Evolution Malta Limited v. Light & Wonder, Inc.

Opinion

1 || SUSMAN GODFREY JONES DAY NEAL 8S. MANNE, ESQ. RYAN K. WALSH, ESQ. 2 || (pro hac vice) (pro hac vice) nmanne@susmangodfrey.com rkwalsh@jonesday.com 3 || JOSEPH S. GRINSTEIN, ESQ. 1221 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 401 || Pre hac vice) Atlanta, Georgia 30361 jgrinstein@susmangodfrey.com Telephone: (404) 581-8487 5 || MEGAN E. GRIFFITH, ESQ. Facsimile: (404) 581-8330 (pro hac vice) 6 || mgriffth@susmangodfrey.com 7 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77002 g || Telephone: (713) 651-9366 9 || CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS JONES DAY PHILIP R. ERWIN, ESQ. (11563) JENNIFER D. BENNETT, ESQ. = 10 |) pre@cwlawlv.com (pro hac vice) 710 South Seventh Street, Suite A jdbennett@jonesday.com Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 555 California Street, 26th Floor 23 12 || Telephone: (702) 382-5222 San Francisco, California 94104 ag Facsimile: (702) 382-0540 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 13 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700

2 14 || Attorneys for Defendants BS 15 Light & Wonder, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc.,

E 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ge 17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 18 = 19 CASE NO.: 2:24-cv-00993-CDS-NJK EVOLUTION MALTA LIMITED, 20 EVOLUTION GAMING MALTA LIMITED, EVOLUTION GAMING 21 LIMITED, SIA EVOLUTION LATVIA, ORDER ENLARGING THE PAGE and UPLAY 1 LIMITS FOR BRIEFING RELATED TO 22 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS Plaintiffs, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 23 VS. 24 LIGHT & WONDER, INC. f/k/a SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORP. and LNW 25 GAMING, INC. f/k/a SG GAMING, INC., 26 Defendants, 27 28

1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED between Plaintiffs Evolution Malta Limite 2 || Evolution Gaming Malta Limited, Evolution Gaming Limited, SIA Evolution Latvia, and Uplay 3 || (‘Plaintiffs’) and Defendants Light & Wonder, Inc. and LNW Gaming, Inc. (“Defendants 4 |} (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their undersigned counsel of record, that good cau: 5 || exists under Local Rule 7-3(c) to enlarge the page limits on the briefing related to Defendant 6 || forthcoming Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“Motion”). Specificall 7 || the Parties agree that the page limits for Defendants’ Motion and Plaintiffs’ Opposition shall | g || enlarged by 12 pages for a total of 36 pages. Additionally, the Parties agree that the page limits f 9 || Defendants’ Reply shall be enlarged by 3 pages for a total of 15 pages. 10 Given the nature of Plaintiffs’ claims and the number of arguments that will be at issue 11 || Defendants’ Motion, the complex nature of this case supports extending the page limit. See □ 12 || Vegas Dev. Grp., LLC, v. Steven et al., No. 2:15-cv-01128-RCJ-CWH, 2016 WL 3381222, at *6 (1 13 || Nev. June 14, 2016) (granting motion for leave to exceed page limit “because of the complex □□□□□ 14 || of the claims.). Indeed, the Parties’ briefing on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ □□□ 15 || Amended Complaint used every line of the presumptive page limits under Local Rule 7-3(b), EC E 8 16 || Nos. 114, 117, 119, and Plaintiffs’ 88-page Second Amended Complaint advances additional clain 3 17 || and allegations related to a new set of patents. Thus, given the breadth of the allegations and clain 5 18 || in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, 24 pages is not sufficient for the Parties to fully and fair 19 || brief Defendants’ forthcoming Motion. See Werbicky v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, No. 2:12-c 20 || 01567-JAD, 2015 WL 18006857, at *5 (D. Nev. April 21, 2015) (granting motion for leave to fi 21 || an oversized brief “in the interest of ensuring that the parties have a full and fair opportunity 22 || present their proper arguments.”). 23 Finally, as evidenced by the briefing on Defendants’ prior motions to dismiss in this actio 24 || the Parties respectfully submit that their briefing on Defendants’ forthcoming Motion will not was 25 || judicial resources through inclusion of unwarranted footnotes, excessive block quotations, | 26 || repetitive arguments. See Perez v. Nevada, No. 2:14-cv-02087-APG-BNW, 2019 WL 4757789, 27 || *10-11 (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2019). Rather, the Parties will only include facts and analysis that a 28

1 || relevant and necessary for the Court’s adjudication of Defendants’ Motion and, consistent with L 2 || 7-3(c), the motion will include a Table of Contents and Table of Authorities. 3 For all the foregoing reasons, the Parties respectfully submit that good cause exists to enlar; 4 || the page limits on Defendants’ Motion and Plaintiffs’ Opposition by 12 pages for a total of 36 page 5 || and to enlarge the page limits on Defendants’ Reply by 3 pages for a total of 15 pages. 6 ITIS SO STIPULATED. DATED this 9th day of July, 2025 DATED this 9th day of July, 2025 CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS SPENCER FANE LLP By /s/ Philip R. Erwin By /s/ Jason D. Smith 10 || PHILIP R. ERWIN, ESQ. (11563) NICHOLAS J. SANTORO, ESQ. (532) 4 i1 710 South Seventh Street JASON D. SMITH, ESQ (9691) Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 1600 12 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 SUSMAN GODFREY 13 |] NEAL S. MANNE, ESQ. Attorneys for Plaintiff (pro hac vice) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP : 14 || JOSEPH S. GRINSTEIN, ESQ. CHING-LEE FUKUDA, ESQ. 2 15 || (pro hac vice) (pro hac vice) MEGAN E. GRIFFITH, ESQ. SHARON LEE, ESQ. : = 16 || (pro hac vice) (pro hac vice)

z= JONES DAY

3 HAROLD K. GORDON, ESQ. = 19 || (pro hac vice) RYAN K. WALSH, ESQ. 20 || (pro hac vice) JENNIFER D. BENNETT, ESQ. 21 || (pro hac vice) RANDALL E. KAY, ESQ. (pro hac vice) 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 PES Zo Nancy J, Koppe 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 DATED: July 10, 2025 28