Contract analysis

I. Introduction and Purpose This memorandum outlines the comprehensive discovery strategy for the above-captioned matter following the court's denial of defendants' anti-SLAPP motion on June 7, 2024. The Honorable Patricia Yamamoto issued a minute order that day denying the special motion to strike in its entirety, finding that our client, Redstone Gaming Corp. ("RGC" or the "Company"), demonstrated a probability of

II. Overview of Key Factual Issues to Be Developed The discovery plan is organized around four primary factual areas that correspond to the elements of our claims: (A) the falsity of the GPR reports; (B) actual malice and reckless disregard for the truth; (C) damages; and (D) GPR's financial profile and ability to satisfy a judgment. Each of these areas is discussed below, along with the specific factual issues that

III. Written discovery We plan to serve initial sets of written discovery on all three defendants — GPR, GPCP, and Tobias Fenchurch — no later than June 15, 2024. The written discovery is organized into three categories: interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions. The key requests within each category are described below. A. Interrogatories (to GPR, GPCP, and Fenchurch) We will

1. Identification of all persons involved in researching, drafting, editing, fact-checking, and approving each of the three GPR reports, including the specific role played by each person.

2. The complete factual basis for each specific allegation in each report, including (a) the revenue-fabrication allegation in Report 1, (b) the RNG-manipulation allegation in Report 2, and (c) the Vermilion Holdings related-party allegation in Report 3.

3. Identification of all sources — whether documentary, testimonial, or otherwise — relied upon in preparing each report, including the identity of any anonymous sources referenced in the reports.

4. Identification of all communications with third parties concerning RGC, RDGM, or any of the reports' subject matter prior to publication, including any communications with journalists, analysts, regulators, or short-selling colleagues.

5. A detailed chronology of the establishment and management of the short position in RDGM, including the date on which shares were first borrowed, the dates of all subsequent short sales, the dates and prices of all cover purchases, and the identity of the prime broker(s) and executing broker(s) involved.

6. Identification of all bank accounts, brokerage accounts, and other financial accounts through which RDGM securities (including shares, options, swaps, and other derivatives) were traded by GPR, GPCP, Fenchurch, or any related entity or person.

7. A description of all fact-checking, verification, or quality-assurance steps taken before publication of each report, including whether GPR contacted RGC, Pinnacle Audit & Advisory LLP, the Nevada Gaming Control Board, or any other relevant party for comment or confirmation.

8. A complete description of the financial relationship between GPR and GPCP, including all revenue-sharing arrangements, management-fee structures, performance allocations, carried interest, and any other financial flows between the two entities.

9. Identification and description of the role of every GPR employee, contractor, or consultant who worked on the RDGM research at any time, including job title, dates of involvement, and specific tasks performed.

10. Identification and quantification of all revenue generated by GPR or any affiliated entity from the RDGM reports, including subscription revenue, trading profits, performance fees, and any other economic benefit derived from the publication of the reports or the resulting decline in RDGM's stock price. Additional interrogatories will address topics such as GPR's publication and editorial policies, its history of

1. All drafts of each of the three GPR reports, including all interim versions, tracked-changes documents, and editorial comments, together with all associated metadata reflecting creation dates, modification dates, and authorship information.

2. All internal communications — including emails, Meridian Solutions messages, text messages, Signal messages, chat logs, and any other electronic or written communications — relating in any way to RGC, RDGM, or any of the allegations contained in the three reports, from January 1, 2023 through the present. This request encompasses communications among GPR and GPCP personnel as well as communications with any third

3. All documents reflecting or relating to GPR's research methodology for the RDGM reports, including research plans, source lists, interview notes, data analyses, financial models, and any written or electronic records of the investigative process.

4. All brokerage statements, trade confirmations, account statements, and other account records for any trading in RDGM securities — including common stock, put options, call options, total return swaps, contracts for difference, and any other derivative instruments — from January 1, 2023 through the present, for all accounts held by or on behalf of GPR, GPCP, Fenchurch, or any related entity or person.

5. All documents relating to GPR's and GPCP's revenue, expenses, financial condition, and financial performance, including income statements, balance sheets, bank statements, tax returns, and financial projections, for the fiscal years 2022 through the present.

6. All documents relating to the directors and officers / media-liability insurance policy issued by Ironclad Surety & Insurance Co. under Policy No. ML-2023-07714, including the policy itself, all endorsements, amendments, and riders, all applications and underwriting materials, all premium payment records, and all correspondence between GPR and Ironclad Surety relating to any claims or potential claims arising from

7. All communications with any regulatory body — including the SEC, the Nevada Gaming Control Board, any state gaming commission, and any financial industry self-regulatory organization — concerning RGC, RDGM, or any of the subjects addressed in the three reports.

8. All documents relating to Vermilion Holdings LLC, including formation documents, operating agreements, ownership records, financial statements, and any communications referencing Vermilion Holdings.

9. All social media analytics, platform data, and engagement metrics for the @GrizzlyPeakRes account, including impression counts, engagement rates, share/repost data, click-through rates, and follower counts, for the period from January 1, 2024 through March 31, 2024. The @GrizzlyPeakRes account had approximately 142,000 followers at the time of publication and was a primary vector for disseminating the reports' all

10. All subscriber lists, distribution records, email lists, and mailing records for grizzlypeakresearch.com relating to the dissemination of the RDGM reports, including records of all downloads of or access to each of the three reports.

11. Personnel files for Tobias Fenchurch and Ava Lin, including compensation records, bonus structures, incentive arrangements, and any performance metrics or evaluation criteria tied to trading profits, report impact, or stock-price movement. We anticipate that the scope of these requests will generate significant pushback from CTB, and we are prepared to meet and confer on reasonable narrowing where appropriate whi

1. Admit that Pinnacle Audit & Advisory LLP issued clean, unqualified audit opinions for RGC's financial statements for fiscal years 2021, 2022, and 2023.

2. Admit that the Nevada Gaming Control Board completed an independent audit of RGC's random number generator systems on March 29, 2024, and cleared RGC of any violations.

3. Admit that GPR, GPCP, or an affiliated entity held a short position of approximately 680,000 shares of RDGM common stock at the time of publication of Report 1 on February 7, 2024.

4. Admit that GPR, GPCP, or an affiliated entity closed its short position in RDGM by mid-March 2024.

5. Admit that neither GPR nor any person acting on its behalf contacted the Nevada Gaming Control Board prior to publishing Report 2 on February 14, 2024.

6. Admit that neither GPR nor any person acting on its behalf contacted Pinnacle Audit & Advisory LLP prior to publishing Report 1 on February 7, 2024.

7. Admit that neither GPR nor any person acting on its behalf contacted RGC or any of its officers, directors, or authorized representatives for comment prior to publishing any of the three reports.

8. Admit that GPR, GPCP, or an affiliated entity earned revenue and/or trading profits in connection with the publication of the RDGM reports.

9. Admit that specific enumerated statements in each report are false. (We will identify and enumerate the key false statements in the formal requests, drawn from each of the three reports, including the claim that RGC fabricated approximately $410 million in FY 2023 revenue, the claim that RGC manipulated its RNG software, and the claim that CEO Marcus J. Calloway had undisclosed dealings with Vermilion Holdings LLC

IV. Deposition Plan A. Overview We plan to take a total of 14 depositions during the discovery phase of this litigation. The depositions will be conducted during the period from July through September 2024, with the objective of completing all fact depositions — or at least all priority depositions — before the expert report exchange deadline of September 9, 2024. This sequencing is critical because Dr. Vostrikova's

1. Tobias "Toby" Fenchurch — Managing Member of Grizzly Peak Research LLC, sole managing member of Grizzly Peak Capital GP LLC, and individual defendant. Fenchurch is the central figure in this case. He is the driving force behind GPR's research operations and the person with ultimate decision-making authority over the publication of the three reports. He is also the sole managing member of the general partner of GPC

2. Ava Lin — Senior Analyst, Grizzly Peak Research LLC; co-author of all three reports. Lin is the only other individual identified as an author of the three reports. Her testimony is critical to establishing what research was actually conducted, what sources were relied upon, what verification steps were taken (or not taken), and whether she harbored any doubts or reservations about the accuracy of the reports' clai

3. GPR Person Most Qualified ("PMQ") — Deposition notice pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230. This deposition will be noticed to GPR with a detailed list of topics for which the entity must designate a witness or witnesses prepared to testify on its behalf. The topics will include: • Organizational structure, ownership, and governance of GPR; • The relationship between GPR and GPCP, includ

4. GPCP Person Most Qualified ("PMQ") — Deposition notice pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.230. This deposition will address the fund's structure, operations, and trading activity in RDGM securities. Topics will include: • GPCP's fund structure, including its limited partnership agreement, investment strategy, and investor base; • Trading authority and decision-making regarding the RDGM sho

7. Marcus J. Calloway — Chief Executive Officer of RGC. Calloway will be defendants' primary deposition target, particularly with respect to the Vermilion Holdings allegations in Report 3. We must prepare him thoroughly to testify regarding his relationship (or lack thereof) to Vermilion Holdings LLC, RGC's response to the GPR reports, and the market impact of the publications. Calloway's demeanor and credibility und

8. Priya Ramaswaran — Chief Financial Officer of RGC. Ramaswaran will testify regarding RGC's FY 2023 financial results, revenue-recognition practices, and the rebuttal of GPR's revenue-fabrication allegations. She will also address RGC's interaction with Pinnacle Audit & Advisory during the supplemental forensic audit and the costs incurred in that process.

9. Janelle Hu — Vice President, Investor Relations. Hu is the Company's primary point of contact with the investment community and is well positioned to testify about the stock-price impact of the GPR reports, the volume and nature of investor inquiries received in the wake of the publications, market reaction, and RGC's communications with equity analysts during the crisis period.

10. Derek Olafson — General Counsel of RGC. Olafson will testify regarding the Company's regulatory response, the coordination of the internal investigation, and the implementation of the litigation hold. Care must be taken to protect privileged communications; we will work closely with Olafson to ensure that privilege boundaries are clearly defined and that he is prepared to assert privilege where appropriate during

11. Walter Ng, CPA — Engagement Partner, Pinnacle Audit & Advisory LLP. Ng's testimony will establish the rigor of Pinnacle's audit methodology, the basis for its clean, unqualified opinions on RGC's FY 2021–2023 financial statements, and the findings of the supplemental forensic audit, which confirmed that GPR's allegation of $410 million in fabricated revenue was unfounded. Ng's deposition will be critical to our f

12. Simone Arecchi — Lead Contact, Crestline Equity Partners Group Inc. Arecchi will testify regarding the scope and cost of the crisis-communications engagement ($2.18 million), the public response strategy developed for RGC, and her assessment of the reputational damage caused by the GPR reports. Her testimony will support both our out-of-pocket damages claim and the broader narrative of harm caused by defendants'

13. Daniel Royce — Claims Adjuster, Ironclad Surety & Insurance Co. Royce will testify regarding the scope of coverage under GPR's D&O / media-liability policy (Policy No. ML-2023-07714), the claims history under that policy, and Ironclad's coverage position with respect to the claims in this case. This deposition may be deferred depending on the settlement posture of the case and whether insurance coverage becomes a

14. GPR's Prime Broker / Brokerage Firm Representative — The identity of this witness will be confirmed through document discovery (specifically, through GPR's and GPCP's responses to our interrogatories and document requests regarding brokerage accounts and trading activity). This witness will testify regarding the short-position records, trade execution dates, share-borrowing arrangements, position sizes over time,

V. Third-Party Subpoenas In addition to party discovery, we will issue a series of third-party subpoenas to obtain records that are independently maintained by entities outside the litigation. These subpoenas fall into four categories. A. Brokerage and Trading Records We will issue subpoenas duces tecum to GPR's and GPCP's prime broker(s) and any executing broker-dealers for all records of trading in RDGM securities

VI. E-discovery Management A. E-discovery Vendor Engagement Given the volume and complexity of the electronically stored information ("ESI") that will be produced and reviewed in this case, we recommend engaging a qualified e-discovery vendor to handle collection, processing, hosting, and review of ESI. The anticipated document universe is substantial: defendants' production alone is estimated to encompass tens of th

VII. Anticipated discovery Disputes and Motions A. Expected Areas of Contention Based on our assessment of CTB's likely defense strategy and the nature of the documents and information we are seeking, we anticipate that three significant discovery disputes will arise, each of which may require motion practice. The anticipated disputes are as follows:

1. Motion to Compel Production of Internal GPR Communications (Meridian Solutions / Messaging Platforms) We anticipate that defendants will resist production of informal internal communications conducted through Meridian Solutions, Signal, text messages, and other messaging platforms. CTB is likely to argue that these requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seek information that is not reasonably calculated to

2. Motion to Compel Brokerage / Trading Records from GPCP Defendants may assert that GPCP's trading records are proprietary, constitute trade secrets, and that the short position was adequately disclosed through the standard disclaimers included in the GPR reports. CTB may argue that further inquiry into the trading records is unnecessary because GPR publicly acknowledged holding a short position and that the details

3. Motion re Privilege Disputes We anticipate that defendants will assert attorney-client privilege over certain communications with CTB or with prior counsel. While legitimate privilege claims must be respected, we expect that defendants will attempt to use privilege assertions to shield communications that relate to the substance of the reports rather than to the provision of legal advice. In particular, if GPR sou

VIII. Expert discovery A. Plaintiff's Expert — Dr. Elena Vostrikova We have retained Dr. Elena Vostrikova of Meridian Forensic Economics LLC to serve as RGC's damages expert. The engagement letter was executed on July 1, 2024. Dr. Vostrikova's office is located at 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, California 90067. Dr. Vostrikova's scope of work includes the following: • Event-study analysis: Dr. Vost

IX. Discovery Budget Estimate A. Attorney Time The following estimates reflect the anticipated attorney time commitment for the discovery phase of this litigation, running from June through November 2024. All time will be billed at 85% of standard rates, consistent with the engagement letter. These estimates assume that all 14 depositions proceed as planned, that three discovery motions are filed and briefed, and tha

X. Discovery Schedule and Key Deadlines The following table summarizes the critical action items and target dates for the discovery phase: This schedule is aggressive but achievable, provided that we serve written discovery promptly, maintain pressure on defendants to respond timely and completely, and escalate disputes to the court without delay when meet-and-confer efforts are unsuccessful. The September 9, 2024 ex

XI. Coordination with Co-Counsel and Advisors The discovery effort will require close coordination with several outside advisors and service providers who are involved in the case or who have relevant information. The key coordination points are as follows: Hargrove & Sato LLP (300 South 4th Street, Suite 1800, Las Vegas, NV 89101) — Hargrove & Sato serves as RGC's Nevada gaming regulatory counsel and has handled the

XII. Recommendations and Next Steps Based on the analysis set forth in this memorandum, I recommend the following immediate next steps:

1. Serve initial written discovery no later than June 15, 2024. The initial sets of interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests for admissions should be served on all three defendants — GPR, GPCP, and Tobias Fenchurch — within five days of the date of this memorandum. Draft discovery requests are currently in preparation and will be circulated to the team for review by June 12, 2024.

2. Finalize and issue third-party subpoenas by end of June 2024. Subpoenas duces tecum to GPR's and GPCP's prime broker(s), the social media platform operator, and the web hosting provider for grizzlypeakresearch.com should be issued as soon as practicable after the identity of the prime broker is confirmed through written discovery responses. If the prime broker's identity cannot be confirmed in time, we should issu

3. Engage e-discovery vendor and negotiate ESI protocol with CTB. We should engage a qualified e-discovery vendor this week and transmit a proposed ESI protocol to CTB by June 20, 2024. Early agreement on ESI protocols will facilitate the efficient processing and review of what is expected to be a substantial document production.