Relevant Factual and Procedural Background On September 25, 2018, Class Counsel informed the Court that it had “received a number of calls from various third-parties seeking guidance regarding the appropriate language to use in solicitations and marketing materials.” Dkt. No. 7259.

Class Counsel described uploading the November 10, 2023 Order and a cover letter to the “Upload Statement” page that appears as a link after booking an appointment online with the settlement2023.org website.

Second, this Court respectfully recommends that the District Judge order the Settlement2023.org Entity to provide written notice to all class members that signed up for services with settlement2023.org that any contract entered into is now void.

And fourth, this Court respectfully recommends that the District Judge order the Settlement2023.org Entity to identify by name the owners or operators of the settlement2023.org website and provide contact information for the same.

This Court notes that Class Counsel has not requested a referral to the United States Case 1:05-md-01720-MKB-JAM Document 9009 Filed 11/28/23 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 524237 Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York for a civil or criminal investigation regarding the underlying alleged deceptive practices of the Settlement2023.org Entity on the Hostinger.com platform.

No. 2:12-md-02323-AB MDL No. 2323 Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,

National Football League and NFL Properties, LLC, successor-in-interest to NFL Properties, Inc., Defendants.

AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 2023, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge (ECF No. 12160 _______), and any objections thereto, it is ORDERED that:

The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; The Withdrawal of the Lien Dispute is REJECTED; and The matter is REMANDED to the Claims Administrator for further proceedings consistent with the Rules Governing Attorney Lien Disputes.

On November 7, 2023, class counsel for the Rule 23(b)(3) Class (“Class Counsel”) filed a letter-motion seeking an Order to Show Cause regarding a website, settlement2023.org, that allegedly attempts to mirror the official Court-authorized website related to this matter.

Class Counsel seeks an Order to Show Cause as to why the entity or entities operating the website settlement2023.org (“the Settlement2023.org Entity”) should “not immediately cease and desist their conduct, cancel all contracts they have with any potential claimant, and take further steps to correct their actions as detailed in the attached proposed order.” Dkt. No. 8996.

Despite the efforts described in its letter-motion and its November 3, 2023 status report, Class Counsel has not been able to identify the Settlement2023.org Entity.

The Settlement2023.org Entity shall show cause on or before November 27, 2023 as to why Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Marutollo should not issue a Report and Recommendation to United States District Judge Margo K. Brodie ordering the Settlement2023.org Entity to: (a) provide a list of all class members that signed up for services with settlement2023.org; (b) provide written notice to all class members that signed up for services with settlement2023.org that any contract entered into is now void; (c) immediately take down the website settlement2023.org and all associated pages that mirror the Court’s approved settlement website; and (d) identify by name the owners or operators of the settlement2023.org website and provide contact information of the same; and

In that proof of service, Class Counsel shall describe the steps taken to inform the Settlement2023.org Entity of this Order.

As wepreparefortrial, Defendants face the practical problem that the overwhelming majority of Plaintiff's proposed witnesses are individuals who are or were affiliated with Davis Polk; the uncertainty regarding how many of Plaintiffs irrelevant, duplicative, and/or improper witnesses will testify at trial leaves Defendants with no choice but to begin notifying them, addressing their scheduling issues, and dedicating resources to theirtrial preparation, and soon.

The Court has “discretion to impose reasonable timelimits on the presentation of evidence at trial” and “to manage[its] docket[].” Wantanabe Realty Corp. v. City ofNew York, 2004 WL 2112566, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2004).

2 Plaintiff claims that his witness list is a reflection of Defendants’ position “that all exhibits must have a proper foundation and be admitted by the author of the document.” See JPTO at 32.

Therefore, Defendants respectfully request that the Court schedule an additional pretrial conference at the Court’s earliest convenience to address the parties’ witnesslists, the time allotted for trial, and the admissibility of performance reviews.

The Court grants Defendants' request to hold a pretrial conference to discuss the parties' witness lists and related matters.

AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 2023, I ORDER as such, until calendar year of 2039, no ownership change will be made to protect the best interest of this said CONDITION PRECEDENT, any ownership change in the NFL before the date Ordered will be voided according to this Order.

I, Alain Kashama, declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing and that it is true and correct to the best of my information and beliefs.

None are persuasive.

Defendants request that the Court dispose of Plaintiff’s Motion forthwith by striking it or holding a hearing and that it stay Defendants’ September 28, 2023 opposition deadline in the meantime.

That same day, Plaintiff responded in his own letter, arguing that Defendants must instead make their arguments in their opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion.

The Court invites Defendant to submit a letter September 25, 2023 detailing the factual and legal support for its contention that Plaintiff’s Motion is untimely.

The parties are directed to contact Judge Woods’ Courtroom Deputy, Wileen Joseph, for instructions on how to download electronic copies of their exhibits for the Court’s use.

Plaintiff is directed to the Court’s Individual Rule 1(E), which requires requests for extensions of time to be made at least two business days prior to the original due date.