Arkansas iGaming legalisation discussion over for 2025

Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP (CK) filed an emergency motion with New Jersey Superior Court yesterday (3 March) to stay the court’s order to disclose in discovery the identity of the group which compiled the report and the entity which ultimately commissioned it, pending a future appeal.

The filing marks the latest twist in the now years-old legal defamation battle following a 2021 anonymous report which accused Evolution of operating in prohibited markets and resulted in billions of dollars being wiped from its share price.

The court has said Evolution have until tomorrow to file a brief opposing the motion, with judge Porto to conduct oral argument the following day.

Evolution cleared by two state regulators

The live casino supplier, which strong denies all wrongdoing, was ultimately cleared by two state regulators, including the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement, that reviewed the document after it was sent to them.

The court said last week: “Accordingly, on the issue as to the report’s veracity, this court finds the answer was provided by the DGE and it is clear that the DGE and the [Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board] did not find any of the Report’s allegations true or substantially true.”

Judge John C. Porto’s order on Friday had set the stage for the potential resolution of one of the most tantalising mysteries in US online gambling — who was behind the report?

In the latest filing, CK’s attorneys said: “[CK] will suffer substantial, immediate and irreparable harm absent a stay because (i) it will be forced to disclose confidential client information, a disclosure that cannot be undone; and (ii) disclosure of the identities of the investigative firm and its client will moot [CK’s] appeal of the February 28 Order, thus insulating that ruling from appellate review.”

The law firm also argued disclosing the information would cause it significant damage while granting a stay would not cause similar problems Evolution.

Additionally, CK highlighted prior case law, and said granting its motion would serve the public interest by protecting the confidentiality of attorney-client information.

The ruling was made as part of the case’s discovery process, which meant if the order had not been challenged, Evolution’s attorneys would have the names by this Friday, 7 March.

This could have been revealed publicly later in future court filings, or possibly in a public statement if the live casino giant opted to go down this route.

In recent years, the court dispute has largely focused on the issue of discovery and the identity of the individuals behind the report.

Déjà vu

If stay is granted and appeal ultimately is filed, this will be the second time the issue of discovery has been sent up to a New Jersey appellate court.

In May 2022, the court denied CK’s motion for a protective order and ordered it to reveal the identities of the entities behind the report.

Following this, the white-collar litigation law firm filed an appeal, with the state’s Appellate Division eventually remanding the issue back down the Superior Court with the ruling the matter would depend on whether the 2021 report was accurate or not.

A three-judge panel said at the time: “[W]e conclude that the revelation of the client’s identity, if at all discoverable, must await a better understanding of the weight of plaintiffs’ causes of action, which seem to greatly, if not exclusively, turn on the report’s veracity.”

Legal and regulatory expert expert Bill Pascrell III told NEXT.io the fact that the issue has already been sent to the appellate court may not be an indication the latest appeal will fail.