Schedule A attached hereto
pursuant to CPLR § 3101(a)(4) because, upon information and belief, You (as defined in
Schedule A), possess, or have in Your custody or control, documents relevant to one or more of
defendants'
the asserted defenses in the above-captioned action (the "Action"). Specifically, on
information and belief You have documents pertaining to an audit, analysis or review with
respect to defense costs submitted by the NHL to one or more defendants in connection with the
Concussion Litigation (as defined in Schedule A). The NHL is pursuing this Action to, among
other things, recover defense costs for the Concussion Litigation pursuant to insurance policies
issued by the defendant insurers. The Complaint in the Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that failure to comply with this subpoena is
punishable as a contempt of Court and shall make you liable to the person on whose behalf this
subpoena was issued for a penalty not to exceed fifty dollars and all damages sustained by reason
of your failure to comply.
January 20, 2022
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
/s/ Peter D. Luneau

Peter D. Luneau
Shaud G. Tavakoli
Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
Attorneys for Plaintifs National Hockey

League, NHL Board of Governors and
NHL Enterprises, Inc.
2
SCHEDULE A
This Subpoena requires You to produce the documents described in the below Requests.
The Requests are to be construed in accordance with the Definitions below and responded to in
accordance with the Instructions below.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
1. The Expert Report and all other work product prepared by You in connection with
the Engagement, including all draft work product.
2. Any analysis, evaluation, audit or report, including all drafts and versions thereof,
prepared by Stuart Maue concerning the Expert Report, the Engagement or the Concussion
Litigation.
3. Documents sufficient to identify the Hinshaw and Stuart Maue individuals who
performed any work in connection with the Expert Report or the Engagement, their hourly rates
and their respective professional experience.
4. All Documents and Communications concerning any research, including legal
research, performed by You in connection with the Expert Report or the Engagement, including,
billing,"
but not limited to, research related to reasonable hourly rates, "block and the appropriate
billing for travel time.
5. All Documents or Communications concerning the materials You received,
reviewed and/or relied on in preparing the Expert Report or otherwise in connection with the
Engagement.
6. All Documents or Communications concerning any evaluation or analysis by You
or discussion between You and any Insurer or its agents and representatives (including White
"reasonable"
and Williams) regarding what constitutes billing rates or billing practices in
connection with the Concussion Litigation, the Expert Report or the Engagement.
3
7. All Documents or Communications concerning any evaluation or analysis by You
or discussion between You and any Insurer or its agents or representatives (including White and
Williams) regarding the Concussion Litigation, including evaluation or analysis of any
pleadings, motions, decisions, other court filings or settlements in connection with the
8. Any retention or engagement letter(s) or agreement(s) between You and any
Insurer or its agents and representatives (including White and Williams) in connection with the
Engagement.
9. All Documents or Communications concerning Your methodologies or
assumptions, and the bases for any such methodologies or assumptions, in preparing the Expert
Report or otherwise employed in connection with the Engagement, including, but not limited to:
a. any assumptions based on any billing or litigation guidelines of the
Insurers or otherwise;
Report"
b. Your basis for relying or not relying on the "Real Rate as a source
attorneys'
for hourly rates;
"vague"
c. the meaning and scope of the term or the phrase "vague billing
entries";
staffing"
d. the meaning and scope of the phrases "excessive and "excessive
hours billed";
e. the appropriate amount of time for attorneys to bill for motions, including
drafting and revising motions, in connection with the Concussion
Litigation;
4
billing"
f. the meaning and scope of the term "block and any appropriate
discount therefore.
10. All Documents or Communications concerning any direction or instruction from
any Insurer or its agents and representatives (including White and Williams) in connection with
the Expert Report or the Engagement.
11. All Documents or Communications concerning any direction or instruction you
provided to Stuart Maue in connection with any analysis or audit contemplated to be conducted
or conducted by Stuart Maue in connection with the Expert Report or the Engagement.
12. To the extent not covered by the foregoing requests, all other Documents or
Communications concerning the Expert Report or the Engagement, including any related
analysis or correspondence internally or extemally (e.g., with any Insurer, White and Williams,
Stuart Maue or any other third party).
DEFINITIONS
As used in this Schedule A, the following definitions shall apply to these Document
Requests and Topics:
Litigation"
1. "Concussion means all concussion lawsuits filed against the NHL for
alleged continuous and progressive bodily injury allegedly caused by concussive and
subconcussive impacts purportedly sustained by former National Hockey League players during
their National Hockey League playing careers, including:
a. Leeman, et al. v. NHL, et al., No. 1:13-cv-01856 (D. D.C.)
b. LaCouture, et al. v. NHL, No. 1:14-cv-02531 (S.D.N.Y.)
c. Christian, et al. v. NHL, No. 0:14-cv-01140 (D. Minn.)
d. Fritsche, et al. v. NHL, No. 1:14-cv-05732 (S.D.N.Y.)
5
e. Rohloff v. NHL, No. 0:14-cv-03038 (D. Minn.)
f. Larose v. NHL, No. 0:14-cv-03410 (D. Minn.)
g. Pokulok, et al. v. NHL, No. 0:14-cv-03477 (D. Minn.)
h. Murphy v. NHL, No. 0:14-cv-04132 (D. Minn.)
i. Adams, et al. v. NHL, No. 0:15-cv-00472 (D. Minn.)
j. Blue v. NHL, No. 0:15-cv-02294-SRN-JSM (C.D. Cal.)
k. Ludzik v. NHL, et al., No. 1:15-cv-04816 (N.D. Ill.)
1. Severson v. NHL, No. 2:15-cv-06411 (C.D. Cal.)
m. Petit, et al. v. NHL, No. 0:15-cv-03666 (D. Minn.)
n. Oliwa, et al. v. NHL, et al., No 0:15-cv-03904 (D. Minn.)
o. Muni, et al. v. NHL, et al., No, 0:15-cv-04191 (D. Minn.)
p. Montador v. NHL, et al., No. 1:15-cv-10989 (N.D. Ill.)
q. Ledyard, et al. v. NHL, et al., No. 0:16-cv-00248 (D. Minn.)
r. Bradley (Estate of Zeidel) v. NHL, et al., No. 0:16-cv-03156 (D. Minn.)
s. Veitch, et al. v. NHL, et al., No. 0:16-cv-02683 (D. Minn.)
t. Simon, et al. v. NHL, et al., No. 0:17-cv-01586 (D. Minn.)
u. Carcillo, et al. v. NHL, et al., No. 0:18-cv-01715 (D. Minn.)
v. Berard v. NHL, et al., No. BC718095 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
w. Butcher v. NHL, et al., No. BC718250 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
x. Cullen v. NHL, et al., No. BC718249 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
y. Hardy v. NHL, et al., No. BC718093 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
z. Turnbull v. NHL, et al., No. BC718251 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
aa. J.P., et al. v. NHL, et al., No. BC719056 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
6
bb. Quinn v. NHL, et al., No. BC719462 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
cc. Ewen v. NHL, et al., No. 2:19-cv-03656 (C.D. Cal.)
dd. Montador v. NHL, No. 20121L010483 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)
"Insurers"
2. means any one or more of the following: TIG Insurance Company f/k/a
TransAmerica Insurance Company; Federal Insurance Company; Chubb Insurance Company of
Canada; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA.; Vigilant Insurance
Company; American Home Assurance Company; Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, as
successor to Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd.; and Zurich Insurance Company LTD,
together with their respective representatives, affiliates, employees, officers, directors, attorneys,
agents or assigns; any representatives or persons acting or authorized to act on their behalf; and
any predecessors, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates or business units.
3.
"Communication"
means the transmittal by any means - written, printed, oral,
electronic or any other manner - of any Document, as defined below, and/or any form of
information, from one person or entity to another, including, but not limited to, testimony and
deposition transcripts; notes; interview records; Documents produced or provided;
correspondence; facsimiles; voice mail; electronic mail; electronic texts and instant messages;
and any other type of communication in any form or means. Communication between A and B
includes both communication from A to B and communication from B to A.
"Concerning"
4. means, directly or indirectly, relating to, referring to, in connection
with, describing, regarding, evidencing, recording or constituting.
"Document"
5. is used herein in the broadest possible sense, including, without
limiting the generality of this definition, any electronic or computerized data compilations,
writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, recordings, images, and other data or data
7
compilations, stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if
necessary, after translation, including, any written, typed, or other graphic material, of any kind
or nature, including communications (which include the transmittal of information--in the form
of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise--in any format, whether oral, written or electronic), and any
other tangible thing by or on which information or data is stored or can be obtained, translated (if
necessary) by You through detection devices into reasonably usable form, including any writing,
drawing, film, graph, chart, photograph, telephone record, mechanical or electrical sound
recording or transcript thereof; any retrievable data, whether in computer storage, carded,
punched, taped or coded form or stored electrostatically, electromagnetically, or otherwise; and
any other data compilation from which information can be obtained. Without limiting the
"Document"
generality of the foregoing, specifically includes all contracts, agreements,
electronic mails, forms, correspondence, letters, telegrams, telephone messages, notices, notes,
memoranda, computer files, reports, studies, analyses, working papers, summaries, statistical
statements, financial statements, financial analyses, opinions, forecasts, budgets, projections,
audits, press releases, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, minutes of meetings, notes and summaries
of investigations, diaries, minutes, statements, worksheets, books, journals, ledgers, maps,
appointment desk inter- and intra-office memos

diagrams, drafts, newspapers, books, calendars,
and communications, faxes, and telexes. Such term shall also include all contemporaneously or
subsequently created non-identical duplicates or copies and all drafts, preliminary versions, or
revisions of documents, whether completed or not, by whatever means made. As used in these
"Document" "Document"
Requests, also includes every that is no longer identical by virtue of
any notation or modification of any kind.
8
"Engagement"
6. means Your engagement by one or more of the Insurers and/or its
attorneys, including White and Williams, to conduct any audit, review, report, examination,
inspection or analysis relating to the Concussion Litigation, including any actual, potential or
contemplated audit, review, report, examination, inspection or analysis of (i) reasonable billing
rates or (ii) legal bills or expenses, expert bills or expenses, vendor bills or expenses, billing
rates, billing practices or time entries relating to the Concussion Litigation.
Report" Report," "Opinion" Analysis"

7. "Expert means any "Expert or "Expert
contemplated or prepared by You in connection with the Engagement, including all versions and
drafts thereof, and all dran and final exhibits, appendices, annexes and related materials.
"Person"
8. means any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity
or association.
Maue"
9. "Stuart means Stuart Maue Ltd., together with its representatives,
affiliates, employees, officers, directors, attorneys, agents or assigns; any representatives or
persons acting or authorized to act on their behalf, including, but not limited to, Michael Brychel;
and any predecessors, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates or business units.
Williams"
10. "White and means White and Williams LLP and its direct and indirect
parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors and assignees and each of their
respective current and former partners, managers, officers, employees, agents, attorneys and
representatives, including, but not limited to, Luke A. Repici.
"YY" "Your" "Hinshaw"

11. and means Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP and its direct
and indirect parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors and assignees and each of
their respective current and former partners, managers, officers, employees, agents, attorneys and
9
representatives, including, but not limited to, Peter J. Felsenfeld, John (Jack) S. Pierce and
Jeanna L. Morton.
INSTRUCTIONS
A. These Requests require that You produce Documents in a manner that complies
with the requirements of Article 31 of the CPLR, the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations
and the Uniform Rules for New York State Trial Courts, including the Commercial Division
Rules.
B. These Requests require You to produce all non-privileged Documents called for
herein that were created, originated or obtained by You, or that are in Your possession, custody
or control, from all files or other sources that contain responsive Documents, wherever located
and whether active, in storage, or otherwise.
C. In responding to these Requests, You are required to furnish all Documents that
are available to You, including Documents that have been obtained by or are in the possession,
custody or control of Your attorneys, employees, agents, or representatives and not merely
Documents which are in Your personal possession.
D. In order to bring within the scope of these Requests all Documents that might
otherwise be construed to be outside of their scope, the following rules of construction apply:
1. the singular shall include the plural and vice versa;
2. the masculine, feminine or neuter pronoun shall not exclude other genders;
"and" "or"
3. the connectives and shall be construed either disjunctively or
conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the Requests all responses
that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope;
"all," "any" "each"

4. the terms and shall each be construed as encompassing
any and all;
10
"including"
5. the word shall be read to mean including without limitation;
6. the present tense shall be construed to include the past tense and vice
versa; and
7. references to partners, managers, employees, officers, directors or agents
shall include both current and former partners, managers, employees, officers,
directors and agents.
Documents"
E. "All is meant to include all Documents in Your possession, custody
or control, whether the Documents were created or compiled by You or by any other Person or
entity for any reason.
F. Where only a portion of a Document relates or refers to the subject indicated, the
entire Document is to be produced nevertheless, along with all attachments, appendices and
exhibits.
G. If You object to a Request, You shall state with reasonable particularity the
ground for any objection to production. You shall state: (a) whether the objection(s) interposed
pertain to all or part of the Request; (b) whether any Documents or categories of Documents are
being withheld, and if so, which of the stated objection(s) forms the basis for Your decision to
withhold otherwise responsive Documents or categories of Documents; and (c) the manner in
which You intend to limit the scope of Your production.
H. Where a claim of privilege is asserted in objecting to a Request, You shall
identify the nature of the privilege (including work product) which is being claimed, and the
following information shall be provided in the objection for each Document withheld: (a) the
type of document, e.g., letter or memorandum; (b) the general subject matter; (c) the date; (d) the
author(s); (e) the addressee(s); (f) the recipient(s); and (g) where not apparent, the relationship of
11
the author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s) to each other, as well as any additional information
required under the CPLR or other applicable rules.
I. The obligation to produce the Documents specified below is of a continuing
nature; Your production is to be supplemented if at any time You or Your agents acquire
possession, custody, or control of any additional responsive Documents, or otherwise discover
additional responsive Documents, after the time of initial production.
J. All electronically stored information ("ESI") should be produced in accordance
with the Stipulation for the Exchange of Electronically-Stored Information, dated September 17,
attached hereto as Exhibit B. other all ESI should be produced in single-

2021, Among things,
page tagged image file format ("TIFF"), group IV (G4) format, 300 dots per inch (dpi). ESI in
TIFF should be identified an Opticon cross-reference file. All metadata - data the
by describing
modified" -
nature or characteristics of the electronic files, e.g. "date last associated with ESI
shall be produced in text format linked to the associated file.
K. To the extent this Request calls for the production of any spreadsheets and/or
Microsoft Excel files, those documents must be produced with live and functioning formulas.
L. These Requests may be supplemented by further requests for information and
documents and other requests for disclosure.
12
EXHIBIT A
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________________Ç
Index No.:
Plaintiffs,
-against- COMPLAINT

COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________Ç
Plaintiffs the National Hockey League, the NHL Board of Governors and NHL Enterprises,
Inc. (together, the "NHL"), by and through its attorneys, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP and Proskauer Rose LLP, as and for their Complaint against Defendants TIG Insurance
Company f/k/a Transamerica Insurance Company ("TIG"), Federal Insurance Company
("Federal"), Chubb Insurance Company of Canada ("Chubb Canada"), National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. ("National Union"), Vigilant Insurance Company
("Vigilant,"
and together with Federal and Chubb Canada, "Chubb"), American Home Assurance
Home,"
Company ("American and together with National Union, "AIG"), Aviva Insurance
Company of Canada, as successor to Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd. ("CU") and Zurich
("Zurich,"
Insurance Company, Ltd. and together with CU, Chubb, AIG and TIG, the "Insurers"),
allege as follows:
1 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Insurers'
1. This action arises out of the repeated refusal to comply with the
contractual obligations in their insurance policies to fully defend and to reimburse the NHL for its
successful defense and settlement of the claims - a series of lawsuits and claims
underlying
asserted by and on behalf of former NHL players against the NHL alleging that the former players
suffered long-term and progressive neurodegenerative injuries allegedly caused by concussive and
subconcussive impacts purportedly sustained during their NHL playing careers (the "Concussion
Litigation"). Despite having admitted a duty to defend, Chubb, AIG and TIG wrongfully limited
and unreasonably delayed payment to the NHL for the vast majority of the defense costs paid by
the NHL over the life of the Concussion Litigation, and the Insurers continue to fail to pay the
NHL's defense costs or settlement amounts.
2. The NHL herein seeks tens of millions of dollars in damages, plus 9% statutory
Insurers'
interest, for the breaches of their policies. The NHL also seeks a declaratory judgment
as to the NHL's rights under the policies.
3. The Insurers issued primary comprehensive general liability ("CGL") insurance
policies to the NHL effective during periods between 1974 and 2014 that provide coverage for the
4. Chubb, AIG and TIG have acknowledged that their respective insurance policies
have been triggered by the Concussion Litigation and that they owe the NHL a duty to defend.
5. The NHL has made multiple demands to Chubb, AIG and TIG for payment of the
defense costs that the NHL has paid in connection with the Concussion Litigation and provided
the supporting invoices. However, rather than honor their admitted duty to defend, Chubb, AIG
and TIG to date collectively have reimbursed the NHL for only approximately 25% of such defense
2 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Insurers'
costs in breach of those respective policies. These Insurers have asserted differing, and
conflicting, excuses for not fully defending their insureds.
6. The NHL also has demanded defense costs coverage for the Concussion Litigation
from both CU and Zurich. However, to date, neither insurer has acknowledged its respective duty
to defend and has failed to reimburse the NHL for any of its defense costs.
7. The Insurers also owe coverage under their respective insurance policies for the
settlement reached in the Concussion Litigation. To date, the Insurers have reimbursed the NHL
for none of the settlement and offered no excuses for their failure to do so.
8. TIG filed a declaratory judgment action against the National Hockey League, the
NHL Board of Governors and several insurers in the Supreme Court of New York, New York
County on April 15, 2014 (the "TIG Action"). On April 17, 2015, the Court granted a stay of all
proceedings in accordance with a fully executed Stay and Tolling Agreement entered into between
all parties in the TIG Action. Those parties thereafter attended various court-ordered status
conferences and extended the tolling agreement. On June 18, 2020, the Court denied TIG's request
to transfer the action to the Commercial Division. On June 24, 2020, six days before responsive
pleadings were due, TIG discontinued its action without prejudice. The NHL is entitled to its
attorneys'
fees in defending the TIG Action.
9. Accordingly, the NHL seeks judgment in its favor, including compensatory
damages for the breach of contract; fees from TIG; and a declaration that (1)
each of the Insurers independently owes the NHL a complete and undivided duty to defend under
its respective policies; (2) the Insurers are obligated to provide coverage for all ofthe defense costs
paid by the NHL with respect to the Concussion Litigation; (3) none of its defense costs can be
allocated to the NHL as the insured; and (4) the Insurers are obligated to provide coverage for the
3 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 2 7 PM
INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
settlement reached in the Concussion Litigation.
PARTIES
10. The National Hockey League is a joint venture, organized as an unincorporated
association to operate a professional ice hockey league consisting of thirty-one Member Clubs
located in cities in the United States and Canada. The National Hockey League has a principal
place of business in New York, New York.
11. The NHL Board of Governors is the governing body of the National Hockey
League. Each Member Club of the National Hockey League appoints a Governor and Alternate
Governors to the NHL Board of Governors. Although the NHL Board of Governors lacks the
legal capacity to be sued, it is listed as an insured on some of the policies issued by defendants, is
otherwise covered under the policies, and was named as a defendant in the TIG Action.
12. NHL Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with
its principal place of business in New York, New York.
13. Upon information and belief, TIG is a California corporation with its principal place
of business in Manchester, New Hampshire. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times,
TIG was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
14. Upon information and belief, Federal is an Indiana corporation with its principal
place of business in Warren, New Jersey. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times,
Federal was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
15. Upon information and belief, Chubb Canada is a Canadian corporation with its
principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times,
Chubb Canada was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
16. Upon information and belief, National Union is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
4 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 2 7 PM
INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
principal place of business in New York, New York. Upon information and belief, at all relevant
times, National Union was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
17. Upon information and belief, Vigilant is a New York corporation with its principal
place of business in New York, New York. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times,
Vigilant was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
18. Upon information and belief, American Home is a New York corporation with its
times, American Home was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
19. Upon information and belief, CU is a company organized under the laws of Canada
with its principal place of business in New York, New York. Upon information and belief, at all
relevant times, CU was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
20. Upon information and belief, CU is the successor to Commercial Union Assurance
Co., Ltd.
21. Upon information and belief, Zurich is a company organized under the laws of
Switzerland with its principal place of business in Zurich, Switzerland. Upon information and
belief, at all relevant times, Zurich was and is authorized to do business in the State of New York.
22. This Court has jurisdiction over the Insurers pursuant to CPLR § 302 because one
or more of the Insurers transacts business in the State of New York, including, for example,
issuance of insurance policies to one or more of the Plaintiffs.
23. This action seeks damages and a declaratory judgment pursuant to CPLR § 3001.
24. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to CPLR § 503 because one or more of the
Insurers are residents of New York County.
5 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
FACTS
A. The Insurance Policies
25. The Insurers issued primary CGL insurance policies (collectively, the "Policies")
to the National Hockey League and/or an affiliate that provide coverage to the NHL for the
defend"
Concussion Litigation. Each includes a "duty to and provides coverage for defense costs
in addition to limits for bodily injury damages. None of the Policies is exhausted. None of the
Insurers dispute that the Concussion Litigation sought damages for bodily injury as covered by the
Policies.
26. TIG issued primary CGL insurance policy number SSP1340721, with a policy
period of November 30, 1989 to January 1, 1991, to the National Hockey League (the "TIG
Policy"). A copy of the TIG Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
27. The TIG Policy provides, in relevant part, as follows:
injurv"
damage"
to which this insurance applies. No other obligation to
pay sums or perform acts or services is covered unless explicitly

provided for under SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS -

injury" damage"
injury" damage"
by an The must take place in the
territory."
"coverage We will have the right and duty to defend any
"suit"
seeking those damages. But:
(1) The amount we will pay for damages is limited as described

in SECTION III - LIMITS OF INSURANCE;
"suit"
discretion; and
applicable limit of insurance in the payment ofjudgments or
6 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
settlements under Coverages A or B or medical expenses

under Coverage C.
(Ex. 1, TIG Policy, Form CL 100, p. 1) (emphasis added).
28. Chubb issued primary CGL insurance policies, with policy periods effective from
November 30, 1985 to November 30, 1989 and January 1, 1994 to January 1, 2014, to the National
Hockey League (the "Chubb Policies"). An illustrative Chubb Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit
2.
29. The illustrative Chubb Policy provides, in relevant part, as follows:
Subject to all of the terms and conditions of this insurance, we will pav damages
that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay by reason of liability:
" imposed law; or

by
for bodily in jurv or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this

coverage applies.
This coverage applies only to such bodily injury or property damage that occurs
during the policy period.
Subject to all of the terms and conditions of this insurance, we will have the right
and duty to defend the insured against a suit, even if such suit is false, fraudulent
or groundless.
If such a suit is brought, we will pay reasonable attorney fees and necessary
litigation expenses to defend:
the insured[.]
Our duty to defend any person or organization ends when we have used up the
applicable Limit of Insurance.
(Ex. 2, Illustrative Chubb Policy, No. 7320-73-95, effective Jan. 1, 2012 to Jan. 1, 2013,
Form 80-02-2000, pp. 3-4) (emphasis added).
7 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
30. MG issued primary CGL insurance policies, with policy periods effective from
October 31, 1982 to November 30, 1985 and January 1, 1991 to January 1, 1994, to the National
Hockey League and/or an affiliate that provide coverage for the NHL (the "MG Policies"). An
illustrative MG Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
31. The illustrative MG Policy provides, in relevant part, as follows:
to pay as damages because of bodily injurv or property damage to

which this insurance applies. We will have the right and dutv to
defend any suit seeking those damages. We may at our discretion

investigate any occurrence and settle any claim or suit that may
result. But:

in LIMITS OF INSURANCE (SECTION III) and
under Coverage C.
No other obligation or liability to pay sums or perform acts or

services is covered unless explicitly provided for under
SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS COVERAGES A AND B.
b. This insurance applies to bodily injury [and] property damage only

if
(1) The bodily injury or property damage is caused by an

occurrence that takes place in the coverage territory and
(2) The bodily injury or property damage occurs during the
policy period.
(Ex. 3, Illustrative MG Policy, No. GLA 5830817, effective Jan. 1, 1992 to Jan. 1, 1993, Form CL
113, p. 1) (emphasis added).
32. CU issued general liability insurance policy number 123 C 713 to the National
8 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Hockey League (the "CU Policy") for the periods September 1, 1974 to September 1, 1975 and
September 1, 1975 to September 30, 1976.
33. The existence of the CU Policy is confirmed through, among other things, internal
NHL litigation status reports and correspondence between the NHL on the one hand, and each of
its insurance broker, the American Hockey League, the Central Hockey League, and the Western
Hockey League, on the other hand.
34. Upon information and belief, the CU Policy followed standard insuring forms that
were issued by CU and other insurers for general liability policies issued in or around 1974 through
1976.
35. Upon information and belief, the CU Policy requires CU to provide coverage for
all sums that the NHL becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury during
the policy periods.
36. Upon information and belief, the CU Policy includes a duty to defend or otherwise
requires CU to provide the NHL with a defense, at CU's expense, in the event that a lawsuit alleges
any potentially covered occurrence or accident. Upon information and belief, the costs of such
defense do not erode the CU Policy's limits.
37. Zurich issued (1) primary general liability policy number 890-1503 for the periods
October 1, 1977 to October 1, 1978 and October 1, 1978 to October 1, 1979, and (2) primary
general liability policy number 8170635 for the period October 1, 1981 to October 1, 1982 (the
"Zurich Policies").
38. The existence of the Zurich Policies is confirmed through, among other things,
correspondence between the NHL and its insurance broker; internal NHL litigation status reports;
and commercial umbrella liability policy number 7927-7275 issued by Chubb Canada for the
9 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
October 1, 1981 to October 1, 1982 period, which lists the 1981-1982 Zurich Policy as underlying
insurance.
39. Upon information and belief, the Zurich Policies followed standard insuring forms
that were issued by Zurich and other insurers for general liability policies issued in or around 1977
through 1982.
40. Upon information and belief, the Zurich Policies require Zurich to provide coverage
for all sums that the NHL becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury
during the policy period caused by an occurrence.
41. Upon information and belief, the Zurich Policies contain a duty to defend or
otherwise require Zurich to provide the NHL with a defense, at Zurich's expense, in the event that
a lawsuit alleges any potentially covered occurrence or accident. Upon information and belief, the
Policies'
costs of such defense do not erode the Zurich limits.
42. The Policies obligate the Insurers to defend and indemnify the NHL with respect to
covered claims, suits, accidents and/or occurrences.
43. The NHL has paid all premiums due under the Policies, has satisfied all conditions
precedent to payment thereunder, and no exclusions limit or preclude coverage for the Concussion
Litigation.
B. The Concussion Litigation
44. On November 25, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Leeman, et al. v.
National Hockey League, et ano, No. 1:13-cv-01856-KBJ, was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia by ten former NHL players asserting claims for bodily injury against the
NHL.
45. After Leeman was filed, two additional putative class actions were filed:
10
10 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO . 653421/2020
6 5 34 2 1 / 2 0 2 0
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
LaCouture, et al. v. National Hockey League, No. 1:14-cv-02531, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District ofNew and et al. v. National No. 0:14-
York, Christian, Hockley League,
ev-01140, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
46. On August 19, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order
transferring Leeman, LaCouture, and Christian, the three individual lawsuits filed as of the date
of the motion to transfer, to Judge Susan Richard Nelson in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota for coordinated pre-trial multidistrict litigation proceedings under the caption In Re:
Players'
National Hockey League Concussion Injury Litigation, No. 2551 (the "MDL").
47. A number of similar actions subsequently were filed in federal court and transferred
to the MDL.
48. On October 17, 2016, the MDL plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint ("Master Complaint"). A copy of the Master Complaint is attached hereto
as Exhibit 4.
49. The six named plaintiffs in the Master Complaint - David Dan
Christian,
Reid Bernie Nicholls and the Estate of Lawrence Zeidel -

LaCouture, Larson, Gary Leeman,
sought relief on their own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of all "Retired NHL Hockey
Players"1
and their representatives (the "Class"). (Ex. 4, Master Compl., ¶¶ 394-95.)
50. Plaintiffs alleged present and continuous bodily injury. For example, they alleged
that:

1 Players"
Plaintiffs defined "Retired NHL Hockey "NHL hockey players to mean
who retired from playing
professional hockey with the NHL or any Member
Club or affiliate, or who were under contract with or on
any roster, including preseason, regular season, or postseason, of any such Member Club or affiliate, and
who no longer are under contract to a Member Club or affiliate and are not seeking active employment as
affiliate."
players with any Member Club or (Ex. 4, Master Compl., ¶ 397.)
11
11 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
neurodegenerative disorders and diseases, all ofwhich, in whole or in part, were

both."
caused by Defendant's acts, omissions, or (Id. ¶ 19.)
" Plaintiffs suffer from "present cellular and subcellular injuries sustained while
NHL."
playing in the (Id. ¶¶ 44 (Leeman), 51 (Nicholls), 58 (Christian), 69
(Larson).)
" "Each concussive or subconcussive impact causes the death of brain cells and
tissue, which leads to atrophy in the medial temporal lobe, and results in a
injury."
cellular (Id. ¶ 415.)
" Plaintiffs suffered "repeated, traumatic, concussive and subconcussive

impacts"
throughout their careers. (Id.; see also, e.g., id. ¶ 31 ("In December
2000 during a game, Mr. LaCouture was hit from behind and suffered a
concussion."); id. ¶ 32 ("In December 2002 . . . Mr. LaCouture was hit by an
opposing player, suffered a concussion, and blacked out."); id. ¶ 33 ("On
January 4, 2003 . . . Mr. LaCouture suffered another concussion . . . .").)
" "Due to the concussions and subconcussive impacts suffered Mr. Leeman
by
CTE."
during his NHL career . . . Mr. Leeman has symptoms consistent with
(Id. ¶ 44.)
51. In August 2018, seven individual, non-MDL lawsuits were filed by former NHL
players or their estates against the NHL in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County (the "California Cases"). The California Cases contain allegations similar to those
in the Master Complaint.
52. The named plaintiffs in the Concussion Litigation played hockey, including in the
NHL, when the Policies were in effect.
53. The Concussion Litigation alleges bodily injury allegedly caused by concussive and
claimants'
subconcussive impacts purportedly sustained during the NHL playing careers.
54. For approximately five years, the NHL vigorously defended the Concussion
Litigation while keeping the Insurers fully apprised. Over the course of extremely complex
litigation, the NHL paid substantial fees and expenses; reviewed and produced millions of pages
of documents; deposed and defended depositions of dozens of fact and expert witnesses; and
engaged in significant contested motion practice.
12
12 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
55. The thrust ofthe NHL's defense primarily focused on class certification, rather than
Plaintiffs'
on any particular plaintiff or time period. counsel focused on players who played in
Plaintiffs'
more recent years. counsel offered to "limit the Class definition to those [players] who
onward." Plaintiffs'
played from 1977 MDL Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification
Excerpt at p. 14 (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 5).
56. In July 2018, the NHL defeated class certification, clearing the way for settlement.
Plaintiffs'
57. On November 6, 2018, the NHL and the Executive Committee executed
a tentative non-class settlement agreement to resolve the MDL, all of the California Cases and the
plaintiffs'
claims of unfiled claimants who retained counsel (the "Settlement"). The Settlement
subsequently was amended on March 20, 2019 and declared effective on April 4, 2019.
58. In exchange for the release by settling claimants in favor of the NHL and related
parties of all head-related claims (except for workers compensation claims), including claims for
bodily injury, the Settlement provides for a capped payment from the NHL totaling $18.49 million
in the aggregate, which includes individual payments to the settlement participants and certain
plaintiffs' attorneys'
other payments for the benefit ofretired players, as well as fees and costs. At
their request, the Insurers were included among released parties in the Settlement.
59. In addition, the Settlement separately requires the NHL to pay for certain
neuropsychological testing, limited neurological examinations for qualifying players and related
travel expenses, as set forth in the Settlement.
60. To date, the NHL has paid $16,981,600 of the Settlement amount, and the Insurers
have reimbursed none. The balance due from the NHL is payable by the NHL in four annual
installments due on or about the anniversary of the April 4, 2019 effective date of the Settlement.
61. Not subject to the Settlement, the NHL currently is defending three cases brought
13
13 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
by four former players or their estates: (1) Daniel Carcillo and Nicholas Boynton v. NHL, et al.,
No. 19-ev-06156-JRB (N.D. Ill.); (2) Kelly Ewen, individually, and as personal representative of
the Estate of Todd Ewen, deceased v. NHL, et al., No. 19-cv-03656-FMO-GJS (C.D. Cal.); and
Paul on the Estate 15-cv-10989-

(3) Montador, behalf of of Steve Montador v. NHL, et al., No.
JZL (N.D. Ill.).
C. The NHL's Insurance Claim
62. The NHL timely noticed the Concussion Litigation to the Insurers and has
otherwise complied with all conditions precedent to coverage under the Policies.
63. The NHL has incurred and paid substantial defense costs in connection with the
Concussion Litigation (the "Defense Costs").
64. Chubb, AIG and TIG have acknowledged their respective duties to defend the
Concussion Litigation, subject to purported reservations of rights. Nonetheless, each has refused
to fully defend its insureds and has reimbursed only a small portion of the Defense Costs paid by
the NHL.
65. CU and Zurich have not accepted their respective duties to defend the Concussion
Litigation nor reimbursed any of the Defense Costs.
66. The Defense Costs are covered under the Policies for three independent reasons.
67. First, pursuant to each Insurer's duty to defend, each Insurer must defend the entire
Concussion Litigation, provide a complete defense to the NHL, and pay all of the Defense Costs.
Each of the Insurers is jointly and severally liable for all of the Defense Costs.
68. Second, all of the Defense Costs were incurred in the defense of claims by players
with alleged injuries occurring during the effective dates of the Policies, and none of the Defense
Insurers'
Costs are solely attributable to players with alleged injuries occurring solely before the
14
14 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 2 7 PM
INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Policies began. All of the Defense Costs are thus reasonably related to claims against the NHL
that are admittedly covered by the Policies, and the Defense Costs are therefore covered in their
entirety.
69. Third, as alternative grounds, the NHL is entitled to coverage for the vast majority
of the Defense Costs incurred defending claims based on the years that the named plaintiffs played
plaintiffs'
in the NHL and the continuous and progressive nature of the named alleged injuries.
Over 90% of the injuries alleged by the named plaintiffs occurred during the periods covered by
the Policies.
70. To date, the NHL has made five demands for payment of the Defense Costs to
Chubb, AIG and TIG. Despite these demands, to date, Chubb, AIG and TIG have reimbursed the
NHL for a small fraction - 25% - of the Defense Costs. These while
only roughly Insurers, taking
inconsistent positions among themselves, have unreasonably attempted to limit the NHL's benefits
Insurers' Insurers'
of the duty to defend, unilaterally attempted to impose on the NHL's defense the
guidelines,"
various "litigation and wrongfully attempted to force the NHL to bear a substantial
portion of its own Defense Costs, all in violation of applicable law and terms of the Policies.
71. Neither Zurich nor CU has made any payment toward the Defense Costs.
72. The NHL also has incurred and paid substantial sums in connection with the
Settlement.
73. The NHL is entitled to coverage for the Settlement under the Policies.
74. To date, none of the Insurers have provided coverage under their respective Policies
for the Settlement.
15
15 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Judgment - to
75. The NHL repeats, realleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth
in Paragraphs 1 through 74 above with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein.
76. The NHL and Insurers disagree as to their respective rights and obligations under
the Policies with respect to the Concussion Litigation, including but not limited to the scope of the
duty to defend, reasonableness ofthe Defense Costs, and the purported right to allocate the Defense
Costs to the NHL as insured.
77. An actual justiciable controversy exists between the NHL and Insurers with respect
to the foregoing.
78. The NHL has no adequate remedy at law.
79. Based on the foregoing, the NHL requests declarations that (a) each Insurer owes
the NHL a complete and undivided duty to defend under its respective Policy(ies), (b) the fees and
costs paid by the NHL for the defense of the Concussion Litigation are reasonable and are due and
owing from the Insurers, and (c) no portion of the Defense Costs may be allocated to the NHL as
Insured under the Policies.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Contract - to
Duty Defend)
81. Each Policy constitutes a binding and enforceable contract.
82. The NHL has complied with all of its obligations under each Policy and/or the
Insurers have waived or are estopped from denying compliance. No exclusions in the Policies
preclude or limit the NHL's coverage for the Defense Costs.
16
16 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
83. Under the terms of each Policy, the issuing Insurer is obligated to defend the NHL
for the Concussion Litigation.
84. Under the terms of each Policy, applicable law and the facts, each Insurer owes the
NHL a complete and undivided duty to defend, which requires it to provide coverage for all of the
Defense Costs.
85. Each Insurer breached, and continues to breach, its Policy(ies) by failing to comply
with its contractual obligations to the NHL, including each Insurer's duty to defend.
86. As a direct and proximate result of each Insurer's breach of its Policy(ies), the NHL
has suffered contractual damages in an amount to be determined by this Court. The NHL is further
entitled to statutory 9% simple interest on amounts due from the Insurers, which already amounts
to millions of dollars.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Judgment - to
the Policies with respect to the amount of coverage owed for settlement of the Concussion
Litigation.
89. An actual justiciable controversy exists between the NHL and each Insurer with
respect to the foregoing.
91. Based on the foregoing, the NHL requests a declaration that each Insurer is
obligated to provide coverage for the Settlement and a declaration as to the amount owed by each
Insurer under its Policy(ies).
17
17 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
AS AN FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Duty Indemnify)
preclude or limit the NHL's coverage for the Settlement.
95. Under the terms of the Policies, each Insurer is obligated to indemnify the NHL for
a portion of the settlement of the Concussion Litigation.
with its contractual obligations to reimburse the NHL for each Insurer's portion of the Settlement.
entitled to statutory 9% simple interest on amounts due from the Insurers.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the NHL respectfully demands judgment in its favor as follows:
a. On the NHL's First Cause of Action, declarations that (1) each Insurer owes the NHL
a complete and undivided duty to defend under its respective Policy(ies), (2) fees and
costs paid by the NHL for the defense of the Concussion Litigation are reasonable and
are due and owing from the Insurers, and (3) no portion of the Defense Costs may be
allocated to the NHL as Insured under the Policies.
b. On the NHL's Second Cause of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be
determined this plus pre- and post-judgment

by Court, interest;
18
18 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
c. On the NHL's Third Cause of Action, a declaration that each Insurer is obligated to
provide coverage under its Policy(ies) for the Settlement and a declaration as to the
amount owed by each Insurer under its Policy(ies).
d. On the NHL's Fourth Cause of Action, compensatory damages in an amount to be

by Court, interest;
attorneys'
e. An award of fees, costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this
action;
attorneys'
f. An award of fees and costs in favor of the NHL and against TIG for all
defense costs incurred by the NHL in the TIG Action, having been placed in a defensive
posture until such time as TIG abandoned its litigation; and
g. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
July 31, 2020

& FLOM LLP
Peter D. Luneau
Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
-and-
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

(312) 962-3550
19
19 of 19
EXHIBIT B

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, NHL BOARD

OF GOVERNORS and NHL ENTERPRISES,
INC., Index No. 653421/2020
Plaintiffs, STIPULATION FOR

THE EXCHANGE OF
vs. ELECTRONICALLY-STORED
INFORMATION
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; CHUBB IAS Part 15
INSURANCE COMPANY of CANADA, Hon. Melissa Crane

ASSURANCE COMPANY; AVIVA
INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, as
successor to COMMERCIAL UNION
ASSURANCE CO., LTD.; and ZURICH
INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
It is stipulated and agreed by plaintiffs National Hockey League, NHL Board of Governors
and NHL Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") and defendants TIG Insurance Company
f/k/a Transamerica Insurance Company; Federal Insurance Company; Chubb Insurance Company
of Canada; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.; Vigilant Insurance
Successor to Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd.; and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd,
"Parties"
(collectively, the "Defendants") (together, the and each a "Party") to comply with the
procedures and obligations for the exchange and production of discoverable electronically stored
information ("ESI") set forth below.
1
The Parties agree:
1. General
a. The production specifications in this stipulation ("ESI Stipulation") apply
to documents that are produced in the first instance in this action. To the extent that any Party
produces documents in this action (including by deeming documents produced) that originally
were produced to another Party prior to the commencement of this action, such documents may be
produced (including by being deemed produced) in this action in the same format in which they
originally were produced to the Party.
b. The Parties and their attorneys intend by this ESI Stipulation to make the
mutual disclosures promised herein. The Parties and their attorneys do not intend by this ESI
Stipulation to waive their rights to applicable protection or privilege, the attorney-

any including
client privilege and the work-product doctrine, and the Parties do not waive and expressly preserve
any applicable protection or privilege. The Parties and their attorneys are not waiving, and
specifically reserve, the right to object to any discovery request on any grounds. Further, nothing
in this ESI Stipulation shall be construed to affect the admissibility of documents and ESI. All
objections to the discoverability or admissibility of any documents and ESI are preserved and may
be asserted at any time. This ESI Stipulation does not impose any obligation to restore backup
tapes and similar media.
2. Format of Files for Production
a. Digitized Paper Documents
i. Documents originally in paper/physical form will be digitized into
single-page TIFF images, group IV (G4) format, 300 dots per inch (dpi).
2
ii. Every filename will match the document's Bates number and be zero
padded with no blank spaces; e.g., D000000001 (Defendant's Bates Stamp Page 1).
iii. The Parties will include with each production delivery data and
image load files (i.e., a Concordance Opticon (.OPT) file and a Summation Document Image File
(.DII) or similar) as reasonably requested.
iv. The Parties will include standard default delimited text files as
agreed in .DAT or similar format and will include available fielded data, including but not limited
to, beginning and ending Bates numbers, beginning and ending attachment numbers, number of
pages, and confidential designation as described below in Section 2(b)(i) except where otherwise
agreed.
v. The Parties will apply Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
software to all applicable documents and provide multi-page .TXT files for each page digitized as
in Section (a)(i) above; filenames for .TXT files will synchronize with/be identical to the filename
for the corresponding TIFF file (see Section (a)(i) above). Delivery TIFF files will be accompanied
by the corresponding full multi-text .TXT files
b. Electronic Documents.
i. Subject to Section (b)(iv), electronic documents, emails,
presentations, and other computer-generated information or data of any kind ("Electronic
Documents") will be produced as TIFF images in the manner described above in Section (a)(i).
ii. Electronic Documents will be produced with corresponding Data
file (.DAT) containing extracted metadata fields (where available), as agreed and set forth in the
following Metadata Table:
3
METADATA FIELDS
DAT Field Relativity Field Sample Data Description

Name Name
BEGDOC Production Begin DOC000001 Begin Bates number
Bates
ENDDOC Production End Bates DOC000002 End Bates number
BEGATTACH Pmduction Begin Attach DOC000001 Begin Bates number of family unit
ENDATTACH Production End Attach DOC000004 End Bates number of family unit
All individuals from whom the document
ALL CUSTODIAN AllCustlD::displayName
Smith, John; Smith, Jane originated before de-
duplication
Yes/no field that indicates whether
REDACTED Redacted Yes
the document is redacted
PAGECOUNT Relativity Image Count 2 Total number of pages in the document
FROM From Jane Smith Author of the e-mail message
(jane@smith.com)
TO To John Smith Main recipient(s) of the e-mail message
(john@smith.com)
Copies"
Frank Thompson Recipient(s) of "Carbon of the e-
CC CC
(frank@thompson.com) mail message
Copies"
. Recipient(s) of "Blind Carbon of
BCC BCC John Cam
(john@cain.com) e-mail message
DOCUMENT . Subject field extracted from the metadata
Document Subject RE: Chain Letters
SUBJECT
the native file
. Subject field extracted from the metadata
EMAIL Email Subject FWD: Chain Letters
SUBJECT
an email file
DOCUMENT Document Title My First Document The title of a document

TITLE
DOCUMENT . Author field extracted from the metadata of
Document Author jsmith
AUTHOR
CREATED DATE
Created Date MM/DD/YYYY
01/18/2021
TIMEl
CREATED
Created Time HHmSS MM Time file was created EST
05:13:29 PM
Families: Date of the Parent document
FAMILY DATE Single/Loose Files: Date of the Document
Date 01/18/2021 T Email = Sent Date
Family
I Electronic Loose File = Last Mod Date
es: e o e a ocument EST
HH:MM:SS AM/PM
Single/Loose Files: Time of the Document
FAMILY TIME 05:13:29 PM T Email = Sent Time
I Electronic Loose File = Last Mod Time

Family Time
LAST Dak document was last moEed
Last Modified Date MM/DD/YYYY
MODIFIED
All time references shall be in eastern time.
4
METADATA FIELDS
01/18/2021
LAST Time document was last modified EST

Last Modified Time HH:MM:SS AM/PM
MODIFIED
05:13:29 PM
EMAIL SENT a em was sent
Email Sent Date MM/DD/YYYY
DATE
01/18/2021
EM SEM
Email Sent Time HH:MM:SS AM/PM
e eman was sent EST
TIME
PM
ˆ
05:13:29
S File size in bytes
File Size 765952
OWWE
Record Type "Edoc", "Email", or
- a , - a ent, E-h, h
"Attach"
ˆ NM Filename Chart.xis
Name of electronic file
FILE EXTENSION He Emnsion

XLS
ˆ ME FilePath J:\Shared\SmithJ\Chart.
Ee locanon o ocument or eman
XLS
Unique identifier for electronic data used in
d131dd02c5e6eec4693d
HASH deduplication, either MD5 or SHA1,
HASH wMch mm e meMody by each
cab587 467eab40045
Party across all productions
83eb 8fb7f89
Pah Nahe Me
NativeLink \VOL001\NATIVES\00
1\EDC 0000001.xis
TextPath \VOL001\TEXT\001\ED
a documendevel OG or ehW
C0000
001.txt
COMEMM Document designation
Confidential Designation Confidential
DESIGNATION
5
iii. Parties shall provide corresponding extracted text (.TXT) files, and
apply OCR text as outlined in Section (a) on documents that do not contain extractable text.
iv. All spreadsheet files (including but not limited to MS-Excel files and
CSV files), multimedia files, and other file types that are not, in the producing Party's good faith
judgment, conducive to image format (such as database files, including MS Access Files), shall be
produced in native format (preserving the original native) with a TIFF placeholder for each
document and endorsed with the Bates number assigned to the document. The produced native
"NATIVE"
file should be named with the Bates number assigned to that document and placed in a
folder. Any confidentiality or other designations stamped on the placeholder for such document
shall apply to the entire native file and its contents. A link to the native file should be provided in
the data load file.
v. Native files need not be produced for documents produced with
redacted images, regardless of original native file format.
vi. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this ESI Stipulation, the
Parties will produce, upon reasonable request, Electronic Documents in native format if inadequate
in the form produced.
3. Deduplication (Global)
a. The Parties will endeavor to deduplicate identical Electronic Documents.
Electronic Documents will be deduplicated as against the entire population for all custodians and
deduplicated custodians listed as above in Section 1.
b. The Parties will retain all deduplicated documents for the duration of the
action.
6
4. Clawback Mechanisms for Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged or Protected
Documents and Information. The Parties agree that: (i) inadvertent disclosure of privileged or
protected documents/information will not constitute a waiver of any such privilege or protection;
and (ii) the following procedures shall apply with respect to inadvertent disclosure of privileged or
protected documents/information:
a. Notice. Within five business days from the date on which a disclosing Party
discovers an inadvertent disclosure of documents/information, it will notify the receiving Party in
writing identifying the inadvertent disclosure(s) and directing the receiving Party to promptly
return, destroy, and/or make inaccessible the inadvertently-disclosed documents/information and
all copies or summaries thereof ("Notice").
Parties'
b. Obligations.
i. Within three business days of receipt of the Notice, the receiving
Party will: (i) inform the disclosing Party that compliance will be effectuated or (ii) challenge the
Notice in a responsive writing to the disclosing Party. If the Notice is not challenged, the receiving
Party will destroy, return, and/or disable all access to the specified documents/information within
ten business days or as agreed by the Parties.
ii. Where the inadvertent disclosure is in the form of a disc or access to
a password-protected server, the producing Party must produce to the other Parties, upon receipt
of intent to comply with the Notice, a replacement production containing all
documents/information but for that identified in the Notice.
7
iii. The receiving Party will endeavor in good faith to retrieve any
copies of the documents/information identified in the Notice, to return, destroy, or otherwise
dispose of the materials, and take all steps necessary to prevent further sharing of those materials.
The receiving Party will identify, in writing responsive to the Notice, the persons or entities that
have received copies of the documents/information identified in the Notice, identify the facts
surrounding the sharing of the documents/information, and describe the receiving Party's
reasonable best efforts to retrieve the documents/information, in each case, to the extent known by
the receiving Party.
iv. If the receiving Party challenges the Notice, it will return, destroy,
or disable all copies of the documents/information, but may retain one copy for the purpose of
challenging the designation of privilege/protection or inadvertency of the disclosure. Within five
business days after an unsuccessful challenge, the receiving Party shall return, destroy, or disable
all copies of the documents/information.
v. The Parties will meet and confer within two business days to resolve
the dispute if the Notice is challenged, and, if not resolved after a meet and confer, the Parties will
jointly request an immediate discovery conference.
vi. Under all circumstances, the disclosing Party must preserve all
Parties'
documents/information subject to the Notice until any dispute has been resolved by the
agreement or court order.
8
c. Receiving Party's Affirmative Obligation. A receiving Party that discovers
privileged or protected documents/information that were actually or potentially produced by
another Party inadvertently will inform the disclosing Party in writing within five business days of
discovery regardless of whether a challenge to such privilege or protection is anticipated. Upon
receiving written notice, the procedures identified in Sections 3(a) and (b) shall apply.
5. Modification by Agreement.
a. This ESI Stipulation may be re-executed and/or modified by agreement of
all of the Parties; for instance, to allow non-signatory parties to this action or nonparties producing
ESI to join this ESI Stipulation.
b. Any practice or procedure set forth herein may be modified by agreement
of the affected Parties, which shall be confirmed in writing, where such variance is deemed
appropriate to facilitate the timely and economical exchange of documents and ESI.
6. Modification by Court Order. Nothing in this ESI Stipulation waives the right
of any Party to petition the Court for an order modifying the terms of this ESI Stipulation upon
good cause shown, provided, however, that counsel for such Party must first meet and confer with
the counsel for the opposing Party, and the Parties shall use reasonable best efforts to negotiate an
exception from or modification to this ESI Stipulation prior to seeking relief from the Court.
9

September 17, 2021

& FLOM LLP
By: /s/ Peter Luneau
Peter Luneau
Rebekah Mott
One Manhattan West

(212) 735-3000
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
By: /s/ Marc Eric Rosenthal
(312) 962-3550
Attorneys for Plaintifs

National Hockey League, NHL Board of
Governors and NHL Enterprises, Inc.
10
By: /s/ Michael 0. Kassak
Michael 0. Kassak
Rafael Vergara


Federal Insurance Company, Chubb
Insurance Company of Canada and Vigilant
Insurance Company
By:_ /s/ Charles Scibetta
Charles Scibetta
Andrew L. Poplinger
33rd
New York, NY 10019
T: (212) 257-6960
c.scibetta@chaffetzlindsey.com

National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, Pa., and
KENNEDYS CMK LLP
By: /s/ Heather E. Simpson
Heather E. Simpson
Mark F. Hamilton

Post Office Box 650


& JACOBSON LLP
By: /s/ Thomas P. Maeglin
Thomas P. Maeglin
One Battery Park Plaza, 4th Floor


Assurance Co., Ltd.
12
COUGHLIN MIDLIGE & GARLAND

LLP
By: /s/ Kevin T. Coughlin
Kevin T. Coughlin
Wall Street Plaza

(212) 483-0105
(incorrectly named as "Zurich

Insurance Company, Ltd.")
13
EXHIBIT 30
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERKLauren11/08/2022 06:13 PM INDEX NO. 653421/2020
From: Haberman, A (NYC)
NYSCEF
Sent:
DOC. NO. 308 Friday, 21, 2022 7:11 PM
January
'Jack'
To: Pierce, John S.
Cc: 'Puiszis, Steven M.'; Tavakoli, Shaud G (NYC)
Subject: NHL, et al. v. TIG, et al., Index No. 653421/2020
Attachments: Pierce Subpoena .pdf; Hinshaw Subpoena .pdf
Hello Jack,
Pursuant to Steven's authorization earlier today, Skadden is serving by email two subpoenas in connection to the NHL, et
al. v. TIG, et al. matter proceeding in New York State court. The subpoena for documents is directed to Hinshaw &
Culbertson and the subpoena for testimony is directed to you personally. We have been informed that you have agreed
that service by this email is sufficient. Please confirm receipt of the materials for our records.
If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me or the attorneys handling the underlying matter.
Best regards,
Lauren
Lauren A. Haberman
Office of the General Counsel
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & FIom LLP
One Manhattan West | New York | NY | 10001
T: +1.212.735.3774 | F: +1.917.777.3774
lau en.haberman@skadden.com
1
EXHIBIT 31
From: Puiszis, Steven M. <spuiszis@hinshawlaw.com>

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Haberman, Lauren A (NYC)
'Jack'
Cc: Pierce, John S.
Subject: [Ext] RE: NHL, et al. v. TIG, et al., Index No. 653421/2020
Lauren:
Thank you for your voice mail and for the email below. I called you back this afternoon and left a message.
Yes we will accept service via email. Please email the subpoena directly to Jack Pierce and please copy me on the email.
Please also provide me with a copy of the subpoena. I have copied Jack on this email to let him know you will be sending
him a subpoena in the matter referenced in your email below.
Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best
Steven M. Puiszis
Partner & General Counsel
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
151 North Franklin Street, Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60606
O: 312-704-3243 | F: 312-704-3001
spuiszis@hinshawlaw.com
My Bio | hinshawlaw.com
Follow us on
-IlNSHAW
From: Haberman, Lauren A <Lauren.Haberman@skadden.com>

Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 11:31 AM
To: Puiszis, Steven M. <spuiszis@hinshawlaw.com>
Cc: Bloustein, Esther E <Esther.Bloustein@skadden.com>
Subject: NHL, et al. v. TIG, et al., Index No. 653421/2020
*** ***
External email
**CAUTION: Verify the sender and use caution before opening any attachments, clicking on links or responding to a
for information.**
request
Mr. Puiszis,
1
Following up from my voicemail earlier this morning: Skadden represents the Plaintiffs in the insurance coverage case
captioned NHL, et al. v. TIG, et al., Index No. 653421/2020, pending in New York State court. Skadden has ready to serve
a subpoena duces tecum directed to your law firm and a subpoena for testimony directed to California partner, Mr. John
(Jack) Pierce. As a courtesy, we write to request your authorization to serve the subpoena directed to Hinshaw &
Culbertson by email transmittal and for you to obtain authorization from Mr. Pierce for service by the same method.
We appreciate a prompt response, and please let us know if you would like to schedule a call to discuss.
Thank you.
Lauren
Lauren A. Haberman
Office of the General Counsel
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

One Manhattan West | New York | NY | 10001
T: +1.212.735.3774 | F: +1.917.777.3774
lauren.haberman@skadden.com
_______________________________________
This email (and any attachments thereto) is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain
legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (and any attachments thereto) is strictly prohibited.
If you receive this email in error please immediately notify me at (212) 735-3000 and permanently delete the original
email (and any copy of any email) and any printout thereof.
Further information about the firm, a list of the Partners and their professional qualifications will be provided upon
request.
==============================================================================
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP is an Illinois registered limited liability partnership that has elected to be governed by the
Illinois Uniform Partnership Act (1997).
The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) named in this
message. This communication is intended to be and to remain confidential and may be subject to applicable
attorney/client and/or work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, or if this message
has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message
and its attachments. Do not deliver, distribute or copy this message and/or any attachments and if you are not the
intended recipient, do not disclose the contents or take any action in reliance upon the information contained in this
communication or any attachments.
2
EXHIBIT 32

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________ x

. Index No.: 653421/2020
Plaintiff, :
(Crane, J.)
-v- :
SUBPOENA AD
TIG INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a : TESTIFICANDUM

.
Defendants.
.
________________________________________________________________ x
TO: John (Jack) S. Pierce

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
1881
One California Street, Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, pursuant to Article 23 and Rule 3106(b) of the
New York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"), all business excuses being set aside, to
appear before a person authorized to administer oaths and transcribe deposition testimony in the
State of New York, at the offices of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, One
Manhattan West, New York, New York, 10001, or by remote, web-based video conferencing
service in accordance with Rule 37 of section 202.70(g) of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme
and County Courts, on March 9 at 10:00 a.m. EST, or at such time as you may agree upon with
counsel for the NHL, continuing from day-to-day thereafter or on any recessed or adjourned
date, until completed, to give testimony in this Action. The deposition will be recorded by audio,
video and stenographic means by an employee or employees of Veritext.
Inc. (collectively, "NHL"), seek your testimony because, upon information and belief, you have
defendants'
information relevant to one or more of the asserted defenses in the above-captioned
defendants'
action (the "Action"), including information related to the position with respect to
reasonable defense billing rates for the Concussion Litigation (as defined in the Complaint in the
Action, attached hereto as Exhibit A).
Pursuant to Rule 8001(a), together with this subpoena ad testif icandum, enclosed are your
witness fee and transportation costs in the amount of $18.00.
January 20, 2022

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
/s/ Peter D. Luneau

Peter D. Luneau
Shaud G. Tavakoli
Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
Attorneys for Plaintifs National Hockey

2
EXHIBIT A
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________________Ç
Index No.:
Plaintiffs,
-against- COMPLAINT

COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------x
("Vigilant,"
Home,"
("Zurich,"
allege as follows:
1 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Insurers'
underlying
Insurers'
2 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Insurers'
attorneys'
3 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:2 7 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
PARTIES
4 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Co., Ltd.
5 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
FACTS
defend"
Policies.
injury"
damage"


injury" damage"
injury" damage"
territory."
"suit"

"suit"
discretion; and
6 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

under Coverage C.
2.
Subject to all of the terms and conditions of this insurance, we will pay damages
" imposed law; or

by
for bodily in jury or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this

coverage applies.
or groundless.
the insured[.]
7 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
30. AIG issued primary CGL insurance policies, with policy periods effective from
Hockey League and/or an affiliate that provide coverage for the NHL (the "AIG Policies"). An
illustrative AIG Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
31. The illustrative AIG Policy provides, in relevant part, as follows:
to pay as damages because of bodily injury or property damage to
which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to
result. But:

under Coverage C.


if

policy period.
(Ex. 3, Illustrative AIG Policy, No. GLA 5830817, effective Jan. 1, 1992 to Jan. 1, 1993, Form CL
8 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
1976.
all sums that the NHL becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because ofbodily injury during
the policy periods.
"Zurich Policies").
9 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
insurance.
through 1982.
Policies'
Litigation.
B. The Conenssion Litigation
NHL.
10
10 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO . 653421/2020
6 5 34 2 1 / 2 0 2 0
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Players'
to the MDL.
as Exhibit 4.
Christian,

Players"1
that:

1 Players"
Plaintiffs defined "Retired NHL Hockey to mean "NHL
hockey players who retired from playing
professional hockey with the NHL or any Member Club or affiliate, or who were under contract with or on
affiliate."
11
11 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

both."
NHL."
(Larson).)
injury."

impacts"
by
CTE."
(Id. ¶ 44.)
claimants'
12
12 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs'
plaintiffs'
13
13 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
No. 19-cv-06156-JRB (N.D. Ill.); (2) Kelly Ewen, individually, and as personal representative of
Paul on the Estate Steve Montador v. NHL, et al., No. 15-cv-10989-

(3) Montador, behalf of of
JZL (N.D. Ill.).
the NHL.
Insurers'
14
14 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
entirety.
plaintiffs'
the Policies.
NHL for a small fraction - 25% - ofthe Defense Costs. These while
Insurers' Insurers'
ofthe duty to defend, unilaterally attempted to impose on the NHL's defense the
guidelines,"
Settlement.
74. To date, none ofthe Insurers have provided coverage under their respective Policies
for the Settlement.
15
15 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

Judgment - to
to the foregoing.

Duty Defend)
16
16 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Defense Costs.

Judgment - to
Litigation.
17
17 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:2 7 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

Duty Indemnify)
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

by Court, interest;
18
18 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

by Court, interest;
attorneys'
action;
attorneys'
July 31, 2020

& FLOM LLP
Peter D. Luneau
Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
-and-
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

(312) 962-3550
19
19 of 19
EXHIBIT 33

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------- X

. Index No.: 653421/2020
Plaintiff, :
(Crane, J.)
-v- :
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

TIG INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a : AND AD TESTIFICANDUM
.
Defendants.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------- X
TO: Stuart Maue Ltd.

3840 McKelvey Rd.
St. Louis, MO 63044
YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, pursuant to Article 23 and Rule 3120 of the New
York Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"), to produce for inspection and copying, all books,
papers, documents, electronic documents, or other tangible things within Your possession,
custody, or control, which are listed in Schedule A, annexed hereto, within twenty days of the
date hereof, at the offices of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Attention: Peter
Luneau, One Manhattan West, New York, New York, 10001.
Inc. (collectively, "NHL"), seek Your documents described in Schedule A attached hereto
pursuant to CPLR § 3101(a)(4) because, upon information and belief, You (as defined in
Schedule A), possess, or have in Your custody or control, documents relevant to one or more of
defendants'
the asserted defenses in the above-captioned action (the "Action"). Specifically, on
information and belief You have documents pertaining to an audit, analysis or review with
respect to defense costs submitted by the NHL to one or more defendants in connection with the
Concussion Litigation (as defined in Schedule A). The NHL is pursuing this Action to, among
other things, recover defense costs for the Concussion Litigation pursuant to insurance policies
issued by the defendant insurers. The Complaint in the Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
YOU ARE FURTHER HEREBY COMMANDED, pursuant to Article 23 and Rule
3106(b) of the CPLR and Rule 11-f of section 202.70(g) of the Uniform Rules for the Supreme
and County Courts (the "Commercial Division Rules"), all business excuses being set aside, to
appear before a person authorized to administer oaths and transcribe deposition testimony in the
State of New York, at the offices of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, One
Manhattan West, New York, New York, 10001, or by remote, web-based video conferencing
service in accordance with Rule 37 of the Commercial Division Rules, at such time and date as
you may agree upon with counsel for the NHL, continuing from day-to-day thereafter or on any
recessed or adjourned date, until completed, to give testimony in this Action on the Topics set
forth in Schedule A hereto. The deposition will be recorded by audio, video and stenographic
means by an employee or employees of Veritext.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE pursuant to Commercial Division Rule 11-

that,
f(c), You must, no later than ten days prior to the date of the deposition: (i) designate one or
more oflicers, directors, members or employees, or other individual(s) to testify on Your behalf,
including the identity, description or title of such individuals; and (ii) if You designate more than
one individual, set out the matters on which each individual will testify.
2
Pursuant to Rule 8001(a), together with this subpoena ad testif icandum, enclosed are your
witness fee and transportation costs in the amount of $18.00.
January 31, 2022

MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
/s/ Peter D. Luneau

Peter D. Luneau
Shaud G. Tavakoli
Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
Attorneys for Plaintiffs National Hockey

3
SCHEDULE A
This Subpoena requires You to produce (i) the documents described in the below
Requests and (ii) an individual to provide testimony on the topics described in the below Topics.
The Requests and Topics are to be construed in accordance with the Definitions below and the
Requests are to be responded to in accordance with the Instructions below.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
1. All work product, including all draft or final analyses, reports or exhibits,
generated in connection with any Audit or the Engagement.
2. All Documents or Communications concerning the use or role of any software,
technology or automation in connection with any Audit or the Engagement.
3. Documents sufficient to identify the individuals who performed any work in
connection with any Audit or the Engagement, their hourly rates and their respective professional
experience.
4. All Documents or Communications concerning the materials You received,
reviewed and/or relied on in connection with any Audit or the Engagement.
5. All Communications between You and any Insurer, its respective agents or
representatives or Hinshaw in connection with any Audit or the Engagement.
6. All Documents or Communications concerning Your methodologies or
assumptions, and the bases for any such methodologies or assumptions, in conducting any Audit,
including, but not limited to:
billing"
a. the meaning of the phrase "block as used in any Audit; Your basis
"block"
for that definition; Your basis for designating billing entries
billed; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or discount(s)
4
applied or proposed with respect to defense costs in any Audit on account
"block"
of time entries You designated as billed;
billing"
b. the meaning of the phrase "double as used in any Audit; Your
basis for that definition; Your basis for designating billing entries
"double"
billed; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or
discount(s) applied or proposed with respect to defense costs in any Audit
"double"
on account of time entries You designated as billed;
tasks"
c. the meaning of the phrase "administrative and clerical as used in
any Audit; Your basis for that definition; Your basis for designating tasks
as "administrative and clerical"; and the amount and basis for any
reduction(s) or discount(s) applied or proposed with respect to defense
costs in any Audit on account of time entries You designated as
"administrative and clerical tasks";
billers"
d. the meaning of the phrase "transient as used in any Audit; Your
basis for that definition; Your basis for designating timekeepers as
"transient billers"; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or
on account of time entries by purported "transient billers";
"training"
e. the meaning of the term as used in any Audit; Your basis for
that definition; Your basis for designating tasks as "training"; and the
amount and basis for any reduction(s) or discount(s) applied or proposed
with respect to defense costs in any Audit on account of time entries You
designated as "training";
5
review"
f. the meaning of the phrase "document as used in any Audit; Your
basis for that definition; Your basis for designating tasks as "document
review"
or timekeepers as "document review timekeepers"; and the
review"
designated as "document or timekeepers You designated as
"document review timekeepers";
tasks" entries"
g. the meaning of the phrases "vague and "vague billing as
used in any Audit; Your basis for those definitions; Your basis for
designating tasks as "vague"; and the amount and basis for any
costs in any Audit on account of tasks You designated as "vague";
days"
h. the meaning of the phrase "long billing as used in any Audit; Your
basis for designating time entries as "long billing days"; and the amount
and basis for any reduction(s) or discount(s) applied or proposed with
respect to defense costs in any Audit on account of purported "long billing
days";
events"
i. the meaning of the phrase "multiple attendance at as used in any
Audit; Your basis for designating time entries as "multiple attendance at
events"; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or discount(s)
of time entries You designated as "multiple attendance at events";
6
"conferences"
j. the meaning of the term as used in any Audit; Your basis
for designating time entries as "conferences"; and the amount and basis
for any reduction(s) or discount(s) applied or proposed with respect to
defense costs in any Audit on account of time entries You designated as
"conferences";
meetings"
k. the meaning of the phrase "team as used in any Audit; Your
basis for designating time entries as "team meetings"; and the amount and
basis for any reduction(s) or discount(s) applied or proposed with respect
to defense costs in any Audit on account of time entries You designated as
"team meetings";
Name"
1. the meaning of the phrase "Potential IOC Based on Last as used in
any Audit; Your basis for designating time entries as "Potential IOC
Based on Last Name"; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or
on account of time entries You designated as "Potential IOC Based on
Last Name";
bargaining"
m. the meaning of the phrase "collective as used in any Audit;
Your basis for designating time entries as "collective bargaining"; and the
designated as "collective bargaining";
coverage"
n. the meaning of the phrase "insurance as used in any Audit;
Your basis for designating time entries as "insurance coverage"; and the
7
designated as "insurance coverage";
coverage"
o. the meaning of the phrase "insurance as used in any Audit;
Fees"
p. the meaning of the phrase "Boston University Motion as used in any
Audit; Your basis for designating time entries as "Boston University
Motion Fees"; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or
on account of time entries You designated as "Boston University Motion
Fees";
appearance"
q. the meaning of the phrase "drafting as used in any Audit;
Your basis for designating time entries as "drafting appearance"; and the
designated as "drafting appearance";
Increments"
r. the meaning of the phrase "Quarter, Half, Whole Hour as
used in any Audit; Your basis for designating time entries as quarter, half
or whole hour increments; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s)
or discount(s) applied or proposed with respect to defense costs in any
8
Audit on account of time entries You designated as quarter hour
increments, half hour increments or whole hour increments;
tasks"
s. the meaning of the phrase "clawback as used in any Audit; Your
basis for designating time entries as "clawback tasks"; and the amount and
"clawback tasks";
charges"
t. the meaning of the phrase "overhead as used in any Audit; Your
basis for that definition; Your basis for designating time entries as
"overhead charges"; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or
charges."
on account of time entries You designated as "overhead
7. Any retention or engagement letter(s) or agreement(s) between You and any
Insurer, its agents or representatives or Hinshaw in connection with any Audit or the
Engagement.
8. All of Your invoices for work performed in connection with any Audit or the
Engagement and any other Documents concerning payment by any Insurer, its agents or
representatives or Hinshaw in connection with any Audit or the Engagement.
9. To the extent not covered by the above requests, all Documents or
Communications concerning any direction or instruction from any Insurer, their agents or
representatives or any attorneys, experts, consultants or vendors, including, but not limited to,
Hinshaw in connection with any Audit or the Engagement.
9
10. All Documents or Communications concerning the outcome of the Concussion
Litigation, including, but not limited to, any evaluation or analysis by You of the outcome of the
11. All Communications conceming any Audit or the Engagement between You and
(i) the NHL or (ii) any attorneys, experts, consultants or vendors retained by the NHL in
connection with the Concussion Litigation, including, but not limited to, Skadden, Arps, Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP, Proskauer Rose LLP, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP or Faegre Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP.
12. To the extent not covered by the above requests, all other Documents or
Communications concerning any Audit or the Engagement.
TOPICS
1. All work conducted in connection with any Audit or the Engagement.
2. The use or role of any software, technology or automation in connection with any
Analysis or the Engagement.
3. The composition of the team who performed any work in connection with any
Audit or the Engagement, their hourly rates, time spent and professional experience.
4. The materials You received, reviewed and/or relied on in connection with any
Audit or the Engagement.
5. All Communications between You and any Insurer, its agents or representatives
or Hinshaw in connection with any Audit or the Engagement.
6. Your methodologies or assumptions, and the bases for any such methodologies or
assumptions, in conducting any Audit, including, but not limited to:
10
billing"
a. the meaning of the phrase "block as used in any Audit; Your basis
"block"
for that definition; Your basis for designating billing entries
billed; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or discount(s)
"block"
of time entries You designated as billed;
billing"
b. the meaning of the phrase "double as used in any Audit; Your
basis for that definition; Your basis for designating billing entries
"double"
billed; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or
"double"
on account of time entries You designated as billed;
tasks"
c. the meaning of the phrase "administrative and clerical as used in
any Audit; Your basis for that definition; Your basis for designating tasks
as "administrative and clerical"; and the amount and basis for any
costs in any Audit on account of time entries You designated as
"administrative and clerical tasks";
billers"
d. the meaning of the phrase "transient as used in any Audit; Your
basis for that definition; Your basis for designating timekeepers as
"transient billers"; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or
on account of time entries by purported "transient billers";
"training"
e. the meaning of the term as used in any Audit; Your basis for
that definition; Your basis for designating tasks as "training"; and the
11
designated as "training";
review"
f. the meaning of the phrase "document as used in any Audit; Your
basis for that definition; Your basis for designating tasks as "document
review"
or timekeepers as "document review timekeepers"; and the
review"
designated as "document or timekeepers You designated as
"document review timekeepers";
tasks" entries"
g. the meaning of the phrases "vague and "vague billing as
used in any Audit; Your basis for those definitions; Your basis for
designating tasks as "vague"; and the amount and basis for any
costs in any Audit on account of tasks You designated as "vague";
days"
h. the meaning of the phrase "long billing as used in any Audit; Your
basis for designating time entries as "long billing days"; and the amount
and basis for any reduction(s) or discount(s) applied or proposed with
respect to defense costs in any Audit on account of purported "long billing
days";
events"
i. the meaning of the phrase "multiple attendance at as used in any
Audit; Your basis for designating time entries as "multiple attendance at
events"; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or discount(s)
12
of time entries You designated as "multiple attendance at events";
"conferences"
j. the meaning of the term as used in any Audit; Your basis
for designating time entries as "conferences"; and the amount and basis
for any reduction(s) or discount(s) applied or proposed with respect to
defense costs in any Audit on account of time entries You designated as
"conferences";
meetings"
k. the meaning of the phrase "team as used in any Audit; Your
basis for designating time entries as "team meetings"; and the amount and
"team meetings";
Name"
1. the meaning of the phrase "Potential IOC Based on Last as used in
any Audit; Your basis for designating time entries as "Potential IOC
Based on Last Name"; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or
on account of time entries You designated as "Potential IOC Based on
Last Name";
bargaining"
m. the meaning of the phrase "collective as used in any Audit;
Your basis for designating time entries as "collective bargaining"; and the
designated as "collective bargaining";
13
coverage"
n. the meaning of the phrase "insurance as used in any Audit;
Fees"
o. the meaning of the phrase "Boston University Motion as used in any
Audit; Your basis for designating time entries as "Boston University
Motion Fees"; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or
on account of time entries You designated as "Boston University Motion
Fees";
appearance"
p. the meaning of the phrase "drafting as used in any Audit;
Your basis for designating time entries as "drafting appearance"; and the
designated as "drafting appearance";
Increments"
q. the meaning of the phrase "Quarter, Half, Whole Hour as
used in any Audit; Your basis for designating time entries as quarter, half
or whole hour increments; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s)
or discount(s) applied or proposed with respect to defense costs in any
Audit on account of time entries You designated as quarter hour
increments, half hour increments or whole hour increments;
14
tasks"
r. the meaning of the phrase "clawback as used in any Audit; Your
basis for designating time entries as "clawback tasks"; and the amount and
"clawback tasks";
charges"
s. the meaning of the phrase "overhead as used in any Audit; Your
basis for that definition; Your basis for designating time entries as
"overhead charges"; and the amount and basis for any reduction(s) or
charges."
on account of time entries You designated as "overhead
7. Your retention in connection with the Audit or the Engagement.
8. Any direction or instruction from any Insurer, its agents or representatives or any
attorneys, experts, consultants or vendors, including, but not limited to, Hinshaw in connection
with the Audit.
9. Any Communications concerning any Audit or the Engagement between You and
(i) the NHL or (ii) any attorneys, experts, consultants or vendors retained by the NHL in
connection with the Concussion Litigation, including, but not limited to, Skadden, Arps, Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP, Proskauer Rose LLP, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP or Faegre Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP.
DEFINITIONS
As used in this Schedule A, the following definitions shall apply to these Document
Requests and Topics:
15
"Audit"
1. means any audit, review, report, opinion, examination, inspection or
analysis concerning the Concussion Litigation, including any audit, review, report, examination,
inspection or analysis of (i) reasonable billing rates or (ii) legal bills or expenses, expert bills or
expenses, vendor bills or expenses, billing rates, billing practices or time entries concerning the
Litigation"
2. "Concussion means all concussion lawsuits filed against the NHL for
alleged continuous and progressive bodily injury allegedly caused by concussive and
subconcussive impacts purportedly sustained by former National Hockey League players during
their National Hockey League playing careers, including:
Players'
a. In re Nat'l Hockey League Concussion Injury Litig., MDL No. 14-2551
(SRN/JSM) (D.Minn.)
b. Leeman, et al. v. NHL, et al., No. 1:13-cv-01856 (D. D.C.)
c. LaCouture, et al. v. NHL, No. 1:14-cv-02531 (S.D.N.Y.)
d. Christian, et al. v. NHL, No. 0:14-cv-01140 (D. Minn.)
e. Fritsche, et al. v. NHL, No. 1:14-cv-05732 (S.D.N.Y.)
f. Rohlofv. NHL, No. 0:14-cv-03038 (D. Minn.)
g. Larose v. NHL, No. 0:14-cv-03410 (D. Minn.)
h. Pokulok, et al. v. NHL, No. 0:14-cv-03477 (D. Minn.)
i. Murphy v. NHL, No. 0:14-cv-04132 (D. Minn.)
j. Adams, et al. v. NHL, No. 0:15-cv-00472 (D. Minn.)
k. Blue v. NHL, No. 0:15-cv-02294-SRN-JSM (C.D. Cal.)
1. Ludzik v. NHL, et al., No. 1:15-cv-04816 (N.D. Ill.)
m. Severson v. NHL, No. 2:15-cv-06411 (C.D. Cal.)
16
n. Petit, et al. v. NHL, No. 0:15-cv-03666 (D. Minn.)
o. Oliwa, et al. v. NHL, et al., No 0:15-cv-03904 (D. Minn.)
p. Muni, et al. v. NHL, et al., No, 0:15-cv-04191 (D. Minn.)
q. Montador v. NHL, et al., No. 1:15-cv-10989 (N.D. Ill.)
r. Ledyard, et al. v. NHL, et al., No. 0:16-cv-00248 (D. Minn.)
s. Bradley (Estate of Zeidel) v. NHL, et al., No. 0:16-cv-03156 (D. Minn.)
t. Veitch, et al. v. NHL, et al., No. 0:16-cv-02683 (D. Minn.)
u. Simon, et al. v. NHL, et al., No. 0:17-cv-01586 (D. Minn.)
v. Carcillo, et al. v. NHL, et al., No. 0:18-cv-01715 (D. Minn.)
w. Berard v. NHL, et al., No. BC718095 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
x. Butcher v. NHL, et al., No. BC718250 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
y. Cullen v. NHL, et al., No. BC718249 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
z. Hardy v. NHL, et al., No. BC718093 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
aa. Turnbull v. NHL, et al., No. BC718251 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
bb. J.P., et al. v. NHL, et al., No. BC719056 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
cc. Quinn v. NHL, et al., No. BC719462 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
dd. Ewen v. NHL, et al., No. 2:19-cv-03656 (C.D. Cal.)
ee. Montador v. NHL, No. 20121L010483 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois)
"Insurers"
3. means any one or more of the following: TIG Insurance Company f/k/a
TransAmerica Insurance Company; Federal Insurance Company; Chubb Insurance Company of
Canada; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA.; Vigilant Insurance
successor to Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd.; and Zurich Insurance Company LTD,
17
together with their respective representatives, affiliates, employees, officers, directors, attorneys,
agents or assigns; any representatives or persons acting or authorized to act on their behalf; and
any predecessors, corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates or business units.
4.
"Communication"
means the transmittal by any means - written, printed, oral,
electronic or any other manner - of any Document, as defined below, and/or any form of
information, from one person or entity to another, including, but not limited to, testimony and
deposition transcripts; notes; interview records; Documents produced or provided;
correspondence; facsimiles; voice mail; electronic mail; electronic texts and instant messages;
and any other type of communication in any form or means. Communication between A and B
includes both communication from A to B and communication from B to A.
"Concerning"
5. means, directly or indirectly, relating to, referring to, in connection
with, describing, regarding, evidencing, recording or constituting.
"Document"
6. is used herein in the broadest possible sense, including, without
limiting the generality of this definition, any electronic or computerized data compilations,
writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, recordings, images, and other data or data
compilations, stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if
necessary, after translation, including, any written, typed, or other graphic material, of any kind
or nature, including communications (which include the transmittal of information--in the form
of facts, ideas, inquiries or otherwise--in any format, whether oral, written or electronic), and any
other tangible thing by or on which information or data is stored or can be obtained, translated (if
necessary) by You through detection devices into reasonably usable form, including any writing,
drawing, film, graph, chart, photograph, telephone record, mechanical or electrical sound
recording or transcript thereof; any retrievable data, whether in computer storage, carded,
18
punched, taped or coded form or stored electrostatically, electromagnetically, or otherwise; and
any other data compilation from which information can be obtained. Without limiting the
"Document"
generality of the foregoing, specifically includes all contracts, agreements,
electronic mails, forms, correspondence, letters, telegrams, telephone messages, notices, notes,
memoranda, computer files, reports, studies, analyses, working papers, summaries, statistical
statements, financial statements, financial analyses, opinions, forecasts, budgets, projections,
audits, press releases, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, minutes of meetings, notes and summaries
of investigations, diaries, minutes, statements, worksheets, books, journals, ledgers, maps,
appointment desk inter- and intra-office memos

diagrams, drafts, newspapers, books, calendars,
and communications, faxes, and telexes. Such term shall also include all contemporaneously or
subsequently created non-identical duplicates or copies and all drafts, preliminary versions, or
revisions of documents, whether completed or not, by whatever means made. As used in these
"Document" "Document"
Requests, also includes every that is no longer identical by virtue of
any notation or modification of any kind.
"Engagement"
7. means Your engagement by one or more of the Insurers and/or
Hinshaw to conduct any Audit.
"Hinshaw"
8. means Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP and its direct and indirect parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors and assignees and each of their respective
current and former partners, managers, officers, employees, agents, attorneys and
representatives, including, but not limited to, Peter J. Felsenfeld, John (Jack) S. Pierce and
Jeanna L. Morton.
"Person"
9. means any natural person or any business, legal or governmental entity
or association.
19
"Y_ou" "Your"
10. and means Stuart Maue Ltd., and its direct and indirect parents,
subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, successors and assignees and each of their respective
current and former partners, managers, officers, employees, agents, attorneys and
representatives, including, but not limited to, Michael Brychel.
INSTRUCTIONS
A. These Requests require that You produce Documents in a manner that complies
with the requirements of Article 31 of the CPLR, the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations
and the Uniform Rules for New York State Trial Courts, including the Commercial Division
Rules.
B. These Requests require You to produce all non-privileged Documents called for
herein that were created, originated or obtained by You or Your agents, or that are in Your or
agents'
Your possession, custody or control, from all files or other sources that contain
responsive Documents, wherever located and whether active, in storage, or otherwise.
C. In responding to these Requests, You are required to furnish all Documents that
are available to You, including Documents that have been obtained by or are in the possession,
custody or control of Your attorneys, employees, agents, or representatives and not merely
Documents which are in Your personal possession.
D. In order to bring within the scope of these Requests all Documents that might
otherwise be construed to be outside of their scope, the following rules of construction apply:
1. the singular shall include the plural and vice versa;
2. the masculine, feminine or neuter pronoun shall not exclude other genders;
"and" "or"
3. the connectives and shall be construed either disjunctively or
conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the Requests all responses
that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope;
20
"all," "any" "each"

4. the terms and shall each be construed as encompassing
any and all;
"including"
5. the word shall be read to mean including without limitation;
6. the present tense shall be construed to include the past tense and vice
versa; and
7. references to partners, managers, employees, officers, directors or agents
shall include both current and former partners, managers, employees, officers,
directors and agents.
Documents"
E. "All is meant to include all Documents in Your possession, custody
or control, whether the Documents were created or compiled by You or by any other Person or
entity for any reason.
F. Where only a portion of a Document relates or refers to the subject indicated, the
entire Document is to be produced nevertheless, along with all attachments, appendices and
exhibits.
G. If You object to a Request, You shall state with reasonable particularity the
ground for any objection to production. You shall state: (a) whether the objection(s) interposed
pertain to all or part of the Request; (b) whether any Documents or categories of Documents are
being withheld, and if so, which of the stated objection(s) forms the basis for Your decision to
withhold otherwise responsive Documents or categories of Documents; and (c) the manner in
which You intend to limit the scope of Your production.
H. Where a claim of privilege is asserted in objecting to a Request, You shall
identify the nature of the privilege (including work product) which is being claimed, and the
following information shall be provided in the objection for each Document withheld: (a) the
21
type of document, e.g., letter or memorandum; (b) the general subject matter; (c) the date; (d) the
author(s); (e) the addressee(s); (f) the recipient(s); and (g) where not apparent, the relationship of
the author(s), addressee(s) and recipient(s) to each other, as well as any additional information
required under the CPLR or other applicable rules.
I. The obligation to produce the Documents specified below is of a continuing
nature; Your production is to be supplemented if at any time You or Your agents acquire
possession, custody, or control of any additional responsive Documents, or otherwise discover
additional responsive Documents, after the time of initial production.
J. All electronically stored information ("ESI") should be produced in accordance
with the Stipulation for the Exchange of Electronically-Stored Information, dated September 17,
attached hereto as Exhibit B. other all ESI should be produced in single-

2021, Among things,
page tagged image file format ("TIFF"), group IV (G4) format, 300 dots per inch (dpi). ESI in
TIFF should be identified an Opticon cross-reference file. All metadata - data the
by describing
modified" -
nature or characteristics of the electronic files, e.g. "date last associated with ESI
shall be produced in text format linked to the associated file.
K. To the extent this Request calls for the production of any spreadsheets and/or
Microsoft Excel files, those documents must be produced with live and functioning formulas.
L. These Requests may be supplemented by further requests for information and
documents and other requests for disclosure.
22
EXHIBIT A
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
___________________________________________________________________Ç
Index No.:
Plaintiffs,
-against- COMPLAINT

COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
___________________________________________________________________Ç
("Vigilant,"
Home,"
("Zurich,"
allege as follows:
1 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Insurers'
underlying
Insurers'
2 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Insurers'
attorneys'
3 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 2 7 PM
INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
PARTIES
4 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 2 7 PM
INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Co., Ltd.
5 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
FACTS
defend"
Policies.
injurv"
damage"


injury" damage"
injury" damage"
territory."
"suit"

"suit"
discretion; and
6 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

under Coverage C.
2.
Subject to all of the terms and conditions of this insurance, we will pav damages
" imposed law; or

by
for bodily in jurv or property damage caused by an occurrence to which this

coverage applies.
or groundless.
the insured[.]
7 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
30. MG issued primary CGL insurance policies, with policy periods effective from
Hockey League and/or an affiliate that provide coverage for the NHL (the "MG Policies"). An
illustrative MG Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
31. The illustrative MG Policy provides, in relevant part, as follows:
to pay as damages because of bodily injurv or property damage to

which this insurance applies. We will have the right and dutv to

result. But:

under Coverage C.


if

policy period.
(Ex. 3, Illustrative MG Policy, No. GLA 5830817, effective Jan. 1, 1992 to Jan. 1, 1993, Form CL
8 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
1976.
all sums that the NHL becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury during
the policy periods.
"Zurich Policies").
9 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
insurance.
through 1982.
Policies'
Litigation.
B. The Concussion Litigation
NHL.
10
10 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO . 653421/2020
6 5 34 2 1 / 2 0 2 0
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Players'
to the MDL.
as Exhibit 4.
Christian,

Players"1
that:

1 Players"
Plaintiffs defined "Retired NHL Hockey "NHL hockey players to mean
who retired from playing
professional hockey with the NHL or any Member
Club or affiliate, or who were under contract with or on
affiliate."
11
11 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07:27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

both."
NHL."
(Larson).)
injury."

impacts"
by
CTE."
(Id. ¶ 44.)
claimants'
12
12 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07/31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs'
Plaintiffs'
plaintiffs'
13
13 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
No. 19-ev-06156-JRB (N.D. Ill.); (2) Kelly Ewen, individually, and as personal representative of
Paul on the Estate 15-cv-10989-

(3) Montador, behalf of of Steve Montador v. NHL, et al., No.
JZL (N.D. Ill.).
the NHL.
Insurers'
14
14 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 2 7 PM
INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
entirety.
plaintiffs'
the Policies.
NHL for a small fraction - 25% - of the Defense Costs. These while
Insurers' Insurers'
of the duty to defend, unilaterally attempted to impose on the NHL's defense the
guidelines,"
Settlement.
74. To date, none of the Insurers have provided coverage under their respective Policies
for the Settlement.
15
15 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

Judgment - to
to the foregoing.

Duty Defend)
16
16 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020
Defense Costs.

Judgment - to
Litigation.
17
17 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

Duty Indemnify)
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

by Court, interest;
18
18 of 19
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
07 /31/2020 06:13
07 : 27 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYSCEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
2 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
08/03/2020

by Court, interest;
attorneys'
action;
attorneys'
July 31, 2020

& FLOM LLP
Peter D. Luneau
Rebekah J. Mott
One Manhattan West
(212) 735-3000
-and-
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

(312) 962-3550
19
19 of 19
EXHIBIT B

COUNTY OF NEW YORK

INC., Index No. 653421/2020
Plaintiffs, STIPULATION FOR

THE EXCHANGE OF
vs. ELECTRONICALLY-STORED
INFORMATION
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; CHUBB IAS Part 15
INSURANCE COMPANY of CANADA, Hon. Melissa Crane

ASSURANCE COMPANY; AVIVA
INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, as
successor to COMMERCIAL UNION
ASSURANCE CO., LTD.; and ZURICH
INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
It is stipulated and agreed by plaintiffs National Hockey League, NHL Board of Governors
and NHL Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") and defendants TIG Insurance Company
f/k/a Transamerica Insurance Company; Federal Insurance Company; Chubb Insurance Company
of Canada; National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa.; Vigilant Insurance
Successor to Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd.; and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd,
"Parties"
(collectively, the "Defendants") (together, the and each a "Party") to comply with the
procedures and obligations for the exchange and production of discoverable electronically stored
information ("ESI") set forth below.
1
The Parties agree:
1. General
a. The production specifications in this stipulation ("ESI Stipulation") apply
to documents that are produced in the first instance in this action. To the extent that any Party
produces documents in this action (including by deeming documents produced) that originally
were produced to another Party prior to the commencement of this action, such documents may be
produced (including by being deemed produced) in this action in the same format in which they
originally were produced to the Party.
b. The Parties and their attorneys intend by this ESI Stipulation to make the
mutual disclosures promised herein. The Parties and their attorneys do not intend by this ESI
Stipulation to waive their rights to applicable protection or privilege, the attorney-

any including
client privilege and the work-product doctrine, and the Parties do not waive and expressly preserve
any applicable protection or privilege. The Parties and their attorneys are not waiving, and
specifically reserve, the right to object to any discovery request on any grounds. Further, nothing
in this ESI Stipulation shall be construed to affect the admissibility of documents and ESI. All
objections to the discoverability or admissibility of any documents and ESI are preserved and may
be asserted at any time. This ESI Stipulation does not impose any obligation to restore backup
tapes and similar media.
2. Format of Files for Production
a. Digitized Paper Documents
i. Documents originally in paper/physical form will be digitized into
single-page TIFF images, group IV (G4) format, 300 dots per inch (dpi).
2
ii. Every filename will match the document's Bates number and be zero
padded with no blank spaces; e.g., D000000001 (Defendant's Bates Stamp Page 1).
iii. The Parties will include with each production delivery data and
image load files (i.e., a Concordance Opticon (.OPT) file and a Summation Document Image File
(.DII) or similar) as reasonably requested.
iv. The Parties will include standard default delimited text files as
agreed in .DAT or similar format and will include available fielded data, including but not limited
to, beginning and ending Bates numbers, beginning and ending attachment numbers, number of
pages, and confidential designation as described below in Section 2(b)(i) except where otherwise
agreed.
v. The Parties will apply Optical Character Recognition (OCR)
software to all applicable documents and provide multi-page .TXT files for each page digitized as
in Section (a)(i) above; filenames for .TXT files will synchronize with/be identical to the filename
for the corresponding TIFF file (see Section (a)(i) above). Delivery TIFF files will be accompanied
by the corresponding full multi-text .TXT files
b. Electronic Documents.
i. Subject to Section (b)(iv), electronic documents, emails,
presentations, and other computer-generated information or data of any kind ("Electronic
Documents") will be produced as TIFF images in the manner described above in Section (a)(i).
ii. Electronic Documents will be produced with corresponding Data
file (.DAT) containing extracted metadata fields (where available), as agreed and set forth in the
following Metadata Table:
3
METADATA FIELDS
DAT Field Relativity Field Sample Data Description

Name Name
BEGDOC Production Begin DOC000001 Begin Bates number
Bates
ENDDOC Production End Bates DOC000002 End Bates number
BEGATTACH Pmduction Begin Attach DOC000001 Begin Bates number of family unit
ENDATTACH Production End Attach DOC000004 End Bates number of family unit
All individuals from whom the document
ALL CUSTODIAN AllCustlD::displayName
Smith, John; Smith, Jane originated before de-
duplication
Yes/no field that indicates whether
REDACTED Redacted Yes
the document is redacted
PAGECOUNT Relativity Image Count 2 Total number of pages in the document
FROM From Jane Smith Author of the e-mail message
(jane@smith.com)
TO To John Smith Main recipient(s) of the e-mail message
(john@smith.com)
Copies"
Frank Thompson Recipient(s) of "Carbon of the e-
CC CC
(frank@thompson.com) mail message
Copies"
. Recipient(s) of "Blind Carbon of
BCC BCC John Cam
(john@cain.com) e-mail message
DOCUMENT . Subject field extracted from the metadata
Document Subject RE: Chain Letters
SUBJECT
the native file
. Subject field extracted from the metadata
EMAIL Email Subject FWD: Chain Letters
SUBJECT
an email file
DOCUMENT Document Title My First Document The title of a document

TITLE
DOCUMENT . Author field extracted from the metadata of
Document Author jsmith
AUTHOR
CREATED DATE
Created Date MM/DD/YYYY
01/18/2021
TIMEl
CREATED
Created Time HHmSS MM Time file was created EST
05:13:29 PM
Families: Date of the Parent document
FAMILY DATE Single/Loose Files: Date of the Document
Date 01/18/2021 T Email = Sent Date
Family
I Electronic Loose File = Last Mod Date
es: e o e a ocument EST
HH:MM:SS AM/PM
Single/Loose Files: Time of the Document
FAMILY TIME 05:13:29 PM T Email = Sent Time
I Electronic Loose File = Last Mod Time

Family Time
LAST Dak document was last moEed
Last Modified Date MM/DD/YYYY
MODIFIED
All time references shall be in eastern time.
4
METADATA FIELDS
01/18/2021
LAST Time document was last modified EST

Last Modified Time HH:MM:SS AM/PM
MODIFIED
05:13:29 PM
EMAIL SENT a em was sent
Email Sent Date MM/DD/YYYY
DATE
01/18/2021
EM SEM
Email Sent Time HH:MM:SS AM/PM
e eman was sent EST
TIME
PM
ˆ
05:13:29
S File size in bytes
File Size 765952
OWWE
Record Type "Edoc", "Email", or
- a , - a ent, E-h, h
"Attach"
ˆ NM Filename Chart.xis
Name of electronic file
FILE EXTENSION He Emnsion

XLS
ˆ ME FilePath J:\Shared\SmithJ\Chart.
Ee locanon o ocument or eman
XLS
Unique identifier for electronic data used in
d131dd02c5e6eec4693d
HASH deduplication, either MD5 or SHA1,
HASH wMch mm e meMody by each
cab587 467eab40045
Party across all productions
83eb 8fb7f89
Pah Nahe Me
NativeLink \VOL001\NATIVES\00
1\EDC 0000001.xis
TextPath \VOL001\TEXT\001\ED
a documendevel OG or ehW
C0000
001.txt
COMEMM Document designation
Confidential Designation Confidential
DESIGNATION
5
iii. Parties shall provide corresponding extracted text (.TXT) files, and
apply OCR text as outlined in Section (a) on documents that do not contain extractable text.
iv. All spreadsheet files (including but not limited to MS-Excel files and
CSV files), multimedia files, and other file types that are not, in the producing Party's good faith
judgment, conducive to image format (such as database files, including MS Access Files), shall be
produced in native format (preserving the original native) with a TIFF placeholder for each
document and endorsed with the Bates number assigned to the document. The produced native
"NATIVE"
file should be named with the Bates number assigned to that document and placed in a
folder. Any confidentiality or other designations stamped on the placeholder for such document
shall apply to the entire native file and its contents. A link to the native file should be provided in
the data load file.
v. Native files need not be produced for documents produced with
redacted images, regardless of original native file format.
vi. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this ESI Stipulation, the
Parties will produce, upon reasonable request, Electronic Documents in native format if inadequate
in the form produced.
3. Deduplication (Global)
a. The Parties will endeavor to deduplicate identical Electronic Documents.
Electronic Documents will be deduplicated as against the entire population for all custodians and
deduplicated custodians listed as above in Section 1.
b. The Parties will retain all deduplicated documents for the duration of the
action.
6
4. Clawback Mechanisms for Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged or Protected
Documents and Information. The Parties agree that: (i) inadvertent disclosure of privileged or
protected documents/information will not constitute a waiver of any such privilege or protection;
and (ii) the following procedures shall apply with respect to inadvertent disclosure of privileged or
protected documents/information:
a. Notice. Within five business days from the date on which a disclosing Party
discovers an inadvertent disclosure of documents/information, it will notify the receiving Party in
writing identifying the inadvertent disclosure(s) and directing the receiving Party to promptly
return, destroy, and/or make inaccessible the inadvertently-disclosed documents/information and
all copies or summaries thereof ("Notice").
Parties'
b. Obligations.
i. Within three business days of receipt of the Notice, the receiving
Party will: (i) inform the disclosing Party that compliance will be effectuated or (ii) challenge the
Notice in a responsive writing to the disclosing Party. If the Notice is not challenged, the receiving
Party will destroy, return, and/or disable all access to the specified documents/information within
ten business days or as agreed by the Parties.
ii. Where the inadvertent disclosure is in the form of a disc or access to
a password-protected server, the producing Party must produce to the other Parties, upon receipt
of intent to comply with the Notice, a replacement production containing all
documents/information but for that identified in the Notice.
7
iii. The receiving Party will endeavor in good faith to retrieve any
copies of the documents/information identified in the Notice, to return, destroy, or otherwise
dispose of the materials, and take all steps necessary to prevent further sharing of those materials.
The receiving Party will identify, in writing responsive to the Notice, the persons or entities that
have received copies of the documents/information identified in the Notice, identify the facts
surrounding the sharing of the documents/information, and describe the receiving Party's
reasonable best efforts to retrieve the documents/information, in each case, to the extent known by
the receiving Party.
iv. If the receiving Party challenges the Notice, it will return, destroy,
or disable all copies of the documents/information, but may retain one copy for the purpose of
challenging the designation of privilege/protection or inadvertency of the disclosure. Within five
business days after an unsuccessful challenge, the receiving Party shall return, destroy, or disable
all copies of the documents/information.
v. The Parties will meet and confer within two business days to resolve
the dispute if the Notice is challenged, and, if not resolved after a meet and confer, the Parties will
jointly request an immediate discovery conference.
vi. Under all circumstances, the disclosing Party must preserve all
Parties'
documents/information subject to the Notice until any dispute has been resolved by the
agreement or court order.
8
c. Receiving Party's Affirmative Obligation. A receiving Party that discovers
privileged or protected documents/information that were actually or potentially produced by
another Party inadvertently will inform the disclosing Party in writing within five business days of
discovery regardless of whether a challenge to such privilege or protection is anticipated. Upon
receiving written notice, the procedures identified in Sections 3(a) and (b) shall apply.
5. Modification by Agreement.
a. This ESI Stipulation may be re-executed and/or modified by agreement of
all of the Parties; for instance, to allow non-signatory parties to this action or nonparties producing
ESI to join this ESI Stipulation.
b. Any practice or procedure set forth herein may be modified by agreement
of the affected Parties, which shall be confirmed in writing, where such variance is deemed
appropriate to facilitate the timely and economical exchange of documents and ESI.
6. Modification by Court Order. Nothing in this ESI Stipulation waives the right
of any Party to petition the Court for an order modifying the terms of this ESI Stipulation upon
good cause shown, provided, however, that counsel for such Party must first meet and confer with
the counsel for the opposing Party, and the Parties shall use reasonable best efforts to negotiate an
exception from or modification to this ESI Stipulation prior to seeking relief from the Court.
9

September 17, 2021

& FLOM LLP
By: /s/ Peter Luneau
Peter Luneau
Rebekah Mott
One Manhattan West

(212) 735-3000
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
By: /s/ Marc Eric Rosenthal
(312) 962-3550
Attorneys for Plaintifs

National Hockey League, NHL Board of
Governors and NHL Enterprises, Inc.
10
By: /s/ Michael 0. Kassak
Michael 0. Kassak
Rafael Vergara


Federal Insurance Company, Chubb
Insurance Company of Canada and Vigilant
Insurance Company
By:_ /s/ Charles Scibetta
Charles Scibetta
Andrew L. Poplinger
33rd
New York, NY 10019
T: (212) 257-6960
c.scibetta@chaffetzlindsey.com

National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, Pa., and
KENNEDYS CMK LLP
By: /s/ Heather E. Simpson
Heather E. Simpson
Mark F. Hamilton

Post Office Box 650


& JACOBSON LLP
By: /s/ Thomas P. Maeglin
Thomas P. Maeglin
One Battery Park Plaza, 4th Floor


Assurance Co., Ltd.
12
COUGHLIN MIDLIGE & GARLAND

LLP
By: /s/ Kevin T. Coughlin
Kevin T. Coughlin
Wall Street Plaza

(212) 483-0105
(incorrectly named as "Zurich

Insurance Company, Ltd.")
13
EXHIBIT 34
FILED
FILED: NEW YORK
: NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
04/05/2022 06:13
04 : 45 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
N LM DOC.
NYSCEF Dut. Nu.
NO. 308 & RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
04/05/2022

COUNTY QF NEW YORK
---,.--,-..----------------------------------- x
OF GOVERNORS and NHL ENTERPRISES, INC., :3
Index No.: 653421/2020
Plaintiff,
-v- ORDER
(PROPOSE-D}
APPOINTING PRIVATE
TIG INSURANCE COMPANY SPECIAL REFEREE
(Crane, J.)
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.; VIGILANT .
COMPANY OF CANADA, as successor to
COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO., LTD.;
and ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.,
Defendants.
-------------------------------+------ x
WHEREAS, the parties to this action served requests for disclosure, including demands for
discovery and inspection and interrogatories, and corresponding responses to these requests,
pursuant to CPLR Article 31; .
WHEREAS, after service of the requests for disclosure and the responses thereto, certain
parties'
disputes arose concerning the disclosure obligations;
WHEREAS, by letters dated February 2, 2022, the parties separately informed the Court
of certain of these disclosure disputes on which the parties had met and conferred but had reached
impasse, m addition to other disputes on which the parties reserved rights;
WHEREAS, in an order dated Febbuary 4, 2022, the Court directed the parties to (i) meet
parties'
and confer vvith regard to retaining a private Special Referee to manage the discovery
1 of 4
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
04/05/2022 06:13
04:45 PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
PM|
NYSCEF
NYþCEF DOC.
DOC'. NO.
NO. 308
286 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
04/05/2022
disputes and (ii) submit a stipulation agreeing to appoint a private Special Referee with a request
to be so-ordered by February 21, 2022;
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation providing that the Court
will appoint a private Special Referee to be designated by the parties to manage discovery disputes
272)·
in this action under CPLR 3104 (NYSCEF No.
WHEREAS, the parties agree that Hon. Henry Pitman (Ret.) of JAMS should be appointed,
pursuant to CPLR 3104, as the private Special Referee to supervise disclosure in this action, with
all of the powers of the Court specified under CPLR 3104(c) available to him;
WHEREAS, the parties further agree that any application for review of an order of the
private Special Referee shall be made pursuant to CPLR 3104(d), provided, however, that an
application for review shall be deemed timely for all purposes under CPLR 3104(d) if the motion
is made within ten (10) business days after the Ruling to be reviewed is made in writing and issued
via email to all parties by the private Special Referee;
WHEREAS, the parties agree that the private Special Referee's fees and costs for his
service will be paid by the parties;
WHEREAS, the discovery schedule in this action is set forth in an order dated November
Order,"
18, 2021 (the "Scheduling NYSCEF No. 246), under which fact depositions are to be
completed by April 4, 2022;
WHEREAS, the parties request that the Scheduling Order be amended in light of the
proposed appointment of a private Special Referee.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Hon. Henry Pitman (Ret.) of JAMS is appointed as a private Special
Referee pursuant to CISLR 3104 to supervise disclosure in this action, with all of the powers of the
2 of 4
FILED:
FIIWED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
04/05/2022 06:13
04:45 PM
PM INDEX
INDEX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
NYSCEF
NY CEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
286 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
04/05/2022
Court specified under CPLR 3104(c) available to him. The parties may raise with the private
Special Referee only those disputes that they would have been entitled to raise before the Court in
. the absence of the appointment of the private Special Referee, including any discovery dispute that
may arise in the future.
2. Within fourteen (14) business days of his appointment, the private Special
Referee shall establish procedures to be implemented for the resolution of discovery disputes.
3. The private Special Referee shall report all rulings either (i) in writing
accompanied by a statement of reasons or (ii) on the transcript, if made at a hearing on the disputed
issues and the private Special Referee so-orders the transcript (either, a "Ruling"), and shall
provide copies of the Ruling to the parties by email, with a copy to the Court. Rulings of the
private Special Referee shall be deemed so ordered by the Court and for all purposes considered
entered as an Order of the Court unless a party timely seeks review of the Ruling by the Court.
4. Any application for review of a Ruling shall be made pursuant to CPLR
3104(d), provided, however, that an application for review shall be deemed timely for all purposes
under CPLR 3104(d) if the motion is made within ten (10) business days after the Ruling to be
reviewed is made in writing and issued via email to all parties by the private Special Referee.
Subject to an order of the Court to the contrary, the filing of an application for review shall suspend
compliance with the Ruling until the Court rules on the application. Any decision by the Court on
an application for review of a Ruling may be appealed in accordance with the CPLR and applicable
court roles.
5. The private Special Referee shall maintain orderly files consisting of all
documents submittedto him by the parties and any of his orders, findings and/or recommendations.
3 of 4
FILED:
FILED : NEW YORK
NEW YORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 11/08/2022
04/05/2022 06:13
04:45 PM
PM INDEX
INDˆX NO.
NO. 653421/2020
653421/2020
NYSCEF
NY CEF DOC.
DOC. NO.
NO. 308
286 RECEIVED
RECEIVED NYSCEF:
NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
04/05/2022
6. The private Special Referee shall be compensated at an hourly rate of $750
and JAMS will be paid a Case Management Fee of $875 per party. The private Special Referee's
fees and costs for his service, and any JAMS fees, costs and expenses, will be paid by the parties.
- The plaintiffs National NHL Board of Governors and NHL Inc.

Hockey League, Enterprises,
(collectively, the "NHL"), shall have no responsibility for the private Special Referee's fees and
costs for his service, or associated JAMS fees, costs or expenses, in connection with any dispute
between or amongst the defendants to which the NHL is not a party.
7. The private Special Referee shall be provided a copy of the Stipulation and
Order for the Production and Exchange of Confidential Information entered by the Court on
November 18, 2021 (NYSCEF No. 247), and shall be deemed a permissible recipient of
Confidential Information as defined in paragraph 6 thereof.
8. The deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order are hereby suspended and
parties'
will be replaced by an amended scheduling order pending the joint submission of a
proposed amended scheduling order, to be filed within fourteen (14) business days of the entry of
. (LMcA cha1 Sched Oly)4 SheII dÅ ah
Dated: Appril 5, 2022
SO ORDERED:
Hon. Melissa A. Crane, J.S.C. CC

EXHIBIT 35

COUNTY OF NEW YORK
________________________________________Ç

INC., :
Plaintiff, : Index No. 653421/2020
-against- : JAMS Ref. No.

1425037315
TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, :
TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY,
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, CHUBB : SPECIAL REFEREE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, ORDER NO. 1
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., VIGILANT
INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN HOME :
INSURANCE COMPANY, AVIVA INSURANCE
COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
and ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., :
Defendants. :
________________________________________Ç
After having conferred on this day with counsel by
conference call, I make the following order to establish
procedures for the resolution of discovery disputes.
1. Counsel are directed to meet and confer as
soon as practicable in an effort to limit and to
identify the discovery matters that are truly in
dispute.
2. After meeting and conferring, any party may
make any application concerning a discovery dispute.

There is no limit to the number of discovery
applications a party may make. Discovery applications
may be made by letter brief or formal motion.
3. Papers in opposition to discovery
applications shall be served and filed no later than
ten business days after service of the application.
4. Reply papers in further support of a
discovery application shall be served and filed no
later than five business days after service of the
opposition papers.
5. The deadlines set out in paragraphs 3 and 4
may be amended by agreement of the parties to the
discovery application. Counsel shall advise the
undersigned of any such agreement.
6. All discovery applications, and responses
JAMS'
thereto, shall be filed on ACCESS system.
Discovery applications, and responses thereto in
excess of 25 pages (inclusive of all exhibits) shall
also be sent to the undersigned in hard copy form at
the address previously provided to counsel. All
discovery applications and responses thereto shall be
prepared double-spaced in twelve-point type (text and
footnotes). Counsel are directed to provide the
undersigned with copies of any cited authorities that
2
are not available on Westlaw. Although I am not
imposing a page limit on discovery submissions,
counsel are reminded that shorter submissions are
frequently more effective that lengthier ones.
7. Unless requested by counsel or unless I
direct otherwise, I shall resolve discovery disputes
parties'
on the basis of the written submissions.
Dated: April 13, 2022
SO ORDERED
/s/ HENRY PITMAN

Henry Pitman
Special Referee
3
PROOF OF SERVICE BY E-Mail
Re: National Hockey League, et al. vs. TIG Insurance Company fka Transamerica Insurance Company, et al.
Reference No. 1425037315
I, John Graber, not a party to the within action, hereby declare that on April 13, 2022, I served the
attached Order No. 1 on the parties in the within action by electronic mail at New York, NEW YORK,
addressed as follows:
Peter D. Luneau Esq. Marc E. Rosenthal Esq.

Shaud G. Tavakoli Esq. Proskauer Rose, LLP
Rebekah J. Mott Esq. 70 W. Madison St.
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP Suite 3800
One Manhattan West Chicago, IL 60602-4342
New York, NY 10001 Phone: 312-962-3550
Phone: 212-735-3000 mrosenthal@proskauer.com
peter.1uneau@skadden.com Parties Represented:
shaud.tavakoli@skadden.com NHL Board of Governors
rebekah.mott@skadden.com NHL Enterprises, Inc.
Parties Represented: National Hockey League
NHL Board of Governors
Michael O. Kassak Esq. Adam M. Berardi Esq.

White & Williams, LLP Laura E. Hutchinson Esq.
Liberty View White & Williams, LLP

457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 400 1650 Market St.
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 One Liberty Place, Suite 1800

Phone: 856-317-3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103
kassakm@whiteandwilliams.com Phone: 215-864-7000
Parties Represented: berardia@whiteandwilliams.com
Chubb Insurance Company of Canada hutchinsonl@whiteandwilliams.com
Federal Insurance Company Parties Represented:
Vigilant Insurance Company Chubb Insurance Company of Canada
Federal Insurance Company
Vigilant Insurance Company
Robert Wright Esq. Charles J. Scibetta Esq.

White & Williams, LLP Andrew L. Poplinger Esq.
1037 Raymond Blvd Theodore R. Debonis Esq.
Suite 230 Chaffetz Lindsey LLP
Newark, NJ 07102 1700 Broadway
Phone: 201-368-7200 33rd Floor
wrightr@whiteandwilliams.com New York, NY 10019

Parties Represented: Phone: 212-257-6960
Chubb Insurance Company of Canada charles.scibetta@chaffetzlindsey.com
Federal Insurance Company Andrew.Poplinger@chaffetzlindsey.com
Vigilant Insurance Company Ted.Debonis@chaffetzlindsey.com
Parties Represented:
AIG
National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pit
Glenn A. Jacobson Esq. Kevin T. Coughlin Esq.

Thomas R. Maeglin Esq. Steven D. Cantarutti Esq.
Abrams, Gorelick, Friedman & Jacobson Coughlin Midlige & Garland LLP
One Battery Park Plaza 350 Mt. Kemble Ave.
4th Fl. P.O. Box 1917
New York, NY 10004 Morristown, NJ 07962
Phone: 212-422-1200 Phone: 973-267-0058
gjacobson@agfjlaw.com kcoughlin@cmg.law
tmaeglin@agfjlaw.com scantarutti@cmg.law
Parties Represented: Parties Represented:
Aviva Insurance Company of Canada Zurich Insurance Company Ltd.
Commercial Union Assurance Co., Ltd.
Jourdan I. Dozier Esq.

Coughlin Midlige & Garland LLP
Wall Street Plaza

New York, NY 10005
Phone: 212-483-0105
jdozier@cmg.law
Parties Represented:
Zurich Insurance Company Ltd.
I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing to be true and correct. Executed at New York, NEW
YORK on April 13, 2022.
/s/ John Graber

John Graber
JAMS
JGraber@jamsadr.com
EXHIBIT 36
AIG
Cªª""ItY September 2014

4®37 15,
Alpharetta, GA 30023-2430
www.aig.com
Via Certified Mail and E-Mail

Zachary A. Mengel
SENIOR ANALYST ATTN: David Zimmerman
COMPLEX CASUALTY
T 212 458 2235 1185 Avenue of the Americas
F 855 241 8829
zachary.mengel@aig.com New York, NY 10036
dzimmerman@nhl.com
Re: Claims: Leeman, et al. v. National Hockey League, et al.
LaCouture, et al. v. National Hockey League
Christian, et al. v. National Hockey League
Fritsche, et al. v. National Hockey League

Rohloff v. National Hockey League
Policies: National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh,
Pa.
Policy No. GLA 5830813 (1/1/91-1/1/92)

Policy No. GLA 5830817 (1/1/92-1/1/93)
Policy No. GLA 5830848 (1/1/93-1/1/94)
Claim No.: 683-592432
Dear Mr. Zimmerman:

Casualty, Inc., is the claims administrator handling claims arising under
the above-referenced policies issued by National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. ("National Union"). As you are aware, I am

the adjuster handling this claim; all future correspondence should be
directed to my attention. This letter supplements but does not replace the
prior position letter to you dated March 24, 2014.
The purpose of this letter is to advise the National Hockey League ("NHL")
of our coverage position as it relates to the claims asserted against the
NHL in the above-captioned lawsuits.
Based on the information provided and National Union's initial
investigation, National Union agrees to defend the NHL subject to a full

reservation of its rights. We have retained Joseph Ortego, Esq. of the law
firm of Nixon Peabody to represent your interests in the above-captioned
matters. Mr. Ortego can be reached at 212-940-3045 or at
jortego@nixonpeabody.com.
David Zimmerman
Page 2 of 8
Please note that our defense of the NHL is limited to those defense costs
which are reasonable and necessary. We request that you forward to us
copies of all invoices and statements for the NHL's defense for which the
NHL seeks payment by National Union. We do not agree to pay for
routine administrative tasks, or insurance coverage related tasks or costs.
Attached to this letter is a copy of the AIG General Litigation Management
Guidelines. As you may know, a draft defense cost share agreement is
being prepared by various NHL insurers, including National Union, and

will be submitted to the NHL in the near future. National Union reserves
the right to withdraw from participation in the defense of the NHL, and to
seek from the NHL, its carriers, or any other person or entity,
reimbursement of expenses incurred in its defense if it is determined that
the claims at issue do not fall within the coverage of the above-referenced
policies, or that any of the terms, conditions, or exclusions contained

therein preclude coverage for this claim.
We would like you to know that we appreciate and value the NHL as a
customer and we expect that you may have questions after reading this
letter regarding our position and the practical impact of the reservation of
rights. Please feel free to contact me regarding any questions about our
coverage position.
In considering the NHL's request for coverage, we have reviewed the

insurance policies referenced above, the underlying coverage and the
allegations asserted by the plaintiffs. If the NHL asserts a right to
coverage under any other policy issued by any other member company of
AIG, please submit notice pursuant to the notice provisions contained in

that policy to the extent the NHL has not done so already.
Based on the information we have received to date, the following sets

forth a summary of the allegations in the Leeman, LaCouture, Christian,
Fritsche and Rohlofflawsuits.
The plaintiffs contend that the NHL knew or should have known of the
term risks and consequences of repeated concussive and sub-
long
concussive blows and/or brain injuries, but took no action to reduce the
number and severity of concussions among NHL players. Plaintiffs
further assert that the NHL voluntarily inserted itself into the scientific
research and discussion conceming the link between brain injuries
sustained by NHL players and short-term and long-term impairment by
establishing and maintaining a concussion program. Plaintiffs also
contend that the NHL's active and purposeful concealment of the severe
risks of brain injuries exposed players to unnecessary dangers that they
could have avoided had they been provided with truthful and accurate
information. Plaintiffs contend that they have sustained repetitive brain
David Zimmerman
Page 3 of 8
injuries while in the NHL and now suffer from latent or manifest neuro-
degenerative disorders and diseases. Plaintiffs contend that they played

in the NHL at various times between the 1970's through the 2000's.
The Leeman plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of "all former NHL
players who retired on or before February 14, 2013 and who have
suffered brain trauma and/or injuries as a result of concussive and sub-
NHL."
concussive impacts inflicted on them while playing in the Plaintiffs
seek declaratory relief and have asserted causes of action for medical
monitoring, fraudulent misrepresentation by concealment, fraudulent

misrepresentation by nondisclosure, fraud and negligence against the
NHL. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, medical monitoring, compensatory
and punitive damages, prejudgment interest and attorney's fees and
costs.
The LaCouture plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "[a]II former and current
players"
NHL and assert causes of action for negligence, intentional harm
and fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs seek medical monitoring,
compensatory and punitive damages.
The Christian plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of "[a]II living NHL
hockey players, their spouses and dependents, and the estates of
deceased NHL players who retired, formally or informally, from playing
professional hockey with the NHL or any member club, and who are not
club."
seeking active employment as players with any NHL member
Plaintiffs assert causes of action for medical monitoring, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation and fraud by omission. Plaintiffs seek
medical monitoring and compensatory damages.
The Fritsche plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "[a]II former and current
players"
NHL and assert causes of action for negligence, medical
monitoring, intentional harm, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment,

negligent misrepresentation and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages.
Finally, the Rohloff complaint seeks to certify a class of "[a]II living

persons who signed a contract to play in the NHL as a hockey player,
their spouses and dependents, and the estates of NHL players, who
retired, formally or informally, from playing professional hockey with the
NHL or any member club, and who are not seeking active employment as
club."
players with any NHL member Plaintiff asserts causes of action for
medical monitoring, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, failure
to warn and intentional harm. Plaintiff seeks medical monitoring and
compensatory damages.
David Zimmerman
Page 4 of 8
National Union issued three commercial general liability and commercial

automobile liability policies to the NHL. The policies include National
Union Policy No. GLA5830813, effective January 1, 1991 to January 1,
1992, National Union Policy No. GLA 5830817, effective January 1, 1992
to January 1, 1993, and National Union Policy No. 5830848, January 1,
1993 to January 1, 1994. AII three of the National Union Policies provide
$1 million per occurrence limits and are subject to $2,500 per occurrence
Bodily Injury and Property Damage combined deductibles. The relevant

"1."
provisions of the National Union Policies are attached as Exhibit
Kindly refer to the Policies for their complete terms, provisions and
conditions.
Based upon our review of the allegations asserted in the above

referenced complaints and the National Union Policies, National Union
agrees to participate in the defense of the NHL subject to a full
reservation of its rights. Notwithstanding the above, please note that
there are serious coverage issues associated with the above-referenced
lawsuits that may preclude coverage under the National Union Policies. In
Govemors"
this regard, the National Hockey League and "NHL Board of
have been named as defendants in the Leeman lawsuit. The National
Union Policies were issued to National Hockey League Services, Inc. and,
by endorsement, National Hockey League. Accordingly, National Union

reserves its rights to deny coverage to the NHL Board of Govemors to the
"insured"
extent it does not qualify as an under the National Union
Policies.
In addition, the insuring agreement and definition section provide that the
policies apply to claims for bodily injury taking place
during the policy
injury"
period caused by an occurrence. First, there must be "bodily as
injury"
that term is defined in the policies. Additionally, the "bodily must
injury"
take place during the policy period. If the alleged "bodily did not
take place during the policy period, there is no coverage. Further, "bodily
injury," "occurrence,"
if any, must arise out of an as this term is defined in
injury"
the Policies. The Policies do not provide coverage for "bodily not
"occurrence."
caused by an Accordingly, National Union reserves its
rights to rely on the insuring agreement and definitions sections of the
Plaintiffs'
National Union Policies to preclude coverage for the claims.
Also, the insuring agreement of the National Union Policies only provides
coverage for those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to
pay as damages because of bodily injury. Plaintiffs in the Leeman,

Christian, Fritsche and Rohloff lawsuits are, in part, seeking injunctive
relief to establish a Court-supervised medical monitoring fund, while the
LaCouture plaintiffs seek injunctive relief for medical monitoring. Such
relief is not damages designed to compensate a person for an actual
injury that the person may have suffered. Accordingly, National Union
David Zimmerman
Page 5 of 8
reserves the right to limit or decline coverage under the National Union
Policies to the extent that the relief sought by Plaintiffs does not constitute
damages because of bodily injury.
Further, the National Union Policies only provide coverage for "bodily
injury" "occurrence." "occurrence"
caused by an The term is defined, in
pertinent part, as "an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure
conditions."
to substantially the same general harmful The Plaintiffs
characterize the NHL's conduct as willful and intentional. Further, the
Plaintiffs assert claims for fraudulent misrepresentation by concealment,
fraudulent misrepresentation by nondisclosure, fraud and intentional
harm. The National Union Policies do not provide coverage for these
claims or any damages associated with them or for any willful or
intentional conduct because such damages do not arise from an
"occurrence"
as defined by the policies. National Union, therefore,
reserves the right to disclaim coverage for any damages to the extent that
"occurrence."
the claims do not involve an
"occurrence"
Moreover, the term is defined as "an accident, including
continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general
conditions."
harmful National Union, therefore, reserves its right to rely
"occurrence"
upon the definition of the term and the provisions of the
Limits of Insurance section to limit coverage under the Policies.
We also refer you to Exclusion a. of the Policies, which excludes

injury"
coverage, in pertinent part, for any "bodily that is "expected or
insured."
intended from the standpoint of the Accordingly, any causes of
action and any damages associated with any willful or intentional conduct
are excluded under the National Union Policies to the extent such injuries
were expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured. National
intended"
Union reserves its right to rely on the "expected or exclusion to
disclaim any obligation to indemnify any insured for any injuries that were
expected or intended from the standpoint of the insured.
The Plaintiffs in the Leeman, LaCouture, Christian and Fritsche lawsuits

are seeking to recover punitive damages. Please note that punitive
damages are often based upon intentional and other non-fortuitous
conduct. In addition, such relief is not damages designed to compensate
a person for an actual injury that the person may have suffered. Also,
punitive damages, whether for direct or vicarious liability, may not be
insurable as a matter of public policy or law. Accordingly, National Union
reserves its right to deny coverage for punitive damages to the extent they
are not insurable under applicable state law, to the extent they are
precluded under the Policies, or to the extent that they are based on acts
or omissions that were intentional, non-fortuitous, or acts and omissions
that do not otherwise constitute an occurrence.
David Zimmerman
Page 6 of 8
As part of our investigation into the underlying claims and the handling of
this matter pursuant to a full reservation of rights, we request that you
please provide us with copies of all future communications with defense
counsel and/or other insurers as well as copies of all pleadings and other
documents filed in connection with the Leeman, LaCouture, Christian,
Fritsche and Rohloff lawsuits. In addition, we request that you please
provide us with copies of the following documents and information:
1. A summary/coverage chart of the National Hockey

League's relevant insurance coverage from 1917
through the present, including carriers, policy
numbers, policy periods, policy limits and contact
information;
2. A summary/list of the National Hockey League's

relevant insurance brokers from 1917 through the
present;
3. Copies of all primary insurance policies issued to the

National Hockey League from 1917 to the present;
4. Copies of all tenders/responses correspondence

to/from each and every carrier to whom the National
Hockey League has tendered the Leeman lawsuit;
5. The identity of every insurance carrier that has

agreed to defend/participate, or is currently
participating in the defense of, the National Hockey
League for the above referenced lawsuits, including
the date of acceptance and the policy(ies) under
which the defense is being provided;
6. Contact information, including email addresses, for
every insurance carrier and/or insurance carrier

representative that has agreed to defend/participate,
or is currently participating in the defense of, the
National Hockey League for the above referenced
lawsuits;
7. Please provide a summary of the time frame during

which any studies were performed and/or
committees were researching head injury, including
concussions and sub-concussive blows, by or on
behalf of the National Hockey League; and
David Zimmerman
Page 7 of 8
8. Any and all AIGRM and/or risk management

agreements relating to the National Union Policies
and any other liability policies that potentially provide
coverage for the above referenced lawsuits.
National Union's coverage position is based on the information presently

available to us. This letter is not, and should not be construed as, a
waiver of any terms, conditions, exclusions or other policy provisions, or
any other insurance policies issued by AIG Property Casualty member

companies. National Union expressly reserves all its rights under the
policies referenced above, including the right to assert additional defenses
to any claims for coverage. In addition, National Union has not yet been
provided with copies of the AIGRM agreements issued in conjunction with
the National Union Policies. National Union, therefore, reserves its rights
to revise its coverage positions to the extent the AIGRM agreements
impact or otherwise affect coverage under the National Union Policies.
If the NHL asserts a right to coverage under another policy issued by any
other member company of AIG Property Casualty, please submit notice
pursuant to the notice provisions contained in that policy.
Should you have any additional information that you feel would cause us
to review our position, or would assist us in our investigation or
determination, please advise me as soon as possible. Also, if the NHL is

served with any additional or amended pleadings, please forward them to
me immediately so that we can review our coverage position.
If you have any other insurance policies that may respond to these claims,
you should notify those insurers immediately.
In closing, allow me to reiterate that we value the NHL as a customer and

encourage you to contact us should you have any questions or concerns
regarding the contents of this letter.
you.
Very truly yours,
Zachary A. Mengel
Senior Analyst

David Zimmerman
Page 8 of 8
cc: Maria J. Dercola
Sports, Entertainment & Special Risks Group

BWD Group, LLC
45 Executive Drive
mdercola@bwd.us
EXHIBIT I
The three National Union Policies contain the following or substantially

similar relevant provisions:
SECTION I- COVERAGES
COVERAGE A BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY
a. We will pay those sums that the insured

becomes legally obligated to pay as damages
injury"
because of "bodily or "property
damage"
to which this insurance applies. No
other obligation or liability to pay sums or
perform acts or services is covered unless
explicitly provided for under

SUPPLEMENTARY PAYMENTS -
COVERAGES A AND B. This insurance
injury"
applies only to "bodily and "property
damage"
which occurs during the policy
injury"
period. The "bodily or "property
damage" "occurrence."
must be caused by an
"occurrence"
The must take place in the
territory."
"coverage We will have the right
"suit"
and duty to defend any seeking those
damages even if the allegations of the suit
fraudulent.1
are groundless, false or But:
(1) The amount we will pay for damages is

limited as described in SECTION III - LIMITS
OF INSURANCE;
(2) We may investigate and settle any claim or

"suit"
at our discretion; and
(3) Our right and duty to defend end when we

have used up the applicable limit of insurance
in the payment of judgments or settlements
under Coverage A or B or medical expenses
under Coverage C.
'
This sentence was added to Policy No. GLA 5830813 by endorsement.
injury"
b. Damages because of "bodily include
damages claimed by any person or
organization for care, loss of services or
death resulting at any time from the "bodily
injury."
* * *
2. Exclusions
injury" damage"
a. "Bodily or "property expected or
intended from the standpoint of the insured. This
injury"
exclusion does not apply to "bodily resulting from
the use of reasonable force to protect persons or
property.
* * *
1. If you are designated in the Declarations as:
* * *
c. An organization other than a partnership or joint venture,

you are an insured. Your executive officers and directors
are insureds, but only with respect to their duties as your
officers or directors. Your stockholders are also insureds,
but only with respect to their liability as stockholders.
* * *
The National Union Policies contain the following relevant definitions:
injury"
3. "Bodily means bodily injury, sickness or disease
sustained by a person, including death resulting from any of
these at any time.
"Occurrence"
9. means an accident, including continuous or
repeated exposure to substantially the same general
harmful conditions.
* * *
The National Union Policies contain the following Deductible

Endorsement:
DEDUCTIBLE LIABILITY INSURANCE
This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:
PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY

COVERAGE PART
SCHEDULE
Coverage Amount and Basis of

Deductible
* * *
Bodily Injury Liability and
Property Damage Liability $ N/A per claim

Combined $ 2,500 per occurrence
* * *
1. Our obligation under the Bodily Injury Liability and Property

Damage Liability Coverages to pay damages on your behalf
applies only to the amount of damages in excess of any
deductible amounts stated in the Schedule above as
applicable to such coverages, and the limits of insurance
occurrence"
applicable to "each for such coverages will be
"Aggregate"
reduced by the amount of such deductible.
limits for such coverages shall not be reduced by the
application of such deductible amount.
2. The deductible amounts stated in the Schedule apply as

follows:
* * *
B. PER OCCURRENCE BASIS - if the deductible is on a "per

occurrence"
basis, the deductible amount applies:

Liability Coverage, respectively:
injury"
a. To all damages because of "bodily as
"occurrence,"
a result of any one or
b. To all damages because of "property

damage"
as a result of any one
"occurrence."
regardless of the number of persons or

organizations who sustain damages because of that
"occurrence."

Liability Coverage combined to all damages because
injury" damage"
of "bodily and "property as the
"occurrence"
result of any one regardless of the
number of persons or organizations who sustain
"occurrence."
damages because of that
3. The terms of this insurance, including those with

respect to:
"suits"
(a) Our right and duty to defend any
seeking those damages; and
"occurrence,"
(b) Your duties in the event of an
claim, or suit
apply irrespective of the application of the deductible

amount.
4. We may pay any part or all of the deductible amount

to effect settlement of any claim or suit and, upon
notification of the action taken, you shall promptly
reimburse us for such part of the deductible amount
as has been paid by us.
The National Union Policies contain the "Participant -

following Liability
Sports"
Endorsement:
This endorsement modifies Insurance under the following:
Insurance provided to you under Section I., Coverage A., Includes

those sums which you become legally obligated to pay because of
injury" damage"
actions brought against you for "bodily or "property
by a PARTICIPANT while practicing for or participating in any
contest or exhibition of an athletic or sports nature sponsored by

you.
The limit of insurance with respect to this endorsement for

Participant Legal Liability is $1,000,000.00 each occurrence. For
the purpose of this endorsement, this limit replaces the limit of
insurance shown on the Declarations for each occurrence.
It is also agreed that a $2,500.00 each occurrence deductible shall
apply to all claims arising out of Participants Legal Liability

coverages. Our obligation under the Bodily Injury Liability and
Property Damage Liability Coverages to pay damages on your

behalf applies only to the amount of damages in excess of any
deductible amounts stated above as applicable to such coverages,
and the limits of insurance applicable to each occurrence for such
coverage will be reduced by the amount of such deductible. The
Aggregate limits for such coverages shall not be reduced by the
application of such deductible amount.
Claims or actions in effect by one player against another

player. However, coverage remains in effect for the first
Named Insured and/or any applicable Additional Insureds
who have been endorsed onto the policy.
The term Participant shall include players, coaches,

managers, staff members, team workers, and game officials
who have been granted proper authorization to enter any
restricted area(s).
The restricted area(s) shall include those areas which are occupied
by players and to which access by the general public is restricted

or prohibited. Such areas shall be designated as restricted
beginning two hours prior to the official starting of the activity/event

and ending at the official conclusion of the activity/event. "Inter
period"
shall not be included within the period of time designated
for the restricted area(s).
EXHIBIT 37
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/08/2022 - 06:13 PM INDEX NO. 653421/2020
6/15/22, 7:48 PM WebCivil Supreme eFiled Documents Detail
ECo Ri
WebCivil Supreme - eFiled Documents Detail
Court: New York Supreme Court

Index Number: 651162/2014
Case Name: TIG INSURANCE COMPANY vs. NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE
Case Type: Comm-Insurance
Track: Standard
Document List - Click on he document name to view the do:ument

Document Date Motion
# Received/Filed Document Description # Filing User
1 04/15/2014 SUMMONS + COMPLAINT --none-- CHRISTOPHER
ROBERT
CARROLL
2 04/30/2014 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE (POST RJI) --none-- THOMAS A
MARTIN
3 05/06/2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE --none-- CHRISTOPHER
ROBERT
CARROLL
4 05/06/2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE by Athena Assurance Company CHRISTOPHER
ROBERT
CARROLL
5 05/06/2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE by National Union, Lexington & Starr Excess CHRISTOPHER
ROBERT
CARROLL
6 05/23/2014 STIPULATION - OTHER --none-- ANTHONY D.
BOCCANFUSO
7 05/27/2014 AFFIDAVIT Chubb Affidavit of Service HEATHER
ELIZABETH
SIMPSON
8 05/27/2014 AFFIDAVIT Federal Insurance Company Affidavit of HEATHER
Service ELIZABETH
SIMPSON
9 05/27/2014 AFFIDAVIT General Starr National Insurance Company HEATHER
Affidavit of Service ELIZABETH
SIMPSON
10 05/27/2014 AFFIDAVIT Reliance Insurance Company Affidavit of HEATHER
Service ELIZABETH
SIMPSON
11 05/27/2014 AFFIDAVIT Royal Indemnity Company Affidavit of HEATHER
Service ELIZABETH
SIMPSON
12 07/08/2014 STIPULATION - OTHER Stipulation Extending Time to Respond HEATHER
Through August 29 ELIZABETH
SIMPSON
13 07/22/2014 STIPULATION - OTHER --none-- S. Dwight
STEPHENS
14 08/29/2014 STIPULATION - OTHER Stipulation Extending Time to Respond HEATHER
Through September 29, 2014 ELIZABETH
SIMPSON
15 10/01/2014 STIPULATION - OTHER --none-- HEATHER
ELIZABETH
SIMPSON
16 10/30/2014 STIPULATION - OTHER Extending Time to Respond Through HEATHER
November 28, 2014 ELIZABETH
SIMPSON
17 12/01/2014 STIPULATION - OTHER Extend time to Answer HEATHER
ELIZABETH
SIMPSON
18 12/15/2014 STIPULATION - OTHER Stipulation to extend time to answer HEATHER
ELIZABETH
SIMPSON
19 03/16/2015 NOTICE OF MOTION Unopposed Motion to Stay 001 CHRISTOPHER
ROBERT
CARROLL
20 03/16/2015 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT Affirmation of Christopher R. Carroll 001 CHRISTOPHER
h tps://iapps.cotrts.state.ny.us/webcifil/FCASeFiledDocsDetail?county_code=Rm5NjRUV7zKKYqhTb3QC4A%3D%3D&txtIndexNo=4IfPqWmJ_PLUS... 12
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/08/2022 - 06:13 PM INDEX NO. 653421/2020
6'15/22, 7:48 PUI WebCivil Sup eme eFiled Documents Detail
OF MOTION ROBERT
CARROLL
21 03/16/2015 EXHIBIT(S). Ex. A- Stay and Tolling Agreement 001 CHRISTOPHER
ROBERT
CARROLL
22 03/16/2015 AFFIDAVIT Affidavit of Service 001 CHRISTOPHER
ROBERT
CARROLL
23 03/16/2015 RJI -RE: NOTICE OF MOTION --none-- 001 CHRISTOPHER
ROBERT
CARROLL
24 04/17/2015 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION re: motion no. 001, DECISION + ORDER ON 001 Robert Sobel
MOTION entered in the office of the County court user
Clerk on April 17, 2015
25 12/05/2017 NOTICE --none-- Ann Spillane
court user
26 01/25/2018 NOTICE OF MOTION --none-- 002 ROBERT
WRIGHT
27 01/25/2018 AFFIDAVIT OR AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT --none-- 002 ROBERT
OF MOTION WRIGHT
OF MOTION WRIGHT
OF MOTION WRIGHT
30 01/25/2018 AFFIRMATION/AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE --none-- 002 ROBERT
WRIGHT
31 01/25/2018 ORDER ( PROPOSED 1 --none-- 002 ROBERT
WRIGHT
32 02/06/2018 COURT NOTICE --none-- 002 Herbert Eng
court user
33 04/25/2018 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION --none-- 002 Carol Ann
Boyce
court user
34 02/13/2019 STIPULATION - DISCONTINUANCE (POST as to Reliance Insurance Company Only MARK
RJ_I_). FITZGERALD
HAMILTON
35 08/01/2019 STIPULATION - ADJOURNMENT OF --none-- MARK
CONFERENCE FITZGERALD
HAMILTON
36 10/24/2019 STIPULATION - DISCONTINUANCE (POST As to Excess Insurers Only MARK
RJ_I). FITZGERALD
HAMILTON
37 02/14/2020 ORDER - PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE --none-- Fernando
Diaz
court user
38 03/02/2020 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME OR Notice of Change of Address PETER DANIEL
ADDRESS (POST RJI) LUNEAU
39 03/19/2020 URGENT - COURT APPEARANCE UPDATE --none-- michael
Habich
court user
40 05/07/2020 LETTER APPLICATION TO ADMINISTRATIVE --none-- MARK
JUDGE REQUESTING ASSIGNMENT TO FITZGERALD
COMMERCIAL DIVISION HAMILTON
41 05/07/2020 &_I_(AMENDEDI COMMERCIAL DIVISION RJI ADDENDUM MARK
FITZGERALD
HAMILTON
42 05/08/2020 STIPULATION - OTHER - ( REQUEST TO SO Stipulation - Time to answer, move or PETER DANIEL
ORDER 1 otherwise respond to the Summons and LUNEAU
Complaint in this action
43 06/12/2020 LETTER APPLICATION TO ADMINISTRATIVE Status Inquiry Letter MARK
JUDGE REQUESTING ASSIGNMENT TO FITZGERALD
COMMERCIAL DIVISION HAMILTON
44 06/18/2020 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER --none-- Joan
GRANTING/DENYING REQUEST TO ASSIGN Levenson
CASE TO COMMERCIAL DIVISION court user
45 06/24/2020 STIPULATION - DISCONTINUANCE (POST --none-- MARK
RJ_I_). FITZGERALD
HAMILTON
46 12/09/2020 NOTIFICATION FROM COURT Notice of Neutral Evaluation Program - michael
Commercial Division - Supreme NY Civil Habich
court user
47 12/10/2020 NOTIFICATION FROM COURT CORRECTION TO PRIOR NOTICE michael
Habich
court user
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASeFiledDocsDetail?county_code=Rm5WjRUV7zKKYqhTb3QC4A%3D%3D&txtIndexNo=4IfPqWmJ_PLUS... 2/2
EXHIBIT 38
FILED:: NEW
FILED NEW YORKYORK COUNTY
COUNTY CLERK
CLERK 08/21/2012|
11/08/2022 06:13 PM INDEX NO. 652933/2012
INDEX NO. 653421/2020
NYSCEF
NY SCEF DOC. NO. 308COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RECE IVED
RECEIVED NY SCEF:
NYSCEF: 08/21/2012
11/08/2022
DOSU1PREME
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
DISCOVER PROPERTY & CASUALTY

COMPANY, ST. PAUL PROTECTIVE
INSURANCE COMPANY, TRAVELERS
CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY,
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY SUMMONS
AND TRAVELERS PROPERTY
CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA, Index No.
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL

PROPERTIES, LLC, ALTERRA AMERICA
INSURANCE COMPANY, FIREMAN'S
FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, TIG
INSURANCE COMPANY, CENTURY
INDEMNITY COMPANY, FEDERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, GREAT
NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY,
GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY,
HARTFORD ACCIDENT &
INDEMNITYCOMPANY, NORTH RIVER
INSURANCE COMPANY, U.S. FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ACE
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE
COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, AMERICAN GUARANTEE
AND LIABILITY INSURANCE COMPANY,
ARROWOOD INDEMNITY, COMPANY,
CHARTIS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, CHARTIS PROPERTY
CASUALTY COMPANY, CONTINENTAL
CASUALTY COMPANY, CONTINENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, ILLINOIS
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
MUNICH REINSURANCE AMERICA, INC.,
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, NEW
ENGLAND REINSURANCE
CORPORATION, ONEBEACON AMERICA
INSURANCE COMPANY, VIGILANT
INSURANCE COMPANY, WESTCHESTER
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, XL
INSURANCE AMERICA, INC., DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-100
Defendants.
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the Complaint in this action and to serve a
copy of your answer, on the plaintiff s Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this
Summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this
Summons is not personally delivered to you within the State ofNew York); and in case of your
failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief
demanded herein.
The basis for venue is defendant National Football League's principal place of business
which is 345 Park Avenue, New York, New York.

August 21, 2012 PUTNEY, TWOMBLY, HALL & HIRSON LLP
By.
Thomas A. Martin
521 Fifth Avenue
(212) 682-0020
and
Kevin J. O'Connor
HERMES, NETBURN, O'CONNOR &

SPEARING, P.C.
7th
265 Franklin Street, flOOr
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
T: (617) 728-0050
Notice: The nature of this action is seeking declaratory judgment regarding rights under
various policies of insurance.
Upon your failure to appear, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief
demanded in the complaint.


COUNTY OF NEW YORK

COMPANY, ST. PAUL PROTECTIVE
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY AND
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, NFL

PROPERTIES, LLC, ALTERRA AMERICA
INSURANCE COMPANY, FIREMAN'S FUND
INSURANCE COMPANY, TIG INSURANCE
COMPANY, CENTURY INDEMNITY
COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, GREAT NORTHERN INSURANCE
COMPANY, GUARANTEE INSURANCE
COMPANY, HARTFORD ACCIDENT &
INDEMNITYCOMPANY, NORTH RIVER
INSURANCE COMPANY, U.S. FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, ACE AMERICAN

INSURANCE COMPANY, ILLINOIS UNION
INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN
GUARANTEE AND LIABILITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, ARROWOOD INDEMNITY,
COMPANY, CHARTIS SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, CHARTIS
PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY,
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, MUNICH REINSURANCE
AMERICA, INC., NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH,
PA, NEW ENGLAND REINSURANCE
CORPORATION, ONEBEACON AMERICA
INSURANCE COMPANY, VIGILANT
INSURANCE COMPANY, WESTCHESTER
FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, XL

INSURANCE AMERICA, INC., DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-100
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs Discover Property & Casualty Company, St. Paul Protective
Insurance Company, Travelers Casualty & Surety Company, Travelers Indemnity Company and
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (collectively, "Travelers") bring the following
Complaint against Defendants National Football League (the "NFL") and NFL Properties LLC
("NFL Properties"), and against Alterra America Insurance Company National, Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company, TIG Insurance Company, Century Indemnity Company, Federal Insurance
Company, Great Northern Insurance Company, Guarantee Insurance Company, Hartford
Accident & Indemnity Company, North River Insurance Company, U.S. Fire Insurance
Company, ACE American Insurance Company, Illinois Union Insurance Company, Allstate
Insurance Company, American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, Arrowood
Indemnity Company, Chartis Specialty Insurance Company, Chartis Property Casualty
Company, Continental Casualty Company, Continental Insurance Company, Illinois National
Insurance Company, Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., National Union Fire Insurance
Company of Pittsburgh, PA, New England Reinsurance Corporation, OneBeacon America
Insurance Company, Vigilant Insurance Company, Westchester Fire Insurance Company, XL
Insurance America, Inc., Doe Defendants 1-100 (the "Insurer Defendants").
2. The NFL has been named as a defendant in at least one hundred forty-
three (143) lawsuits filed by former football players and their spouses (hereinafter the
2
"Underlying Lawsuits"). NFL Properties is named as defendant with respect to certain claims in
approximately eighty-six (86) of the Underlying Lawsuits. The Underlying Lawsuits allege that
the NFL knew the risks of permanent brain injury to players arising out of concussions or other
head trauma and that instead of warning players about those risks, intentionally withheld that
knowledge and sought to profit by promoting the violent play of NFL football. The Underlying
Lawsuits seek recovery on numerous theories of liability, ranging from fraud and conspiracy to
negligence.
3. The NFL and NFL Properties have sought defense and indemnification
insurance coverage from Travelers and, upon information and belief, from the Insurer
Defendants under insurance policies in place between the 1960's and 2012. Travelers, the NFL,
NFL Properties, and the Insurer Defendants have not been able to agree upon their respective
rights and obligations with respect to the Underlying Lawsuits. An actual controversy exists in
that regard. Travelers brings this Complaint to obtain declaratory judgments as to those rights
and obligations.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Company ("Discover"),
formerly known as Northbrook National Insurance Company, is a corporation organized under
the laws of Illinois, with its principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota. Upon information
and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Discover was licensed to do business, and was and
doing
transacting business, in the State of New York Discover issued primary commercial liability
and umbrella liability insurance policies to NFL Properties for the period March 31, 1984 to
March 31, 1997.
3
5. Plaintiff St. Paul Protective Insurance Company ("St. Paul"), the successor
in interest to Northbrook Property and Casualty Insurance Company, is a corporation organized
under the laws of Illinois, with its principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota. Upon
information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, St. Paul was licensed to do business, and was
doing and transacting business, in the State of New York. St. Paul issued certain polices of
excess liability insurance to NFL Properties.
6. Plaintiff Travelers Casualty & Surety Company ("Travelers Casualty"),
the successor in interest to Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, is a corporation organized under
the laws of Connecticut, with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. Travelers
Casualty is licensed to conduct insurance business in New York. Travelers Casualty issued
certain policies of excess liability insurance to the NFL.
7. Plaintiff Travelers Indemnity Company ("Travelers Indemnity"), the
successor in interest to Gulf Insurance Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of
Connecticut, with its principal place of business in Hartford, Connecticut. Travelers Indemnity is
licensed to conduct insurance business in New York. Travelers Indemnity issued certain policies
of excess liability insurance to the NFL.
8. Plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Company of America ("Travelers
Property"), formerly known as Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois, is a corporation
organized under the laws of Connecticut, with its principal place of business in Hartford,
Connecticut. Travelers Property issued certain policies of excess liability insurance to the NFL.
9, Defendant NFL is an unincorporated association of the thirty-two (32)
member professional football teams, formed pursuant to the laws of the State of New York, with
its principal place of business at 345 Park Avenue, New York, New York. The NFL is and at all
times relevant to this Complaint has been qualified to conduct business in the State of New York
and does conduct business in New York County.
10. Defendant NFL Properties, LLC is a limited liability company organized
under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 345 Park Avenue, New York,
New York. NFL Properties is and at all times relevant to this Complaint has been qualified to
conduct business in the State of New York and does conduct business in New York County,
11. Defendant Alterra America Insurance Company ("Alterra") is a
corporation organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in
Richmond, Virginia. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Alterra was
licensed to do business, and was doing and transacting business, in the State of New York, and
issued a policy of liability insurance to the NFL and/or NFL Properties.
12. Defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company ("Fireman's Fund") is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of
business in Novato, California. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto,
Fireman's Fund was licensed to do business, and was doing and transacting business, in the State
of New York, and issued one or more policies of liability insurance to the NFL and/or NFL
Properties.
13. Defendant TIG Insurance Company ("TIG"), the successor in interest to
Transamerica Insurance Company and International Insurance Company, is a corporation
organized under the laws of California, with its principal place of business in Manchester, New
Hampshire. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, TIG was licensed to do
business, and was doing and transacting business, in the State of New York, and issued one or
more policies of liability insurance to the NFL and/or NFL Properties.
5
14. Defendant Century Indemnity Company ("Century") is a corporation
organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Century is the successor in interest to the Insurance Company of North America,
Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, and California Union Insurance Company.
Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Century was licensed to do business,
and was doing and transacting business, in the State of New York, and issued one or more
policies of liability insurance to the NFL and/or NFL Properties.
15. Defendant Federal Insurance Company ("Federal") is a corporation
organized under the laws of Indiana, with its principal place of business in Warren, New Jersey.
Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Federal was licensed to do business,
and was doing and transacting business, in the State of New York and issued one or more
16. Defendant Great Northern Insurance Company ("Great Northern") is a
corporation organized under the laws of Indiana, with its principal place of business in Warren,
New Jersey. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Great Northern was
issued one or more policies of liability insurance to the NFL and/or NFL Properties.
17. Defendant Guarantee Insurance Company ("Guarantee") is a corporation
organized under the laws of Florida, with its principal place of business in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Guarantee was licensed to do
6
18. Defendant Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. ("Hartford") is a
corporation organized under the laws of Connecticut, with its principal place of business in
Hartford, Connecticut. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Hartford was
19. Defendant North River Insurance Company ("North River") is a
corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey, with its principal place of business in
Morristown, New Jersey. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, North River
was licensed to do business, and was doing and transacting business, in the State of New York,
and issued one or more policies of liability insurance to the NFL and/or NFL Properties.
20. Defendant U.S. Fire Insurance Company ("U.S. Fire") is a corporation
organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Morristown, New
Jersey. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, U.S. Fire was licensed to do
21. Defendant ACE American Insurance Company ("ACE") is a corporation
organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, ACE was licensed to do
22. Defendant Illinois Union Insurance Company ("Illinois Union") is a
corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, with its principal place of business in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Illinois
7
Union was doing and transacting business in the State of New York, and issued one or more
23. Defendant Allstate Insurance Company ("Allstate"), the successor in
interest to Northbrook Insurance Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois,
with its principal place of business in Northbrook, Illinois. Upon information and belief, at all
times relevant hereto, Allstate was doing and transacting business in the State of New York, and
24. Defendant American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company
("American Guarantee") is a corporation organized under the laws of New York, with its
principal place of business in Schaumburg, Illinois. American Guarantee is licensed to conduct
insurance business in New York. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto,
American Guarantee was doing and transacting business in the State of New York, and issued
one or more policies of liability insurance to the NFL and/or NFL Properties.
25. Defendant Arrowood Indemnity Company ("Arrowood"), formerly
known as Royal Indemnity Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware,
with its principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina. Upon information and belief, at
all times relevant hereto, American Guarantee was doing and transacting business in the State of
New York, and issued one or more policies of liability insurance to the NFL and/or NFL
Properties.
26. Defendant Chartis Specialty Insurance Company ("Chartis Specialty"),
formerly known as American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company ("AISLIC"), is a
corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, with its principal place of business in New
York, New York. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Chartis Specialty was
8
doing and transacting business in the State of New York, and issued one or more policies of
liability insurance to the NFL and/or NFL Properties.
27. Defendant Chartis Property Casualty Company ("Chartis Property"),
formerly known as Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania ("Birmingham Fire"),
is a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business in
New York, New York. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Chartis Property
was doing and transacting business in the State of New York, and issued one or more policies of
28. Defendant Continental Casualty Company ("Continental Casualty") is a
corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, with its principal place of business in Chicago,
Illinois. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Continental Casualty was
doing and transacting business in the State of New York, and issued one or more policies of
29. Defendant Continental Insurance Company ("Continental Insurance"), the
successor in interest to Harbor Insurance Company, Niagara Fire Insurance Company and
Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, is a corporation organized under the laws of
Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. Upon information and
belief, at all times relevant hereto, Continental Insurance was doing and transacting business in
the State of New York, and issued one or more policies of liability insurance to the NFL and/or
NFL Properties.
30. Defendant Illinois National Insurance Company ("Illinois National") is a
corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, with its principal place of business in Chicago,
Illinois. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, Illinois National was doing and
9
transacting business in the State of New York, and issued one or more policies of liability
insurance to the NFL and/or NFL Properties.

c
31 Defendant Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. ("Munich"), formerly
known as American Re-Insurance Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of
Delaware, with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. Upon information and
belief, at all times relevant hereto, Munich was doing and transacting business in the State of
Properties.
32. Defendant National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA
("National Union") is a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, with its principal
place of business in New York, New York. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant
hereto, National Union was doing and transacting business in the State of New York, and issued
one or more policies of liability insurance to the NFL and/or NFL Properties.
33. Defendant New England Reinsurance Corporation ("New England") is a
corporation organized under the laws of Connecticut, with its principal place of business in
Boston, Massachusetts. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, New England
was doing and transacting business in the State of New York, and issued one or more policies of
34. Defendant OneBeacon America Insurance Company ("OneBeacon"), the
successor in interest to General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation Ltd. ("General
Accident"), is a corporation organized under the laws of Massachusetts, with its principal place
of business in Boston, Massachusetts. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto,
10
OneBeacon and was doing and transacting business in the State of New York and issued one or
more policies of liability insurance to the NFL an/or NFL Properties.
35. Defendant Vigilant Insurance Company ("Vigilant") is a corporation
organized under the laws of New York, with its principal place of business in Warren, New
Jersey. Vigilant is licensed to conduct insurance business in New York. , Upon information and
belief, at all times relevant hereto, Vigilant was doing and transacting business in the State of
Properties.
36. Defendant Westchester Fire Insurance Company ("Westchester") is a
corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto,
Westchester was doing and transacting business in the State of New York, and issued one or
37. Defendant XL Insurance America, Inc. ("XL Insurance") is a corporation
organized under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Stamford,
Connecticut. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant hereto, XL Insurance was doing
and transacting business in the State of New York, and issued one or more policies of liability
insurance to the NFL and/or NFL Properties.
38. Upon information and belief, the Doe Defendants are insurers and
underwriters other than those named above, which issued and/or subscribed to one or more
policies of liability insurance issued to the NFL and/or NFL Properties. The true names,
capacities, and obligations of Defendants Does 1-100, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who
therefore sue those Defendants by such fictitious names. Travelers will amend its Complaint to
11
show the true names, capacities, and obligations of Defendants Does 1-100, inclusive, when the
same have been ascertained. The parties identified or described in Paragraphs 12 through 37
Defendants."
herein are referred to as the "Insurer
39. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to CPLR § 503, as one or more
Defendants are New York corporations, maintain their principal places of business in New York
County and/or are otherwise residents of New York County.
THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED TO NFL PROPERTIES
40. Travelers issued primary commercial general liability insurance policies to
NFL Properties between March 31, 1984 and March 31, 1997 (the "Travelers Primary NFL
Properties Policies").
41. Travelers issued umbrella liability policies to NFL Properties between
March 31, 1984 and March 31, 1997 (the "Travelers Umbrella NFL Properties Policies").
42. The Travelers Primary NFL Properties Policies and the Travelers
Umbrella NFL Properties Policies were issued and/or delivered to NFL Properties and/or its
insurance representatives in New York County.
43. The NFL is not an insured under the Travelers Primary NFL Properties
Policies or the Travelers Umbrella NFL Properties bolicies,
THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE POLICIES ISSUED TO THE NFL
44. Travelers issued excess liability policies to the NFL Properties between
1991 and 2002 (the "Travelers Excess Liability NFL Policies").
45. The Travelers Excess Liability NFL Policies were issued and/or delivered
to NFL Properties and/or its insurance representatives in New York County.
12
46. Upon information and belief, most or all of the other liability insurance
policies at issue in this lawsuit were issued and/or delivered to NFL Properties and/or its
insurance representatives in New York County.
THE UNDERLYING LAWSUITS
47. NFL Properties and the NFL have been named as defendants in the
numerous Underlying Lawsuits commenced by or on behalf of former NFL players and/or their
spouses who allege that the players sustained injuries during their careers as the result of
concussive head trauma. Upon information and belief, all or most of these actions are or will be
part of a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") currently pending in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
48. The plaintiffs in the Underlying Lawsuits allege that the NFL knew or
should have known that the repeated traumatic head impacts the plaintiffs sustained while
playing NFL football were likely to expose them to excess risk to neurodegenerative disorders
Complaint"
and diseases. The current "Master filed in the MDL sets forth fourteen causes of
action against the NFL: i) declaratory judgment that the NFL knew or should have known of the
aforementioned risks, had a duty to advise plaintiffs of that heightened risk, willfully and
intentionally concealed from and misled the plaintiffs concerning that risk and thereby recklessly
endangered plaintiffs; ii) court-approved medical monitoring; iii) wrongful death and survival
actions; iv) fraudulent concealment; v) fraud; vi) negligent misrepresentation; vii) negligence
with respect to pre-1968 conduct; viii) negligence as to post-1968 conduct; ix) negligence as to
conduct between 1987 and 1993; x) negligence as to post-1994 conduct; xi) loss of consortium,
xii) negligent hiring; xiii) negligent retention and (xiv) civil conspiracy/fraudulent concealment.
13
49. The current Master Complaint sets forth only two causes of action against
NFL Properties: i) loss of consortium and ii) civil conspiracy/fraudulent concealment.
PROPERTIES'
THE NFL'S AND NFL DEFENSE OF THE UNDERLYING LAWSUITS
50. The NFL is the target of the Underlying Lawsuits as evidenced by, inter
alia, the Master Complaint. .
51. While there are certain common allegations against the NFL and NFL
Properties, the interests of the NFL and NFL Properties with respect to the Underlying Lawsuits
are, upon information and belief, not aligned. For example, NFL Properties may be entitled to
recover from the NFL if liability is imposed on NFL Properties with respect to the two claims
asserted against both entities in the Master Complaint. Moreover, NFL Properties may have
claims and defenses not available to the NFL. And while it is in the best interests of NFL
Properties to extricate itself from the Underlying Lawsuits at the earliest possible opportunity,
irrespective of whether the NFL can do so, it is in the best interests of the NFL to ensure that
NFL Properties (and, potentially, its insurance coverage) remains in the case as long as the NFL
is a defendant and that NFL Properties (and, potentially its insurers) are available to contribute to
any award of damages against the NFL or settlement of the claims against the NFL.
52. NFL Properties is, however, upon information and belief, controlled by
the NFL with respect to the Underlying Lawsuits. For example, upon information and belief,
Anastasia Danias, the Vice President of Legal Affairs for the NFL, is also the Assistant Secretary
of NFL Properties, and is overseeing the direction of the Underlying Litigation on behalf of both
entities.
53. The NFL and NFL Properties are represented in the Underlying Litigation
by the same attorneys, led by the New York office of Paul Weiss. Paul Weiss was appointed by
14
Travelers'
the NFL and/or NFL Properties prior to any notice of these matters to Travelers.
consent to the appointment was neither requested nor given.
54. After the appointment of Paul Weiss, Marsh and/or other insurance
representatives of the NFL advised Travelers of the Underlying Lawsuits and demanded that
Travelers agree to pay defense and indemnity under the Travelers Primary NFL Properties
Policies, Travelers Umbrella NFL Properties Policies and Travelers Excess Liability NFL
Policies with respect thereto.
55. Marsh, the NFL and NFL Properties have demanded that Travelers,
pursuanttothe terms of the Travelers Primary NFL Properties Policies, pay the fees of Paul
"common"
Weiss and other attorneys involved in the joint defense of the Underlying Lawsuits
on behalf of the NFL and NFL Properties.
56. Travelers has the right and duty to defend NFL Properties under the
"suit" "damages"
Travelers Primary NFL Properties Policies with respect to any seeking that are
potentially within the coverage of those policies. Travelers is not, however, required to defend
or participate in the defense of the NFL under the Travelers Primary NFL Properties
Policies. Nor do the terms of the Travelers Primary NFL Properties Policies require Travelers to
"joint"
accept the defense and common counsel arrangements in place or allow the
currently
NFL to control the selection of counsel for and/or the defense of NFL Properties. Travelers may
also have the right to withdraw from participation in the defense of NFL Properties and/or seek
reimbursement of defense costs.
57. Upon information and belief, Marsh, the NFL and NFL Properties have
demanded or will demand that Travelers also indemnify the NFL and NFL Properties with
respect to any award of damages in or settlement of the Underlying Lawsuits on behalf of the
15
NFL and NFL Properties pursuant to the terms of the Travelers Primary NFL Properties Policies,
the Travelers Umbrella NFL Properties Policies and Travelers Excess Liability NFL
Policies. Travelers has numerous coverage defenses to any such claim, and may be entitled to
deny indemnity for some or all of the damages at issue in the Underlying Lawsuits.
58. Upon information and belief, the NFL and NFL Properties dispute and/or
Travelers'
will dispute position with respect to the foregoing matters.
59. Upon information and belief, some or all of the Insurer Defendants dispute
Travelers'
and/or may dispute position with respect to some or all of the foregoing matters, and
may seek contribution from Travelers with respect to defense costs and/or indemnity paid under
policies they issued to the NFL and/or NFL Properties with respect to the Underlying Lawsuits
and Travelers may seek contribution from one or more of the Insurer Defendants.
COUNT I: DEFENSE OF NFL PROPERTIES
60. Travelers incorporates paragraphs 1 through 59 of this Complaint as if
more fully set forth herein.
61. The NFL is not an insured under the Travelers Primary NFL Properties
Policies.
62. Travelers is not obligated under the Travelers Primary NFL Properties
Policies or any other policy to pay any of the NFL's defense costs in the Underlying Lawsuits,
counsel" "joint"
nor is Travelers required to accept "common or any other defense arrangements
between the NFL and NFL Properties.
63. Upon information and belief, the NFL and NFL Properties assert that
counsel" "joint"
Travelers is obligated to accept "common and any other defense arrangements
16
between the NFL and NFL Properties, and pay defense costs with respect to same under the
Travelers Primary NFL Properties Policies.
64. Upon information and belief, the NFL and NFL Properties assert that NFL
Properties'
Properties is not obligated to pay an equitable share of NFL defense costs with
respect to the Underlying Lawsuits for years during which NFL Properties is self-insured or
otherwise uninsured.
65. Travelers disputes these assertions, and further avers that the actions of
Travelers'
NFL and NFL Properties have prejudiced and/or will prejudice contractual right to
defend NFL Properties pursuant to the terms of the Travelers Primary NFL Properties Policies.
66. An actual controversy exists between Travelers on one hand, and the NFL
and NFL Properties on the other as to the foregoing issues.
67. Travelers is entitled to a judgment in the form of one or more declarations
that: Travelers is not required to pay any defense costs of the NFL with respect to the Underlying
counsel" "joint"
Lawsuits; Travelers is not obligated to accept "common or any other defense
arrangements between the NFL and NFL Properties; separate counsel must be appointed to
represent NFL Properties and those attorneys must be separate and independent from the NFL's
counsel and otherwise not under the control of the NFL; Travelers is entitled to select and/or
participate in the selection of separate counsel to defend NFL Properties with respect to the
Underlying Lawsuits; and NFL Properties is responsible for defense costs with respect to the
Underlying Lawsuits for years during which NFL Properties is self-insured or otherwise
uninsured.
68. Travelers has no adequate remedy at law.
17
COUNT II: INDEMNIFICATION OF THE NFL AND NFL PROPERTIES
more fully set forth herein.
70, Upon information and belief, NFL and NFL Properties have demanded or
will demand that Travelers also indemnify the NFL and NFL Properties with respect to any
award of damages in or settlement of the Underlying Lawsuits on behalf of the NFL and NFL
Properties pursuant to the terms of the Travelers Primary NFL Properties Policies, the Travelers
Umbrella NFL Properties Policies and Travelers Excess Liability NFL Policies.
71, Travelers has numerous coverage defenses to any such claim, and the NFL
and NFL Properties are not entitled to indemnity under the Travelers Primary NFL Properties
Policies, the Travelers Umbrella NFL Properties Policies and Travelers Excess Liability NFL
Policies for the claims at issue in the Underlying Lawsuits.
72. Upon information and belief, the NFL and NFL Properties assert that the
NFL and NFL Properties are not obligated to pay any indemnity with respect to the Underlying
injury"
Lawsuits for "bodily that occurred during years in which NFL Properties is self-insured
"select"
or otherwise uninsured. The NFL and NFL Properties assert that they are entitled to
particular policies and/or policy years to respond to any award of damages in or settlement of the
Underlying Lawsuits.
73. Travelers disputes these assertions,
74. An actual controversy exists between Travelers on one hand, and the NFL
and NFL Properties on the other as to the foregoing issues.
18
75. Travelers is entitled to a judgment in the form of a declaration that
Travelers is not required to indemnify the NFL and NFL Properties with respect to any award of
damages in or settlement of the Underlying Lawsuits,
COUNT III OBLIGATIONS OF THE INSURER DEFENDANTS
more fully set forth herein,
78. Upon information and belief, some or all of the Insurer Defendants dispute
Travelers'
and/or may dispute position with respect to some or all of the foregoing matters, and
may seek contribution from Travelers with respect to defense costs and/or indemnity paid under
policies they issued to the NFL and/or NFL Properties with respect to the Underlying Lawsuits.
79. An actual controversy exists between Travelers on one hand, and the
Insurer Defendants on the other as to the foregoing issues.
80. Travelers is entitled to judgment in the form of a declaration that it is not
required to pay or reimburse any Insurer Defendant with respect to any defense costs incurred or
indemnity paid under the policies they issued to the NFL and/or NFL Properties with respect to
the Underlying Lawsuits.
19
Travelers'
WHEREFORE, Travelers asks that the Court enter a judgment in favor,
including the following declarations:
(1) Under Count I against NFL and NFL Properties, that Travelers is not required
counsel" "joint"
to accept "common or any other defense arrangements
between the NFL and NFL Properties, or otherwise pay any defense costs of
the NFL with respect to the Underlying Lawsuits, and/or that counsel selected
to defend NFL Properties must be separate and independent from the NFL's
counsel and/or that Travelers is entitled to select and/or participate in the
selection of counsel to defend NFL Properties with respect to the Underlying
Lawsuits, and NFL Properties is responsible for defense costs with respect to
the Underlying Lawsuits for years during which NFL Properties is self-
insured or otherwise uninsured.
(2) Under Count II against NFL and NFL Properties, that Travelers is not
required to indemnify the NFL and NFL Properties with respect to any award
of damages in or settlement of the Underlying Lawsuits;
(3) Under Count III against the Defendant Insurers, that Travelers is not required
to pay or reimburse any Defendant Insurer with respect to any defense costs
incurred or indemnity paid under the policies they issued to the NFL and/or
NFL Properties with respect to the Underlying Lawsuits.
attorneys'
Travelers also requests an award of costs, reasonable fees and such other and further
relief in its favor as the Court finds just and appropriate.
20

INSURANCE, ST. PAUL PROTECTIVE
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY AND
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
By these attorneys,
PUTNEY, TWOMBLY, HALL & HIRSON LLP
By:
Thom s A. Martin
521 Fifth Avenue
(212) 682-0020
and
Kevin J. O'Connor (BBO # 555249)

koconnor@hermesnetburn.com
Matthew C. Kalin (BBO #666724)
mkalin@hermesnetburn.com
HERMES, NETBURN, O'CONNOR &

SPEARING, P.C.
7th
265 Franklin Street, PlOOr
Boston, MA 02110
T: (617) 728-0050
F: (617) 728--0052
G:DOCSTKJO\Travelers\NFL
PropaticsNYPlendings\NFL
Complaint
forD 82112mckcleandoex
21
EXHIBIT 39
STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

) SS:
COUNTY OF MARION ) CAUSE NO. 49DO2-1212-PL-048782
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE )
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
FILED
TIG INSURANCE COMPANY, as successor-in- )
interest to INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE ) jAft 27 20%
2ss
COMPANY, TRANSAMERICA INSURANCE )
COMPANY, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, and FAIRMONT SPECIALTY ) et o, a A o ciacuncount
INSURANCE COMPANY formerly known as and/or )
successor-in-interest to RANGER INSURANCE ) .
COMPANY; )
)
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY
)
COMPANY; )
)
ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, as successor-in-interest to AETNA
)
CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY and .
)
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA;
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY;
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY;

)

INSURANCE CO,;
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE ,Ì
COMPANY; )
WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION; )

)
AXIS INSURANCE COMPANY; )
)
)
COMPANY OF PITTSBUROH, PA.; )
)
THE TRAVELERS COMPANIES, as successor-in-
)
interest to ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY and AETNA CASUALTY AND
)
SURETY COMPANY; . )
)
ILLINOIS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; )
)
ALLIED WORLD NATIONAL ASSURANCE
COMPANY;
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY;
NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY;

)
MUNICH REINSURANCE AMERICA, INC., as

successor-in-interest to AMERICAN EXCESS
INSURANCE COMPANY;
)
NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE ) -
COMPANY OF MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN, as )
successor-in-interest to BELLEFONTE )
. REINSURANCE COMPANY; and
TRANSPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, as

successor-in-interest to TRANSPORT INDEMNITY
COMPANY,
Defendants.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff National Collegiate Athletic Association (the "NCAA"), for its Complaint
against TIG Insurance Company, as successor-in-interest to International Insurance Company,
United States Fire Insurance Company, Transamerica Insurance Company, and Fairmont
Specialty Insurance Company formerly known as and/or successor-in-interest to Ranger
Insurance Company; United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; ACE Property and Casualty
Insurance Company, as successor-in-interest to Aetna Casualty and Surety Company and
Insurance Company of North America; Maryland Casualty Company; Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company; Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Company; Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance
Company; Westport Insurance Corporation; AXIS Insurance Company; National Union Fire
Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA; The Travelers Companies, as successor-in-interest to St.
. .
Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company; Illinois
National Insurance Company; Allied World National Assurance Company; Lexington Insurance
Company; Navigators Insurance Company; Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., as successor-in-
interest to American Excess Insurance Company; Northwestern National Insurance Company of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as successor-in-interest to Bellefonte Reinsurance Company; and
Transport Insurance Company, as successor-in-interest to Transport Indemnity Company
(collectively, "Defendant Insurance Companies"), states as follows:
1. This is a complaint for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and damages.
Pursuant to the Indiana Declaratory Judgment Act, Indiana Code § 34-14-1 et seq., the NCAA
seeks a judgment declaring that (i) the Primary Insurers (as defined below) owe an immediate
and ongoing obligation to reimburse the NCAA for past and ongoing defense costs pursuant to
the Primary Policies (as defined below) with respect to the Underlying Actions (as defined
below) and (ii) the Excess/Umbrella Insurers (as defined below) owe a duty to reimburse the
NCAA for past and ongoing defense costs upon exhaustion of any Primary Policies and/or
otherwise pursuant to the terms of the Excess/Umbrella Policies (as defined below). The NCAA
further seeks damages arising from any Defendant Insurance Companies that have failed (or
prospectively will fail) to defend it with respect to the Underlying Actions.
2. Finally, the NCAA seeks a declaration that the Primary Insurers and
Excess/Umbrella Insurers owe a duty to indemnify the NCAA pursuant to the Primary Policies
and Excess/Umbrella Policies should indemnification ever be required with respect to the
insurers'
Underlying Actions, but requests that any litigation over those indemnification
obligations be delayed until resolution of the Underlying Actions, given that (i) such litigation
would interfere with the defense of the Underlying Actions, (ii) such litigation would conflict
3
Companies'
with Defendant Insurance duties to defend the NCAA with respect to the
Underlying Actions, and (iii) no indemnification will be necessary should the claims asserted in
the Underlying Actions fail.
3. The NCAA is an unincorporated association headquartered in Indiana with
member institutions in every state in the country.
4. The Defendant Insurance Companies are national or multi-national insurance
companies doing business throughout the United States, headquartered and with principal places
of business as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.
5. This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendant Insurance Companies because they
are licensed to do business in Indiana and/or are doing, or have done, business in Indiana on a
regular basis. The Defendant Insurance Companies have insured the NCAA against liabilities
arising from its operations, which are nationwide. Defendant Insurance Companies therefore
have consented to jurisdiction in this Court.
6. Venue is proper in Marion County under Indiana Trial Rule 75(AX4) because the
principal office of one or more Insurance Companies is located in this county.
THE UNDERLYING ACTIONS
7. The NCAA is an unincorporated association that acts as the governing body over
certain college sports.
8. In September 2011, the NCAA was named as a defendant in two putative class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northem District of Illinois. See
Arrington, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 11-cv-06356 (N.D. Ill.)
and Owens, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 11-ev-06816 (N.D. Ill.).
The complaints were filed by former college football players who alleged that the NCAA was
4
negligent in failing to promulgate reasonable rules the and heatment of

governing screening
Concussions sustained by college football players.
9. On October 5, 2011, the cases were consolidated into Arrington, at al. v. National
Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 11-cv-06356 (N.D. (the "Arrington Action"). On
Ill.)
November Complaint"
18, 2011, a "[Corrected] Consolidated Class Action (the "Arrington
Complaint") was filed by three former college football players and a current college soccer
Plaintiffs").1
player (the "Arrington On March 11, 2013, the Arrington Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint (the "SAC"). Pursuant to the SAC, the Arrington Plaintiffs seek to certify a
Class Of:
- All cunent and former NCAA student-athletes who experienced one or more head
impacts while playing sports at an NCAA school resulting in a concussion or
concussion-like symptoms.
symptoms"
SAC ¶ 227, "Concussion-like are described in the SAC. Id.
10. The Arrington Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, injunctive relief, medical
:
attomeys'
monitoring and fees. Though the allegations made by the Arrington Plaintiffs do not
limit alleged liability to a specific time period, such allegations raise alleged misconduct and
alleged resulting injury dating back decades.
11. a number of plaintiffs acmss the also brought concussion-

Subsequently, country
related cases agaimt the NCAA: Falker , at al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case
No. 1:13-ev-00293 (E.D. Tenn. filed Sept. 3, 2013); DuRocher, et al. v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, Case No. 1:13-cv-01570 (S.D. Ind. filed Oct. 1, 2013); Doughty, et al. v.
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 3:13-cv-02894 (D.S.C. filed Oct. 22, 2013);
Powell, et al. v. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 4:13-ev-01106 (W.D. Mo.
1 - a former
On April one of the Arrington Plaintiffs college football player - was
23, 2012,
voluntarily dismissed from the case without prejudice.
5
filed Nov. et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Case No. 1:13-

11, 2013); Caldwell, Association,
ov-03820 (N.D. Ga. filed Nov. 18, 2013); Morgan, et at v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 0:13-cv-03174 (D. Minn. filed Nov. 19, 2013); Walton, et al. v. National
Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 2:13-cv-02904 (W.D. Tenn. filed Nov. 20, 2013);
Washington, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 4:13-cv-02434 (E.D.
Mo. filed Dec, 3, 2013); Hudson , et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case
No. 5:13-ev-00398 (W.D. Pa. filed Dec. 3, 2013); Jobe, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 3:13-ov-00799 (S.D. Miss. filed Dec. 23, 2013). The Arrington Action,
the lawsuits listed in this paragraph, and any future lawsuits against the NCAA alleging liability
Actions."
for concussion-related injuries are referred to collectively herein as the "Underlying
Certain of the filed Underlying Actions have been consolidated and trmferred to the Northem
District of Illinois for consolidated pre-trial proceedings.
12. The NCAA has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs defending against the
Underlying Actions.
THE POLICIES
13. The Defendant Insurance Companies sold comprehensive general liability,
primary, excess and/or umbrella insurance policies to the NCAA. The currently-known policies
are listed in Exhibit A to this Complaint. Due to the number of policies at (or potentially at)
issue, the policies are not attached to this Complaint, The NCAA has produced or will produce
copies of the policies for inspection and copying and such policies will be made a part of the
record during the course of this action. All pertinent insurance policies sold by the Defendant
Insurance Companies are at issue, or potentially at issue, in this Complaint, whether known or
unknown, whether included or not included in Ethihit A.
6
The Primary Policies
14. Certain of the Defendant Insurance Companies issued policies to

primary liability
the NCAA (the "Primary Policies"), including TIG Insurance Company, as-successor-in-interest
to International Insurance Company, Transamerica Insurance and United States Fire

Company,
Insurance Company; United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; ACE and
Property Casualty
Insurance Company, as successor-in-interest to Aetna and and

Casualty Surety Company
Insurance Company of North America; Maryland Casualty Company; Fireman's Fund Insurance
Company; Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Company; Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance
Company; The Travelers Companies, as successor-in-interest to Aetna Casualty and Surety
Company; Westport Insurance Corporation; and AXIS Insurance Company (collectively, the
"Primary Insurers"). The Primary Policies sold by the Primary Insurers require the Primary
Insurers to defend the NCAA against any potentially covered claims arising out of an-
occurrence, including the Underlying Actions.
Insurers'
15. The allegations of the Underlying Actions have triggered the Primary
duty to defend the NCAA, including payment of the NCAA's defense costs with respect to the
Underlying Actions. That defense obligation is joint and several upon the Primary Insurers and
requires the payment of defense costs in full.
16. The NCAA has provided or will provide timely notice of the Underlying Actions
to the Primary Insurers.
17. The Primary Insures have either disputed the existence or scope of their defense
and indemnity obligations to the NCAA or have otherwise failed to agree to fully perform their
obligations to the NCAA.
7
18. The NCAA has incurred, and will costs and damages as a result of the
incur,
Insurers'
Primary failure to defend the NCAA in the Underlying Actions.
19. An adjudication of the NCAA's'entitlement to indemnity from the Primary
Insurers for the Underlying Actions is not proper at this given the pendency of the
time,
Underlying Actions. However, the NCAA seeks such declaratory and other relief if and when
such an adjudication is necessary. The NCAA reserves its right to proceed on such claim if
necessary at that time.
The Excess/Umbrella Policies
20. Certain of the Defendant Insurance Companies sold Umbrella and/or Excess
policies to the NCAA (the "Excess/Umbrella Policies"). Those include TIG Insurance
Company, as successor-in- interest to Transamerica Insurance Company and Fairmont Specialty
Insurance Company, formerly known as and/or as successor-in-interest to Ranger Insurance
Company; United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company; ACE Property and Casualty Insurance
Company, as successor-in-interest to Insurance Company ofNorth America; Fireman's Fund
Insurance Company; Westport Insurance Corporation; National Union Fire Insurance Company
of Pittsburgh, Pa.; The Travelers Companies, as successor-in-interest to St. Paul Fire & Marine
Insurance Company; Illinois National Insurance Company; Allied World National Assurance
Company; Lexington Insurance Company; Navigators Insurance Company; Munich Reinsurance
America, Inc., as successor-in-interest to American Excess Insurance Company; Transport
Insurance Company, as successor-in-interest to Transport Indemnity Company; and
Northwestern National Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin as successor-in-interest to
Bellefonte Reinsurance Company (collectively, the "Excess/Umbrella Insurers").
8
21. Pursuant to the terms of their all of the Excess/Umbrella have

policies, Insurers
duties to defend the NCAA against any potentially covered claims out of an occurrence
arising
upon exhaustion of the Primary limits, and certain of such policies provide a defense
Policy may
obligation even in the absence of exhaustion. Should the Primary limits be exhausted
Policy
during the pendency of the or should the terms of the Excess/Umbrella

Underlying Actions,
Policies otherwise require a defense regardless of exhaustion of underlying some or all

policies,
of the Excess/Umbrella Insurers will be obligated to defend the NCAA with respect to the
Underlying Actions.
22. An adjudication of the NCAA's entitlement to indemnity from the
Excess/Umbrella Insurers for the Underlying Actions is not proper at this time, given the
pendency of the Underlying Actions. The NCAA seeks such declaratory and other relief if and
when such an adjudication is necessary. The NCAA reserves its right to proceed on such claim
at that time.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief Regarding Duty to Defend)
(All Defendants)
23. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 22 are incorporated herein.
24. An actual controversy exists as to the nature and scope of the NCAA's rights and
Companies'
the Defendant Insurance obligations under the policies regarding the liabilities
asserted against the NCAA in the Underlying Actions.
25. The policies require the Primary Insurers to pay for defense costs incurred as a
result of the Underlying Actions.
9
26. The policies require the Excess/Umbrella Insurers to pay for defense costs
incurred as a result of the Actions under certain circumstances.

Underlying
27. The NCAA paid in full the required premiums on all of the policies. All other
pertinent conditions to coverage have been excused or waived.

satisfied,
28. The NCAA has been and will continue to be damaged by Defendant Insurance
Companies'
failure to provide coverage for the Actions.
Underlying
29. Declaratory relief will aid in the resolution of the dispute between the parties and
determine their respective rights and obligations.
30. Pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-14-1-1 and Rule 57 of the Indiana Rules of Trial
Procedure, the NCAA is entitled to declaratory relief establishing Defendant Insurance
Companies'
duty to provide coverage for the Underlying Actions.
SECOND CAUSE ŒF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
(Primary Insurers)
31. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 30 above are incorporated herein.
32. The policies obligate the Primary Insurers to fully defend the NCAA in the
Underlying Actions.
Insurers'
33. Defendant Primary refusal to fully defend the NCAA in the Underlying
Actions is a breach of their obligations under the policies.
34. The NCAA is entitled to reimbursement of its defense costs, actual and
Insurers' pre-
consequential damages arising from the Primary breach, and and post-judgment
interest on all such costs or expenses.
. .
10
WHEREFORE, plaintiff NCAA prays that this Court enter judgment in its favor and
against the Defendant Insurance Companies:
parties'
A. Declaring the rights and obligations under the insurance policies listed in
Exhibit A and any other pertinent insurance policies with respect to the defense
costs incurred by the NCAA arising from the Underlying Actions; and, if
necessary, for any indemnity costs incurred;
B. Finding the Primary Insurers in breach of their policies of insurance;
C. Requiring the Defendant Insurance Companies to defend the NCAA in full in the
Underlying Actions;
Insurers'
D. Granting the NCAA Specific Performance of the Primary and applicable
Insurers'
Excess/Umbrella obligations to defend the NCAA in full in the
Underlying Actions;
E. For all other compensatory damages to which the NCAA may be entitled;
F. For pre-judgment interest;
attorneys'
O. For reasonable fees incurred in this action; and
H. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper.
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, the NCAA requests a trial by
jury.
Respectfu y submitted,
,
PLE SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff National Collegiate
Athletic Association
11
George M. Plews, Attorney No. 6274-49

Theresa M. Willard, Attorney No. 21150-29
PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP
1346 North Delaware Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46202
Telephone: (317) 637-0700
Fax: (317) 637-0710
Email: gplews@perb.com
Email: twillard@parb.com
Jeffrey D. Claflin, Atty. No. 15136-49
. 53732 Generations Drive
South Bend, IN 46635-1539
Telephone: (574) 278-1010
Fax: (574) 271-2050
Email: jelaflin@perb.com
12
EXHIBIT A
b
EXHIBIT A
PRIMARY INSURERS
!
ACE Property and Headquartered and with .CPP370485 (October 19, 1977-October 19, 1980)
Casualty Insurance principal place of business
Company, as in Pennsylvania. CPP371026 (October 19, 1981-October 19, 1982)
successor-in-interest
to Aetna Casualty
and Surety Company
ACE Property and Headquartered and with GLA 24002 (November 1969-November
26, 26,
Casualty Company, principal place of business 1970) .
as successor-in- in Pennsylvania.
interest to Insurance
Company of North
America
TIG Insurance Headquartered and with SSL-000133-0 (November 9, 1985-November 9,

Company, as principal place of business 1986)
successor-in-interest in New Hampshire.
International·
to SSL00002760 (June 23, 1986-June 23, 1987)
Insurance Company
TIG Insurance Headquartered and with SSP1230449 (June 23, 1988-June 23, 1989)
Company, as principal place of business
successor-in-interest in New Hampshire. SSP1229778 (June 23, 1987-June 23, 1988)
C SSP1340256 (June 23, 1989-June 23, 1990)

pany
SSP2718792 (June 23, 1990-June 23, 1991)
SSP2719581 (June 23, 1991-September 1, 1992)
SSP35039826 (September 1, 1992-September 1,

1993)
TIG Insurance Headquartered and with ML 206612 (April 1, 1976-April 1, 1979)

Company, as principal place of business
successor-in-interest in New Hampshire.
to United States Fire
Insurance Company
Fireman's Fund Headquartered and with B 92 XXC 80336952 (September 1, 1995-September

Insurance Company principal place of business 1, 1996)
in California,
E 92 XXC 80323453 (September 1, 1994-September
1, 1995)

1, 1997)
MXX674Ò1434 (October 15, 1982-October 15,

1985)

1, 1994)
Westport Insurance Headquartered and with ASP 100002 (September 1, 1997-September 1,

Corporation principal place of business 2000)
in Kansas.
United States Fidelity Headquartered and with DREA2301407985 (September 1, 1998-September

and Guaranty principal place of business 1, 1999)
Company in Connecticut.
DRE0572099 (September 1, 1999-September 1,
2003)
D064L00687 (September 1, 2003-September 1,
2005)
D064L00987 (September 1, 2004-September 1,
2005)
Discover Property & Headquartered and with D258Q00001 (September 1, 2005-September 1,
Casualty Insurance principal place of business 2006)

Company in Minnesota.
Philadelphia Headquartered and with PHPK190803 (September 1, 2006-September 1,

Indemnity Insurance principal place of business 2007)
Company in Pennsylvania.
PHPK260244 (September 1, 2007 to September 1,
2008)
d
PHPK200748 (November 21, 2006-November 26,

2006)
PHPK274284, (November 21, 2007-November 25,

2007)
AXIS Insurance Headquartered and with AXGL01100073-08 (September 1, 2008-September

Company principal place of business 1, 2009)
in Georgia.
AXGLO2f 00073-09 (September 1, 2009-September
1, 2010)
AXGLO3100073-10 (September 1, 2010-September

1, 2011)
AXGL04100073-11 (September 1, 2011-September

1, 2012)
Maryland Casualty Headquartered and with SM58784809 (October 19, 1985-October 19, 1986)
Company principal places of business
in Illinois.
The Travelers Headquartered and with 30 AL 011601 CC/30 AL 11524 CC (January 26,
Companies, as principal place·of business 1966-January 26, 1967)
successor-in-interest in Connecticut.
to Aetna 30 AL 92590 CC (January 26, 1970-January 26,
Casualty
and Surety Company 1971)
30 AL 93799 CCA (January 26, 1971-January 26,

1972)
30 AL 95104 CCA (January 26, 1972-January 26,
1973)
03 AL 195621 (January 26, 1973-January 26, 1974)
30 SM 213024 FCA (April 1, 1973-April 1, 1976)
3
UMBRELLA/EXCESS INSURERS .
TIG Insurance Headquartered and with RU450651 (April 15, 1978-April 15, 1979)
Company, as principal places of business in
. successor-in-interest New Hampshire. RU 451451 (April 15, 1979-April 15, 1980)
to Fairmont Specialty
Insurance RU 304466 (April 15, 1976-April 15, 1977)
Company,
formerly known as
and/or as successor-
RU 401057 (April 15, 1977-April 15, 1978)
in-interest to Ranger
Insurance Company
Fireman's Fund Headquartered and with XSC-000-2394-8169 (September 1993-

1,
Insurance Company principal places of business in September 1, 1994)
California.
XSC-000-9526-1137 (September 1994-
1,
September 1, 1995)
r .
XSC-000-7395-6633 (September 1995-

1,
September 1, 1996)
XSC-000-7418-9259 (September 1996-

1,
September 1, 1997)
Westport Insurance Headquartered and with ASP300001 (September 1, 1997-September 1,

Corporation principal places of business in 1998)
Kansas.
United States Headquartered and with DREA30032320000 (September 1998-

Fidelity 1,
and Guaranty principal places of business in September 1, 1999)
Company Connecticut.
DRE0572199 (September 1, 1999-September 1,
2003)
National Union Fire Headquartered and with BE 2910809 (September 1, 2004-September 1,

Insurance Company principal places of business in 2005)
of Pittsburgh, Pa. New York.
The Travelers Headquartered and with . QK01200557 (September 1, 2003-September 1,

Companies, as principal places of business in 2004)
successor-in-interest Connecticut.
to St. Paul Fire &
Marine Ins. Company
4
Illinois National Headquartered and with BE 2910888 (5eptember 1, f005-September 1,

Insurance Company princil5al places of business in 2006)
Illinois.
BE 2910980 (September 1, 2006-September 1,
2007)

2008)

2009)
Allied World Headquartered and with AW6500367 (September 2003- September

1, 1,
National Assurance principal places of business in 2004)
Company New York.
C012781/001 (September 1, 2009-September 1,
2010),
0305-8968 (September 1, 2010-September 1, 2011)
0305-8968 (September 1, 2011-September 1, 2012)
Lexington Insurance Headquartered and with 7113675 (September 1, 2004-September 1, 2005)

Company principal places of business in
Massachusetts. 6500367 (September 1, 2003-September 1, 2004)
2453868 (September 1, 2005-September 1, 2006)

. .
Navigators Insurance Headquartered and with NY11EXC736222IV (September 2011-

1,
Company principal places of business in September 1, 2012)
New York.
TIG Insurance Headquartered and with KLB35039859 (September 1, 1992-September 1,

Company, as principal places of business in 1993)
successor-in-interest New Hampshire.
to Transamerica
Insurance Company
...... ....
5
ACE Property and Headquartered and with XBC18057 1966 26,

(January 26, -January 1967)
Casualty Insurance principal places of business in
Company, as . Pennsylvania, .XBC18140 (January 26, 1967-January 26, 1970)

to Insurance XBC183993 (January 26, 1970-January 26, 2973)
Company of North
XBC 98286 (January 26, 1973-January 26, 1976)
America
XBC 137047 (January 26, 1976-January 26, 1979) .
Munich Reinsurance Headquartered and with M09344 (April 15, 1981-April 15, 1982)
America, Inc., as principal place of business in
successor-in-interest New Jersey.
to American Excess
Insurance Company .
Transport Insurance Headquartered and with TUL0664C (April 15, 1983-April 15, 1985)
Company, as principal place of business in
successor-in-interest Massachusetts.
to Transport
Indemnity Company
Northwestern Headquartered and with UL3140300 (April 15, 1982-April 15, 1983)
National Insurance principal pläce of business in
Company of Ohio.
Milwaukee,
Wisconsin as
to Bellefonte
Reinsurance
Company
6
EXHIBIT 40
NYSCEF DOC.
RIDDELL,NO. 308
INC., All American Sports Corporation, Riddell..., 2012 WL 1230627... RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/08/2022
2012 WL 1230627 (Cal.Super.) (Trial Pleading)

Superior Court of California.
Los Angeles County
RIDDELL, INC., All American Sports Corporation, Riddell Sports Group, Inc., Easton-Bell
Sports, Inc., Easton-Bell Sports, LLC, EB Sports Corp., and RBG Holdings Corp., Plaintiffs,
v.
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, American Home Assurance Co., Arrowood Indemnity Company,
Associated International Insurance Company, Century Indemnity Company, Columbia Casualty Company, The
Employers'
Fire Insurance Company, Illinois National Insurance Co., Insurance Company of North America, Lumbermens
Mutual Casualty Company, Steadfast Insurance Company, Transport Indemnity Company, and Does 1-50, Defendants.
No. BC482698.
April 12, 2012.
Jury Trial Demanded
Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Breach of Contract, and

Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Reynold L. Siemens #177956, reynold.siemens@pillsbwylaw.com, Mariah Brandt
#224076, mariah.brandt @pillsbwylaw.com, 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406, Telephone:
(213) 488-7100, Facsimile No.: (213) 629-1033, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Riddell, Inc., All American Sports Corporation, Riddell
Sports Group, Inc., Easton-Bell Sports, Inc., Easton-Bell Sports, LLC, EB Sports Corp. and Rbg Holdings Corp.
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
Plaintiffs ALL AMERICAN SPORTS RIDDELL SPORTS EASTON-

RIDDELL, INC., CORPORATION, GROUP, INC.,
BELL SPORTS, INC., EASTON-BELL SPORTS, LLC, EB SPORTS CORP., and RBG HOLDINGS CORP. (collectively,
"Plaintiffs") allege as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a civil action for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing arising from the failme of certain of the defendant inswers ("Insurers") to satisfy their contractual obligations to
defend and indemnify Plaintiffs against lawsuits filed by present and former professional football players alleging long-term
neurological injuries caused in part by football helmets allegedly designed, developed, assembled, and sold by Plaintiffs (the
"Underlying Actions").
THE PARTIES
2. Easton-Bell Sports, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Van Nuys, California.
3. EB Sports Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Van Nuys, California, and is wholly owned
by Easton-Bell Sports, LLC.
WESTLAW © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Govemment Works. 1

NYSCEF DOC.
RIDDELL,NO. 308
4. RBG Holdings Corp. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Van Nuys, California, and is wholly
owned by EB Sports Corp.
5. Easton-Bell Sports, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Van Nuys, California, and is wholly
owned by RBG Holdings Corp.
6. Riddell Sports Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas, and is wholly owned by
Easton-Bell Sports, Inc.
7. Riddell, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois, and is wholly owned by Riddell
Sports Group, Inc.
8. All American Sports Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio, and is wholly owned
by Riddell Sports Group, Inc.
9. ACE American Insurance Company ("ACE"), successor to INA Insurance Company of Illinois ("INA of Illinois"), is a
Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and is currently authorized to and
is currently doing business in the state of California.
10. American Home Assurance Co. ("American Home") is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in New
York, New York, and is authorized to and is currently doing business in the state of California.
11. Arrowood Indemnity Company ("Arrowood"), formerly known as Royal Indemnity Company ("Royal Indemnity"),
successor in interest to Globe Indemnity Company ("Globe"), is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Charlotte, North Carolina, and is authorized to and is currently doing business in the state of California.
12. Associated International Insurance Company ("Associated") is a California corporation with its principal place of business
in Deerfield, Illinois, and is authorized to and is currently doing business in the state of California.
13. Century Indemnity Company ("Century"), successor to Insurance Company of North American ("INA"), is a Pennsylvania
corporation with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, and is authorized to and is currently doing business
in the state of California.
14. Columbia Casualty Company ("Columbia") is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois,
and is currently doing business in the state of California.
Employers' ("Employers'
15. The Fire Insurance Company Fire") is a Massachusetts corporation with its principal place of
business in Canton, Massachusetts, and is authorized to and is currently doing business in the state of California.
16. Illinois National Insurance Co. ("Illinois National") is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in Chicago,
Illinois, and is currently doing business in the state of California.
17. Insurance Company of North America ("INA") is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
18. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company ("Lumbermens") is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in
Lake Zurich, Illinois, and is authorized to and is currently doing business in the state of California.
WESTLAW © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Govemment Works. 2

NYSCEF DOC.
RIDDELL,NO. 308
19. Steadfast Insurance Company ("Steadfast") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Schaumburg,
Illinois, and is authorized to and is currently doing business in the state of California.
20. Transport Insurance Company ("Transport"), formerly known as Transport Indemnity Company ("Transport Indemnity"),
is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts, and is authorized to and is currently doing
business in the state of California.
21. The true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as Does 1-50, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs, which
therefore sued said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true names
and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of said fictitiously named
defendants is in some manner responsible, in whole or in part, for the matters alleged herein.
THE UNDERLYING ACTIONS
22. At present, the Underlying Actions consist of seven lawsuits filed against Plaintiffs. Each lawsuit alleges that head injuries
experienced by professional football players while playing in the National Football League ("NFL") were caused in part by
Plaintiffs'
alleged negligence, and/or alleged defects relating to helmets made by Plaintiffs. The seven Underlying Actions
against Riddell are summarized below:
23. On or about July 19, 2011, a lawsuit entitled Maxwell, et al. v. NationalFootball League, et al. was filed in the United
("Maxwell"
States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:11-cv-08394 ). Maxwell has been transferred
Players'
and consolidated with the other actions in the NFL Concussion Injury Litigation MDL No. 2323 in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("MDL").
24. On or about July 19, 2011, a lawsuit entitled Pear, et al. v. National Football League, et al. was filed in the United States
("Pear"
District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:1 -cv-08395 ). Pear has been transferred and consolidated
in the MDL.
25. On or about August 26, 2011, a lawsuit entitled Barnes, et al. v. National Football League, et al. was filed in the United
("Barnes"
States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:11-cv-08396 ). Barnes has been transferred
and consolidated in the MDL.
26. On or about October 13, 2011, a lawsuit entitled Hardman, et al. v. National Football, et al. was filed in the Superior Court
("Hardman"
of the State of California County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC471229 ). Hardman was dismissed without prejudice
on December 7, 2011.
27. On or about January 19, 2012, a lawsuit entitled Joel Steed v. National Football League, et al. was filed in the United
("Steed"
States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-00524 ). Steed has been transferred and
consolidated in the MDL.
28. On or about January 23, 2012, a lawsuit entitled Steve Wallace, et al. v. National Football League, et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:12-cv-00336 ("Wallace").
29. On or about February 17, 2012, a lawsuit entitled Tyrone Hughes, et al. v. National Football League, et al. was filed in
"
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Case No. 2:12-cv-00459 ("Hughes ). Hughes has been
transferred and consolidated in the MDL.
30. Plaintiffs have incurred and/or continue to incur losses in defending themselves against the foregoing Underlying Actions.

NYSCEF DOC.
RIDDELL,NO. 308
31. Plaintiffs gave prompt notice to the Inswers of the Underlying Actions.
PLAINTIFFS'
INSURANCE COVERAGE
32. Plaintiffs had in full force and effect primary policies that provide commercial general liability and products liability
coverage (the "Primary Policies") and/or excess policies that provide commercial general liability and products liability
Policies,"
coverage (the "Excess collectively, the "Policies") issued by each of the Insurers.
33. The Primary Policies include the following policies issued by certain Insurers and/or their predecessors:
Insurer Policy No. Policy Period
Lumbermens Unknown 12/31/1959 12/31/1960
Lumbermens OYL-211500 12/31/1960 12/31/1961
Lumbermens 1YL-211500 12/31/1961 12/31/1962
Arrowood f/k/a Royal GLG-473526 12/31/1964 3/31/1965

Indemnity, successor in
interest to Globe
Arrowood f/k/a Royal GYB 145617 3/31/1965 3/31/1968

Indemnity, successor in
interest to Globe
INA AGP 1021 51, 10-68-25 3/30/1971 10/31/1971
INA AGP 12-36-88 59 10/31/1971 11/5/1975
Columbia CCP1866338 11/5/1975 11/5/1976
Employers'
Fire F22-40040-21 3/31/1968 3/31/1971
Associated XS 100160 3/15/1977 4/22/1977
Associated AEL 050330 4/22/1977 4/22/1978
Associated XS 100160 4/22/1977 8/10/1977
Associated XS 100160 8/10/1977 4/22/1978
Associated XS 100160 8/10/1977 4/22/1978
Associated AEL 050330 4/22/1978 4/22/1979
Associated XS 100160 4/22/1978 4/22/1979
Associated XS 100160 4/22/1978 4/22/1979
Associated AUL 301286 4/22/1979 4/22/1980
Associated AUL 301456 4/22/1980 4/22/1981

NYSCEF DOC.
RIDDELL,NO. 308
Associated GL 101494 4/22/1982 8/19/1982
Associated PR 102355 8/19/1982 4/22/1983
Associated PR 103062 4/22/1983 4/22/1984
Associated PR 106742 4/22/1984 4/22/1985
Associated XS 106787 4/22/1984 4/22/1985
34. The Excess Policies include the following policies issued by certain Insurers and/or their predecessors:
Insurer Policy No. Policy Period
Arrowood f/k/a Royal GLA-100207 3/31/1965 3/31/1968

Indemnity, successor in interest
to Globe
American Home 35-15-48 3/31/1968 - 12/22/1969
American Home 35-15-48 12/23/1969 - 3/31/1971
American Home CE 35-15-48 3/31/1971 - 10/31/1971
American Home BE 267-71-55 10/31/1971 - 10/31/1974
Columbia RDX 4169594 4/22/1979 4/22/1980

42
Transport TUL 675407 4/22/1982 8/19/1982
Transport TUL 675426 8/19/1982 4/22/1983
Transport TUL 675434 4/22/1983 4/22/1984
Transport TUL 675458 4/22/1984 4/22/1985
Illinois National BE 357-02-65 1/31/1998 1/31/2009
Steadfast SCO 9672420-00 8/1/2008 1/31/2010
Steadfast SCO 9672420-01 1/31/2010 7/31/2011
35. The losses incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with the Underlying Actions fall or potentially fall within the scope of
coverage of these Policies. Accordingly, pursuant to the terms of the Policies and under the law, Insurers have the duty to
defend and/or indemnify Plaintiffs for losses incurred in connection with the Underlying Actions, subject to each policy's terms,
indemnity limit, deductible, or attachment point.
Employers'
36. To date, Arrowood, Fire, and ACE/Century/INA have agreed to defend Riddell against the Underlying Actions,
and Steadfast has agreed to defend upon exhaustion of its self-insured retention, subject to a reservation of rights. Other Insurers

NYSCEF DOC.
RIDDELL,NO. 308
that have a duty to defend have refused to honor their defense obligations. The Insurers have not agreed to indemnify plaintiffs
against the Underlying Actions.
37. As to the Policies, Plaintiffs have paid the required premiums in full and have satisfied all other conditions to coverage, or
are otherwise excused from doing so. All actions taken by Plaintiffs with respect to the above loss have been reasonable, and
no action has prejudiced the ability of the Inswers to fulfill their contractual obligations.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Declaratory Relief as to Duty to Defend)
(Against Lumbermens, American Home, and Columbia)
38. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 37 above.
39. Pursuant to the terms of certain of the Lumbermens, American Home and Columbia Policies, these Insurers are obligated
to defend Plaintiffs against the Underlying Actions.
40. These Insurers have failed to defend Plaintiffs against the Underlying Actions.
41. An actual controversy of a justiciable nature presently exists between Plaintiffs and these Insurers concerning the proper
construction of the Policies and the rights and obligations of the parties. The controversy is of sufficient immediacy to justify
the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Declaratory Relief as to Duty to Indemnify)
(Against All Defendants)
43. Pursuant to the terms of the Policies, the Insurers are obligated to indemnify the Plaintiffs covered by their Policies for
Policies'
the entire amount of losses incurred in connection with the Underlying Actions, subject to the limits, deductibles, or
attachment points.
44. None of the Inswers have agreed to indemnify or provide a defense for any of the Underlying Actions.
45. An actual controversy of a justiciable nature presently exists between Plaintiffs and Insurers concerning the proper
construction of the Policies and the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to losses incurred by Plaintiffs in connection
with the Underlying Actions. The controversy is of sufficient immediacy to justify the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
46. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

NYSCEF DOC.
RIDDELL,NO. 308
(For Breach of Contract)
(Against Lumbermens, American Home, and Columbia)
48. Pursuant to the terms of certain of the Lumbermens, American Home and Columbia Policies, these Insurers are obligated
49. These Insurers have failed to defend Plaintiffs against the Underlying Actions.
50. Lumbermens, American Home and Columbia have breached the terms of their Policies by refusing to perform their duty
Inswers'
51. As a direct result of these breach of their Policies, Plaintiffs have been deprived of the benefits of insurance
coverage, for which it paid substantial premiums, with respect to losses incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with the Underlying
Actions.
52. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(For Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
(Against American Home and Lumbermens)
Insurers'
54. Implied in each of the Policies is a covenant that they will act in good faith and deal fairly with their insureds;
that they will do nothing to interfere with their insureds rights to receive the benefits of the Policies; that they will not place
their own interests before those of their insureds; that they will exercise diligence, good faith, and fidelity in safeguarding the
interests of their insureds; that they will deal ethically with their insureds and will fairly and adequately inform them of the
nature and scope of their insurance coverage (hereinafter referred to as "the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing").
55. American Home and Lumbermens have each breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by, inter alia:
a. Refusing fully to defend and/or indemnify Riddell for covered liabilities, as defined in their Policies, without regard to relevant
insurance policy language, relevant law, and the specific facts of the claim;
b. Interpreting the terms and conditions of their Policies in an unreasonable manner, which is wholly inconsistent with applicable
law, solely in an effort to avoid providing Riddell with coverage to which it is entitled under the Policies;
c. Refusing to acknowledge coverage, or withdraw or alter their denials of coverage, notwithstanding their inability to identify
supporting legal or factual authority for their coverage defenses, and decisions of other Courts rejecting their legal and/or factual
contentions;
d. Inventing spurious grounds for avoidance of coverage without regard to the pertinent policy language, facts, or law;
e. Failing to provide promptly a reasonable explanation of the basis relied on, in relation to the facts or applicable law, for the
denial of coverage;

NYSCEF DOC.
RIDDELL,NO. 308
f. Not attempting in good faith to negotiate a prompt, fair, and reasonable settlement within policy limits of Riddel>s claims;
g. Failing to provide Riddell with copies of documents evidencing the terms of coverage when requested;
h. Forcing Riddell to file this litigation in order to obtain the rights and benefits to which it is entitled under their Policies.
56. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon alleges, that American Home and Lumbermens are in breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, did the things and committed the wrongful acts alleged above, among other things, for
the purpose of willfully and consciously withholding from Plaintiffs the rights and benefits to which they are entitled under their
Policies and in complete disregard of said rights; in so doing, American Home and Lumbermens have placed their own interests
above those of Plaintiffs for the purpose of retaining and using money that should have been spent on the defense of Riddell.
attorneys'
57. Pursuant to Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 813 (1983), Plaintiffs are entitled to recover all fees and
expenses that they reasonably have incurred and will incur, in their efforts to obtain the benefits of insurance that have been,
and continue to be, wrongfully and in bad faith withheld by American Home and Lumbermens.
Plaintiffs'
58. The wrongful conduct alleged herein was done with conscious disregard of rights and with the intent to vex, injure
or annoy Plaintiffs, such as to constitute oppression, fraud or malice under California Civil Code Section 3294, thereby entitling
Plaintiffs to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of Lumbermens and American Home.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below:
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs request that the Court enter judgment as follows:
59. On the First Cause of Action, for a declaration that the Lumbemens, American Home and Columbia policies impose on
those Insurers a duty to defend Riddell against the Underlying Actions, as more fully described above;
60. On the Second Cause of Action, for a declaration that the Inswers have a duty to indemnify the Plaintiffs insured under
their Policies against the Underlying Actions.
61. On the Third and Fourth Causes of Action:

a. Compensatory and general damages according to proof;
b. Special and incidental damages according to proof;
c. Prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
62. For costs of suit; and
63. For such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
Dated: April 12, 2012.

NYSCEF DOC.
RIDDELL,NO. 308
PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
REYNOLD L. SIEMENS
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406
By signature»
Reynold L. Siemens
Attorneys for Plaintiffs RIDDELL, INC., ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORPORATION, RIDDELL SPORTS GROUP, INC.,
EASTON-BELL SPORTS, INC., EASTON-BELL SPORTS, LLC, EB SPORTS CORP., and RBG HOLDINGS CORP.
End of Document © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

EXHIBIT 41
White and
Williams tte
Justin K. Fortescue
1650 Market Street | One Liberty Place, Suite 1800 | Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395
Direct 215.864.6823 | Fax 215.789.7554
fortescuej@whiteandwilliams.com | whiteandwilliams.com
September 17, 2021
Via E-Mail
Peter Luneau, Esq. David M. Lederkramer, Esq. Joseph L. Seiler, HI

Rebekah Mott, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE &
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE Eleven Times Square REATH LLP
41st
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP New York, NY 10036 1177 Avenue of the Americas,
One Manhattan West Floor
New York, New York 10001 New York, NY 10036
RE: Nat'l Hockey League, et al v. TIG Ins. Co., et al.,

Index No. 653421/2020
Dear Peter, David and Joseph:
We write concerning certain deficiencies in Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
Proskauer Rose LLP and Faegre, Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP's (collectively the "Subpoenaed
Parties") responses and objections to the Subpoena Duces Tecum served by the Defendant
Insurersl
in the above action.
Parties'
With one limited exception (discussed in footnote 2 below), the Subpoenaed responses
and objections indicate that the Subpoenaed Parties are refusing to search for and/or produce any
subpoenas.2
documents responsive to the individual requests for documents set out in the
Indeed, except for referring the Defendant Insurers to the NHL's production of defense cost
invoices for the Concussion Litigation, the Subpoenaed Parties object across the board to the
document requests largely on the basis that such requests either: (1) seek privileged information;
(2) are overly broad; or (3) seek material that is proprietary to each of the Subpoenaed Parties.
None of these objections, however, is a basis on which to refuse to search for or produce any
responsive documents.
I
TIG Insurance Company f/k/a Transamerica Insurance Company, Federal Insurance Company, Chubb Insurance
Company of Canada, National Union Fire Insmance Company of Pittsbugh, PA, Vigilant Insmance Company,
American Home Assurance Company, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, as successor to Commercial Union
Assurance Co., Ltd., and Zurich Insurance Company, Ltd.
2 We note that Skadden and Proskauer did agree to produce subject to certain in response to
documents, limitations,
requests 14 and 15. Please advise as to: (1) whether any responsive documents were located; and, if documents
were located, (2) when they will be produced.
Delaware | Massachusetts | New Jersey | New York | Pennsylvania

27576742v.1
September 17, 2021

Page 2
A. The Defendant Insurers Do Not Seek Privileged Documents or Information
New York's attorney-client privilege, as codified under New York Consolidated Laws Service
Civil Practice Law and Rules (NY CLS CPLR) §4503(a), protects against disclosure of a
confidential communication made between the attorney and the client in the course of
professional employment. In order to make a valid claim of privilege, however, "it must be
shown that the information sought to be protected from disclosure was a confidential
services."
communication made to the attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or 14
LLC v. J & R 240 LLC, 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2031 (N.Y. April 18, 2021) citing Priest v
Hennessy, 409 N.E.2d 983 (N.Y. App. 1980.) Moreover, and importantly, in order to be
character."
privileged "[t]he communication itself must be primarily or predominantly of a legal
14 LLC, 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2031 citing Spectrum Systems Inel Corp. v Chemical Bank,
581 N.E.2d 1055 (N.Y. App. 1991.)
Subject to a reservation of rights with respect to whether the NHL, or any insured, may properly
withhold materials prepared by defense counsel from insurers who participated in funding its
defense (i.e., paid for the creation of those vary materials) on the basis of attorney-client
privilege, we note that in regard to these particular subpoenas, the Defendant Insurers do not
character."
seek any communications that are "primarily or predominantly of a legal Rather, the
Defendant Insurers seek documents and information that relate to the legal fees and expenses
billed to the NHL (e.g., retainer agreements, discussion of the hourly rate(s) to be charged to the
NHL, billing guidelines etc.). (See e.g., requests 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10.) Simply put, the types of
documents sought these requests - documents to the fees charged to the not the
by relating NHL;
substance of legal advice provided - are not privileged. See Matter
any e.g., of Priest v
Hennessy, 409 N.E.2d at 986-87 (N.Y. App. 1980)("The fee arrangements between attorney and
client do not ordinarily constitute a confidential communication and, thus, are not privileged in
the usual case. A communication concerning the fee to be paid has no direct relevance to the
legal advice to be given. It is a collateral matter which, unlike communications which relate to
the subject matter of the attorney's professional employment, is not privileged"); Vingelli v.
United States, 992 F.2d 449, 452 (2d Cir. 1993)("in the absence of special circumstances client
identity and fee arrangements do not fall within the attorney-client privilege because they are not
the kinds of disclosures that would not have been made absent the privilege and their disclosure
does not incapacitate the attorney from rendering legal advice.")
B. The Defendant Insurers Are Willing to Discuss Ways in Which to Narrow the Scope
of the Subpoenas
The Subpoenaed Parties object to several of the requests on the basis that such requests are "over
broad."
While not conceding that such objections are proper or that any requests are over broad,
the Defendant Insurers are willing to discuss ways in which to narrow the scope of the
subpoenas. This could include agreeing to limit the custodians to be searched as well as agreeing
to using agreed upon search terms.
27576742v.1
September 17, 2021

Page 3
C. The Defendant Insurers are Willing to Discuss Ways to Protect any Proprietary
Information
The Subpoenaed Parties also object to the production of certain documents on the basis that such
documents seek proprietary information. (See e.g., Request 7.) The Defendant Insurers would
like to further discuss this objection as it is difficult to understand how all responsive documents
to any given request would be proprietary. Moreover, even if some documents are/contain
proprietary information, there are other ways to protect the interests of the Subpoenaed Parties
without precluding the Defendant Insurers from receiving discovery into these highly relevant
materials (e.g., redacting certain portions of documents and/or negotiating a confidentiality
agreement order that govems the use of any documents deemed proprietary).
Parties'
We would like to set up a meet and confer to further discuss the Subpoenaed responses
and objections to the subpoenas. Please let us know when you are available to discuss.
Very truly yours,
Justin K. Fortescue
NF:sf
cc: Charles Scibetta, Esq.

Andrew L. Poplinger, Esq.
Ted Debonis, Esq.
Mark Hamilton, Esq.
Heather Simpson, Esq.
Thomas Maeglin, Esq.
Glenn Jacobson, Esq.
27576742v.1
EXHIBIT 42
1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NEW YORK - CIVIL TERM - PART 60
2 ------------------------------------------------X
3 NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, NHL BOARD OF Index No.
GOVERNORS, AND NHL ENTERPRISES, INC. , 653421/20

4
Plaintiffs,
5
-against-
7 TIG INSURANCE COMPANY F/K/A TRANSAMERICA

INSURANCE COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
8 CHUBB INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, NATIONAL
UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH PA,
9 VIGILANT INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN HOME
ASSURANCE COMPANY, AVIVA INSURANCE COMPANY OF
10 CANADA, as successor to, COMMERCIAL UNION
ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., AND ZURICH INSURANCE
11 COMPANY, LTD.,
12
Defendants .
13
14 60 Centre Street
PROCEEDINGS New York, New York
15 (virtual) August 10, 2021
16
B E F O R E:
17
HONORABLE MELISSA A. CRANE,
18
JUSTICE
19
20 A P P E A R A N C E S:
21
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
22 ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
One Manhattan West
23 New York, New York 10001
BY: LAWRENCE S. SPIEGEL, ESQ.
24
25
LISA DE CRESCENZO - OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

1 A P P E A R A N C E S:
4 PROSKAUER ROSE
ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF
5 Eleven Times Square
6 BY: MARC ROSENTHAL, ESQ.
8 LINDSAY CRAFFETZ, LLP

ATTORNEYS FOR THE DEFENDANT AIG
9 1700 Broadway
10 BY: ANDREW POPLINGER, ESQ.
11
12 WHITE & WILLIAMS

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CHUBB
13 7 Times Square
14 BY: MICHAEL KASSAK, ESQ.
BY: ROBERT WRIGHT, ESQ.
15
16
COUGHLIN DUFFY, LLP
17 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ZURICH
350 Mount Kemble Avenue
18 Morristown, New Jersey 07962
BY: STEVEN CANTARUTTI, ESQ.
19
20
21
22
23
24 LISA M. DE CRESCENZO,
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
25

Proceedings
1 THE COURT: I don't know if anyone has a preference
2 but I thought we'd do the motion first and then we could do
3 the discovery conference.
4 So, who is arguing for the movant?
5 MR. POPLINGER: Andrew Poplinger from Lindsey
6 Chaffetz, your Honor, for the AIG insurers.
7 Thank you, your Honor. May it please the Court.
8 As an initial matter, I think it's important to ensure your
9 Honor that we do not make this motion lightly. We certainly
10 don't relish seeking to disqualify another member of the bar
11 but this is a unique situation that presents an important
12 issue to our clients and they're legitimately concerned
13 about the fairness and integrity of this proceeding.
14 For this reason, we raised this issue shortly
15 before we answered in this case, before there was any
16 meaningful discovery in motion practice, and before there
17 was a conference with the Court.
18 THE COURT: Can you tell me what your problem is?
19 Why do you think there's a conflict? Because I don't see
20 it. I'll tell you that. So, just straight out tell me what
21 you think involves a conflict here.
22 MR. POPLINGER: The key issue in this case is,
23 essentially, the billing practices of the law firms.
24 They've billed over $90 million dollars and they're seeking
25 to recover from the insurers and the insurers believe their

Proceedings
1 billings were unreasonable and unnecessary and the NHL is
2 seeking to recover the fees from the insurers.
3 THE COURT: -- interests are

So, completely
4 completely aligned and there is no conflict.
5 MR. POPLINGER: Unless the Court finds the fees are
6 unnecessary, in which case the NHL would have a claim
7 against them for reimbursement of those fees.
8 THE COURT: Maybe but that's an extreme scenario
9 that hasn't happened yet. So, I don't see why I should be
10 disqualifying counsel, who was involved in the underlying
11 case and who you're just going to add more fees if we switch
12 it up now. So, that doesn't make any sense.
13 The interests are aligned. You'd be adding to the
14 already exorbitant fees. The one problem I did have, which
15 I don't think is your problem, because the underlying case
16 is over, that somehow having the same counsel on the
17 underlying case as the main case would encourage the counsel
18 on the underlying case to manipulate the underlying case to
19 bring it within coverage and that's certainly a concern but,
20 you know -- when a case is -- but it's over. Isn't

ongoing
21 it?
22 MR. POPLINGER: Your Honor, sorry. The case is not
23 over. The concussion litigations are ongoing. They're
24 continuing to incur fees. At the time this case started,
25 there fees were --

Proceedings
1 THE COURT: Are you making an argument?
2 MR. POPLINGER: Your Honor, yeah, I think that's
3 part of the conflict that these --
4 THE COURT: Where did you make that argument?
5 MR. POPLINGER: It's a part of the same conflict
6 that's related to the interest that they have in the subject
7 matter of this dispute.
8 THE COURT: Okay.
9 MR. POPLINGER: I we --
mean,
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 MR. POPLINGER: Also, your Honor, I think the firm's
12 interest in protecting their own conduct prevents them from
13 providing objective advice to their insurers, prevents any
14 potential for settlement because they can't acknowledge
15 there's any problems with their own bills.
16 When discovery issues come up, they might be
17 clouded from their judgment advising NHL to their discovery
18 obligations because they will be concerned about
19 problematic-- sorry. in the for

If, advising NHL, example,
firms'
20 on their discovery obligations, these judgment might
21 be clouded because they might be concerned about disclosures
22 that are problematic for them and reflect poorly on them,
23 even if independent counsel might advise NHL that they have
24 to make those disclosures.
25 I think the principal, your Honor, is they just

Proceedings
1 can't provide objective advice concerning many matters in
2 this litigation at every stage because they're concerned
3 about their own interests as well as their clients and that
4 creates a conflict.
5 THE COURT: All right. Can I hear from the lawyers
6 from the NHL, defending the NHL?
7 MR. SPIEGEL: Lawrence Spiegel, Skadden Arps on
8 behalf of the NHL.
9 If it would please the Court, first, as a factual
10 clarification, the concussion litigations on behalf of the
11 NHL have been settled. Your Honor is correct. There's some
12 di minimus administrative costs that continue. The total
13 value of the settlement was under $20 million capped,
14 including plaintiff's fees, and the insurers received a full
15 release.
16 The value that the law firms provided is well
17 recognized by the client and also when you compare it to the
18 NFL settlement, which is well over a billion dollars, I
19 think the value for the services speaks for itself.
20 There is no prejudice, as Your Honor recognizes, in
21 this circumstance. Our interests would be NHL is fully
22 aligned and it's in a context where sophisticated inhouse
23 counsel for the NHL worked hand in glove with counsel along
24 the way, and NHL has also been advised by independent
25 counsel who reviewed the motion papers and allegations that

Proceedings
1 were made --
by
2 THE COURT: The people or the lawyers at your firm
3 who are involved in the underlying lawsuit are different
4 than the coverage people -- than the people on the coverage
5 case, right?
6 MR. SPIEGEL: Correct, your Honor. This is not a
7 3.7(a) case which is a case where, as you know, you've got
8 an identity of the same lawyer is the lawyer in the
9 underlying matter and is the lawyer who could be the witness
10 before the Court.
11 Mr. Luneau, to my left, who's lead counsel, along
12 with other counsel of record in the insurance coverage
13 dispute, are a distinction from and were not lawyers in the
14 underlying concussion litigation. They're not lawyers who
15 could testify about the value or other information about the
16 bills nor have movants suggested they are or should and so
17 this is 3.7.
18 To the extent it's analyzed, it's analyzed under
19 3.7(b) or what the movants are trying to do after,
20 notwithstanding their induction of moving promptly, the
21 insurance coverage litigation has gone on since 2014. The
22 underlying litigation in terms of the concussion litigation
23 goes back to 2013. There are no new facts that bring this
24 on, your Honor, other than one of two things, either the
25 fact that the carriers are getting closer to a day of

Proceedings
1 judgment, and there's going to be a finding on their
2 responsibilities to their insurers, and so they're finding
3 an effort to delay, or, what is also possible is, there's
4 new counsel that has been brought in because the counsel who
5 dates back to 2014 has retired. Either way, there's nothing
6 new.
7 The allegations that have been made, putting aside
8 they're without merit, have been made going back to 2017.
9 So, there's nothing about this case that makes this ripe and
10 your Honor's perceptions about delay and costs and the irony
11 of carriers who are somehow trumpeting efficiencies putting
12 all these lawyers through the process of briefing, a six
13 year, seven year stale disqualification motion without
14 shows what this is about and the concern-- and

merit, really
15 what this is about is the concern underlying 3.7(b) that it
16 began being used for gamesmanship and the notion that
17 because there are lawyers who say their fees were
18 appropriate, that somehow can be imputed to an entire law
19 firm.
20 What you'd see if this is the case or what they're
21 urging this Court to do is accept it. The practices, which
22 we know it, which are routine, which lawyers will routinely
23 defend their fees and the like, so much so that in 3.7(a),
24 which does have an acute concern, because it is the same
25 lawyer who is the witness and the advocate, that is an

Proceedings
1 express exception under 3.7(a) that it allows a lawyer to
2 talk about the nature and extent and scope of legal
3 services.
4 So, there's no basis for any of what is alleged
5 here and it's in a context where they bear the burden and
6 the best they've come up with is speculation that somehow if
7 something is showed to be incorrect with a bill that that
8 would put some wedge with our client.
9 Your Honor, there's no basis for this and it's
10 really a borderline frivolous motion.
11 THE COURT: Do you want to respond?
12 MR. KASSAK: May I? This is Mike Kassak on behalf
13 of Chubb. I also was a moving party. May I add to the
14 argument?
15 THE COURT: Sorry. Of course. I couldn't see you
16 on the screen.
17 MR. KASSAK: That's okay. There's plenty of people
18 there. Both 1.7(a) (2) which is the conflict rule, which is
19 incorporated in the witness's advocate rule, talks about the
20 fact that if there is a significant risk that the
21 professional judgment of the lawyers will be adversely
22 affected by their financial business or other personal
23 interests that there's a conflict and, therefore, their firm
24 cannot remain in the case under 3.7 and 1.7.
25 There's no question that given the many opinions in

10
Proceedings
1 which Skadden's billing practices and Proskauer's for the
2 exact same types of things occurring here which is
3 overstaffing, inability, inefficiency, blocked billing, that
4 these things had been criticized, the Skadden and Proskauer
5 lawyers have a direct financial interest in not having their
6 practices criticized.
7 It's in the cases. In the brief we talk about the
8 fact when you have the financial interest, you no longer can
9 provide objective advice and the integrity of the entire
10 tribunal is compromised because you're viewing the
11 litigation through the lens of what's good for you and your
12 firm and lose sight of what may or may not be good for your
13 client; and, to the extent that somebody who is more removed
14 could say, you know what, we should be done with this
15 litigation, there was some overbilling, we need to move on.
16 Skadden and Proskauer, respectfully, are not in a
17 position to give that advice because it's their very conduct
18 which is at issue, their very conduct which may be subject
19 to opinions criticizing them which could have a financial
20 impact, not only on this case, because they may have to give
21 money back, or other cases where clients say you have
22 billing practices that have been criticized, and it's that
23 type of tension that makes this conflict significant.
24 The only other thing I wanted to add is to the
25 delay in raising the issue. Your Honor, nothing happened

11
Proceedings
1 for all those years --
2 THE COURT: I don't care about the delay.
3 MR. KASSAK: Okay.
4 THE COURT: I care about the facts. Sorry for the
5 feedback. I don't know why this is happening.
6 Wouldn't there, under your analysis, wouldn't there
7 be a conflict any time an outside party, not an
8 attorney/client fee dispute, but any time anyone is accusing
9 a law firm of overbilling? Which doesn't -- I it just

mean,
10 seems like that is the natural consequence of your argument.
11 MR. KASSAK: I'm not sure I'm following. Here, that
12 is the central issue or, certainly, one of the central
13 issues in the case whether the defense fees were fair and
14 reasonable.
15 In a typical case, that's not an issue in the
16 underlying litigation. It can be later. If it's a fee
17 shifting case, you may have a hearing and talk about those
18 issues, but you've already won the case at that point and
19 it's a completely different type of situation.
20 THE COURT: Sorry. I missed that. Say it again,
21 your last remark.
22 MR. KASSAK: It was somebody other than me I thought
23 was trying to speak. I didn't say anything else.
24 THE COURT: Anyone else?
25 MR. POPLINGER: If I can add, going to the 3.7(a).

12
Proceedings
1 First of all, the exception that counsel cited relates only
2 to the exact situation that Mr. Kassak is talking about
3 which is where the lawyer is testifying to the value of its
4 services in the matter after the case has been over and
5 liability has been decided and the court, who's witnessed
6 the entire trial, is determining whether or not to award
7 fees in that case and the fact that express exception
8 applies in that case suggests when the issue is
9 reasonableness of fees in other cases, there is a problem
10 under rule 3.7.
11 If I can add one more thing about 3.7(a).
12 Respectfully, your Honor, I think their interpretation of
13 3.7(a) is just too narrow. Yes, I understand that on the
14 face of it, it applies to the situation where you'd have,
15 say, a transactional lawyer testifying as to a discrete fact
16 and a litigation lawyer in the same firm is serving as
17 counsel and in that case the jury can clearly make the
18 distinction between the two, but there you're talking about
19 services rendered by hundreds of timekeepers at these firms
20 for tens of millions of dollars, and the question is the
21 value of these firm's services at litigation and in this
22 case, while they might have some lawyers who are testifying
23 as to those services, their litigation lawyers are serving
24 as counsel in front of the jury, and the jury will be
25 observing them in action at trial, and they are going to be

13
Proceedings
1 taking cues from that conduct as well as the sworn
2 testimony, and the impressions the jury forms from
3 witnesses, suggests the Skadden and Proskauer lawyers
4 conduct at trial will not be subject to rigorous cross
5 examination and the insurers will have no input into the
6 extra evidentiary impressions.
7 THE COURT: How is it a jury trial?
8 MR. POPLINGER: I believe it's a jury trial. We
9 intend to seek a jury at the time of the note of issue.
10 THE COURT: Anyone else want to weigh in on why
11 this would be a jury trial?
12 MR. SPIEGEL: Is it right for me to respond on
13 behalf of the NHL? Would that be helpful?
14 THE COURT: That's fine.
15 MR. SPIEGEL: I'd just point out, your Honor's view
16 that any time an outside party accuses a law firm of
17 overbilling, you asked would you have this issue or wouldn't
18 you have this issue? Of course you and that's not--

would,
19 the precedent doesn't support a conflict recognized in those
20 circumstances that would be disabling to the individual
21 lawyer in most instances but, certainly, not to what we're
22 dealing with here in imputation of the firm.
23 It's in a context where the carriers, the movants
24 here have the burden. I note that two of the carriers
25 haven't even joined in this motion, presumably concluding

14
Proceedings
1 there isn't merit to it, and, perhaps, even wanting to
2 resolve the case.
3 What you heard argued on behalf of Chubb was the
4 notion that, you know, Skadden has a self interest and,
5 therefore, Skadden wouldn't want its conduct somehow
6 explored. Let's look at what Skadden has done, your Honor.
7 If that's the case, Skadden would have settled this matter.
8 Instead, Skadden is the one who has stood up to the carriers
9 and their insufficient and inadequate offers and is prepared
10 to take this case forward.
11 The carriers are saying, in words or substance, we
12 want extensive delay because we want new counsel brought in
13 after six or seven years of Skadden representation.
14 Skadden stands side by side with the NHL and looks
15 to continue to do so. Moreover, I would point out, your
16 Honor, when you look at the cases, the Court of Appeals in
17 New York looked at this type of situation and it begins with
18 the analysis under 3.7 but then it recognizes that because
19 of the potential for opportunistic abuse, the gamesmanship
20 that you see here, that it then looks to see whether there's
21 going to be any meaningful impact on the proceedings, and it
22 pulls the lens back and what does it look to?
23 It looks to the sort of thing here that strongly
parties'
24 compels a finding to deny it. It would look to
25 counsel of choice. Here the NHL has selected Skadden, has

15
Proceedings
1 worked with Skadden since 2013. It looks to judicial
2 efficiency of both the need to start a process over. It
3 looks to the multiple costs that would be endured. It looks
4 to the opportunistic factors that take place, the delay, and
5 the like, and looks to the hardship to our client who would
6 lose its counsel after a very long period of time.
7 All of that goes back to what your Honor recognized
8 at the beginning, that this doesn't appear to be certainly
9 not as presented and certainly not in terms of the law any
10 merit to such a motion in a circumstance like this.
11 THE COURT:

NHL Motion To Compel Insurance Companies To Turn Over Documents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NHL Motion To Compel Insurance Companies To Turn Over Documents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/08/2022 06:13 PM INDEX NO.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, NHL BOARD :

OF GOVERNORS and NHL ENTERPRISES, INC., :

and ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., .

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER

Marc E. Rosenthal, admitted pro hac vice

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iv

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1

A. Former NHL Players and Their Estates Commence the Concussion

B. Chubb and AIG Each Accepts Its Duty To Defend.................................................7

C. TIG Files the Declaratory Judgment Action............................................................8

D. The NHL Successfully Defends the Concussion Litigation....................................9

E. Chubb and AIG Purport To Have Conducted Extensive Analyses of the

G. The Insurers Serve Deficient Privilege Logs.........................................................12

H. Non-Parties Hinshaw and Stuart Maue Refuse To Comply With

I. THE INSURERS, HINSHAW AND STUART MAUE MUST PRODUCE THE

B. The Claims Handling Documents Are Not Privileged or Protected Under

Handling of Other Similar Claims and Other Attorney Rate Related

II. CHUBB AND AVIVA'S INTERROGATORY RESPONSES ARE DEFICIENT..........25

IH. THE INSURERS MUST PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THEIR

IV. AVIVA AND ZURICH MUST PRODUCE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO

A. The Insurers Have Withheld Claims Handling Documents on Privilege

D. The Insurers Have Withheld Documents For Which They Identify No

E. The Insurers Must Produce the Withheld Documents...........................................36

Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publishing Co.,

Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,

American Precision Industries, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co.,

Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. American Home Assurance Co.,

Brown v. State Farm Insurance Co.,

Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.,

Burt Rigid Box, Inc. v. Travelers Property Casualty Corp.,

Diamond State Insurance Co. v. Utica First Insurance Co.,

Evanston Insurance Co. v. Oea, Inc.,

Friend v. SDTC-Center for Discovery, Inc.,

Glew v. Cigna Group Insurance Co.,

Henderson-Jones v. City of New York,

In re Application of Aenergy, S.A.,

Mariner's Cove Site B Associates v. Travelers Indemnity Co.,

Melworm v. Encompass Indemnity Co.,

Millen Industries, Inc. v American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.,

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Coinstar, Inc.,

O ‰alloran v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority,

Rosario v. North General Hospital,

SEC v. Yorkville Advisors, LLC,

Stonewall Insurance Co. v. National Gypsum Co.,

Twenty Four Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Hunter Ambulance Inc.,

U.S. Bank National Association v. Triaxx Asset Management,

Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance Co.,

CPLR 3101(d)........................................................................................................................ passim

6 Couch on Ins. § 84:7...................................................................................................................28

and (b) Stuart Maue Ltd. ("Stuart Maue").

1. Claims Documents. The Insurers - and Chubb and AIG's

Hinshaw and Stuart Maue - have withheld all documents to the

reflecting the analyses performed by Hinshaw and Stuart Maue.

grounds for altogether denying coverage.

Handling Documents to decide whether to deny the claim.

2. Substantive Responses to Interrogatories. Chubb and Aviva have failed to provide

4. Documents the Existence and Terms The Insurers -

document retention practices and the searches they conducted.

(and all documents omitted without explanation from their logs).

motion to compel disclosure by the Insurers, Hinshaw and Stuart Maue.