Paul Kiernan Holland & Knight LLP 800 17th Street N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 Dear Paul: write regarding Kookmin Bank’s First Set of Interrogatories, Document Requests, and Requests for Admission to Amtrak, served August 19, 2022.

26(d)(1); see also American Action Network, Inc. v. Cater America, LLC, 983 F. Supp.

2d 112, 127 (D.D.C. 2013) (“Because the parties have not yet held a Rule 26(f) conference, AAN's discovery requests were premature” and “Defendants were under no obligation to respond”); Arias v. Dyncorp, 517 F. Supp.

Response to Kookmin Bank Page 2 Brett D. Dockwell Kristin Roy Latisha Thompson Y. David Scharf Louis J. Rouleau Anna P. Hayes James Hulme Brian M. Boyle Daniel J. Koevary David J.

Mark David E. Ross Thomas M. Wood, IV Henry B. Brownstein

In Paragraph 63 of the complaint, Amtrak alleges the existence of a resolution of its Board of Directors and other documents related to the decision to exercise eminent domain.

With refer- ence to Paragraph 63, please produce copies of any final and drafts of: (a) the March 22, 2022 resolution; (b) Management advice and Board conclusions regarding the necessity of acquiring the Sublease Interests "to ensure the condition and longevity of WUS as a multimodal trans- portation center and a key asset of Amtrak's core business"; ( c) Management advice and Board conclusions regarding the necessity of acquiring the Sublease Interests "to improve the lease structure of WUS to serve the long-term interests of this essential multimodal station"; (d) Management's request(s) for pre-programming authority and Federal Railroad Admin- istration approval(s) or denial(s) of same; (e) Management advice and Board conclusions on the topic of ''the acquisition o£theSub:- leaselnterests is necessary for Amtrak's intercity rail passenger transportation service, is necessary for the accomplishment of Amtrak's mission, and is necessary for the reasons set forth .in the business case"; · ,, · · (f) the "business case" and supporting documentation identified in the Resolution; (g) documents supporting the Management advice or Board conclusion that "the acquisi- tion of the Sublease Interests would allow Amtrak to directly invest in WUS in a more efficient and effective manner"; (h) documents and analysis supporting the recommendation or determination that it is "ad- visable and in the best interests of the Corporation to pursue the acquisition of the Sublease Interests either by entering into a binding Negotiated Deal, submitting a binding bid at Auction or by Condemnation"; (i) any minutes, notes, agendas, or action-item documents generated in connection with the meeting of the Board of Directors at which the Resolution was adopted; and U) docuinents in the above listed categories that were presented or reviewed at ·any meeting of the Board of Directors before or after the March 22, 2022 meeting of the Board.

For the period of January 1, 2017 through the present, all documents and communications concerning the estimated value of the Subject Property Interest as that term is defined in the com- plai~t.

If you deny any of the Requests for Admission or respond with anything other than "Ad- mit," please explain the basis for your denial or qualification and identify any documents that you contend support your response.

Attached to these requests is a simplified but accurate illustration of the ownership and lease interests as they existed on January 1, 2022, at Union Station.

None of the terms or provisions of this Agreement may be waived, amended, or otherwise modified except by a written instrument executed by the party against which enforcement of such waiver, amendment, or modification is sought.