peceeeneennnninnennnnnnnnnenennnnnennenennnanemuutnnienennmnennnenncnaeeeneXx It is ordered that the parties’ existing pretrial deadlines are modified as follows:

Plaintiff's reply in further support of its summary judgment motionshall be filed by 11/23/21; Production of all documents not subject to unresolved objections shall be completed by 12/16/21; Commercial Division Rule 14 discovery disputes shall be raised iin compliance with the - Part 60 Practices and Procedures by 1/17/22; Fact depositions shall be completed by 4/4/22; Fact discovery shall be completedby 5/4/22; Expertreports shall befiled by 6/1/22; rebuttal reports shall be filed by 7/13/22; and expert depositions shall be completed by 8/5/22; The Note of Issue shall be filed by 8/10/22; Permitted dispositive motionsshall be filed by 10/28/22; The parties shall appear for a virtual status conference on 12/20/21 at 10 a.m.

Counsel are reminded that they maynotstipulate to adjourn or extend any deadline or appearancethatthe court sets.

If they do not, the issues may be waived.

In addition, conferences with the court are required prior to making motions andthere is no stay of discovery pending motion practice.

Plaintiff, -v.- nJDGMENT OF FORFEITURE

WHEREAS, on or about April 14, 2011, the United States commenced an in rem forfeiture action seeking the forfeiture of, inter approximately $33,743.75 formerly on deposit alia, at Bank of America Account number 003678667131 held in the name of EZO, LLC (the "Defendant-in-rem") alleging that the Defendant-in-rem is subject to forfeiture pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 98l(a)(l)(A), (C) and 1955(d); WHEREAS, notice of the Verified Complaint against the Defendant-in-iem was posted on the official government internet site, www.forfeiture.gov, for at least 30 consecutive days, beginning on May 16, 2011, through June 14, 2011, and proof of such publication was filed with the Clerk of this Court on November

WHEREAS, as set forth in Rule G(4)(a)(ii) and Rule G(S)(a)(ii), the notice of forfeiture specified the Defendant-in-rem and the intent of the United States to forfeit and dispose of the Defendant-in-rem, thereby notifying all third parties of their right to file a claim to adjudicate the validity oftheiralleged legal interest in the Defendant-in-rem, within sixty days from the first day of publication of the Notice on the official governmentinternetsite; WHEREAS,there are no individuals and/orentities known to the Government to have a potential interest in the Defendant-in-rem; and WHEREAS, no claims or answers have beenfiled or made in this action and no otherparties have appeared to contestthe action, and the requisite time periods in which to doso, as set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 983(a)(4)(A) and Rule G of the Supplement Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Claims, have expired;

The Defendant-in-remshall be, and the same herebyis forfeited to the plaintiff United States of America.

2, The United States Marshals Service (orits designee) shall dispose of the Defendant-in-rem, according to law.

-----------------------------------------------------------------x IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT, attorney Lorie Almon, an attorney with the law firm of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, is hereby withdrawn as counsel for defendant The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP still remains as counsel for defendant The Weinstein Company Holdings, LLC.

The clerk is hereby directed to remove Ms. Lorie Almon from the Court docket and designate her status as terminated.

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1st day of October, two thousand twenty-one.

Katherine Kendall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs - Appellants,

The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC, et al, Defendants – Appellees.

Appellants move to voluntarily dismiss the above-captioned appeals.

Appellees do not oppose this request.

At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of August, two thousand twenty-one.

Before: José A. Cabranes, Circuit Judge.

The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC, et al., Defendants – Appellees.

Docket Nos. 21-1007(L), 21-1011(Con) Appellants move the Court to hold this appeal in abeyance until their claims are resolved, but no later than September 30, 2021.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, on consent.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 were read on this motion to/for

Upon the foregoing documents, it is

The motion to disqualify counsel is denied in accordance with the reasoning on the record of 8/10/2021.

Rather, the Special Referee found that this coverage dispute arose in early 2014 and actual litigation existed as of the filing of the TIG declaratory action (“TIG DJ Action”) in April 2014.

Where the Special Referee erred, however, was in erroneously presuming that Hinshaw and Stuart Maue conducted routine audits of the invoices, consistent with claims handling functions, despite the fact that actual coverage litigation was ongoing on the issue of reasonableness of defense costs.

Mr. Biondolillo further testified that everything was “being handled differently than the average submission,” because of the declaratory action, lack of cooperation from the NHL, the dumping of defense costs three-years into litigation, and complexity of the allocation issues.

To assist in this endeavor, Chubb retained litigation experts to opine on the reasonableness of the defense costs incurred and hourly rates charged by the NHL’s chosen firms.

Rather, the testimony cited by the NHL specifically states that “Jack Pierce, based on case law and his experience, delineated what he thought were reasonable categories for work to have been performed in connection with this litigation.” See Vergara Aff.

The NHL’s letter has not cited any Rule or Order prohibiting a party from submitting a brief in support of another party’s timely motion.

The NHL addressed the issues raised in Aviva’s Brief in Support both by its letter of January 10, 2023 and, more fully, in its opposition to Chubb’s motion.

Thus, NHL cannot, and does not, claim that it was prejudiced and unable to address the Aviva Brief because, in fact, it has.1 By requesting the Court strike and disregard Aviva’s Brief in Support, NHL seeks to attack an “empty chair” by both opposing the substance of Aviva’s Brief while requesting that the Court never consider it on the merits.

1 NHL takes all possible positions in its Memorandum of Law in Opposition arguing that Aviva failed to move to quash subpoenas to Hinshaw and Stuart Maue, and lacked standing to do so, and also waived to right to do so.

Melissa Anne Crane January 11, 2023 Page 2 We respectfully request that the Court reject the NHL’s Request to Strike and Disregard Aviva’s Brief in Support; or, in the alternative, review Aviva’s brief Nunc Pro Tunc.