Exhibit B(On Mar 10, 2016, at 11:37 AM Ji 0: AG. IMB2:ked me to take a look at this for you. | have looked to see if our office has offered any written advice on NRS 463.120 and.3407 in the context ofa licensee using those provisions to prevent disclosure of documents in their possession which have been provides to the Board, However, | have not located anything. | will check with I when Il returns to work next week. ‘As | understand the Sands’ position, itis arguing against having to produce to Jacobs 2 categories of Information: 1) correspondence made to the Board perhaps as a result of an inquiry from the Board to the licensee — the Sands argues that the information provided to the Board is confidential under 463.120 and “absolutely privileged” pursuant to NRS 463.3407; and 2) information provided to federal investigative agencies and the Board arguably acting in a concurrent or collaborative investigation ~ the Sands argues those documents are also cloaked with privilege and confidentiality and the Sands should ‘not have to produce them to Jacobs. Although | haven't fully analyzed this issue, my sense is that the Sands’ arguments are unlikely to succeed and Judge Gonzalez has indicated as much. Everyone anticipates an appeal of the issue to the Supreme Court. As pointed out to me by III the Sands argument, if successful, may be helpful to the Board so that full and frank disclosures are more readily made to the Board, However, to the extent you are considering having the Board appear in this litigation, | would advise. against it. If the Sands is ultimately ‘successful with its arguments, | don’t believe that the Board’s long-standing position and interpretation of the law (that documents/information in the Board’s Possession are confidential and/or privileged and litigants are precluded from seeking such information from the Board) will be diminished. If that were the ultimate conclusion, it is likely only to further encourage licensees to provide information to the Board. On the flip-side, if the Sands is not ultimately successful, there is similarly no detriment to the Board. Also, avoiding involvement in this litigation would be consistent with the Board’s historical Practice when it comes to 3" party litigation. Of course, if you want further analysis on this matter, please let me know. Senior Deputy Attorney General Attomey General's Office5420 Kietzke Lane, Suite 202, Reno, Nevada 89531, + may contin reed ad confident ifoematon ond Intended ony er he nl r the seeder by reply e ma and delete cps of the gil message. Th ted. if you are not the intended recip From: Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 2:07 PM To: Subject: FW: Jacobs LVS Hearing Update Please see Chairman Burnett's request below that we search for any work performed by our office (that is, AGO, research memorandum, etc.) regarding the application of the confidentiality and privilege Provisions of NRS 463.120 and 463.3407. Would you please accept this assignment? Nevada Office of the Attorney General pg. 2< : This communication, including any attachments, contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any review, dissemination, or copying of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of the original message and any attachments from your workstation and network mail system. From: Burnett, A.G, [mailto:acburnett@gcb.nv.gov) Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 6:02 AM To: LaBadie, Mike; ‘Subject: Re: Jacobs LVS Hearing Update |'m not sure if we have any AGOs on the following question: While information provided to the GCB and other entities is protected as to obtaining it from the GCB, does that mean it is forever protected simply because it has been given to the GCB? | see where the judge is going here, and frankly, she may be correct. |n other words, if a company provides info to the GCB only, no one else will ever see it. But ifit is sent to the GCB and four other agencies, one can obtain it from the other agencies without a violation of the NRS? Take @ look [land let me know your thoughts. AG. Burnett Chairman Nevada Gaming Control Board Sent from my iPad On Mar 3, 2016, at 5:04 PM, LaBadie, Mike wrote: Sent from my iPhoneBegin forwarded message: From: “Epling, Michael” Date: March 3, 2016 at 4:45:14 PM PST To: "LaBadie, Mike" , "Mueller, David” Ce: "Presson, Diane" ‘Subject: Jacobs LVS Hearing Update Please find the attached update regarding the Jacobs/LVS hearing held on Thursday, March 3, 2016. <2016 03 03 Jacobs Sands Hearing Update.docx>