FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/29/ :10 PM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017

Transcription

1 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X VIJAY SINGH, : Index No.: /2013 : Plaintiff, : Hon. Eileen Bransten, Justice. : V. : NOTICE OF APPEAL PGA TOUR, INC., : : Defendant. : X "TOUR" PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant PGA TOUR, Inc. (the "TOUR") hereby appeals to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in and for the First Judicial Department, from the Decision and Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, on the TOUR's Motion for Leave to Reargue (Motion Sequence Number 013), which was signed by the Honorable Justice Eileen Bransten on September 20, 2017 and entered in the Office of the New York County Clerk on September 21, of 119

2 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 Dated: December 29, 2017 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP By: /s/ Anthony J. Drever Jeffrey A. Mishkin Anthony J. Dreyer Michael H. Menitove Four Times Square New York, NY (212) Attorneys for Defendant PGA TOUR, Inc. To: Peter R. Ginsberg Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY Jeffrey S. Rosenblum Rosenblum & Reisman PC Triad Centre III 6070 Poplar Avenue, Fifth Floor Memphis, TN Attorneys for Plaintiff Vijay Singh 2 of 119

3 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT X VIJAY SINGH, : Index No.: /2013 : Plaintiff-Respondent. : Supreme Court, New York County : V. : PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT PGA TOUR, INC., : : Defendant-Appellant. : X "TOUR" Defendant-Appellant PGA TOUR, Inc. (the "TOUR"), by its undersigned attorneys, respectfully submits the following Pre-Argument Statement pursuant to Section of the Rules of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department. 1. Title of Action: The title of the proceeding is set forth in the caption above. 2. Full Names of Original Parties and Any Change in the Parties: The full names of the original parties are those identified in the caption above. There has been no change in the parties during the pendency of this action. 3. Name, Address and Telephone Number of Counsel for Defendant-Appellant: Jeffrey A. Mishkin Anthony J. Dreyer Michael H. Menitove Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Four Times Square New York, NY (212) Name, Address and Telephone Number of Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent: Peter R. Ginsberg Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY (646) of 119

4 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 Jeffrey S. Rosenblum Rosenblum & Reisman PC Triad Centre III 6070 Poplar Avenue, Fifth Floor Memphis, TN (901) Court and County from which the Appeal is Taken: This appeal is taken from the Decision and Order, dated September 20, 2017, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Honorable Eileen Bransten), which was filed with the Office of the Clerk of the County of New York on September 21, A copy of the Decision and Order is attached hereto as Exhibit Nature and Object of the Cause of Action: The TOUR administers an Anti- Program" Doping Program (the "TOUR Program") applicable to members of, and players competing on, certain golf tours that it operates, including the PGA TOUR. In a January 29, 2013 Sports Illustrated article, Plaintiff Vijay Singh ("Singh"), a long-standing PGA TOUR member subject to the TOUR Program, admitted to using a deer antler spray product known as the "Ultimate Spray," which was advertised as containing IGF-1-a growth hormone that is a prohibited substance under the TOUR Program. The TOUR spoke with Singh, who confirmed his use of the Ultimate Spray and agreed to provide the TOUR with a bottle of the product. The TOUR sent that bottle for analysis to the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, which reported that the bottle contained IGF-1. Based on Singh's admitted use of a product found to contain a prohibited substance under the TOUR Program, the TOUR notified Singh that he had committed a violation of the TOUR Program. Although the TOUR Program authorized the TOUR to suspend Singh for up to one year and fine him up to $500,000 for the violation, the TOUR only sought to impose a suspension of three months and no fine. The TOUR did not publicly announce the sanction while Singh exercised his right under the TOUR Program to appeal to an 4 of 119

5 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 arbitration panel. Singh was permitted to continue playing in TOUR events during the pendency of his appeal. While Singh's appeal was pending, the TOUR was informed that the World Anti-Doping Agency ("WADA") would not consider the use of deer antler spray containing IGF-1 to violate the WADA Code, unless it resulted in a positive drug test. The WADA Code and the TOUR Program are similar but separate and distinct anti-doping programs. Therefore, WADA's interpretation of the WADA Code is not binding on the TOUR's administration of the TOUR Program. However, the TOUR decided to accept WADA's view in this instance and, as a result, rescinded its sanction of Singh. Accordingly, Singh did not serve a single day of his suspension. After his suspension was withdrawn, Singh filed his complaint against the TOUR on May 8, 2013, asserting seven causes of action, including three counts of negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conversion. On June 12, 2013, the TOUR filed a motion to dismiss Singh's complaint. On February 13, 2014, the court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed Singh's claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but denied the motion with regard to his claims for beach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and conversion. On June 2, 2016, the TOUR moved for summary judgment on Singh's implied covenant and conversion claims. Singh cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the liability portion of his implied covenant claim. On May 12, 2017, the court granted in part the TOUR's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Singh's conversion claim and two of his implied covenant theories. Specifically, the 5 of 119

6 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 court dismissed the portions of Singh's implied covenant claim based on allegations that the TOUR: (1) treated Singh differently than golfers who used deer antler spray when they were members of the Champions Tour (a tour for golfers age 50 and older where-unlike the PGA TOUR-the TOUR Program has not been adopted or applied); and (2) failed to test a bottle of deer antler spray used by Singh and failed to further test whether the IGF-1 identified in the bottle that Singh provided for testing was biologically active. The court denied the TOUR's summary judgment motion with regard to Singh's two remaining implied covenant theories, which claim that the TOUR breached implied obligations by: (1) failing to consult WADA and/or to appreciate WADA's public statements concerning deer antler spray prior to suspending Singh; and (2) allegedly making improper public statements concerning Singh's use of deer antler spray. The court denied Singh's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. 7. Result Reached in the Court Below: On June 21, 2017, the TOUR filed a motion Motion" for leave to reargue (the "Reargument Motion") those portions of the court's summary judgment order that denied summary judgment for the TOUR on Singh's claim that the TOUR breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On September 21, 2017, the court issued a Decision and Order, dated September 20, 2017, that purported to deny the Reargument Motion. (See Ex. 1 (the "Reargument Order").)¹ 8. Grounds for Seeking Reversal: As further explained below, the Reargument Order addressed the merits of the parties' arguments, including by adopting positions that were not addressed in the court's summary judgment order and that, in fact, Singh asserted for the first 1 As discussed below (see infra p. 9), the TOUR filed a Notice of Appeal and Pre-Argument Statement regarding the summary judgment order on May 26, In support of that appeal, the TOUR will present legal and factual arguments that also will be the subject of this appeal of the Reargument Order, as well as additional arguments that the TOUR made at summary judgment but did not reiterate in the Reargument Motion. 6 of 119

7 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 time in opposition to the TOUR's Reargument Motion. Thus, while the Reargument Order purported to deny the TOUR's Reargument Motion, the court effectively granted the motion and modified its summary judgment decision, while still adhering to the result of that prior order. Accordingly, the Reargument Order is appealable as of right under CPLR 5701(a)(2). See ABL (" Advisor LLC v. Peck, 147 A.D.3d 689, 691 (1st Dep't 2017) ("Because Supreme Court addressed the merits of the reargument motion, the order on reargument is appealable as of right."); Lipsky v. Manhattan Plaza, Inc., 103 A.D.3d 418, 419 (1st Dep't 2013) ("[U]pon subsequently purporting to deny reargument, the court proceeded to address the merits of the motion and adhered to its original determination. The order is thus appealable to this Court as of right."); 6645 Owners Corp.. v. GMO Realty Corp.,., 306 A.D.2d 97, 98 (1st Dep't 2003) (" ("Although the order appealed from in part purports to deny a motion to reargue... that aspect of the order is appealable, since the court, by addressing the merits of the issue presented, essentially granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision on reargument."). For the following reasons, the TOUR seeks reversal of the Reargument Order and the dismissal of Singh's claim that the TOUR breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: (a) The court erroneously held that there is a material fact dispute as to whether the TOUR's alleged misconduct caused cognizable damage to Singh. Specifically, the court concluded that Singh "made an ample showing that [he] may have sustained not only reputational injury, but also lost business opportunities in the form of sponsorships due to Defendant's acts sufficient to create an issue of fact for the jury to decide." (Ex. 1, Reargument Order at 11:7-10.) The court's decision is erroneous for multiple reasons, including: First, Singh did not present any admissible evidence that the TOUR's alleged misconduct injured his reputation, nor did the court identify any such evidence in its 7 of 119

8 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 Reargument Order or summary judgment order. In any event, reputational damage is not cognizable as a matter of law in an implied covenant case. Second, the court rendered clearly erroneous factual findings regarding the testimony of David Lightner, Singh's financial advisor, concerning his interactions on Singh's behalf with Cleveland Golf, which sponsored Singh until the expiration of Singh's agreement with that company at the end of The Reargument Order recited the inaccurate description of Mr. Lightner's affidavit in Singh's brief opposing the TOUR's Reargument Motion, leading the court to incorrectly find that Mr. Lightner testified that "at the time the TOUR disciplined Singh, he was negotiating a renewal Cleveland" of Singh's sponsorship agreement with and that "in the midst of these discussions," suspension," Cleveland Golf, "in the wake of Singh's informed Mr. Lightner that the company would not renew the agreement. (Id. at 9:4-22 (citing Singh's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Reargument Motion at 8).) In reality, the record evidence establishes that Mr. Lightner did not engage in any "negotiations" with Cleveland Golf regarding the renewal of its sponsorship agreement with Singh, nor did Mr. Lightner attest to any such negotiations in his affidavit (or in his deposition testimony). Rather, the first communication with Cleveland Golf that Mr. Lightner describes in his affidavit is that the company informed him in October 2013-more than five months after the TOUR withdrew its anti-doping case against Singh-that it had decided not to renew its agreement with Singh. Third, the court incorrectly adopted Singh's position-which he raised for the first time in opposition to the Reargument Motion-that his fact witnesses, Mr. Lightner and Greg Hopkins, can testify regarding their opinions as to Cleveland Golf's rationale for not renewing its sponsorship agreement with Singh. (See id. at 10:2-11:2). As a matter of law, Mr. Lightner and Mr. Hopkins lack the requisite personal knowledge to testify as to Cleveland Golf's rationale given the undisputed fact that neither witness was involved in any way in the company's decision not to renew its contract with Singh. Further, their testimony does not fall within any exception to the general and long-standing rule that lay witnesses may testify only to the facts and not Hopkins' their opinions. Because Mr. Lightner's and Mr. Hopkins opinions are inadmissible, Singh has no evidence to support his bald assertion that Cleveland Golf would have renewed its agreement with him but for the TOUR's alleged misconduct. And because Cleveland Golf is the only company that Singh identified at summary judgment as a sponsor he purportedly lost as a result of the TOUR's alleged misconduct, Singh has no evidence that the TOUR's conduct caused him to lose any sponsorship or other business opportunity. Fourth, the court overlooked additional reasons why Singh cannot maintain any claim seeking purported lost sponsorship or other earnings as consequential or general damages, including because he cannot demonstrate that the amount of his purported damage is capable of proof with reasonable certainty or that such damage was contemplated by the parties at the time of their contracting. 8 of 119

9 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 Thus, Singh did not-and cannot-raise a material fact dispute as to whether the TOUR's alleged misconduct caused him cognizable damage, and this failure alone requires dismissal of his implied covenant claim in its entirety. (b) The court erroneously held that there is a material fact dispute as to whether the TOUR breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to conduct an "appropriate investigation" as that term is used in the TOUR Program because it did "not consult with WADA and/or... ignore[d] WADA studies and findings issued prior to Plaintiff's suspension concerning deer antler spray." (Id. at 14:2-5.) The Reargument Order did not address the TOUR's argument that based on the undisputed evidence, Singh cannot meet his burden to establish that the TOUR acted arbitrarily, irrationally or in bad faith because he cannot demonstrate that the TOUR acted as no reasonable person would have. Indeed, the court overlooked the testimony of multiple witnesses-including John David Howman, WADA's director general, and Richard Young, the primary drafter of the TOUR Program and the WADA Code-who explained that the TOUR is not obligated to consult WADA prior to bringing an anti-doping case. And contrary to the description of the record in the Reargument Order, WADA never issued any "studies and findings" concerning deer antler spray and never publicly stated prior to Singh's suspension that using deer antler spray was permissible. Accordingly, the TOUR could not have "ignored" such non-existent materials when it decided to suspend Singh, as the court incorrectly found. (c) The court failed to address the following undisputed facts and legal principles establishing that Singh cannot maintain his implied covenant claim challenging a statement made by TOUR Executive Ty Votaw because he cannot show that it caused him any damage: Mr. Votaw's challenged statement was communicated in a private to a single reporter, Doug Ferguson-not at a press conference in response to an interview 9 of 119

10 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 question, as the court's summary judgment order found. Shortly after receiving Mr. Votaw's , Mr. Ferguson published an article that was accurate and did not contain any misstatement based on that . While the summary judgment order credited Singh's unsupported assertion that Mr. Votaw's statement resulted in approximately 7,000 articles labeling him a "cheater," Singh failed to cite any of these unidentified articles or evidence that Mr. Votaw's led to any article labeling him a "cheater" or reporting inaccurate information. Indeed, Singh conceded in his opposition to the Reargument Motion that the purported 7,000 articles are not in the summary judgment record, but argued (incorrectly) that he was not required to submit that supposed evidence into the record. Finally, even if there were evidence that Mr. Votaw's somehow harmed Singh's reputation (which there is not), his claim still would fail because reputational damage is not cognizable as a matter of law in an implied covenant case. (d) The court erroneously held that there is a material fact dispute as to whether the TOUR breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because of statements that then-commissioner Tim Finchem made after the TOUR withdrew its anti-doping case against Singh. (See id. at 15:13-17.) While the Reargument Order acknowledged the TOUR's position that the express terms of the TOUR Program only limit the TOUR's ability to make public statements about an anti-doping case that is "still pending" (id. at 14:10-19), the court nevertheless adopted Singh's argument-raised for the first time in opposition to the Reargument Motion-that the timing of Mr. Finchem's statements is irrelevant because his decision to speak triggered an implied obligation not to do so in an arbitrary or irrational manner. (See id. at 15:6-11.) As a matter of law, however, Mr. Finchem's statements cannot be subject to any implied obligation arising from the TOUR Program because that agreement does not apply to statements made after an anti-doping case is withdrawn. Thus, imposing any implied obligation with respect to Mr. Finchem's statements would impermissibly alter the express terms of the parties' agreement or create a new duty beyond the scope of those terms. 10 of 119

11 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ Related Actions or Proceedings Now Pending in Any Court and Additional Appeals: On May 26, 2017, the TOUR filed a Notice of Appeal and Pre-Argument Statement with the First Judicial Department seeking reversal of those portions of the Decision and Order, dated May 12, 2017 and filed with the Office of the Clerk of the County of New York on May 15, 2017, that denied summary judgment for the TOUR on Singh's claim that the TOUR breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The TOUR's Notice of Appeal and Pre-Argument Statement regarding the court's summary judgment order are attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The TOUR's appeal of the summary judgment order will address legal and factual issues that the TOUR will raise in this appeal of the Reargument Order. On June 6, 2017, Singh filed a Notice of Appeal and Pre-Argument Statement with the First Judicial Department seeking reversal of: (1) the portion of the court's summary judgment order dismissing his claim that the TOUR breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by treating Singh differently than golfers who used deer antler spray when they were members of the Champions Tour; and (2) the Decision and Order, dated May 15, 2017 and filed with the Office of the Clerk of the County of New York on May 17, 2017, that denied his motion to strike the affidavit of Richard Young and to exclude him from testifying at trial. Singh's Notice of Appeal and Pre-Argument Statement are attached hereto as Exhibit of 119

12 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 Dated: December 29, 2017 Respectfully submitted, New York, New York SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP By: /s/ Anthony J. Dreyer Jeffrey A. Mishkin Anthony J. Dreyer Michael H. Menitove Four Times Square New York, NY (212) Attorneys for Defendant PGA TOUR, Inc. TO: Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 60 Centre Street New York, New York Peter R. Ginsberg Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY Jeffrey S. Rosenblum Rosenblum & Reisman PC Triad Centre III 6070 Poplar Avenue, Fifth Floor Memphis, TN Attorneys for Plaintiff Vijay Singh I 12 of 119

13 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ of 119

14 FILED : NEig SORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/ : 32 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ /21/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. ElLEEN BRANSTEN PART 3 Justice X VIJAY SINGH. Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 09/18/ V - MOTION SEQ. NO. 013 PGA TOUR, INC., Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER X The following e-filed documents, listed by 593 NYSCEF document number 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, were read on this application to/for Reargument Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDERED Defendant's Motion for reargument is DENIED as stated in the August 30, 2017 record and transcript (Nina J. Koss, CSR) at 7:5-15:19. 9/ 9 /2017 DATE ElLEEN BRANSTEN, J.S.C. 6 CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: DO NOT POST FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE /2013 SINGH, VIJAY vs. PGA TOUR, INC. Page 1 of 1 Motion No of 119

15 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK IN DEX 09/21/2017 NO. 10:32 AM /2013 NYSCEF F DOC.. NO RECEIVED D NYSCEF: 12/29/ /23L / PROCEEblNGS i 3 In 2008, Defendant enacted an anti-doping 2 SUPREME R COUNTY 07' COURTOFTHESTATEOFNEWYORK program, NEWYORK: R TERMPART3 3 4 (Otherwise known as the "Program"), "Program" which prohibits the use VIJAYSINGH, 4 10:30:23 5 of certain substances by defendant's members. Again, 19(a) PLAINTIFF, 5 6 statement at paragraph 6. The terms of the Program are set - against forth in the Anti-Doping Program Manual, (otherwise known as 7 PGATOUR,INC., 8 the "Manual"). 8 DEFENDANT. 9 The list of prohibited substances contained in the x INDEXNO: /13 60 Centre Street 10:30:4510 manual is adopted from a list of prohibited substances 10 NewYork, NewYork August 30, maintained 11 by the World Anti-Dbping Agency, (otherwise known BEFORE: HONORABLE EILEENBRANSTEN, Justice 12 as "WADA".) (Plaintiff's 19(a) statement, paragraph 11.) 13 APPEARANCES: 13 As a condition of membership in Defendant's 14 PETE R. GINSBERGLAW,LLC ~C1 14 organization, golfers, including I laintiff, consent to be Attorneys for Plaintiff Pine street C jjgj 10:31:1215 bound by the terms of the Program, as set forth in the NewYork, NewYork T 16 BY: PETE R. GINSBERG, ESQ 16 Manual. (Again, the 19(a) statement at paragraph 19.) ROSENBLUM & REISMAN 17 In 2012, on the advice of his caddie, Plaintiff At en for plarntirf 0 Trtad Centre 111 C tu CÃ) C3 18 began using a product called, quote, "deer antler spray" to Poplar Avenue, Suite 550 H Memphis,Tennessee address Plaintiff's knee and back problems. Again, 20 BY: JEFEREYS. ROSENBLUM, ESQ. n ( i/ (j [j 10:31:3820 (Plaintiff's 19(a) statement at paragraph ) SKADDEN, ARPS,SLATE,MEAGHER & FLOM, 1F 22 ~63 21 Attorneys Plaintiff's use of for Defendant the spray during his off-season, 23 N Y N w k over a period of approximately one month, (again the 19(a) BY: ANTHONY J. DREYER,ESQ. 24 JEFEREYA. MISHKIN,ESQ. 23 statement, paragraph 30.) Plaidtiff ingested the spray MICHAELMENITOVE,ESQ. I orally by spraying it into his mouth. Same paragraph in the 26 NINAKOSS,C.S.R., C.M. OFFICIALCOURTREPORTER 10:32: (a) statement. 26 On January 29th, 2013) an article was posted on the PROCEEDINGS 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 THE COURT: For Vijay Singh, I have from the Peter 2 Sports Illustrated website, otherwise known, 3 Ginsberg Law Firm, LLC, Peter Ginsberg. 3 it's also known an discussing an athletic 4 MR. GINSBERG: Good morning. 4 supplement company that made:the deer antler spray used by 10:2B:395. THE COURT: For Mr. Singh, I have Rosenblum & 10:32:49 5 the Plaintiff. Again, the (19(a) statement paragraph 33.) 11 6 Reisman, I assume LLP firm, Jerry Rosenblum. 6 The article referenced Plaintiff's use of the deer 7 MR. ROSENBLUM: Good morning. 7 antler spray, suggesting that by using the spray, the 8 THE COURT: Now, for the PGA Tour, I have from the 8 Plaintiff had, in fact, used a banned substance. Again that 9 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher 5 Flom LLPfirm, Anthony 9 refers to the Plaintiff's 19(a) statement, paragraph :29:0010 Dreyer -- Mr. Dreyer, Mr. Mishkin and Mr. Menitove. 10:33:1410 Immediately after the article's release, Plaintiff 11 MR. DREYER: Good morning,. 11 contacted Defendant to address the allegation that the 12 MR. MISHKIN: Good morning. 12 Plaintiff had used a banned substance. That is again 19(a) 13 MR. MENITOVE: Good morning. 13 statement, paragraph 38. A bottle of the deer antler spray 14 THE COURT: This is the Defendant's motion to 14 was provided to the Defendant by a representative of the 10:29:1615 reargue and reconsider the decision that the Court made on 10:33:3715 Plaintiff for testing. Same cite. Also, in the prior week, 16 motions for summary judgement issued on May 12th, 2009 and I 16.Plaintiff submitted 17 am prepared to give you my decision. All right. 17 any banned substance. 10:29:3520 So, we start with background. 10:34:0 20 dated February 14th, 2013, that laboratory determined the ii 21 Plaintiff, Vijay Singh is a professional golfer and 21 contents of the battle tested, quote, "negative anabolic NK a urine sample which tested negative for 18 So, you can sit down and hopefully, it will make 18 The Defendant sent the bottle of spray to the UCLA 19 sense. 19 Olympic Analytical Laboratory for testing, and a report 22 a lifetime member of the PGATour. (Plaintiff's 19(a) 22 androgenic steroids." Again, Plaintiff's 19(a) statement at 3 statement at paragraph 1.) The Defendant, PGATour, 23 paragraph (otherwise known as "The Tour" Tour"), is the organizer of the 24 However, the report "IGF-1" identified, quote, or 10:30:0125 main men's professional golf tours and events in North 10:34:3725 Insulin-like Growth Factor-1, as one of the substances 26 America. Again, citing to the 19(a) statement at paragraph 26 contained in the bottle's contents. Again same cite. IGF-1 15 of 119 NK 2 of 11 NK 1 nf 1A ghmptg Paoe 1 to 4 of 09/12/ : 17: 51 PM

16 INDEX FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/2:./2017 NO / :32 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ /21/ PROCEEDINGS 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 is also listed as a prohibited substance in the Manual. 2 denying it in part. 3 Following the issuance of the laboratory's report, 3 on June 21, 2017, the Defendant filed this instant 4 Defendant determined that Plaintiff had committed an 4 motion for reargument. 10: 3 anti-doping violation by using the spray. Subsequent to 10:38:425 Now, this is Motion Sequence Number 13, which is 6 Plaintiff's submission of a written explanation, Defendant 6 Defendant's Motion for Reargument. 7 informed Plaintiff he had committed an anti-doping 7 Defendant seeks to reargue the portion of the 8 violation, and as a result, Plaintiff would be suspended 8 Summary Judgement Motion which was denied by Order dated May 9 from activities related to the Defendant's organization for 9 12th, 2017 pursuant to CPLR sorry, 2221 (d)(1). The 10: a period of 90 days. Again, (Plaintiff's 19(a) statement at 10: Plaintiff opposes the motion. 11 paragraphs 51 through 53.) In addition, Plaintiff's 11 Specifically, Defendant seeks an Order finding this 12 earnings from competing, from competition in Defendant's 12 court erred in its previous decision and granting that 13 tournaments would be held in escrow. Again, that is again, 13 portion of its motion which sought dismissal of Plaintiff's 14 the (Plaintiff's 19(a) statement at paragraph 5.) 14 Claim for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair 1035:5515 On February 25, 2013, pursuant to the procedures 10:39:3015 Dealing. 16 set forth in the Manual, Plaintiff timely appealed the 16 CPLR 2221(d)(1) states: "A motion for leave to 17 Defendant's determination that Plaintiff had committed an 17 reargue shall be identified specifically as such; shall be 18 anti-doping violation, and commenced an arbitration 18 based upon matters of fact or law allegedly overlooked or 19 proceeding before the American Arbitration Association. 19 misapprehended by the Court in determining the prior motion, 1036:1620 The (19(a) statement, at paragraph 61.) and shall be made within 30 days after service of a copy of 21 Defendant informed Plaintiff that he would be 21 the Order determining the prior motion and written notice of 22 allowed to play in the Defendant's tournaments during the 22 its entry." 23 pendency of his appeal, but that any prize money would 23 Defendant's arguments essentially fall into three 24 continue to be held in escrow, and that Plaintiff risked 24 categories: 10:36:3625 forfeiture of these winnings if he did not prevail on his One, Plaintiff's damage as a result of the 26 appeal 26 Defendant's alleged misconduct; NK PROCEEDINGS 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 On April 30th, 2013, approximately one week before 2 Two, Tour's implied duty to consult WADA; 3 the first scheduled arbitration hearing, Defendant ceased 3 Three, Mr. Finchem's challenge statements. 4 its disciplinary action against Plaintiff, and the 4 Category 1: Damage caused by the Defendant's 10:36:575 arbitration was discontinued. (Plaintiff's 19(a) statement 10:40:295 conduct. 6 at paragraph 135.) 6 Defendant argues Plaintiff failed to provide any 7 Several days earlier, WADA issued a letter 7 admissible evidence that the PGA Tour's alleged misconduct 8 announcing deer antler spray was not considered prohibitive. 8 caused Singh cognizable damages. (Memo in support of at 9 Again, same (19(a) statement, at paragraphs 129 through 9 page 6.) ) 10:4o:4e10 Defendant asserts Plaintiff cannot maintain a claim 11 On May 8th, 2013, Plaintiff commenced this action 11 for reputational damage, by itself, and was required to 12 against the Defendant, alleging, among other things, that 12 provide evidence the Tour's conduct also caused Plaintiff to 13 the Defendant recklessly administered its anti-doping 13 lose specific business opportunity. Same citation. 14 program, exposing Plaintiff to ridicule and humiliation; 14 Defendant takes issue with this Court's reliance on 15 that Defendant placed Plaintiff's prize money in escrow 10:41:1815 statements offered by Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Lightner which it 16 without legal authority; and that the Defendant 16 contends are inadmissible. Defendant argues, again, that 17 inconsistently disciplined golfers who had admitted using 17 both individuals -- both these individuals' opinions 18 deer antler spray, and in some cases, imposed no discipline 18 expressed through Affidavit are not based on personal 19 at all. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for negligence, 19 knowledge and, therefore, are not of any probative value. 20 breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, 10:41:4320 This argument was already made in Defendant's 21 breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of 21 initial Summary Judgement motion. Mr. Lightner and Mr. 22 emotional distress and conversion. 22 Hopkins are being, testimony is being offered as fact 3 On June 2nd, 2016, the Defendant PGA filed a Motion 23 witnesses who contend their opinions are based on personal 4 for Summary Judgement. 24 knowledge. 10:38:2125 On May 12th, 2017 this Court issued a Decision 10:42:0725 Bullet point 1 -- first bullet point: 26 granting PGA's motion for Summary Judgement in part and 26 Mr. Lightner was deposed by Defendant as a fact NK 09/12/ :17:51 PM Page 5 to 8 of 17 2 of 10 sheets 163 of 119 NK NK

17 INDEX NO /2313 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/2: / :32 AM.. NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ /21/ PROCEEDINGS 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 witness and testified about the same matters included in his 2 the weight of his testimony and not to its admissibility. 3 affidavit. (Plaintiff's memoranda in opposition at page 8.) 3 It is undisputed prior to the PGA ban, Singh had a 4 Bullet point two: For example, Lightner testified 4 contract with Cleveland Golf to the tune of $2,500,000 per 10: 5 and attested that, (i) he acted as Singh's agent with 10:47:395 year, which was not renewed. 6 respect to procuring marketing and sponsorship opportunities 6 As such, the Court continues to find Plaintiff had 7 for Singh; (ii) at the time of the Tour disciplined Singh, 7 made an ample showing that Singh may have sustained not only 8 he was negotiating a renewal of Singh's sponsorship 8 reputational injury, but also lost business opportunities in 9 agreement with Cleveland which, at the time, was worth 9 the form of sponsorships due to Defendant's acts sufficient 10:43:0310 $2.5 million per year; (iii) he had several conversations 104s:o310 to create an issue of fact for the jury to decide. 11 with a Mr. McDonald (Cleveland Golf's VP of Tour Operations) 11 Now, we get to category 2: 12 regarding renewing the sponsorship agreement; and, (iv) in 12 Next, the Defendant takes issue with this Court's 13 the midst of the discussions, McDonald, in the wake of 13 finding that it was unreasonable for it not to consult WADA 14 Singh's suspension, told him, him being Lightner, that 14 prior to suspending Singh. 10:43:415 Cleveland no longer wanted a Tour, quote, "face" 10:48:2615 As articulated in the Court's May 2017 Decision, 16 representing its brand. (Lightner affidavit, paragraphs 3, 16 according to the Court of Appeals, quote, "implicit in all 17 5, 7 and 8.) Lightner further attested to his personal 17 contracts is a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in 18 knowledge of the fact that, despite Mr. McDonald's 18 the course of contract performance." That cite is Dalton 19 representation, Cleveland continues to pay Tour "faces" to 19 versus Educ. Testing Services, 87 NY2d 384 at page 389, :44:1420 represent its brand -- in fact, that Cleveland has increased 10:49:0120 case. See also Van Valkenburgh, Nooger & Neville versus 21 the number of Tour "faces" it sponsors. (Lightner affidavit 21 Hayden Publ. Co., 30 NY2d 34, at page 45, cert denied at paragraph 8.) (Plaintiff's memoranda opposition at 8.) 22 U.S. 875, 93 Supreme Court Based on his personal knowledge of the facts and 23 Bullet point: Under New York law, the elements of 24 his conversations with McDonald, Mr. Lightner testified that 24 a claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair 10:44425 Mr. McDonald's rationalization had no factual basis and 10:49:3425 dealing are: (1) Defendant must owe Plaintiff a duty to act 26 quote, "made no sense." 26 in good faith and conduct fair dealing; (2) Defendant must NK NK PROCEEDINGS 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 Defendant has not presented any case law permitting 2 breach that duty...; and (3) the breach of the duty must 3 a sweeping prohibition of opinion testimony from lay 3 proximately cause Plaintiff's damages." In re Tremont Sec. 4 witnesses relating to another's decision-making process. 4 Law, State Law -- 10:45:075 See, e.g., Lightfoot versus Union arbide, 110 F.3d 898 at 10:51:o75 (Pause in the proceedings). 6 pages 911 and 912, (Second Circuit 1997) (opinion testimony 6 THE COURT: I do think it reads in Tremont, 7 of lay witnesses as to the reason for Plaintiff's 7 something Law, State Law and Insurance Litigation, 213 WL 8 termination was permissible and helpful, even without , at paragraph 8 (Southern District of New York, 9 personal knowledge of the actual reasoning of the 9 September 26, 2013.) 10:45:4910 corporation, where witness could explain factual basis of 10:s1:2710 The Court of Appeals has found encompassed within 11 the opinion.) 11 the implied obligation of each promisor to exercise good 12 Another point: While Defendant may take issue with 12 faith are, quote, "any promises which a reasonable person in 13 the credibility of Mr. Lightner or his opinions, that is 13 the position of the promisee would be justified in 14 material for cross-examination and, ultimately, for a jury 14 understanding were included." Dalton, 87 NY2d at 389; Rowe to determine or to deliberate on. to: versus Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 46 NY2d at page 16 Similarly, as for Mr. Hopkins, he was the President 16 62, 69, 1978 case. This embraces a pledge that, quote, 17 and Chief Executive Officer of Cleveland Golf for 15 years 17 "neither party shall do anything which will have the effect 18 and thus, naturally, has personal knowledge of Cleveland's 18 of destroying or injuring the right of the other party to 19 marketing and Singh's value (at least at the time Mr. 19 receive the fruits of the contract." Dalton at 87 NY2d at 10:46:4020 Hopkins was with Cleveland) to Cleveland, as a City. This 10:52:2720 page 389; also, Kirke La Shelle Co. Versus Armstrong Company 21 Court believes Mr. Hopkins can offer testimony about his , NY79, New York 79 at page 87, 1933 case. 22 experience with Cleveland and his opinion of Mr. McDonald's 22 As held in Dalton, where the contract contemplates 3 termination of Mr. Singh from Cleveland Golf. 23 the exercise of discretion, this pledge included a promise 4 Again, to the extent that the Defendant takes issue 24 not to act arbitrarily or irrationally in exercising that 10: with his opinion, what period of time Mr. Hopkins may be 10:53:0025 discretion. Again citing to Dalton at page 389, and also to 26 able to speak to, and whether he is credible, all goes to 26 Tedeschi versus Wagner College, 49 NY2d 652, 659, 1980 case. NK NK 3 of 10 sheets Page 9 to 12 of 17 09/12/ :17:51 PM 174 of 119

18 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/2: / :32 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ /21/ PROCEEDINGS 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 It gives this Court great concern that Defendant, a 2 In fact, the implied covenant of good faith 3 major sports agency, would find it reasonable to disregard 3 specifically directs against this. While Defendant is 4 pre-existing material considering deer antler spray (which 4 correct insomuch as the Court cannot alter the agreement 10:s 3 was never stated it was a violation of the anti-doping 10:57:555 entered into between the two parties, this Court can speak 6 protocol in and for itself) before issuing the suspension, 6 to that which the Agreement does not say. Insomuch as while 7 yet seek to consult WADA after making such a drastic 7 the agreement governs when the Defendant can speak, it does 8 decision. 8 not govern what Defendant can say. Therefore, it is 9 As stated in the Summary Judgement Decision, the 9 discretionary, and as discussed herein, and as held in 10:53:s710 agreement entered into between the two parties assigns 1o58:2110 Dalton, discretionary actions are held to the arbitrary and 11 Defendant a duty, albeit discretionary, to conduct and 11 irrational standard. 12 quote, an "appropriate investigation" into the potential 12 Consistent with that Court's earlier finding, it 13 Program violation. The word, quote, "appropriate" is not 13 continues to find that it is appropriate for a jury to 14 otherwise defined in the Agreement. Therefore, it is left 14 determine whether the words spoken by Mr. Finchem were in 10:54215 to interpretation of a, quote, "reasonable person." 10:5s:4515 violation of the covenant of good faith -- not whether he 16 As it stands now, there is no requirement that the 16 should or should not have spoken in accordance with the 17 Defendant agency must comply with -- going back to 17 underlying agreement. 18 evidentiary, it's In re Tremont Securities Law, State Law & 18 In conclusion, Defendant's Motion to Reargue is 19 Insurance Litigation, and I gave you the cite before, hereby denied. 10:s45820 WL , at paragraph 8, in the Southern District of New 10:59:0120 Of course, I understand you already have made your 21 York, September 26, application to the First Department, so we will wait on that 22 Final paragraph: As it stands now, there is no 22 decision. All right. So, thank you very much. 23 requirement that the Defendant agency must comply with MR. GINSBERG: Two housekeeping matters. One, this 24 there are no requirements the Defendant agency must comply 24 case has been going on for a long, long time. Is it 25 with in order to deem the investigation performed to be 1059:1925 possible for the Court to give us a trial date? This war of 26 "appropriate". Therefore, the Court finds it is up to a 26 a attrition is just battering my client, who is still NK NK PROCEEDINGS 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 jury to determine whether Defendant's decision to not 2 plagued by this. 3 consult with WADA and/or to ignore WADA studies and findings 3 That leads me to a second point. I don't think, in 4 issued prior to Plaintiff's suspension concerning deer 4 the 30 years I have done this -- this motion should never 10:s5:555 antler spray constitute, an "appropriate" investigation or 10:59:385 have been brought. My client never should have had to incur 6 whether the actions were arbitrary or irrational," under the 6 the cost. 7 Dalton standard. 7 In fact, the PGA can bring six attorneys to Court 8 So, that is the second prong. 8 to listen to the Court, say what it should have known is a 9 The third prong, category 3. 9 reflection -- this really is a war of attrition. as61510 Finally, Defendant argues Plaintiff cannot maintain 10:s9:s710 I would like the Court's permission, at least to 11 his implied covenant of good faith claim challenging Mr. 11 consider and speak with my client, about filing sanctions 12 Finchem's statements after the Tour withdrew it anti-doping 12 with regard to this motion. 13 case because the Tour program only limits the Tour's ability 13 THE COURT: I am not going to tell you that today. 14 to make public statements when an anti-doping case is, 14 When I came up the steps, the front steps -- I always come 10:56:3815 quote, "still pending." (Defendant's Memo in Support at page 11:00:1015 up the front steps -- first, I get my coffee and then come ) 16 up the front steps. I didn't see any gates there. No 17 In short, Defendant takes the position that it does 17 prohibition to do whatever you wish to do. 18 not matter what Mr. Finchem said because the anti-doping 18 So, I am not saying that you will prevail, but I am 19 case was no longer "pending." 19 saying that if you wish, you can certainly bring that. 10:56:5820 Presuming Mr. Finchem was quote, "permitted" to 11:00:2720 That is not going to be anything that the Court would say is 21 make statements, it is not the fact that he elected to, 21 inappropriate. 22 quote, "speak" which causes Plaintiff's concern, it is what 22 MR. GINSBERG: Thank you, your Honor. 3 he said. While his right to speak may be protected under 23 THE COURT: But, in terms of giving you a trial 4 the Agreement, no where does it say -- nor do Defendants 24 date, which I understand how frustrating it is for Mr argue -- that Mr. Finchem is permitted to be untruthful or 11: Singh, I can't do that until after the Court has ruled, 26 misleading, intentionally or otherwise in speech. 26 because there are two things that could happen. NK NK 09/12/ :17:51 PM Page 13 to 16 of 17 4 of 10 sheets 185 of 119

19 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/ :32 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ /21/ NK 2 The Court could rule, it could be a divided Court 3 or, they could make an application for leave to go to the 1 4 Court of Appeals and of course, that could happen. And, as 11: such, I am just not capable of giving you a date because we 6 don't know what's happened yet. 7 There has to be the appeal, it has to be final, has 8 to be complete. No ability to go to the Court of Appeals 9 before I will give you a date, but the moment that happens, 1101:1s10 I will try to give you a date while I am still around, 11 because I only have one more year. 12 MR. GINSBERG: Thank you. I appreciate that. 13 THE COURT: Sometime next year. 14 MR. GINSBERG: Thank you, your :Honor. 11:01:2915 MR. DREYER: Thank you, your Honor. 16 THE COURT: Make sure I get a copy of the Decision 17 and that will be the gray sheet. 18 xxx 19 THE FOREGOING IS CERTIFIED TO BE A 20 TRUE AN ACCURATE T NSC IPTION OF 21 THE 0 IN L STENO APH NOWS INA J. KOSS, C.S.R., C OFFICIAL COURT REP RT R NK 5 of 10 sheets Page 17 to 17 of 17 09/12/ :17:51 PM 196 of 119

20 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/ :32 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ /21/ $ 3 $2,500,000 p] - 11:4 3 [4) - 1:2, 9:16, 12:2' 14: [51-1:10, 3:23, 20, M21, 16:4 1 2:23 ' 8:4 ' 8: p] - 10:6 another's p1-10:4 Attorneys [2] - 1:18, 912 p] - -10:6 ANTHONY p] - 1:23 1:22 93 pl - 11:22 Anthony p] - 2:9 attrition [2] - 15:26, anti [9] - 3:3, 5:5, 5:7, 16:9 A 5:18, 6:13, 13:5, August [1] - 1:10 14:12, 14:14, 14:18 authority p j - 6:16 30th [1] - 6:2 ability [2] - W 3, W Anti [2] - 3:7, 3:11 Avenue p1-1: [1] - 302] -, G WH M - 1:15 anti-doping [91-3:3, [1] [i] M21 an m - 1:10 5:5, 5:7, 5:18, 6:13, B pl - 38 [i] 4:13 1: (il-i -31:19 according (11-13:5, 14:12, 14:14, ' 11:16 background p] - 2:20 14: p1-- 11:19 ACCURATE pj - Anti-Doping [2] - ban pl - 1G 110[i]- 10:5 3:7, ' 389 [41-11:19, 12:14, 1720 banne03] - 48 C2, 3: p - 11:22 12:20, 12:25 act [2] - -11;25, 11:25, 12:24 antler [8] , p - 6:9 acted pl - 9:5 based [4] 6;11,,' - 7:18, 8:18, 12th 4'7 4'13 ' ' 6 ' 8 ' 6'18 [3] - 2:16, 6:25, action 4 [3] - ' 6:4, 6:11, 8:23, 9:23 7:9 6:19 basis [2] - 9:25, 10:10 l 5' pl - 7:5 409 [1] - 11:21 actions [2] :6, battering pl - 15:26 17;7 134 p] - 6:10 45 p] - 11:21 15:10 battle [1] - 4:21 appealed [i] 5; p] - 6:6 46 p :15 activities pl - 5:9 BE [1] - 17:19 14th pl - 4:20 49 [1] - 12:26 acts â p] - Appeals [4-11:16 11:9 BEFORE [i] 1:11 12:10, 17:4, 17:8 15 pl -: 10:17 actual pl - 10:9 APPEARANCES p] - began pl - 3d 8 19 pl - 3:16 5 addition pl - 5:11, believes [1] 1:13-10:21 19(a [17) - 2:22, 2:26' 5' 9' 5 [3] - 3:2, 5:14, 17 address [2] - 3:19, application [2] - between [2] - 13:10, 3:5, 3:12, 3:16, 3:20, 50 p] :11 15:5 15:21 17:3 3:22, 3:25, 4:5, 4:9' 51 p) - 5:11 administered ti] - appreciate p] - bottle 17:12 [2] - 4:13, 4:18 4:12, 4:22, 5:10, 53 5:11 6:13 bottle's p1-4:26 appropriate [4]- 5:14, 5:20, 6:5, 6: [2] - 12:8, admissibility p] - bound p1-12 3:1 (i] 3: , 14:5, pl - 12:21 13:20 11:2 brand 15:13 [2] - 9:16, 9: p] - 12: pl - 1:19 admissible [1] - 8:7 appropriate" p] - BRANSTEN pl - 1: p] - 12:26 admitted [1] - 6:17 Breach 13:26 pl - 7: [1] - 11:19 adopted 6 p) - 3:10 April pl - breach 6:2 [5) - 6:20, 1997 pl - 10:6 advice pl - 3:17 arbitrarily p j - 12:24 6:21, 11:24, 12: :6, ' 8:9 Affidavit pl -8:18 arbitrary [2] - 14:6, bring [2] :7, 16: affidavit [3] - 9:3, brought 15:10 p] - 16:5 2 [2] pl - 1:19-11:11, 11:26 9:16, 9:21 arbitration [3] - bullet 5:18, [4] - 8:25, 9:4, pl - p1-5:20 9:10 agency [4] - 13:3, 11:23 6:3, 6: pl - [1] - 12:16 3:3 13:17, 13:23, 13:24 Arbitration p] - 5:19 business [2] - 8:13, / pl - p) - 1:9 2:16 Agency ti) -3:11 - argue [1) - 11: p) pl - 12:26 3:17 agent pl - 9:5 argues [3] - BY [3] 8:6, 8:16, - 1:16, 1:20, 2013 [8] -3: pl - 12:26 agreement 3:26, 4:20, [6) - 9:9,. 1:23 14:10 69 p] - 12:16 5:15, 6:2, 6:11, 12:9, 9:12, 13:10, 15:4, argument pl - 8:20 13:19, 13:21 15:7, 15:17 arguments n j - 7:23 c pl - 6:23 Agreement [3] - Armstrong pl - 12:20 C.M [2] - 1:26, 17: ) - 1:10, 6:25, 7 [1] - 9:17 13:14, 14:24, 15:6 Arps p] - 2:9 C.S.R [2] - 1:26, 17:25 7:3, 7:9, 11:15 79 p1-12:21 albeit pl - 13:11 ARPS p] - 1:21 caddie p] - 3:17 21 (2] - 3:20, 7:3 allegation p1-4:11 article [2] - 3:26, 46 cannot [3] - 8:10, 213 pl - 12:7 alleged 8 [2] - 7:26, 8:7 article's n] - 4:10 14:10, 15:4 22 pl - 14:16 8 [6] - allegedly p] -T18 9:17 9:22 articulated pl - 11:15 capable pl - 17:5-9:3, ' ' 221 pl - 7:9 alleging pl - 6:12 asserted 12:8 13:20 p] - 6:19 Carbide pl - 10: p] - 7:9 80 p j - allowed pl - 5:22 1:15 asserts p] - 8:10 case [9] - 10:2, 11:20, 2221(d)(1 p] - 7:16 87 [41 - ' 11:19, 12:14. assigns pl - 13:10 12:16, 12:21, 12:26, 25 pl - 5:15-12:19, 12:21 Association p1- [i] 5:19 14:13, 14:14, 14:19, 26 [2] - 12:9, 13: pl - 11:22 assume pl - 2:6 15: p j - 12: p j - ample p - 11:7 10:5 athletic p] - 4:3 cases p1-6:18 29th ' pl - 3:26 8th p] - anabolic p1-4:21 6:11. Atlantic pl - 12:15 categories p] - 7:24 2nd p1-6:23 Analytical pl - 4:19 attested [2] - 9:5, 9:17 category [2] - 11:11, AND pl - 17:20 attorneys [2] 9-1:14, 14:9 androgenic p j - 4:22 16:7 Category [1] - 8:4 90 p j - 5:10 announcing [1] - 6:8 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 09/12/ :17: 51 PM 6 of 10 sheets 207 of 119

21 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/ :32 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ /21/ caused [3] - 8:4, 8:8, Constitute [1] - 14:5 Dalton [7) - 11:18, determination [1] - entry [1] - 7:22 8:12 consult [4] - 8:2, 12:14, 12:19, 12:22, 5:17 erred [1] - 7:12 causes [2] - 6:19, 11:13, 13:7, 14:3 12:25, 14:7, 15:10 determine [3] - 10:15, escrow [3] - 5:13, 14:22 contacted [1] - 4:11 damage [3] - 7:25, 14:2, 15:14 5:24, 6:15 ceased [1] - 6:3 contained [2] - 3:9, 8:4, 8:11 determined [2] - 4:20, ESQ [s) - 1:16, 1:20, Centre [2] - 1:9, 1:18 4:26 damages [2] - 8:8, 5:4 1:23, 1:24, 1:24 cert [1] - 11:21 contemplates [1] - 12:3 determining (2) - essentially [1] - 7:23 certain [1] - 3:5 12:22 date (s] - 15:25, 16:24, 7:19, 7:21 events pl - 2:25 certainly [1] - 16:19 contend [1] - 8:23 17:5, 17:9, 17:10 directs [1] - 15:3 evidence [2] - 8:7, CERTIFIED [1] - 17:19 contends [1] - 8:16 dated [2] - 4:20, 7:8 disciplinary [1] - 6:4 8:12 challenge [1] - 8:3 contents [2] - 4:21, days [3) - 5:10, 6:7, discipline [1] - 6:18 evidentiary [1] - 13:18 challenging [1] - 4:26 7:20 disciplined [2] - 6:17, examination [1] - 14:11 continue pl - 5:24 Dealing pl - 7:15 9:7 10:14 Chief p j - 10:17 continues [3] - 9:19, dealing [4] - 6:20, discontinued pl - 6:5 example pl - 9:4 Circuit [1] - 10:6 11:6, 15:13 11:17, 11:25, 11:26 discretion [2] - 12:23, Executive p j - 10:17 citation [1] - 8:13 contract [4] - 11:4, decide [1] - 11:10 12:25 exercise [2] - 12:11, cite (4) - 4:15, 4:26, 11:18, 12:19, 12:22 Decision [4] - 6:25, discretionary [3] - 12:23 11:18, 13:19 contracts pl - 11:17 11:15, 13:9, 17:16 13:11, 15:9, 15:10 exercising p) - 12:24 citing [2] - 2:26, 12:25 conversations [2] - decision [7) - 2:15, discussed [1] - 15:9 existing [1] - 13:4 City [1] - 10:20 9:10, 9:24 2:17, 7:12, 10:4, discussing [1] - 4:3 experience [1] - 10:22 claim [3] - 8:10, 11:24, conversion p] - 6:22 13:8, 14:2, 15:22 discussions p] - 9:13 explain p] - 10:10 14:11 copy [2] - 7:20, 17:16 decision-making pl - dismissal pl - 7:13 explanation p] - 5:6 Claim pl - 7:14 corporation pl - 10:4 disregard p] - 13:3 exposing p] - 6:14 Cleveland [11] - 9:9, 10:10 deem pl - 13:25 distress [1] - 6:22 expressed pl - 8:18 9:11, 9:15, 9:19, correct pl - 15:4 deer [8] - 3:18, 4:4, District [2] - 12:8, extent p] - 10:24 9:20, 10:17, 10:20, cost pl - 16:6 4:6, 4:13, 6:8, 6:18, 13:20 10:22, 10:23, 11:4 COUNTY p] - 1:2 13:4, 14:4 divided pl - 17:2 F Cleveland's pl - course [3] - 11:18, defendant [2] - 8:14, done pl - 16:4 10:18 15:20, 17:4 10:2 doping [9] - pl :3, 5:5, face - 9:15 client [3] - 15:26, 16:5, Court [22) - 2:15, 6:25, Defendant [37) - 1:22, [>] 5:7, 5:18, 6:13, 13:5, faces [2 - R19, R21 16:11 7:12, 7:19, 10:21, 2:23, 3:3, 4:11, 4:14, 14:12, 14:14, 14:18 Co [2] - 11:21, 12:20 11:6, 11:16, 11:22, 4:18, 5:4, 5:6, 5:21, Doping [2] - fact pol - 4:8, 7:18, 3:7, 3:11 coffee p] - 16:15 12:10, 13:2, 13:26, 6:3, 6:12, 6:13, 6:15, down [1] - 8:22, 8:26, 9:18, 2:18 cognizable p) - 8:8 15:4, 15:5, 15:25, 6:16, 6:23, 7:3, 7:7, drastic p] - R20, W0, M21, 13:7 College [1] - 12: :8, :11, 8:6, 8:10, 8:16, DREYER [3] - 15:2, 16:7 1:23, commenced (2) :2, 17:4, Factor-1 8:26, 10:12, 10:24, [1] - 4:25 2:11, 17:15 5:18, 6:11 17:8 11:12, 11:25, 11:26, Dreyer [2] - fach pl - R23 2:10 committed [3] - 5:4, COURT p2) - 1:2, 13:2, 13:11, 13:17, factual due til - [2] 11:9-9:25, 5:7, 5:17 1:26, 2:2, 2:5, 2:8, 13:23, 13:24, 14:10' during [2] - 10H0 3:21, 5:22 company pj - 4: :17, 15:3, 15:7' duty [e] - fa p1-8 6:21, 8:2, Company [2] - 12:15, 16:23, 17:13, 17:16, 15:8 fa04) - &20, 1117, 11:24, 11:25, 12:2, 12:20 17:26 DEFENDANT p1- ()[ - ' ' 1:8 11:24, 11:26 13:11 competing pl - 5:12 Court's [5] - 8:14, defendant's pl - 3:5 duty.. pj - 12:2 competition pl - 5:12 11:12, 11:15, 15:12, Defendant's ps] - faith [a] - 6:20, 11:17, complete [1] - 17:8 16:10 2:14, 3:13, 5:9, 5:12, 11:24, 11:26, 12:12, E comply [3] - covenant 13:17, [s) - 6:20, 5:17, 5:22, 7:6, 7:23, 14:11, 15:2, 15:15 13:23, 13:24 11:17, 14:11, 15:2, 7:26, 8:4, 8:20, 11:9, e.g p1-10:5 Faith DJ - 7:14 concern [2] - 15:15 14:2, 14:15, 15:18 earnings pl - 5:12 fall p] - 7:23 13:2, 14:22 Covenant pl - 7:14 Defendants - pl Educ pl - 11:19 February [2] - 4:20, concerning pl - 14:4 CPLR [2] - 7:9, 7:16 14:24 effect pl - 12:17 5:15 conclusion pl - 15:18 create p] - 11:10 defined pl - 13:14 EILEEN [1] - 1:11 fiduciary p] - 6:21 condition pl - 3:13 credibility pl - 10:13 deliberate [1] - 10:15 elected pl - 14:21 filed [2] - 6:23, 7:3 conduct [4) - credible 8:5, pl - 10:26 denied [3] - 7:8, elements p] - 11:23 filing p] - 16:11 8:12, 11:26, 13:11 cross pl - 10:14 11:21, 15:19 embraces pl - 12:16 final [2] - 13:22, 17:7 consent p] - 3:14 cross-examination denying p] - 7:2 emotional pl - 6:22 finally pl - 14:10 consider pl - 16:11 [1] - 10:14 Department pl - enacted pl - 3:3 Finchem [4] - 14:18, 'w- considered pl - 15:21 encompassed pl - 14:20, 14:25, 15:14 6:8 considering p] - deposed 13:4 D pl - 8:26 12:10 Finchem's [2] - 8:3, consistent p) - despite 15:12 pl - 9:1 8 entered [2] - 13:10, 14:12 d)(1) pj - 7:9 destroying p] - 12:18 15:5 findings pl - 14:3 7 of 10 sheets OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 218 of /12/ :17:51 PM

22 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/ :32 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/2017 /21/2017 Firm [1] - 2:3 15:23 IS [1] - 17:19 list [2] - 3:9, 3:10 morning Is] - 2:4, 2:7, firm [2] - 2:6, 2:9 [1] issuance [1] - 5:3 listed [1] - 5:2 2:11, 2:12, 2:13 First (1) - 15:21-4:3 issue [51- [s] - 8:14, 10:12, listen [1] - 16:8 Motion [5] - 6:23, 7:5, FLOM [1] - 1:21 I 6:25, 14:4 LLC [2] - 1:14, 2:3 6:26, 7:4, 7:10, 7:13, FIom [1] - 2:9 t.f. identified [2] - issuing [1] - 13:6 LLP [3] - 1:21, 2:6, 2:9 7:16, 7:19, 7:21, 4:24, following [1] - 5:3 itself [2] 7:17-8:11, 13:6 lose [1] - 8:13 8:21, 16:4, 16:12 FOREGOING [1] - IGF-1 [2] - iv [1] 4:24, 4: ;12 9:12 lost [1] - 11:8 motions [1] - 2:16 17:19 mouth [1] - 3:24 ignore (1) - 14:3 forfeiture [1] - 5:25 ii [1] - 9:7 J M MR [1o] - 2:4, 2:7, form [1] - 11:9 2:11, 2:12, 2:13, III 1;18 forth [3] Januamil - 32 main (1) - 2:25 3:7 3:15 15:23, 16:22, 17:12, iii [1-9:10 JEFFREY [2] - 1:20, maintain [2] - 8:10, 5:16 17:14, 17:15 Illustrated [1] - 4:2 1:24 14:10 Four [1] - 1:22 must [e] - 11:25, front [3] - immediately [1] - O Jem [1] - 22 maintained [1] - 3:11 16:14 11:26, 12:2, 13:17, implicit [1] - 11:16 Judgement [5] - â 6:24, major [1] - 13:3 16:15 16:16 13:23, 13:24 implied [51-6:20, 8:2, 6:26, 7:8, 8:21, 13:9 Manual [4] - 3:7, 3:16, fruits [1] - 12:19 12:11, 14:11, 15:2 judgement [1] - -2:16 5:2, 5:16 frustrating [1] - 16:24 N Implied [1] - 7:14 June [2] - 6:23, 7:3 manual [1] - 3:10 imposed [1] - 6:18 jury [4] - Manual" 10:14, 11:10, Manual") [1] - 3:8 naturally [1] - 10:18 G inadmissible [1] - 14:2, 15:13 marketing [2] - 9:6, negative [2] - 4:16, gates [1] - 16:16 8:16 Justice [1] - 1:11 10:19 4:21 GINSBERG [7] - -, 1:14, inappropriate [1] - justified [1] - 12:13 material (2) - 10:14, negligence [1] - 6:19 1:16, 2:4, 15:23, 16:21 13:4 negotiating [1] - 9:8 16:22, 17:12, 17:14 INC [1] - 1:7 K matter[,i-14:18 - never [3] - 13:5, 16:4, Ginsberg [2] - 2:3 included pi - 9:2, Kirke [1] - matters [3] -T18, R2, 1220 Golf [3] - 10:17, 10:23, 12:14, 12:23 15:23 Neville (1) - 11:20 11:4 including [1] - knee [1] - 3% 3:14 McDonald [3] - 9:11, NEW [2] - 1:2, 1:2 golf [1] - 2:25 inconsistently [1] - knowledge [6] - 8:19, 9:13, ' 9:24 New [10) - 1:10, 1:15, 8:24, 9:18 9:23 ', Golf's [1] - 9:11 6:17 McDonald'S [3] - 9:18, 1:23, 11:23, 12:8, 10:9, ' 10:18 golfer [1] - 2:21 increased [1] - 9:20 9:25, 10:22 12:21, 13:20 known [71-2:24, 3:4 golfers [2] - 3:14, 6:17 incur [1] - 16:5 MEAGHER [1] next 21 - m 2, M 3:7, 3:11, 4:2 4:3 govern [1] - 15:8 INDEX [1] - 1:9 Meagher [1] - 2:9 NINA [2] - 1:26, 17:25 16;8 governs [1] - 15:7 individuals [1] - 8:17 KOSS [2] - member 1:26, ' 17:25 [1] - 2:22 NO [i i--1:9 granting [2] - individuals' 6:26, individuals [1] - 8:17 members [1] - 3:5 Nooger [1-11:20-7:12 infliction [1] - 6:21 membership [1] - 3:13 North [1] - 2:25 L gray [1] - 17:17 informed [2] - 5:7. memo [1] - 8:8 NOTES [1] - 17:21 Great [1] - 12:15 5:21 Laboratory [1] - 4:19 Memo [1] - 14:15 notice [1] - 7:21 great [1] - 13:2 ingested [1] - 3:23 laboratory [1] - 4:20 memoranda [2] - 9:3, number [1] - 9:21 Growth [1] - 4:25 initial [1] - 8:21 laboratory's [1] - 5:3 9:22 Number [1] - 7:5 first [3] - 6:3, 8:25, humiliation [1] - 6:14 10:24, 11:10, 11:12 Litigation [2] - 12:7, 7:6, 7:8, 15:18 16:15 issued [41-- 2:16, 6:7, 13:19 motion [111- [i<] - 2:14, injuring [1] - 12:18 LAW [1] - 1:14 Memphis [1] - 1:19 NY2d le) - 11:19, [11- H injury [<] â 11:8 Law [e] - 2:3, 12:4, men's [1] - 2:25 11:21, 12:14, 12:15, ' Hayden [1] - insomuch [2] - 15:4, 12:7, 13:18 MENITOVE [2] - 1:24, 12:19, 12:26 11:21 15:6 law [4) - 7:18, 10:2, 2:13 NY79 [1] - 12:21 hearing [1] - 6:3 held [5] - instant [1] - T3 n23, 12:4 Menitove [1] - 2:10 5:13, 5:24, InsuHn [1] lan2) - m, 10:7 MICHAEL [1] - 1: :22, 15:9, 15:10 helpful [1] - Insulin-like [1] - 4:25 leads [1] - 16:3 midst [1] - 9:13 10:8 obligation [1] - 12:11 hereby [1] - Insurance [2] - 127, leash2] - M, M million [1] - 9:10 15:19 OF [4] - 1:2, 1:2, 17:20-7:16 herein [1] - 13:19 leam2] -, 17:3 misapprehended [1] - 15:9 off-season [1] - 3:21 Honor [3] - intentional [1] - 6:21 left [1] - 13:14 7:19 offer 16:22, [1] - 10:21 p1- kgal -6:16 17:14, 17:15 intentionally m - misconduct [2] - 7:26, offered [2] - 8:15, 8:22 HONORABLE [1] - 14:26 letter [1] - 6:7 8:7 Officer [1] - 10:17 interpretation [1] - lifetime [1] - 2:22 MISHKIN [2] - 1:24' 1:11 OFFICIAL [2] - 1:26, 13:15 Lightfoot [1] - 10:5 2:12 hopefully [1] - 2:18 17:26 Hopkins [6] - investigation [3] - 8:15 Lightner [10) - 8:15, Mishkin [1] - 2:10 Olympic [1] - 4: , 225, M5 &21, &26, M, W, misleading [1] - 14:26 8:22, 10:16, 10:20, one (el - 3:22, 4:25, irrational [2] - 6, N, W, 9:21. moment [1] - 17:9 10:21, 10:25 6:2, 7:25, 15:23, housekeeping [1] - 15:11 9:24, 10:13 money [2] - 5:23, 6:15 17:11 irrationally [1] - 12:24 limits [1] - 14:13 month [1] - 3:22 Operations [1] - 9:11 09/12/ :17:51 PM OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER 229 of of 10 sheets

23 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/ :32 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ /21/ opinion [5] - 10:3, permitted [2] - 14:20, proceeding [11- [i] - 5:19 referenced li] - 4:6 sent [1] - 4:18 10:6, 10:11, 10:22, 14:25 proceedings) p] - refers pl - 4:9 September [2] - 12:9, 10:25 permitting [1] - 10:2 12:5 reflection [11- [i] - 16:9 13:21 opinions [3] - 8:17, person [2] - 12:12, process pj - 10:4 regard p] - 16:12 Sequence pl - 7:5 8:23, 10:13 13:15 procuring pl - 9:6 regarding pl - 9:12 service pl - 7:20 opportunities [2] - personal [e) - 8:18, product [1] - 3:18 REISMAN li] - 1:17 Services p1- [i] - 11:19 9:6, 11:8 8:23, 9:17, 9:23, professional [2] - Reisman [1] - 2:6 set [3] - 3:6, 3:15, 5:16 opportunity p] - 8:13 10:9, 10:18 2:21, 2:25 related p] - 5:9 several [2] - 6:7, 9:10 opposes pl - 7:10 Peter [2] - 2:2, 2:3 program [31-- 3:3, relating pl - 10:4 shall [41-7:17, 7:20, opposition [2] - 9:3, PETER [2] - 1:14, 1:16 6:14, 14:13 release [1] - 4:10 12:17 9:22 PGA [81-1:7, 2:8, Program [5] - 3:4, 3:6, reliance pl - 8:14 sheet pl - 17:17 - orally pl - 3:24 2:22, 2:23, 6:23, 8:7, 3:7, 3:15, 13:13 renewal pl - 9:8 Shelle p1- [i] 12:20 Order [3] - 7:8, 7:11, 11:3, 167 prohibited [3] - 3:9, renewed p j - 11:5 short pl - 14:17 7:21 PGA's pl - 6:26 3:10, 5:2 renewing p] - 9:12 showing pl - 11:7 order p1- [i] - 13:25 Pine pl - 1:15 prohibition [2] - 10:3, report [3] - 4:19, 4:24, similarly p j - 10:16 organization [2] - placed pl - 6:15 16:17 5:3 Singh pil - 2:2, 2:5, 3:14, 5:9 plagued DJ - 16:2 prohibitive [1] - 6:8 REPORTER [2] - 1:26, 2:21, 8:8, 9:7, 10:23, organizer pl - 2:24 PLAINTIFF pj - 1:4 prohibits pl - 3:4 17:26 11:3, 11:7, 11:14, ORIGINAL pl - 17:21 Plaintiff [30] - 1:14, promise p] - 12:23 represent pl - 9:20 16:25 otherwise [71- [7] - 2:24, 1:18, 2:21, 3:14, promisee pl - 12:13 representation pl - SINGH [1] - 1:3 3:4, 3:7, 3:11, 4:2, 3:17, 3:23, 4:5, 4:8, promises pl - 12:12 9:19 Singh's [41- [4] - 9:5, 9:8, 13:14, 14:26 4:10, 4:12, 4:15, promisor p j - 12:11 representative p j - 9:14, 10:19 overlooked pl - 7:18 4:16, 5:4, 5:7, 5:8, prong [2] - 14:8, 14:9 4:14 sit pl - 2:18 owe pl - 11:25 5:16, 5:17, 5:21, protected pj - 14:23 representing p] - six p1-16:7 5:24, 6:4, 6:11, 6:14, protocol pl - 13:6 9:16 SKADDEN pl - 1:21 p 6:19, 7:10, 8:6, 8:10, provide [2] - 8:6, 8:12 reputational [2] - Skadden [1] - 2:9 Pacific p] - 8:12, 11:6,, 11:25, provided p1-12:15 [i] - 4:14 8:11, 11:8 SLATE p) - 1:21 14:10 proximately pj - 12:3 required p j - 8:11 Slate pl - 2:9 Plaintiff's [22] - 2:22, Publ pl - 11:21 requirement [2] - sometime li] - 17:13 12:15, Public 12:20 12:21 12:25 li] - 14:14 13:16, 13:23 sorry pl - 7:9 ' 3:21 4:6 4:9, 4:22, pursuant [2] - 5:15, requirements n] - sought pl - 7:13 9 of 10 sheets,,, 5:14 pages pl - 7:9 13:24 Southern 10:6 [2] - 12:8, 6:5, 6:15, 7:13, 7:25, â respect pl - 9:6 13:20 paragraph [ie] :3, 9:22, 10:7, 12:3, 2:26, 3:6 3:12, 3:16 Q result [2] - 5:8, 7:25 specific pl - 8:13 14:4, 14:22 ridicule 3:20, 3:23, 3:24, 4:5, quote p41- [1] - 6:14 specifically [3] - 7:11, [i4] 3:18, 4:21 play [i] ' Hs 4:9, 4:13, 4:23, 5:14' pl - 24 W, M3 pledge - 12: [2] SEEM 5:20, 6:6, 9:22, 12:8' [3] - speech pl - 14:26 12: 3 11:16, I 12:12, 12:16, 13:20, 13: , 020, 2:7 spoken [2] point 13:12 [s] -8;25, 9:4, 13:13, 13: :14, paragraphs [3] - 14:22' Rosenblum 5:11, [2] 16:3 14:15, 14:20, 14:22-2:5, 15:16 10:12, 11:23, 6:9 9:16 2:6 sponsors li] - 9:21 Poplar p PART pj - - 1:19 1:2 Rowe pl - 12:14 sponsorship [3] - 9:6, R part [2] - portion [2] - 77,T13 6:26, 7:2 rule pl - 17:2 9:8, 9:12 parties [2] - position [2] - 12:13, rationalization Ul - ruled sponsorships 13:10, pl - 9:25 15:5 11:9 party [2] - possible li] - 15:25 re [2] - 12:3, 13:18 12:17, S Sports pl - 4:2 posted pl - 3:26 reads 12:18 pl - 12:6 sports sam [i] - p) - 13:3 potential le 4;16 pause pl - pl - 13:12 12:5 really pl - 16:9 spray p3] - 3:18, 3:21, pre a 1 - pl - 13:4 Reargue 9:19 pl - sanctions 15:18 pi - 16:11 3:23, 4:4, 4:7, 4:13, pendency pl - Pre-existing pl - 13:4 reargue 5:23 [3] - scheduled 2:15, 77 p] - 6: I 68 6:18, prepared pl - 2:17 season [2] - 7:17 li] - 3:21 13:4 14:5 Pending [21-14:15, presented p1- [i] - 10:2 reargument n1 - Sec 7:4 p] - 12:3 14:19 spraying li] - 3:24 per [2] - es ent pl - 10:16 Reargument 9:10 11:4 pl - Second 7:6 pl - 10:6 SWm -1:22 m performance pl - presuming pl - 14:20 reason p] - second 10:7 [2] - 14:8' standard [ :7, prevail [2] - 5:25, 16:3 reasonable 11:18 [3] - 15:11 16:18 Securities ' performed pl - 13:25 12:12, 13:3, 13:15 pl - 13:18 stands [2] :16, period [3] - Previous p] - 7:12 3:22, 5:10, reasoning p1 - see 10:9 P] 10:5, 1020, 13:22 prize [2] - 5:23, 6:15 receive :16 12:19 start 10:25 n j - 2:20 probative permissible pl - pj - 8:19 10:8 recklessly pl - seek 6:13 pl - 13:7 SW E m - M Problems permission pl - pl - 3:19 reconsider 16:10 pj - seeks 2:15 [2) - 7:7, 7:11 State [3] - 12:4, 12:7, procedures pl - 5:15 sense [2] - 2:19, 9:26 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER of /12/ :17:51 PM

24 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/ :32 AM NYSCEF DOC. NO RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ /21/ :18 11:2 versus te] - 10:5, statement [17) - 2:23, testing [3] - 4:15, 11:19, 11:20, 12:15, 2:26, 3:6, 3:12, 3:16, 4:19, 11:19 12:20, 12:26 3:20, 3:23, 3:25, 4:5, THE (121-1:2, 2:2, VIJAY [1] - 1:3 4:9, 4:13, 4:22, 5:10, 2:5, 2:8, 2:14, 12:6, Vijay [2] - 2:2, 2:21 5:14, 5:20, 6:5, 6:9 16:13, 16:23, 17:13, violation [6] - 5:5, 5:8, statements [5] - 8:3, 17:16, 17:19, 17:21 5:18, 13:5, 13:13, 8:15, 14:12, 14:14, therefore [41-8:19, 15:15 14:21 13:14, 13:26, 15:8 VP [1] - 9:11 states [1] - 7:16 third [1] - 14:9 STENOGRAPHIC [1] - three [21-7:23, 8:3 W 17:21 timely [1] - 5:16 WADA [61-- 6:7, 8:2 steps [4] - 16:14, TO [1] - ' 17:19 11:13, 13:7, 14:3 16:15, 16:16 today [1] - 16:13 WADA". [1] - 3:12 steroids [1] - 4:22 Tour [11) - 2:8, 2:22, still [3] - agnen1] - 12:26 14:15, 15:26, 2:23, 2:24, 9:7, 9:11, wa 1] 17: :15, 9:19, 9:21, Street [2] - wake 1:9, 1:15 [1] - 9:13 14:12, 14:13 studies [1] - 14:3 TOUR [1] - war [2] 1:7-15:25, 16:9 submission [1] - 5:6 Tour's [41- website - p] :2, 8:7, submitted [1] - week 4:16 [2] 8:12, 14:13-4:15, 6:2 subsequent [1] - 5:5 tournaments [2] - weight [1] - 11:2 substance [4] - winnings 4:8, 5:13, 5:22 [1] - 5:25 4:12, 4:17, 5:2 tours [1] - wish 2:25 [2] - 16:17, 16:19 substances [4] - 3:5, TRANSCRIPTION [1] - withdrew [1] - 14:12 witness 3:9, 3:10, 4:25 17:20 [2] - 9:2, sufficient [1] - 11:9 Tremont [3] - 10:10 12:3, suggesting [1] - witnesses 4:7 12:6, 13:18 [3] - 8:23, Suite [1] - 1:19 Triad [1] - 1:18 10:4, 10:7 M summary [1] - 2:16 trial [2] - 15:25, 16:23 [2] - 12:7, 13:20 Summary [5] - 6:24, TRIAL [1] - word 1:2 [1] - 13:13 6:26, 7:8, 8:21, 13:9 TRUE [1] - words [1] 17:20-15:14 supplement [1] - 4:4 try [1] - World 17:10 [1] - 3:11 support [1] - 8:8 tune [1] - worth 11:4 [1] - 9:9 Support [1] - 14:15 two [e1 - written [2] - 5:6, 7:21 8:2, 9:4, SUPREME [1] - 1:2 [1] - 4:2 13:10, 15:5, 15:23, Supreme [1] - 11:22 16:26 suspended [1] - 5:8 X suspending [1] - U xxx 11-17:18 11:14 U.S [1] - 11:22 suspension [3] - 9:14, UCLA [1] - 4:18 Y 13:6, 14:4 10:14 sustained [1] - ultimately Dj - yean4] - R10, 1 M, 11:7 under [3] - 11:23, 17:11, 17:13 sweeping [1] - 10:3 14:6, 14:23 years [2] - 10:17, 16:4 underlying [1] - 15:17 YORK [2] - 1:2, 1:2 undisputed [1] - 11:3 York (10) - 1:10, 1:15, Tea [1] - 12:15 Union [1] - 10:5 1:23, 11:23, 12:8 Tedeschi [1] - 12:26 unreasonable [1] - 12:21, 13:21 Tennessee [1] - 1:19 11:13 TERM [1] - 1:2 untruthful [1] - 14:25 termination [2] - 10:8, up [41-13:26, 16:14, 10:23 16:15, 16:16 terms [3] - 3:6, 3:15, urine [1] - 4:16 16:23 tested [2] - 4:16, 4:21 V testified 9:24 [3] - 9:2, 9:4' testimony [5] - 8:22, 10:3, 10:6, 10:21' 09/12/ :17:51 PM Valkenburgh [1] - 11:20 value [2] - 8:19, 10:19 Van til - 11:20 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER of of 10 sheets

25 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 608 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/29/ of 119