The parties seeking the issuance of this letter of request have provided the Court with evidence demonstrating the basis for their belief that Grant Thornton is located in the Province of Ontario.

Proceedings The U.S. Civil Litigation is a putative class action brought under the U.S. securities laws, arising out of the 2015 and 2016 stock price decline and subsequent bankruptcy of PSG.

Lead Plaintiff points to these alleged findings in support of its contention that PSG was engaged in "aggressive" sales practices that created risks that should have been disclosed to investors.

Given the specificity of the requests, this Court has concluded that the Defendants have made a good faith effort to limit the burden that compliance with the Subpoena would impose upon Grant Thornton.

Finally, the Court notes that Defendants have represented that they are prepared to meet and confer with Grant Thornton to attempt in good faith to resolve any unexpected burdens that its compliance might impose.

PSG's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") state that beginning in 2015, Roustan sought re-appointment to the Board, first through private communications with the Company and then through a public proxy contest (which he ultimately withdrew).

Lead Plaintiff points to these alleged findings ofRoustan in support of its contention that PSG was engaged in "aggressive" sales practices that created risks that should have been disclosed to investors.

Some of the evidence sought by the Letter of Request relates to matters that would be in Roustan's sole possession, including testimony regarding facts in his unique knowledge, and thus equivalent information may not be obtained from other individuals or entities.

Defendants have shown that they sought Roustan's consent to voluntarily submit to discovery in the U.S. Civil Litigation, and to agree through counsel to accept service of subpoenas without the need for judicial proceedings.

Finally, the Court notes that Defendants have represented that they are prepared to meet and confer with Roustan to attempt in good faith to resolve any unexpected burdens that his compliance might impose.

The deadline for the submission of Defendants' reply is extended to May 4, 2021. ÿ ÿ  ÿ ÿ  ÿ

The deadline for the submission of Lead Plaintiff's response is extended to April 6, 2021. ÿÿ

United States District Judge

: PENSION FUND and JUAN FRANCISCO : NIEVES, as trustee of the Gonzalez Coronado : Trust, Individually and on behalf of all others : similarly situated, : : : : : : : : : KEVIN DAVIS and AMIR ROSENTHAL, Defendants.

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: On January 19, 2021, the Court held a conference regarding Defendants’ motion for issuance of a letter of request.

The Court understands that Defendants will submit a renewed motion that addresses the issues raised by the Court during the conference.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 205.

United States District Judge

We submit this letter jointly with Baker & Hostetler LLP, counsel for defendant Kevin Davis (together with Rosenthal, “Defendants”).

Rather than file two separate briefs, Defendants intend to submit a single, consolidated memorandum of law in opposition to lead plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund’s motion for class certification [ECF No. 202].

To fully address the issues raised by lead plaintiff’s motion, Defendants respectfully request permission to exceed the 25-page limit on memoranda of law set by Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases.

Specifically, Defendants request leave to file a memorandum of law not exceeding 40 pages.

We have conferred with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, counsel for lead plaintiff, regarding this request.

We respectfully submit this letter jointly with Baker & Hostetler LLP, counsel for defendant Kevin Davis, and with the consent of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, counsel for Lead Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund (the “Fund”), pursuant to Rule 2(C) of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice to request a pre-motion conference regarding Defendants’ anticipated Motion for the Issuance of a Letter of Request to Subpoena Foreign Nonparty W. Graeme Roustan (the “Proposed Motion”).

Factual and Legal Basis for the Relief Sought by the Proposed Motion As the Court is aware, this action arises out of the 2016 stock price decline and subsequent bankruptcy of Performance Sports Group Ltd. (“PSG” or the “Company”).

The Honorable Gregory H. Woods December 16, 2020 Defendants Davis and Rosenthal were, for most of the period preceding PSG’s bankruptcy, the Company’s CEO and CFO, respectively.

The Fund relies, in part, on Roustan’s alleged findings in support of its contention that PSG was engaged in “aggressive” sales practices that created risks that should have been disclosed to investors.

Indeed, the parties agree that Roustan possesses information that is relevant to the claims and defenses in this litigation; both sides have identified him in their Rule 26(a) initial disclosures, and as noted, Lead Plaintiff does not intend to oppose the Proposed Motion.

Dear Judge Woods: Lead Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund respectfully submits this pre- motion letter regarding its intention to file a motion for class certification.1 Lead Plaintiff will move to certify a proposed class of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired Performance Sports Group common stock on the New York Stock Exchange from January 15, 2015 through October 28, 2016, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were damaged thereby (the “Class”), excluding Defendants Kevin Davis and Amir Rosenthal (“Defendants”) and certain other parties.

In securities actions involving nationally listed public companies, numerosity is satisfied by showing that a large number of shares were outstanding and traded during the time period.

Typicality is met here because Lead Plaintiff and the proposed Class were injured by the same single course of conduct – misrepresentations and omissions by Defendants regarding PSG’s sales practices, risks, and internal controls – and because all assert violations of the same provisions of the federal securities laws.

Additionally, Lead Plaintiff’s choice of counsel, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, is experienced and well- qualified to prosecute this case on behalf of the Class through trial.

“Securities cases easily satisfy this requirement, as the alternatives are either no recourse for thousands of stockholders or a multiplicity and scattering of suits with the inefficient administration of litigation which follows in its wake.” In re Chicago Bridge & Iron Co. N.V. Sec.

GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge: This Civil Case Management Plan is submitted by the parties in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.

Counsel for the parties recommend that the alternate dispute resolution mechanism designated in paragraph 3(c) be employed at the following point in the case (e.g., within the next 60 days; after the deposition of plaintiff is completed (specify date); after the close of fact discovery):

P. 15(a)(1) and this Court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases (“Individual Rules”), amended pleadings may not be filed and additional parties may not be joined except with leave of the Court.

[A period not to exceed 120 days, unless the Court finds that the case presents unique complexities ** Fact discovery consisting of responses to contention interrogatories served in or other exceptional circumstances.]

P. 16(c)(2) and the Court’s Individual Rule 2(C), any motion for summary judgment will be deemed untimely unless a request for a pre-motion conference relating thereto is made in writing within one week after the close of discovery.