2019.06.12 - Riot Games - Declaration

1 2.
On October 25, 2018, DFEH Director Kevin Kish issued a verified Director’s Complaint
2 (DFEH Matter No. 201810-04010525) against the Respondents in this matter -- Riot Games, Inc.; Riot
3 Games Direct, Inc.; Riot Games Merchandise, Inc.; and Riot Games Productions, Inc. (collectively,
4 Respondents) -- pursuant to Government Code sections 11180, 12960, 12961, and 12965 and section
5 10012 of the California Code of Regulations, title 2. The complaint alleges that Respondents have
6 engaged in discriminatory practices against female employees and job applicants on the basis of sex. A
7 true and correct copy of the Director’s Complaint and Notice of Director’s Complaint is attached as
8 Exhibit 1.
9 3. On June 10, 2019, the Department served Respondents with a First Amended Director’s
10 Complaint and Notice, as well as a copy of the complaint filed by DFEH Director Kevin Kish with the
11 Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC). A true and correct copy of the First Amended
12 Director’s Complaint, Notice, EEOC Complaint, and proof of service is attached as Exhibit 2.
13 4. On January 8, 2019, counsel for the DFEH and Respondents agreed to accept service by
14 email, with service effectuated as of the date the documents are emailed to the other party. A true and
15 correct copy of this email correspondence dated January 8, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 3.
16 5. On February 15, 2019, the DFEH served respondent Riot Games, Inc. (Riot Games or
17 Riot) with a Request for Production, Set 2, pursuant to its investigative authority under Government
18 Code section 12963.4. Responses were due March 18, 2019. A true and correct copy of this investigative
19 discovery and proof of service is attached as Exhibit 4.
20 6. On March 12, 2019, counsel for Respondents emailed the DFEH stating their belief that
21 the DFEH’s Request for Production, Set 2, seeks confidential information. A true and correct copy of
22 this email dated March 12, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 5.
23 7. On March 14, 2019, the DFEH wrote to Riot explaining that concerns regarding
24 confidentiality and privacy do not provide a basis for withholding information from the government
25 when there are sufficient protections in place to prevent public disclosure of protected information. The
26 DFEH also proposed a protocol for designating information as confidential as to prevent inadvertent
27 disclosure in response to a Public Records Act request. In addition, though Riot had not requested
28 additional time to produce responsive documents, the DFEH offered a one-week extension to produce
-2-
Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Riot Games, Inc., et al.
Declaration of Grace Shim in Support of Petition to Compel
1 by March 25, 2019. A true and correct copy of this letter dated March 14, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 6.
2 Later that day, the DFEH followed up with an email clarifying the proposed protocol. A true and correct
3 copy of this email dated March 14, 2019 at 4:51 p.m. is attached as Exhibit 7.
4 8. Riot did not accept the DFEH’s offer to extend the deadline to March 25, 2019. Instead,
5 on March 18, 2019, Riot Games produced only written responses to the DFEH’s Request for Production,
6 Set 2, without any of the underlying documentation or employee compensation data. Along with the
7 written responses, counsel for Respondents emailed the DFEH asking to meet and confer regarding the
8 DFEH’s position on confidentiality. A true and correct copy of Riot Games’s written response to
9 DFEH’s Request for Production, Set 2, is attached as Exhibit 8. A true and correct copy of counsel’s
10 email dated March 18, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 9.
11 9. On March 19, 2019, the DFEH emailed counsel for Respondents requesting that Riot
12 Games produce the requested documentation by the end of the week, Friday, March 22, 2019. A true
13 and correct copy of this email dated March 19, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 10.
14 10. Counsel for Respondents emailed back later that day, asking to speak with the DFEH the
15 following day, March 20, 2019. Following the meet and confer phone call on March 20, 2019, counsel
16 for Respondents emailed the DFEH with their summary of the discussion. A true and correct copy of
17 counsel’s email dated March 20, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 11. However, because counsel’s email did
18 not accurately reflect the parties’ conversation, the DFEH had to clarify many of the issues raised during
19 the call and the parties’ positions in an email the next morning on March 21, 2019. A true and correct
20 copy of this email dated March 21, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 12.
21 11. On March 25, 2019, counsel for Respondents emailed the DFEH a letter reiterating their
22 position on confidentiality, and “seeking reassurances that confidential and trade secret information . . .
23 will not be disclosed either in response to a Public Records Act (“PRA”) request or publicly by the
24 DFEH.” A true and correct copy of this letter dated March 25, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 13.
25 12. That same day, Riot Games produced copies of four PowerPoints regarding its
26 compensation review process, one compensation review guidance document, and one Excel spreadsheet
27 listing the code names for five W-2 Box 12 codes, which are codes that the IRS uses to represent various
28 forms of income such as 401(k) contributions. Riot Games did not produce employee compensation
-3-
1 data. A true and correct copy of the cover letter accompanying Riot Games’s March 25, 2019 production
2 is attached as Exhibit 14.
3 13. On March 28, 2019, the DFEH wrote to counsel for Respondents again reiterating the
4 Department’s policies of not disclosing protected information in response to a Public Records Act
5 request. In addition, though not required, to alleviate counsel’s concerns, the Department offered to
6 provide counsel with advance notice of any Public Records Act request seeking the investigative file in
7 this matter. A true and correct copy of this letter dated March 28, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 15.
8 14. From April 4, 2019 to May 2, 2019, the DFEH and Riot exchanged six letters in which
9 counsel for Respondents continued to reiterate their position on confidentiality, the Department
10 continued to assure counsel that it cannot -- per internal policy and state and federal law -- publicly
11 disclose confidential information, and the parties continued to discuss the details of the DFEH’s offer to
12 provide counsel for Respondents with advance notice of a Public Records Act request seeking the
13 investigative file in this matter. Throughout the course of this exchange, counsel for Respondents
14 continued to raise new issues. For example, on April 4, 2019 counsel for the first time alleged that salary
15 information is confidential, on April 22, 2019 counsel for the first time listed other broad categories of
16 information that they believe to be per se confidential, and on April 30, 2019 counsel for the first time
17 stated that they intended to redact employee names from its data production. A true and correct copy of
18 the chain of letters -- Riot letter dated April 4, 2019; DFEH letter dated April 16, 2019; Riot letter dated
19 April 22, 2019; DFEH letter dated April 26, 2019; Riot letter dated April 30, 2019; and DFEH letter
20 dated May 2, 2019 -- is attached as Exhibit 16.
21 15. On May 8, 2019 -- nearly three months after the Department’s February 15, 2019 Request
22 for Production of Documents, Set Two -- Riot Games produced one single snapshot of employee
23 compensation data from an unknown point in time. A true and correct copy of the cover letter
24 accompanying Riot Games’s data production on May 8, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 17.1
25
1
26 From May 9, 2019 to June 7, 2019, the parties exchanged meet and confer correspondence regarding
other items requested in the DFEH’s Request for Production of Documents, Set 2, including employee
27 surveys and compensation studies. These matters are discussed throughout the correspondence attached
as Exhibits 17-22, and were the subject of additional letters between the parties which are not attached to
28
this declaration as they are separate from the employee compensation data at issue in this petition.
-4-
1 16. On May 14, 2019, the Department wrote to counsel for Respondents with eight questions
2 regarding its employee compensation data production. Question 1 asked, “What is the snapshot date of
3 the data produced?” A true and correct copy of this letter dated May 14, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 18.
4 17. On May 24, 2019, counsel for Respondents responded to the questions and stated in
5 response to Question 1 that the data produced was pulled in March 2019. A true and correct copy of
6 counsel’s letter dated May 24, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 19.
7 18. On May 30, 2019, the Department responded to counsel’s letter. With respect to Question
8 1, the DFEH explained what a “snapshot” is. The DFEH reiterated its request for complete employee
9 compensation data, which should at a minimum include snapshots of employee compensation as of the
10 last day of each year. A true and correct copy of this letter dated May 30, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 20.
11 19. On June 6, 2019, counsel for Respondents responded to the DFEH’s letter. With respect
12 to Question 1, counsel claimed to be confused as to what a “snapshot date” means and stated that “[a]ny
13 data that would have been recorded as of a given ‘snapshot date’ is included in the aggregated data that
14 Riot produced.” A true and correct copy of counsel’s letter dated June 6, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 21.
15 20. On June 7, 2019, the Department responded to counsel’s letter. With respect to Question
16 1, the DFEH further explained what a snapshot is, what information is required in a snapshot, and how
17 to create a snapshot. The DFEH also provided an example of what a snapshot looks like. The DFEH
18 reiterated its original request for complete employee compensation data and asked that this outstanding
19 data be produced by June 10, 2019, 5:00 p.m. A true and correct copy of this letter dated June 7, 2019 is
20 attached as Exhibit 22.
21 21. On June 10, 2019, counsel for Respondents emailed the DFEH, stating that they would
22 respond to the Department’s June 7, 2019 the following day. A true and correct copy of this email dated
23 June 10, 2019 at 5:04 p.m. is attached as Exhibit 23.
24 22. On June 10, 2019, the DFEH responded to counsel’s email. The DFEH requested that
25 Riot Games provide complete and accurate responsive documents by 12:00 p.m. on June 11, 2019. A
26 true and correct copy of this letter dated June 10, 2019 at 5:58 p.m. is attached as Exhibit 24.
27 23. On June 11, 2019, counsel for Respondents responded to the DFEH with an email and
28 letter. In both the email and letter, counsel for Respondents referenced the parties’ numerous phone calls
-5-
1 and exchanges of emails and letters yet disagreed that these communications over the past four months
2 were a meet and confer. Along with the email and letter, Riot supplemented its responses to the DFEH’s
3 Request for Production, Set 2, but did not provide the full employee compensation data requested by the
4 DFEH. A true and correct copy of counsel’s email dated June 11, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 25. A true
5 and correct copy of counsel’s letter date June 11, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 26.
6 24. On June 12, 2019 at approximately 3:00 p.m., I emailed counsel for Respondents --
7 Katherine V.A. Smith, Catherine A. Conway, Tiffany Phan, and Lauren Fischer -- to inform them that
8 the DFEH will appear for an ex parte application on Friday, June 14, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. in the Los
9 Angeles County Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012,
10 for a date setting an Order to Show Cause hearing regarding the DFEH’s Verified Petition for an Order
11 Compelling Compliance with Investigative Discovery. I gave notice to counsel to appear in the Civil
12 Clerk’s Office, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 at 8:30 a.m. on
13 June 14, 2019 to check with the clerk for the assigned courtroom.
14 25. As of the filing of the ex parte application, Riot Games has not yet informed the
15 Department whether they will oppose the application or appear in court.
16 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
17 true and correct.
18 Executed on this 12th day of June 2019, at Elk Grove, California.
19
20 _________________________________
Grace Shim
21 Attorney for Petitioner
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-
EXHIBIT 1
COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act
(Gov. Code, § 12940 et. seq.)
In the Matter of the Complaint of DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525

KEVIN KISH, Director, Department of Fair
Employment and Housing,
Complainant,
vs.
RIOT GAMES, INC.; RIOT GAMES DIRECT,

INC.; RIOT GAMES MERCHANDISE, INC.;
and RIOT GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC.
12333 W. Olympic Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90064
Respondents.
THE PARTICULAR ARE:
1. I, Kevin Kish, allege that respondents, Riot Games, Inc., Riot Games Direct, Inc., Riot
Games Merchandise, Inc. and Riot Games Production, Inc., engaged in discrimination, harassment
and retaliation against its employees due to one or more Fair Employment and Housing Act protected
bases: Sex - Gender.
Games Merchandise, Inc. and Riot Games Production, Inc., failed to hire, select, or employ persons
because of their sex, discriminated in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment based on sex, that female employees have been subjected to sexual harassment,
including harassment by third parties, and Riot Games, Inc., Riot Games Direct, Inc., Riot Games
Merchandise, Inc., and Riot Games Production, Inc., failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent
unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
-1-
DFEH No. 201810-04010525
Date Filed: October 25, 2018
Games Merchandise, Inc. and Riot Games Production, Inc., may be liable for acts of violence, or
intimidation by threat of violence, committed against persons based on one or more protected bases:
Sex – Gender.
4. My belief is based on the following: See attached Notice of Group or Systemic

Investigation and Director’s Complaint for Group/Class Relief.
-2-
DFEH No. 201810-04010525
VERIFICATION:
I, Kevin Kish, am the Authorized Representative in the above-entitled complaint. I have

read the foregoing complaint and know the contents therein. The same is true of my own knowledge,
except as to those matters, which are therein alleged on information and believe, and as to those
matters, I believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
Date: October 25, 2018
DIRECTOR’S SIGNATURE
Elk Grove, CA
Kevin Kish
-3-
DFEH No. 201810-04010525
1 JANETTE L. WIPPER (#275264)
Chief Counsel
2 MARY MAYEDA (#110947)
Associate Chief Counsel
3
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
4 AND HOUSING
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100
5 Elk Grove, CA 95758
Telephone: (916) 478-7251
6 Facsimile: (888) 382-5293
7
Attorneys for the Department
8
9 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
10 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11
12 In the Matter of the Complaint of DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525

KEVIN KISH, Director, DEPARTMENT OF
13 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING,
14 NOTICE OF GROUP OR SYSTEMIC
Complainant,
15 INVESTIGATION AND DIRECTOR’S
vs. COMPLAINT FOR GROUP/CLASS
16 RELIEF
17 (Gov. Code, §§ 11180, 12960, 12961, and
and RIOT GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC. 12965; Civ. Code, § 51.7)
18
19 Respondents.
20
21 TO: RIOT GAMES, INC.; RIOT GAMES DIRECT, INC.; RIOT GAMES
22 MERCHANDISE, INC.; and RIOT GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC., 12333 W. Olympic
23 Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064 and c/o C T Corporation System, 818 W 7th Street, #930, Los
24 Angeles, CA 90017.
25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Government Code sections 11180, 12960, 12961,
26 and 12965, the DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING (“Department” or
27 “DFEH”) issues this group or class Complaint of Discrimination against respondents RIOT GAMES,
28 INC.; RIOT GAMES DIRECT, INC.; RIOT GAMES MERCHANDISE, INC.; and RIOT GAMES
-1-
Dept. of Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Riot Games, Inc. (Kish)
Notice of Group or Systemic Investigation and Director’s Complaint for Group/Class Relief
1 PRODUCTIONS, INC. (“Respondents”). This matter will be investigated as a group or class
2 complaint and group or class relief will be sought as appropriate.
3 1. The Department has obtained information, which, if proven, indicates Respondents
4 may have engaged, and may continue to engage, in discriminatory practices against female
5 employees and job applicants on the basis of sex, in violation of Government Code section 12940.
6 2. Specifically, the Department alleges that Respondents, are entities which regularly
7 employs five or more persons, have discriminated in compensation or in terms, conditions, or
8 privileges of employment on the basis of sex. If proven, these allegations would constitute a
9 violation of Government Code section 12940.

10 3. The Department further alleges that Respondents failed to hire, select, or employ
11 women based on their sex and that female employees have been subjected to sexual harassment,
12 including harassment by third parties. If proven, these allegations would constitute violations of
13 Government Code section 12940.
14 4. The Department further alleges that Respondents failed to take all reasonable steps
15 necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring. If proven, these allegations
16 would constitute violations of Government Code section 12940.
17 5. The Department further alleges that Respondents may be liable for acts of violence, or
18 intimidation by threat of violence, committed against women based on their sex. If proven, these
19 allegations would constitute violations of Civil Code section 51.7.

20 6. These unlawful practices, if proven, adversely affect, in a similar manner, female
21 employees and applicants for employment.
22 7. The Director issues this group or class Complaint of Discrimination on behalf of all
23 female employees and applicants for employment, in the State of California.
24 8. The DFEH’s investigation revealed that Riot Games, Inc.; Riot Games Direct, Inc.;
25 Riot Games Merchandise, Inc.; and Riot Games Productions, Inc. are the proper respondents for all
26 purposes in this matter.
27
28
-2-
1 9. The DFEH’s investigation shall include, but not be limited to, the foregoing
2 allegations. The investigation is ongoing and will further determine the scope and merits of these
3 allegations.
4 You may, but need not, respond to this notification in writing by submitting your response to:
5 Mari Mayeda, Associate Chief Counsel

Department of Fair Employment and Housing
6 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100
9 DATED: October 25, 2018 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT

AND HOUSING
10 KEVIN KISH
11 Director
12
By:
13
Kevin Kish
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
EXHIBIT 2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION
BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
Under the California Government Code
(Gov. Code, §§ 11180, 12940 et seq.)
In the Matter of the Complaint of DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525

KEVIN KISH, Director, Department of Fair EEOC Case No. 37A-2019-02174-C
Employment and Housing,
Complainant,
vs.

and RIOT GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
12333 W. Olympic Blvd.

Respondents.
THE PARTICULARS ARE:
1. I, Kevin Kish, allege that respondents, Riot Games, Inc.; Riot Games Direct, Inc.; Riot
Games Merchandise, Inc.; and Riot Games Production, Inc., engaged in discrimination, harassment
and retaliation against its employees due to one or more protected bases: Sex – Gender.
Games Merchandise, Inc.; and Riot Games Production, Inc., failed to hire, select, or employ persons
because of their sex; discriminated in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment based on sex; retaliated against female employees for engaging in protected activity; that
female employees have been subjected to sexual harassment, including harassment by third parties;
and Riot Games, Inc.; Riot Games Direct, Inc.; Riot Games Merchandise, Inc.; and Riot Games
Production, Inc., failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent unlawful discrimination, harassment, or
retaliation.
-1-
DFEH No. 201810-04010525
Amended Date: June 10, 2019
Games Merchandise, Inc.; and Riot Games Productions, Inc., engaged in discrimination against its
employees due to one or more protected bases: Association with persons who are or are perceived to
be members of a protected class.
Games Merchandise, Inc.; and Riot Games Productions, Inc., discriminated in terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment based on association; retaliated against these employees for engaging in
protected activity; and failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent unlawful discrimination,
harassment, or retaliation.
Games Merchandise, Inc.; and Riot Games Production, Inc., may be liable for acts of violence, or
intimidation by threat of violence, committed against persons based on one or more protected bases:
Sex – Gender.
6. My belief is based on the following: See attached First Amended Notice of Group
or Systemic Investigation and Director’s Complaint for Group/Class Relief.
VERIFICATION:
I, Kevin Kish, am the Authorized Representative in the above-entitled complaint. I have

read the foregoing complaint and know the contents therein. The same is true of my own knowledge,
except as to those matters, which are therein alleged on information and believe, and as to those
matters, I believe it to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
is true and correct.
___________________________________ June 10, 2019

DIRECTOR’S SIGNATURE DATE
Elk Grove, CA
Kevin Kish
-2-
DFEH No. 201810-04010525
Amended Date: June 10, 2019
1 JANETTE L. WIPPER (#275264)
Chief Counsel
2 MARI MAYEDA (#110947)
3
4 AND HOUSING
Telephone: (916) 478-7251
6 Facsimile: (888) 382-5293
7
8
11
12 In the Matter of the Complaint of DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525

KEVIN KISH, Director, DEPARTMENT OF EEOC Case No. 37A-2019-02174-C
13 FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING,
14 FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF GROUP
Complainant,
15 OR SYSTEMIC INVESTIGATION AND
vs. DIRECTOR’S COMPLAINT FOR
16 GROUP/CLASS RELIEF
17
and RIOT GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC., (Gov. Code, §§ 11180, 12960, 12961, and
18
12965; Civ. Code, § 51.7)
19 Respondents.
20
21 TO: RIOT GAMES, INC.; RIOT GAMES DIRECT, INC.; RIOT GAMES MERCHANDISE,
INC.; and RIOT GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC., c/o Catherine A. Conway and Katherine
22 V.A. Smith, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. 333 South Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90071.
23 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Government Code sections 11180, 12960, 12961,
24 and 12965, the DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING (“Department” or
25 “DFEH”) issues this group or class Complaint of Discrimination against respondents RIOT GAMES,
26 INC.; RIOT GAMES DIRECT, INC.; RIOT GAMES MERCHANDISE, INC.; and RIOT GAMES
27 PRODUCTIONS, INC. (“Respondents”). This matter will be investigated as a group or class
28 complaint and group or class relief will be sought as appropriate.
-1-
Dept. of Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Riot Games, Inc., et al. (Kish)
First Amended Notice of Group or Systemic Investigation and Director’s Complaint for Group/Class Relief
1 1. The Department has obtained information, which, if proven, indicates Respondents
2 may have engaged, and may continue to engage, in discriminatory practices against female
3 employees and job applicants on the basis of sex, in violation of Government Code section 12940,
4 Labor Code section 1197.5 (Gov. Code, § 11180), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
5 2. Specifically, the Department alleges that Respondents, entities which regularly employ
6 five or more persons, have discriminated in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of
7 employment on the basis of sex. If proven, these allegations would constitute violations of
8 Government Code section 12940, Labor Code section 1197.5 (Gov. Code, § 11180), and 42 U.S.C. §
9 2000e et seq.
10 3. The Department further alleges that Respondents failed to hire, select, or employ
11 women based on their sex, that female employees have been subjected to sexual harassment,
12 including harassment by third parties and a hostile work environment, and that female employees
13 have been retaliated against for engaging in protected activity. If proven, these allegations would
14 constitute violations of Government Code section 12940 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
15 4. The Department further alleges that Respondents may be liable for acts of violence, or
16 intimidation by threat of violence, committed against women based on their sex. If proven, these
17 allegations would constitute violations of Civil Code section 51.7.
18 5. These unlawful practices, if proven, adversely affect, in a similar manner, female
19 employees and applicants for employment.

20 6. The Department has also obtained information, which, if proven, indicates
21 Respondents may have engaged, and may continue to engage, in discriminatory practices against
22 employees associated with persons who are or are perceived to be members of a protected class, in
23 violation of Government Code section 12940 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
24 7. Specifically, the Department alleges that Respondents discriminated against
25 employees in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on association, that employees
26 have been subjected to sexual harassment, including a hostile work environment, and that employees
27 have been retaliated against for engaging in protected activity. If proven, these allegations would
28 constitute violations of Government Code section 12940 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
-2-
1 8. The Department further alleges that Respondents failed to take all reasonable steps
2 necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring. If proven, these allegations
3 would constitute violations of Government Code section 12940.
4 9. These unlawful practices, if proven, adversely affect, in a similar manner, all
5 employees of and female applicants for employment with Respondents.
6 10. The Director issues this group or class Complaint of Discrimination on behalf of all
7 employees of and female applicants for employment with Respondents in the State of California.
8 11. The DFEH’s investigation revealed that Riot Games, Inc.; Riot Games Direct, Inc.;
9 Riot Games Merchandise, Inc.; and Riot Games Productions, Inc. are the proper respondents for all
10 purposes in this matter.
11 12. The DFEH’s investigation shall include, but not be limited to, the foregoing
12 allegations. The investigation is ongoing and will further determine the scope and merits of these
13 allegations.
14 You may, but need not, respond to this notification in writing by submitting your response to:
15 Mari Mayeda, Associate Chief Counsel

Elk Grove, CA 95758
17
18
19 DATED: June 10, 2019 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT

AND HOUSING
20
KEVIN KISH
21 Director
22
23 By:
Kevin Kish
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION PERSON FILING CHARGE
Kevin Kish:
KEVIN KISH
THIS PERSON (CHECK ONE)
_X__ Claims to be aggrieved
vs. __ Is filing on behalf of other person(s)
RIOT GAMES, INC.; DATE OF ALLEGED VIOLATION

RIOT GAMES DIRECT, INC.; Earliest Most Recent
January 1, 2015 October 25, 2018
RIOT GAMES MERCHANDISE, INC.; and
RIOT GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC. PLACE OF ALLEGED VIOLATION
California, County of Los Angeles
EEOC CHARGE NUMBER

37A-2019-02174-C
FEPA CHARGE NUMBER (if known)
201810-04010525
NOTICE OF CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION IN JURISDICTIONS WHERE AN FEP AGENCY WILL INITIALLY PROCESS
(See EEOC "Rules and Regulations" for additional information)
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT A CHARGE OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION UNDER
☐ Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
☐ The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
☐ The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY
☐ The EEOC and sent for initial processing to

(FEP Agency)
 The CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING and sent to the EEOC for dual filing purposes.
While EEOC has jurisdiction (upon the expiration of any deferral requirement if this is a Title VII charge) to investigate this charge, EEOC may refrain from beginning an
investigation and await the issuance of the Agency's final findings and orders. These final findings and orders will be given weight by EEOC in making its own
determination as to whether or not reasonable cause exists to believe that the allegations made in the charge are true.
You are therefore encouraged to cooperate fully with the Agency. All facts and evidence provided by you to the Agency in the course of its proceedings will be considered
by the Commission when it reviews the Agency's final findings and orders. In many instances the Commission will take no further action, thereby avoiding the necessity of
an investigation by both the Agency and the Commission. This likelihood is increased by your active cooperation with the Agency.
 As a party to the charge, you may request that EEOC review the final decision and order of the above named Agency. For such a request to be honored, you must
notify the Commission in writing within 15 days of your receipt of the Agency's final decision and order. If the Agency terminates its proceedings without
issuing a final finding and order, you will be contacted further by the Commission. Regardless of whether the Agency or the Commission processes the charge,
the Recordkeeping and Non-Retaliation provision of Title VII and the ADEA as explained on the reverse side of this form apply.
For further correspondence on this matter, please use the charge number(s) shown.
☐ An Equal Pay Act investigation (29 U.S.C. 209(d)) will be conducted by the Commission concurrently with the Agency's investigation of the charge.
 Enclosure: Copy of the Charge
BASIS OF DISCRIMINATION:
☐ RACE ☐ COLOR ☒ SEX ☐ RELIGION ☐ NATIONAL ORIGIN ☐ AGE ☒ OTHER
☐ DISABILITY ☒ RETALIATION
CIRCUMSTANCES OF ALLEGED VIOLATION:

See attached complaint.
DATE TYPED NAME/TITLE OF AUTHORIZED EEOC OFFICIAL SIGNATURE
June 5, 2019 William R. Tamayo
EEOC FORM 131-A

INFORMATION SHEET ON CHARGES OF DISCRIMINATION
EEOC RULES AND REGULATIONS
Section 1601.15 EEOC's Procedural Regulations provides that persons charged with employment discrimination, such as yourself,
may submit a statement of position or evidence with respect to the allegations contained in this charge.
The Commission's Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements are set forth in Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part
1602 (see particularly Section 1602.14 below) for the Title VII and the ADA; 29 CFR Part 1620 for the EPA; and 29 CFR Part
1627, for the ADEA. These regulations generally require respondents to preserve payroll and personnel records relevant to a charge
of discrimination until disposition of the charge or litigation relating to the charge (for ADEA charges, this notice constitutes the
written request set out in Part 1627 for respondents to preserve records relevant to the charge -- the records to be retained are as
described in Section 1602.14, as cited below, and should be kept for the periods described in that section). Parts 1602, 1620 and
1627 also prescribe record retention periods -- generally, three years for basic payroll records and one year for personnel records.
Questions regarding retention periods and the types of records to be retained should be resolved by reference to the regulations.
Section 1602.14 Preservation of records made or kept . . . Where a charge of discrimination has been filed, or an action brought by
the Commission or the Attorney General, against an employer under Title VII or the ADA, the employer shall preserve all personnel
records relevant to the charge or the action. The term "personnel records relevant to the charge," for example, would include
personnel or employment records relating to the aggrieved person and to all other aggrieved employees holding positions similar
to that held or sought by the aggrieved person and application forms or test papers completed by an unsuccessful applicant and by
all other candidates for the same position as that for which the aggrieved person applied and was rejected. The date of "final
disposition of the charge or the action" means the date of expiration of the statutory period within which the aggrieved person may
bring an action in a U.S. District Court, or where an action is brought against an employer either by the aggrieved person, the
Commission, or by the Attorney General, the date on which such litigation was terminated.
NOTICE OF NON-RETALIATION REQUIREMENT
Section 704(a) of Title VII, Section 4(d) of the ADEA, and Section 503(a) of the ADA provide that it shall be an unlawful
employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his/her employees or applicants for employment, for an
employment agency to discriminate against any individual, or for a labor organization to discriminate against any member thereof
or applicant for membership, because s/he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,
proceeding, or hearing under this title. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 contains similar provisions. Additionally, Section 503(b) of
the ADA prohibits coercion, intimidation, threats, or interference with any person because s/he has exercised or enjoyed, or aided
or encouraged others in their exercise of employment, or rights under the Act.
Persons filing charges of discrimination are advised of these Non-Retaliation Requirements and are instructed to notify EEOC if
any attempt at retaliation is made. Note that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 provides substantial additional monetary provisions to
remedy instances of retaliation or other discrimination, including for example, to remedy the emotional harm caused by on-the-job
harassment.
NOTICE REGARDING PRESENTATION BY ATTORNEYS
Although it is not necessary that you be represented by an attorney while we handle this charge, you have a right, and may wish to
retain an attorney to represent you. If you are represented by an attorney we request that you provide the Commission with your
attorney's name, address, and telephone number, and that you ask your attorney to write to the Commission confirming such
representation.
Reverse side of EEOC Form 131/131-A (Test 10/94)
Page 2 of 2
1 JANETTE WIPPER (#275264)
Chief Counsel
2 MARI MAYEDA (#110947)
3 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
AND HOUSING
Elk Grove, CA 95758
5 Telephone: (916) 478-7251
Facsimile: (888) 382-5293
6
7
10
In the Matter of the Complaint of KEVIN KISH, DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525
11 Director, DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EEOC Case No. 37A-2019-02174-C
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING,
12
Complainant, DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
13 EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING’S
vs. PROOF OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE
14
15 INC.; RIOT GAMES MERCHANDISE, INC.;
and RIOT GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC.
16
Respondents.
17
18
19 I, the undersigned, hereby declare:

20 I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within cause. My business and mailing
21 address is 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100, Elk Grove, CA 95758. My electronic service address is
22 Aymie.Nguyen@dfeh.ca.gov.
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
-1-
Proof of Electronic Service
1 On June 10, 2019 I electronically served, as stipulated by the parties on January 8, 2019, a copy
2 of the following and attached documents described as:
3 1. FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF GROUP OR SYSTEMIC INVESTIGATION AND

DIRECTOR’S COMPLAINT FOR GROUP/CLASS RELIEF;
4
2. DFEH’s FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION; and
5 3. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC) COMPLAINT.
6 In the Matter of the Complaint of Kevin Kish, Director, Department of Fair Employment and
7 Housing v. Riot Games, et al., DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525 on each of the following persons
8 listed below at the electronic notification address(es) as follows:
9 Katherine V.A. Smith
E-mail: KSmith@gibsondunn.com
10 Catherine A. Conway
11 E-mail: CConway@gibsondunn.com
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
12 333 South Grand Avenue
13 Attorneys for Respondents, Riot Games Inc., et al.
16 Executed on this 10th day of June 2019 at Elk Grove, California.
17
18 _________________________________
Aymie Nguyen
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Proof of Electronic Service
EXHIBIT 3
Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH
From: Smith, Katherine V.A. <KSmith@gibsondunn.com>

Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2019 2:08 PM
To: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH; Conway, Catherine A.
Cc: Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH; Truong,
Cathy@DFEH
Subject: RE: Kish v. Riot Games, Inc. et al., DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525: Service by email
Will do, thank you.

From: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH <Siri.Thanasombat@dfeh.ca.gov>
To: Smith, Katherine V.A. <KSmith@gibsondunn.com>; Conway, Catherine A. <CConway@gibsondunn.com>
Cc: Mayeda, Mari@DFEH <Mari.Mayeda@dfeh.ca.gov>; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH <Irina.Trasovan@dfeh.ca.gov>; Toyama,
Kaitlin@DFEH <Kaitlin.Toyama@dfeh.ca.gov>; Truong, Cathy@DFEH <Cathy.Truong@dfeh.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Kish v. Riot Games, Inc. et al., DFEH Case No. 201810‐04010525: Service by email

[External Email]
Hi Katherine,

Yes, service will be effectuated as of the date the documents are emailed to the other party, barring any technical
challenges such as with any party’s email servers. Please include all DFEH contacts, cc’ed on this email, on all
correspondence regarding this case.

Thank you,
Siri

To: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH <Siri.Thanasombat@dfeh.ca.gov>; Conway, Catherine A. <CConway@gibsondunn.com>
Kaitlin@DFEH <Kaitlin.Toyama@dfeh.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Kish v. Riot Games, Inc. et al., DFEH Case No. 201810‐04010525: Service by email

Yes, Cathy and I are both with Gibson Dunn and we will consent to electronic service. I assume this means service will
be effectuated as of the date the documents are emailed to the other party?

Thanks,
Katherine

Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 11:53 AM
To: Conway, Catherine A. <CConway@gibsondunn.com>; Smith, Katherine V.A. <KSmith@gibsondunn.com>
Subject: Kish v. Riot Games, Inc. et al., DFEH Case No. 201810‐04010525: Service by email

[External Email]
1
Hi Katherine and Catherine,

I believe you have spoken with my DFEH colleague Irina Trasovan last month. As she mentioned, I’ll be representing the
California DFEH on this matter. Moving forward and for efficiency sake, will either or both counsel be willing to accept
service by email? Please let me know by tomorrow, 1/9/19, if possible.

Thank you,
Siri

_______________________________________________
Sirithon (Siri) Thanasombat
Senior FEH Counsel
Telephone: (916) 478-7251
Fax: (888) 382-5293

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to
advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
2
EXHIBIT 4
1 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
AND HOUSING
Elk Grove, CA 95758
3 Telephone: (916) 478-7251
Facsimile: (888) 382-5293
4
5
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
6
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
8 In the Matter of the Complaint of KEVIN KISH, DFEH Case No.: 201810-04010525
Director, DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
9
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING,
10
Complainant, AND HOUSING’S REQUEST FOR
11 PRODUCTION, SET TWO, ON
vs. RESPONDENT RIOT GAMES, INC.
12
13 (Gov. Code, §§ 12930, 12963.1, 12963.4, 11180)
INC.; RIOT GAMES MERCHANDISE, INC.; and
14 RIOT GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
15 Respondents.
16
17 TO: RIOT GAMES, INC.
18 Pursuant to Government Code section 12963.4, the Department of Fair Employment and
19 Housing requests that respondent RIOT GAMES, INC. serve verified written responses to the requests
20 below and produce for inspection and copying the documents and things described below that are in its
21 possession, custody, or control within thirty (30) days of service. The documents should be produced to
22 Mary Wheat c/o Griselda Ballesteros, Department of Fair Employment and Housing, 2218 Kausen
23 Drive, Suite 100, Elk Grove, California 95758.
24 DEFINITIONS
25 1. The terms “YOU,” “YOUR,” “YOURS,” and “RESPONDENT” as used herein shall
26 mean RIOT GAMES, INC. and any of its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, predecessors,
27 agents, employees, accountants, investigators, or assigns and anyone acting on YOUR behalf.
28 ///
-1-
Kish v. Riot Games, Inc., et al. (DFEH No. 201810-04010525)
DFEH’s Request for Production to Riot Games, Inc., Set Two
1 2. The terms “DOCUMENT” or “DOCUMENTS,” as used herein means any written,
2 recorded, electronic, and/or graphic matter or information, however produced or reproduced, in any
3 media, including every non-identical copy thereof and including, but not limited to, contracts,
4 agreements, COMMUNICATIONS, POLICIES, manuals, CORRESPONDENCE, telegrams, e-mails,
5 memoranda, records, reports, books, summaries, or records of telephone conversations, summaries of
6 records, of personal conversations, or interviews, diaries, forecasts, statistical statements, work papers,
7 drafts, copies graphs, charges, accounts, analytical records, minutes or records of meetings, consultants
8 reports, appraisals, reports of summaries of negotiations, notes, marginal notations, bills, invoices,
9 checks, photocopies, lists, ledgers, receipts, and bank statements. This term includes handwriting,
10 typewriting, printing, photostatting, photocopying, scanned, or other machine memory, and every other
11 means of recording any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation, including, but not
12 limited to, letters, words, or pictures within the “POSSESSION,” “CUSTODY,” or “CONTROL” of the
13 respondent, or of any employee, representative, including, without limitation, attorneys and
14 accountants, or of any other person acting or purporting to act for or on behalf of the respondent.
15 3. “INTERPRETING” as used herein includes reading, describing, entering, imputing,
16 recording, summarizing, analyzing, or interpreting data.
17 4. “POSSESSION,” “CUSTODY,” and “CONTROL” shall mean documents in the actual
18 or constructive possession of the respondent, or any officer, director, agent, accountant, or attorney
19 acting directly or indirectly for and on behalf of the respondent.
20 5. The term “COMPUTER-READABLE FORMAT” shall mean Microsoft Word,
21 Microsoft Excel, text only, rich text format, and/or comma-separated variable format, with information
22 and data produced on CD-ROMs. It shall also include metadata for the information and/or data
23 produced, concerning dates (e.g., the created date and the last modified date for the information and/or
24 data) and authors/users (e.g., the users who created or modified information and/or data). The
25 information and/or data produced should not be zipped, compressed, encrypted, or otherwise restricted
26 or proprietarily protected for specific use.

27 ///
28 ///
-2-
1 6. The terms “FIELD” or “FIELDS” shall mean all information and/or data that a user can
2 enter into a field or record in the HRIS and/or other employment-related databases, including any
3 algorithm or formula used to determine or calculate the value in the field.
4 7. The term “CORRESPONDENCE” includes all letters, telegrams, notices, messages, e-
5 mails, text messages, instant messages, other written COMMUNICATIONS or memoranda, or other
6 records of conversations, meetings, conferences, or other oral COMMUNICATIONS.
7 8. The terms “STUDY” and “STUDIES” include all reports, analyses, memoranda,
8 statistical compilations, reviews, and other types of written or printed submissions of information.
9 9. The terms “POLICY” and “POLICIES” shall mean each rule, procedure, or directive,
10 formal or informal, and each common understanding or course of conduct that was recognized as such
11 by your present or former officers, agents, employees, or other persons acting or purporting to act on
12 your behalf, that was in effect at any time during the period covered by these requests. These terms
13 include any change of policy.
14 10. The terms “RELATE TO,” “REFER TO,” “RELATING TO,” and “CONCERNING”
15 (including other tense forms of those terms) are used in their broadest sense and mean: refer to, describe,
16 evidence, contain, support, rebut, refute, negate, pertain to, memorialize, identify, verify, and/or in any
17 way involve or have a logical connection to the subject matter of the request, in full or in part.
18 11. The term “COMPENSATION” means all payments made to, or on behalf of, an
19 employee, contractor, or other person as remuneration for employment, labor, or services. The term
20 includes all forms of compensation irrespective of the time of payment, whether paid periodically or
21 deferred until a later date, and whether called wages, salary, profit sharing, private equity,
22 repurchase/buyback payments, stock options, restricted stock units, employee stock purchase plan units,
23 equity adjustments, lump sum payments in lieu of merit increases or other payments, expense account,
24 monthly minimum, sign-on, annual or other bonuses, incentive compensation, uniform cleaning
25 allowance, hotel accommodations, use of company car or other assets, gasoline allowance, or some other
26 name. Fringe benefits are deemed to be remuneration for employment, labor, or services.
27 12. The term “PERSON” as used herein means a natural person, firm, association,
28 partnership, corporation, or other form of legal entity unless the context indicates otherwise.
-3-
1 13. The terms “COMMUNICATION” or “COMMUNICATIONS” shall mean any
2 conveyance of information from one or more persons to one or more persons and shall include but not
3 be limited to oral, written, electronic, verbal and non-verbal modes.
4 14. The term “HRIS” as used herein means the Human Resource Information System or
5 other electronic system or database with human resources/PERSONNEL records and/or components.
6 15. The term “PERSONNEL” as used herein means all employees, applicants, consultants,
7 and temporary employees of RIOT GAMES, INC., and any individuals employed or provided by
8 contractors, subcontractors, labor suppliers, personnel agencies, vendors, or any other third party to
9 RIOT GAMES, INC.
10 16. The term “LEVEL” or “GRADE” as used herein means a level, grade, band, rank, target,
11 or other value determined from any job leveling system, job grading system, job classification system
12 benchmarking system. and/or similar system which defines, describes, evaluates, and/or measures the
13 duties, responsibilities, tasks, and/or authority level of a job, and/or establishes consistency in job
14 titles, positions, or roles internally or externally, organizes job levels/grades/bands within the
15 organization hierarchy, and sets compensation structures or ranges.
16 17. The conjunctions “and” and “or” shall be interpreted conjunctively and shall not be
17 interpreted disjunctively to exclude any information otherwise in the scope of this set of requests.
18 18. All references to the plural include the singular, and all references to the singular include
19 the plural. All references to the masculine gender include the feminine and neutral genders and vice
20 versa.
21 INSTRUCTIONS
22 1. This investigation is ongoing until completion. Discovery sought in this investigation
23 shall be deemed to continue from the time of service until the time of completion of the investigation so
24 that any information sought, which comes to the knowledge of Respondent, or its representative or
25 attorney, after original answers have been submitted, shall be promptly transmitted to the Department.
26 2. All information and/or data produced in response to this Request for Production, Set
27 Two, shall include all PERSONNEL who worked for RIOT GAMES, INC. at least one day from
28 October 25, 2015 to the completion of the investigation.

-4-
1 3. All information and/or data produced in response to this Request for Production, Set
2 Two, shall cover the period from October 25, 2015 to the completion of the investigation.
3 4. All information and data produced from separate files or databases (including without
4 limitation Workday, Oracle Fusion, Greenhouse, ADP Workforce Now, BeneTrac, Qualtrics, and
5 PeopleFluent) shall include a common identifier for each employee so that employee can be identified in
6 each file or database that is included in the information and/or data produced.
7 5. To the extent that YOU consider any of the requests objectionable for reasons other than
8 a claim of privilege, produce so much of the material requested as to which such objection is not made,
9 and, separately with respect to each remaining part, state the nature of YOUR objection, set forth each
10 and every ground for YOUR objection, and describe the factual basis, if any, upon which YOU rely in
11 making such objections. For each such DOCUMENT, indicate the portion of the DOCUMENT
12 withheld by stamping the word “Redacted” on the DOCUMENT in an appropriate location that does not
13 obscure the remaining text.
14 6. If any DOCUMENT is withheld under a claim of privilege or protection, to aid the Court
15 and parties to ascertain the merit of the claim, please provide a privilege log containing the following
16 information concerning each claim of privilege or protection:
17 a. The nature and substance of the DOCUMENT with sufficient particularity to enable the
18 Court and parties to identify the DOCUMENT;
19 b. The date of the DOCUMENT;
20 c. The identity of the PERSON who prepared the DOCUMENT, who signed it, in whose
21 name it was sent or issued;
22 d. The identity of the PERSON to whom the DOCUMENT was directed and any
23 recipient(s) of the DOCUMENT;
24 e. The identity of each PERSON to whom copies of the DOCUMENT have been furnished;
25 f. The identity of the PERSON who has custody or control of the DOCUMENT;
26 g. The number of pages of the DOCUMENT;

27 h. Each and every specific privilege or protection claimed;
28 i. Each and every basis for claiming each specific privilege or protection; and
-5-
1 j. Whether any non-privileged and non-protected matter is included in the DOCUMENT.
2 REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING
3 REQUEST NO. 6:
4 COMPUTER-READABLE FORMAT databases (including without limitation Workday, Oracle
5 Fusion, Greenhouse, ADP Workforce Now, BeneTrac, Qualtrics, and PeopleFluent) exported in raw
6 format in a linkable, relational format containing all information maintained in the attached categories
7 selected from RESPONDENT’S Excel spreadsheet, “HRIS Fields or Variables – Attachment to
8 Interrogatories” produced on January 11, 2019 (Attachment A) and the following categories for all
9 PERSONNEL: human resources/personnel and demographic information; payroll information;
10 compensation history information (i.e., starting salary and compensation and all subsequent
11 compensation earned, and the date and reason for changes in compensation); and employment history
12 information (i.e., initial job/position, LEVEL, and classification assignments and all jobs/positions,
13 LEVELS, and classifications held, and the date and reason for changes in jobs/positions, LEVELS, and
14 job classifications).
15 Responsive information and/or data shall include PERSONNEL masterfiles showing names
16 (including employee common identifier number); dates of birth; addresses, telephone numbers; email
17 addresses; gender; race; national origin; dates of hire; job history; educational degrees or history; job
18 title(s)/position(s) and code(s); start and end dates for each title/position; job classifications (including
19 without limitation organization, department, division, discipline/subdiscipline, job function/subfunction,
20 job family/subfamily, and similar job group categories); product and team categories; job LEVEL,
21 (including initial LEVEL assignments); cost center; location; COMPENSATION (including without
22 limitation compensation plan; prior pay/compensation at previous employer; starting salary; salary/wage
23 rates and changes; commissions; short-term incentive pay/bonus plan(s) and bonuses; long-term
24 incentive pay/stock option plan(s) and awards; deferred compensation; compensation related benefits);
25 full-time/part-time/flex-time/telecommute status; maternity leave or other leave of absence status;
26 exempt or non-exempt classification; internal LEVEL codes; performance evaluation information

27 including raw performance scores, composite scores, performance ranking, changes in scores or ranking,
28 if any; promotion information, including promotion ratings, inputs, recommendations, or other data
-6-
1 ATTACHMENT A
2 Current Legacy
System System Domain Data Set Field
3 1 Workday Benetrac Benefits Benefits Dependent Data Employee ID
4 2 Workday Benetrac Benefits Benefits Dependent Data Employee First Name
3 Workday Benetrac Benefits Benefits Dependent Data Employee Last Name
5 4 Workday Benetrac Benefits Benefits Dependent Data Use Employee Address
6 5 Workday Benetrac Benefits Benefits Dependent Data Use Employee Phone?
6 Workday Benetrac Benefits Health Care Enrollment Data Employee ID
7 7 Workday Benetrac Benefits Health Care Enrollment Data First Name
8 8 Workday Benetrac Benefits Health Care Enrollment Data Last Name
9 Workday Benetrac Benefits Health Care Enrollment Data Current Election?
9 10 Workday Benetrac Benefits Health Savings Enrollment Data Employee ID
11 Workday Benetrac Benefits Health Savings Enrollment Data First Name
10
12 Workday Benetrac Benefits Health Savings Enrollment Data Last Name
11 YTD Contribution
13 Workday Benetrac Benefits Health Savings Enrollment Data Amount
12 14 Workday Benetrac Benefits Health Savings Enrollment Data Annual Contribution
13 15 Workday Benetrac Benefits Health Savings Enrollment Data Employee Cost
Spending Account Enrollment
14 16 Workday Benetrac Benefits Data Employee ID
15 17 Workday Benetrac Benefits Data First Name
16
18 Workday Benetrac Benefits Data Last Name
17 Spending Account Enrollment YTD Contribution
19 Workday Benetrac Benefits Data Amount
18 Spending Account Enrollment
20 Workday Benetrac Benefits Data Annual Contribution
19
20 21 Workday Benetrac Benefits Data Employee Cost
Compensation
21 22 Workday Benetrac Benefits Insurance Enrollment Data Percentage
Compensation
22 23 Workday Benetrac Benefits Insurance Enrollment Data Multiplier
23 Retirement Savings Plan
24 Workday Benetrac Benefits Retirement Enrollment Data ID
24 25 Workday N/A Staffing Compensation Compensation Package
26 Workday N/A Staffing Compensation Grade Profile
25
27 Workday N/A Staffing Compensation Plan Type
26 28 Workday N/A Staffing Compensation Compensation Plan
29 Workday N/A Staffing Compensation - Stock Stock Grants
27 30 Workday N/A Staffing Compensation - Stock Grant Date
28 31 Workday N/A Staffing Compensation - Stock Shares Granted
-8-
1 32 Workday N/A StaffingCompensation - Stock Vested as of
33 Workday N/A StaffingCompensation - Stock Grant Type
2
34 Workday N/A StaffingCompensation - Stock Grant Price
3 35 Workday N/A StaffingCompensation - Stock Grant Price Currency
36 Workday N/A StaffingCompensation - Stock Amount Granted
4
37 Workday N/A StaffingCompensation - Stock Grant Amount Currency
5 38 Workday N/A StaffingCompensation - Stock Grant ID
39 Workday N/A StaffingCompensation - Stock Stock Plan
6 40 Workday N/A StaffingCompensation - Stock Vesting Schedule
7 41 Workday N/A StaffingCompensation - Stock Vest From Date
Oracle Employee Leave of Absence
8 42 Workday Fusion Absence Event Leave Type Name
Oracle Employee Leave of Absence
9 43 Workday Fusion Absence Event First Day of Leave
10 Oracle Employee Leave of Absence Estimated Last Day of
44 Workday Fusion Absence Event Leave
11 Oracle
45 Workday Fusion Payroll Payment Elections Employee ID
12 Oracle
46 Workday Fusion Payroll Payment Elections Currency
13
Oracle
14 47 Workday Fusion Payroll Payment Elections Pay Type
Oracle
15 48 Workday Fusion Personal Name Worker ID
Oracle
16 49 Workday Fusion Personal Name Legal First Name
17 Oracle
50 Workday Fusion Personal Name Legal Last Name
18 Oracle
51 Workday Fusion Personal Phone Phone Type
19 Oracle
20 52 Workday Fusion Personal Phone Country
Oracle
21 53 Workday Fusion Personal Phone Area Code
Oracle
22 54 Workday Fusion Personal Phone Phone Number
Oracle
23
55 Workday Fusion Personal Phone Phone Extension
24 Oracle
56 Workday Fusion Personal Phone Public
25 Oracle
57 Workday Fusion Personal Phone Private
26 Oracle
27 58 Workday Fusion Personal Address Address Type
Oracle
28 59 Workday Fusion Personal Address Country
-9-
1 Oracle
60 Workday Fusion Personal Address City
2 Oracle
3 61 Workday Fusion Personal Address Postal Code
Oracle
4 62 Workday Fusion Personal Address Address Line #1
Oracle
5 63 Workday Fusion Personal Address Address Line #2
Oracle
6
64 Workday Fusion Personal Address Address Line #3
7 Oracle
65 Workday Fusion Personal Address Address Line #4
8 Oracle
66 Workday Fusion Personal Address Address Usage
9 Oracle Uses Home Address as
10 67 Workday Fusion Personal Address Primary Work Address
Oracle
11 68 Workday Fusion Personal Email Email Address
Oracle
12 69 Workday Fusion Personal Demographic Date of Birth
Oracle
13
70 Workday Fusion Personal Demographic Gender
14 Oracle
71 Workday Fusion Personal Demographic Marital Status
15 Oracle
72 Workday Fusion Personal Demographic Marital Status Date
16 Oracle
17 73 Workday Fusion Personal Demographic Race/Ethnicity
Oracle
18 74 Workday Fusion Personal Demographic Primary Nationality
Oracle
19 75 Workday Fusion Personal Demographic Gender Identity
20 Oracle
76 Workday Fusion Personal Visa Visa Country
21 Oracle
77 Workday Fusion Personal Visa Visa ID Type
22 Oracle
78 Workday Fusion Personal Demographic Verification Date
23
Oracle
24 79 Workday Fusion Personal Demographic Verified By
Oracle
25 80 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Hire Date
Oracle
26 81 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Original Hire Date
27 Oracle Continuous Service
82 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Date
28
-10-
1 Oracle
83 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Employee Type
2 Oracle Employment End Date
3 84 Workday Fusion Staffing Position (Fixed Term)
Oracle
4 85 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Time Type
Oracle
5 86 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Pay Rate Type
Oracle
6
87 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Job Profile
7 Oracle
88 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Position ID
8 Oracle
89 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Position Name
9 Oracle
10 90 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Position Start Date
Oracle
11 91 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Business Title
Oracle
12 92 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Location Name
Oracle Scheduled Weekly
13
93 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Hours
14 Oracle
94 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Cost Center Org
15 Oracle
95 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Cost Center Code
16 Oracle
17 96 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Company Name
Oracle
18 97 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Work Shift
Oracle
19 98 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Disciplines
20 Oracle
99 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Sub-disciplines
21 Oracle Worker ID of Direct
100 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Manager
22 Oracle
101 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Manager First Name
23
Oracle
24 102 Workday Fusion Staffing Position Manager Last Name
Oracle
25 103 Workday Fusion Staffing Compensation Base Pay
Oracle
26 104 Workday Fusion Staffing Compensation Effective Start Date
27 Oracle
105 Workday Fusion Staffing Compensation Assignment/Amount
28
-11-
1 Oracle Compensation - Shared Success
106 Workday Fusion Staffing Plan (SSP) Start Date
3 107 Workday Fusion Staffing Plan (SSP) End Date
Oracle Compensation - Shared Success
4 108 Workday Fusion Staffing Plan (SSP) Target
5 109 Workday Fusion Staffing Plan (SSP) Currency
6
110 Workday Fusion Staffing Plan (SSP) Package
111 Workday Fusion Staffing Plan (SSP) Level
112 Workday Fusion Staffing Plan (SSP) Non-Standard Flag
9 Oracle
10 113 Workday Fusion Staffing Termination Details Termination Date
Oracle
11 114 Workday Fusion Staffing Termination Details Termination Category
Oracle
12 115 Workday Fusion Staffing Termination Details Termination Reason
Oracle Last Date for Which
13
116 Workday Fusion Staffing Termination Details Paid
14 Oracle
117 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Effective Date
15 Oracle
118 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations End Date
16 Oracle
17 119 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Team ID
Oracle
18 120 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Product Name
Oracle
19 121 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Initiative Name
20 Oracle
122 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Team Name
21 Oracle
123 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Allocation
22 Oracle
124 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Primary (Y/N)
23
Oracle
24 125 Workday Fusion Staffing Organizations Cost Code
126 Workday Personal Demographic Country of Birth
25 127 Workday Personal Demographic Citizenship Status
26 128 Workday Staffing Termination Details Eligible for Rehire
129 Workday Staffing Termination Additional Data Severance Flag
27 130 Workday Staffing Termination Additional Data Months of Severance
28
-12-
1 DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
2 I, the undersigned, hereby declare:
3 I am over eighteen years of age and not a party to the within cause. My business and mailing address is
4 2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100, Elk Grove, CA 95758. My electronic service address is
5 cathy.truong@dfeh.ca.gov.
6 On February 15, 2019, I served a copy of the following documents: DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
7 EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING’S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO, ON
8 RESPONDENT RIOT GAMES, INC. in the case of Kish v. Riot Games, et al. (DFEH Case No.
9 201810-04010525); on each of the following by forwarding a true and correct copy of the above
10 document(s) via e-mail to the person(s) at the e-mail address(es) set forth below.
11 Catherine A. Conway Email: cconway@gibsondunn.com

Katherine V.A. Smith Email: ksmith@gibsondunn.com
12 Gibson, Dunn, & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
13
14 Attorney for Respondents
17 Executed on February 15, 2019, at Elk Grove, California.
18
19
20 _______________________________
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-13-
EXHIBIT 5
From: Smith, Katherine V.A.
To: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH; Truong, Cathy@DFEH
Cc: Conway, Catherine A.; Phan, Tiffany; Fischer, Lauren
Subject: Kish v. Riot Games
Date: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 5:35:55 PM
All,

We are compiling information responsive to DFEH’s RFPs in Kish v. Riot Games, Inc. As you can imagine, some of the information we
believe is responsive to your requests is highly sensitive and is not widely disclosed, if disclosed at all. To protect our client’s interests
in this confidential information, as well as the privacy interests of third parties, we are preparing a protective order for your review.
Do you have any sample protective orders that you would like us to consider as we are drafting? Thank you.

Katherine V.A. Smith
GIBSON DUNN
333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Tel +1 213.229.7107 • Fax +1 213.229.6107
KSmith@gibsondunn.com • www.gibsondunn.com

This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise
the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT 6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA | Business Consumer Services and Housing Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR
Department of Fair Employment & Housing

KEVIN KISH, DIRECTOR
2218 Kausen Drive, Suite 100 | Elk Grove | CA | 95758

800-884-1684 (voice) | 800-700-2320 (TTY) | California’s Relay Service at 711
www.dfeh.ca.gov | email contact.center@dfeh.ca.gov
Via Email: KSmith@gibsondunn.com; CConway@gibsondunn.com
March 14, 2019

Catherine A. Conway
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Re: Kish v. Riot Games, Inc. et al. (DFEH No. 201810-04010525)

DFEH’s Request for Production of Documents, Set Two
Dear Counsel:
We are writing in response to your email of March 12, 2019 in which you inquire as to whether
the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has a template for a protective order during
an investigation. Protective orders are applicable during litigation, not investigations, under DFEH
policy. At this stage, DFEH’s policy for withholding information is governed by the Public Records Act
(PRA) and related authorities. These limitations on disclosure should address your client’s
confidentiality and privacy concerns. To provide your client additional time to consider these disclosure
limitations, we will extend the current deadline and request that Riot Games provide the documents in
their entirety by Monday, March 25, 2019.
Privacy considerations typically do not provide a basis for withholding information, particularly
where there are sufficient limitations on the disclosure of that information. (See e.g. U.S. E.E.O.C. v.
McLane Co., Inc. (9th Cir. 2015) 804 F.3d 1051, 1058 (overruled on other grounds, __ U.S. __, 137
S.Ct. 1159) [rejecting objection to EEOC request based on “privacy interests” where there were
sufficient “limitations on the public disclosure of information”].)
In Dept. of Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Superior Court (2002) 99 Cal. App. 4th 896, 901- 902, the
Court of Appeals recognized that because DFEH investigations “are similar to grand jury proceedings”
the DFEH often “needs [private] information in order to decide whether to charge a statutory violation,
or to make the decision that no further action is necessary.” In that case, the appellate court reversed a
trial court order refusing to enforce a DFEH subpoena requesting, inter alia, rental applications of all
persons whose rental applications for all of Respondents’ properties were rejected. The court rejected
the landlord’s privacy argument stating that DFEH has a duty to keep the information confidential. (Id.
at 904 “[DFEH] has a duty to protect the information from the general public. (See §§ 6250-6270; Civ.
Code, §§ 1798, 1798.1.)”) The court held that “The Department's interest in prohibiting discrimination
in housing outweighs any privacy interest of those applicants for housing with [Respondents] who were
denied housing, or those who were accepted as renters. Indeed, the state has a compelling interest in
1 of 2
prohibiting racial or ethnic discrimination in housing and employment.” (Ibid.)
The legislature considered the issue of confidentiality prior to suit and provide some protections.
(See Gov. Code, § 12963.7 (DFEH shall not disclose what has transpired in the course of DFEH
settlement endeavors, making it a misdemeanor to disclose such information.)) Moreover, the DFEH’s
PRA policies additionally protect the privacy interests of Riot and its employees. It is DFEH policy not
to produce any records from this investigation in response to PRA requests until the investigation is
closed. (DFEH Directive 600, ¶¶ 4.A(5).)
After the litigation, if any, is concluded, in response to a PRA request, the DFEH will redact and
withhold confidential information and personally identifiable information under applicable exemptions.
(Id. at ¶ 4.E(5), citing Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (k)(records that are privileged or confidential under
state or federal law.)); (Id. at ¶ 4.G(3)(names and identifying information of any third party witnesses.));
(Id. at ¶ 4.G(4)(home addresses, home telephone numbers, bank account numbers, social security
numbers, driver’s license numbers, citizenship status, and dates of birth for all individuals.)); and (Id. at
¶ 4.G(5) (personnel/ employment files, medical files, and banking/financial records.)) Additionally,
after the case is closed, DFEH will continue to withhold exempt records.
Exempt records include records provided with an agreement from the DFEH to keep them
confidential. (Id. at ¶¶ 4.G(13), 4.H(13), citing Evid. Code, § 1040.) In order to facilitate the production
of the requested documents, the DFEH agrees to keep confidential the records produced by Riot in
response to Requests for Production, Set Two to the extent permitted by law. To flag the information as
exempt from PRA disclosure even after the case is closed, please stamp all documents containing the
information to be protected with language reflecting both the DFEH’s agreement to keep the information
confidential to the extent permitted by law, and the specific legal protection(s) Riot asserts for the
information. For example, Riot could stamp particular documents with the following: “PRA exempt:
DFEH agreement (Evid. Code, § 1040).”
Responsive documents are currently due to the DFEH by March 18, 2019. However, in light of
Riot’s confidentiality concerns, the Department will extend the deadline and asks that Riot produce the
documents responsive to Requests for Production, Set Two by Monday, March 25, 2019.
Please confirm no later than 5:00 pm on March 18, 2019, whether Riot will produce
information in response to Requests for Production, Set Two by March 25, 2019. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Siri Thanasombat
Senior Staff Counsel
Siri.Thanasombat@dfeh.ca.gov
2 of 2
EXHIBIT 7
From: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH
To: Smith, Katherine V.A.; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH; Wipper, Janette@DFEH
Subject: RE: Kish v. Riot Games
Date: Thursday, March 14, 2019 4:51:25 PM
Katherine,
DFEH clarifies that our letter from this morning applies to items to which both parties agree a proper designation as to
confidentiality should occur. If Riot would like to flag information for DFEH to consider as exempt from disclosure even after
the investigation has closed, please stamp the particular section in the document with the applicable basis for protection
from disclosure, such as “Confidential – Privacy”.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Siri
_______________________________________________
Sirithon (Siri) Thanasombat
Senior FEH Counsel
Telephone: (916) 478-7251
Fax: (888) 382-5293
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited
and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 7:04 AM
To: 'Smith, Katherine V.A.' <KSmith@gibsondunn.com>; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH <Irina.Trasovan@dfeh.ca.gov>; Mayeda,
Mari@DFEH <Mari.Mayeda@dfeh.ca.gov>; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH <Kaitlin.Toyama@dfeh.ca.gov>; Wipper, Janette@DFEH
<Janette.Wipper@dfeh.ca.gov>
Cc: Conway, Catherine A. <CConway@gibsondunn.com>; Phan, Tiffany <TPhan@gibsondunn.com>; Fischer, Lauren
<LFischer@gibsondunn.com>
Katherine,
Attached please find DFEH’s response to your email from March 12, 2019. Please let me know if you have any questions or
would like to meet and confer further.
Siri

Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 5:36 PM
To: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH <Siri.Thanasombat@dfeh.ca.gov>; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH <Irina.Trasovan@dfeh.ca.gov>;
Mayeda, Mari@DFEH <Mari.Mayeda@dfeh.ca.gov>; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH <Kaitlin.Toyama@dfeh.ca.gov>; Truong,
Cathy@DFEH <Cathy.Truong@dfeh.ca.gov>
All,
We are compiling information responsive to DFEH’s RFPs in Kish v. Riot Games, Inc. As you can imagine, some of the
information we believe is responsive to your requests is highly sensitive and is not widely disclosed, if disclosed at all. To
protect our client’s interests in this confidential information, as well as the privacy interests of third parties, we are preparing
a protective order for your review. Do you have any sample protective orders that you would like us to consider as we are
drafting? Thank you.
GIBSON DUNN
Tel +1 213.229.7107 • Fax +1 213.229.6107
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT 8
1 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
CATHERINE A. CONWAY, SBN 98366
2 cconway@gibsondunn.com
KATHERINE V.A. SMITH, SBN 247866
3 ksmith@gibsondunn.com
4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Telephone: 213.229.7000
5 Facsimile: 213.229.7520
6 Attorneys for Respondents

RIOT GAMES, INC., RIOT GAMES DIRECT, INC.,
7 RIOT GAMES MERCHANDISE, INC. and RIOT
GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC.
8
9 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
11 In the Matter of the Complaint of KEVIN KISH, Case No. 201810-04010525

Director, DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
12 EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING, RESPONDENT RIOT GAMES, INC.’S
RESPONSES TO COMPLAINANT’S
13 Complainant, REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION,
SET TWO
14 v.
15 RIOT GAMES, INC.; RIOT GAMES DIRECT,

INC.; RIOT GAMES MERCHANDISE, INC.; and
16 RIOT GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC.,
17 Respondents.
18
19 PROPOUNDING PARTY: COMPLAINANT DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND
20 HOUSING
21 RESPONDING PARTY: RESPONDENT RIOT GAMES, INC.
22 SET NUMBER: TWO
23 Respondent RIOT GAMES, INC. (“Respondent”) hereby submits its Responses to Complainant
24 Department of Fair Employment and Housing’s (“DFEH”) Request for Production, Set Two, as follows:
25 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
26 The foregoing responses are made solely for the purpose of this matter. Each response is
27 subject to any and all objections as to competency, relevancy, materiality, propriety and
28 admissibility, and to any and all other objections and grounds that would require the exclusion of
RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION, SET TWO

55512083v.1
1 any statement contained herein, or any document produced herewith, as if any of said requests were
2 asked of, or any statements contained herein were made by, a witness present and testifying in
3 court, or in a declaration, all of which objections and grounds are hereby expressly reserved and
4 may be interposed later at or before the time of trial. Discovery has just begun in this matter. As
5 discovery and investigation proceed, Respondent reserves the right to update its responses as
6 necessary and appropriate.
7 GENERAL OBJECTIONS
8 1. Specific objections to each request are made on an individual basis in Respondent’s
9 responses below. In addition to these specific objections, Respondent also makes the following general
10 objections to the requests and the Definitions governing them. Respondent’s specific objections to
11 individual requests are submitted without waiving any of these general objections, even if they are not
12 expressly set forth in the individual response. The inclusion of any objection in any specific response is
13 not a waiver of any general objection.
14 2. Respondent objects to the requests on the grounds, and to the extent, that they seek
15 information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and/or any other
16 applicable privilege or immunity, and Respondent and its counsel hereby assert such privileges and
17 immunities. Inadvertent disclosure of any information which is privileged or otherwise immune from
18 discovery shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or of any other ground for objecting to the
19 discovery with respect to such information or the subject matter thereof, or the right of Respondent to
20 object to the use of any such information or the subject matter thereof during subsequent proceedings.
21 3. Respondent objects to the requests to the extent that they call for Respondent’s
22 proprietary business information, trade secrets, commercially sensitive information, personal, or
23 confidential information, or confidential information of third parties.
24 4. Respondent objects to the requests, including each specific request, to the extent that they
25 are overbroad and unduly burdensome.
26 5. Respondent objects to the Requests, including the Definitions and Instructions, and each
27 specific request, to the extent they purport to impose upon Respondent a duty to secure and produce
28
2
55512083v.1
1 documents that it does not have in its possession, custody or control, or require Respondent to speculate
2 about the identity of persons who might have responsive documents.
3 6. Respondent objects to DFEH’s demand for a privilege log to the extent it imposes upon
4 Respondent requirements not required by law and/or is unduly and/or unreasonably burdensome.
5 7. Respondent objects to DFEH’s definition of the terms “YOU,” “YOUR,” “YOURS,” and
6 “RESPONDENT” as overbroad to the extent these terms refer to individuals or entities other than
7 Respondent. Respondent responds to these requests on behalf of Respondent only.
8 8. Respondent objects to these requests as overbroad in substance and in time because they
9 seek information relating to vendors, contractors, and other non-employees of Respondent, and the
10 requests seek information outside the applicable statute of limitations applying to the DFEH’s claims.
11 RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR INSPECTION AND COPYING

12 REQUEST NO. 6:
13 COMPUTER-READABLE FORMAT databases (including without limitation Workday, Oracle
14 Fusion, Greenhouse, ADP Workforce Now, BeneTrac, Qualtrics, and PeopleFluent) exported in raw
15 format in a linkable, relational format containing all information maintained in the attached categories
16 selected from RESPONDENT’S Excel spreadsheet, “HRIS Fields or Variables — Attachment to
17 Interrogatories” produced on January 11, 2019 (Attachment A) and the following categories for all
18 PERSONNEL: human resources/personnel and demographic information; payroll information;
19 compensation history information (i.e., starting salary and compensation and all subsequent
20 compensation earned, and the date and reason for changes in compensation); and employment history
21 information (i.e., initial job/position, LEVEL, and classification assignments and all jobs/positions,
22 LEVELS, and classifications held, and the date and reason for changes in jobs/positions, LEVELS, and
23 job classifications).
24 Responsive information and/or data shall include PERSONNEL masterfiles showing names
25 (including employee common identifier number); dates of birth; addresses, telephone numbers; email
26 addresses; gender; race; national origin; dates of hire; job history; educational degrees or history; job
27 title(s)/position(s) and code(s); start and end dates for each title/position; job classifications (including
28 without limitation organization, department, division, discipline/subdiscipline, job function/subfunction,
3
55512083v.1
1 job family/subfamily, and similar job group categories); product and team categories; job LEVEL,
2 (including initial LEVEL assignments); cost center; location; COMPENSATION (including without
3 limitation compensation plan; prior pay/compensation at previous employer; starting salary; salary/wage
4 rates and changes; commissions; short-term incentive pay/bonus plan(s) and bonuses; long-term
5 incentive pay/stock option plan(s) and awards; deferred compensation; compensation related benefits);
6 full-time/part-time/flex-time/telecommute status; maternity leave or other leave of absence status;
7 exempt or non-exempt classification; internal LEVEL codes; performance evaluation information
8 including raw performance scores, composite scores, performance ranking, changes in scores or ranking,
9 if any; promotion information, including promotion ratings, inputs, recommendations, or other data
10 utilized to make or document promotions or high potential or promotable candidates; office locations;
11 termination codes; and other information FIELDS compiled for PERSONNEL human resources and/or
12 payroll functions, used for performance ranking, COMPENSATION, and/or promotion.
13 RESPONSE TO NO. 6:
14 Respondent hereby incorporates its preliminary statement and each of the General Objections as
15 though fully set forth herein. Respondent objects to this request as vague and ambiguous and overbroad
16 with respect to the terms “COMPUTER-READABLE FORMAT,” “PERSONNEL,” “LEVEL,”
17 “FIELDS,” and “COMPENSATION,” and “masterfiles.” Respondent objects to the request as
18 overbroad in time—claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations triggered by the October 25,
19 2018 administrative complaint. Respondent further objects to the request as unduly burdensome,
20 harassing, and seeking information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of
21 admissible evidence, such as data regarding the race and national origin of Respondent’s employees.
22 Respondent objects to the request to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of attorney-client privileged
23 communications, attorney work product, or Respondent’s proprietary business information, trade
24 secrets, commercially sensitive information, or other similar information. Respondent objects to the
25 request because it seeks constitutionally private and protected personnel information of third parties.
26 Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, as it understands the request,
27 Respondent responds as follows: Subject to the parties’ agreement on appropriate protections for
28 Respondent’s proprietary, confidential, and trade secret information, following a diligent search and
4
55512083v.1
1 reasonable inquiry, Respondent will produce spreadsheets exported from Workday, Oracle, Fusion,
2 Greenhouse, ADP Workforce Now, BeneTrac, Qualtrics, and PeopleFluent containing the information
3 about Respondent’s employees described in Complainant’s Attachment A to its requests, with the
4 exception of the following data sets: Health Care Enrollment Data, Health Savings Enrollment Data,
5 Spending Account Enrollment Data, Insurance Enrollment Data, Retirement Enrollment Data, Payment
6 Elections, Demographic-Marital Status, Demographic-Marital Status Date, Demographic-
7 Race/Ethnicity, Demographic-Primary Nationality, Visa, Demographic-Country of Birth, Demographic-
8 Citizenship Status, and Termination Additional Data, from October 25, 2015 to the present. Discovery
9 is continuing.
10 REQUEST NO. 7:
11 All DOCUMENTS that REFER TO or RELATE TO promotion, and/or COMPENSATION
12 plans, POLICIES, methods or procedures or instructions or practices, criteria or factors for determining
13 the promotion or COMPENSATION of employees, including without limitation POLICIES, procedures
14 and practices for determining the promotion of current employees and/or COMPENSATION for
15 incoming (e.g., newly hired) employees (e.g., compensation negotiation).
19 with respect to the terms and phrase “All DOCUMENTS that REFER TO or RELATE TO,”
20 “COMPENSATION,” “POLICIES” and “incoming.” Respondent objects to the request as overbroad in
21 time—claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations triggered by the October 25, 2018
22 administrative complaint. Respondent further objects to the request as unduly burdensome, harassing,
23 and seeking information that is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible
24 evidence. Respondent objects to the request to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of attorney-client
25 privileged communications, attorney work product, or Respondent’s proprietary business information,
26 trade secrets, commercially sensitive information, or other similar information. Respondent objects to
27 the request because it seeks constitutionally private and protected personnel information of third parties
28 to this matter.
5
55512083v.1
4 reasonable inquiry, Respondent will produce copies of its policies regarding promotion of employees
5 and setting employee compensation in effect from October 25, 2015 to the present. Discovery is
6 continuing.
7 REQUEST NO. 8:
8 All DOCUMENTS or CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO all equal employment opportunity,
9 pay equity, COMPENSATION benchmarking and/or diversity audits, analyses, STUDIES, surveys or
10 reports regarding workforce utilization, COMPENSATION, promotion, performance evaluations, and/or
11 job or work assignments that RESPONDENT or its agent has performed, including but not limited to the
12 underlying data for such audits, analyses, STUDIES, surveys or reports and any resulting changes or
13 adjustments to employment terms and conditions subsequent to any such audit, analysis, STUDY,
14 survey, or report.
18 with respect to the terms and/or phrases “All DOCUMENTS or CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO,”
19 “audits,” “analyses,” “STUDIES,” “surveys,” “workforce utilization,” “COMPENSATION,” “agent,”
20 “resulting changes or adjustments,” “subsequent to any such audit, analysis, STUDY survey, or report”
21 and “STUDY.” Respondent objects to the request as overbroad in time—claims are subject to a one-
22 year statute of limitations triggered by the October 25, 2018 administrative complaint. Respondent
23 further objects to the request as unduly burdensome, harassing, and seeking information that is neither
24 relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Respondent objects to the request to
25 the extent that it calls for the disclosure of attorney-client privileged communications, attorney work
26 product, or Respondent’s proprietary business information, trade secrets, commercially sensitive
27 information, or other similar information. Respondent objects to the request because it seeks
28 constitutionally private and protected personnel information of third parties to this matter.
6
55512083v.1
4 reasonable inquiry, Respondent will produce non-privileged survey documents and data responsive to
5 this Request. Discovery is continuing.
6 REQUEST NO. 9:
7 All DOCUMENTS OR COMPUTER-READABLE FORMAT databases that contain earnings
8 information reported by YOU on the United States Internal Revenue Service, Form W-2, boxes 1, 5, and
9 12 (including the code and amount for each item listed in box 12) for all PERSONNEL and years
10 included in the information and/or data produced in response to Request No. 6.
14 with respect to the terms and/or phrases “All DOCUMENTS or COMPUTER-READABLE FORMAT
15 databases” and “PERSONNEL.” Respondent objects to the request as overbroad in time—claims are
16 subject to a one-year statute of limitations triggered by the October 25, 2018 administrative complaint.
17 Respondent further objects to the request as unduly burdensome, harassing, and seeking information that
18 is neither relevant nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Respondent objects to the
19 request to the extent that it calls for the disclosure of attorney-client privileged communications,
20 attorney work product, or Respondent’s proprietary business information, trade secrets, commercially
21 sensitive information, or other similar information. Respondent objects to the request because it seeks
22 constitutionally private and protected personnel information of third parties to this matter.
26 reasonable inquiry, Respondent will produce spreadsheets and PDFs of earnings information reported by
27 Respondent to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service in IRS Form W-2, boxes 1, 5, and 12, regarding its
28
7
55512083v.1
1 employees from February 25, 2015 to the present. Discovery is continuing.
2
DATED: March 18, 2019 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
3
4
By:
5 Catherine A. Conway
6
Attorneys for Respondents
7 RIOT GAMES, INC.; RIOT GAMES
DIRECT, INC.; RIOT GAMES
8 MERCHANDISE, INC.; and RIOT GAMES
PRODUCTIONS, INC.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
8
55512083v.1
EXHIBIT 9
To: Trasovan, Irina@DFEH; Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH; Truong, Cathy@DFEH
Cc: Conway, Catherine A.; Phan, Tiffany
Date: Monday, March 18, 2019 4:28:56 PM
Attachments: 2019-03-18 Riot Games, Inc. - Responses to DFEH RFPs, Set 2.pdf
2019-03-15 Verification - Riot Games, Inc. Supp. Responses to DFEH Special Rogs, Set 1.pdf
2019-03-15 Verification - Riot Games Merchandise, Inc. Supp. Responses to DFEH Special Rogs, Set 1.pdf
2019-03-15 Verification - Riot Games Direct, Inc. Supp. Responses to DFEH Special Rogs, Set 1.pdf
2019-03-15 Verification - Riot Games Productions, Inc. Supp. Responses to DFEH Special Rogs, Set 1.pdf
2019-03-18 Riot DFEH Proof of Service.pdf
Counsel,

Please find attached Respondent Riot Games, Inc.’s responses to DFEH’s RFPs, Set 2. Also attached are verifications for Riot Games,
Inc., Riot Games Productions, Inc., Riot Games Merchandise, Inc., and Riot Games Direct, Inc.’s supplemental responses to DFEH’s
Special Interrogatories, Set 1. We’d appreciate confirmation of receipt of the email and attachments.

Also, please let us know your availability to meet and confer this week about the DFEH’s March 14, 2019 correspondence and email.
We would like to have a better understanding of the DFEH’s position on confidentiality and the Public Records Act.

Thank you,
Katherine

GIBSON DUNN
Tel +1 213.229.7107 • Fax +1 213.229.6107

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT 10
To: Smith, Katherine V.A.; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH; Wipper, Janette@DFEH
Subject: Re: Kish v. Riot Games
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:36:08 AM
Counsel,

The deadline for the production of data was noticed 30 days ago. We are disappointed Riot did not produce documents in a timely
fashion and instead asked questions about the production at the last minute, then produced only written responses without the
underlying documents. Please produce the data from the databases by this Friday, March 22. The DFEH will be filing a notice for
court intervention if the deadline is not met. If you would like to discuss this, please immediately provide us with dates and times
that you are available this week to meet and confer. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Siri

Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 4:27 PM

Counsel,



Thank you,
Katherine

GIBSON DUNN
Tel +1 213.229.7107 • Fax +1 213.229.6107

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT 11
From: Phan, Tiffany
To: Smith, Katherine V.A.; Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH
Cc: Conway, Catherine A.; Fischer, Lauren
Date: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 3:06:15 PM
Hi Siri and Mari,

Thank you for talking through our confidentiality concerns today. We felt the call was very productive. As we noted, we’re
concerned confidential, trade secret, or identifying information such as employee names, salary information, stock grants, or internal
surveys could be publicly disclosed by the DFEH either through a PRA request or some other public document.

From the call, our understanding is that you will talk internally to provide us with some suggestions on how the parties could
determine confidentiality of documents prior to production so that Riot has reassurance that certain information will not be disclosed
and remain protected. Our concern is that if Riot produced documents it deemed confidential and the DFEH disagreed with the
designation, then Riot would be without recourse to ensure the information is not disclosed to others.

We also understand that you will consider how produced information will be used for the purposes of any public DFEH documents,
including press releases or a complaint. We expressed concern that if litigation ever resulted, the DFEH might disclose confidential
salary data or other confidential information before a protective order is in place. We understand that your counter is that Riot could
challenge the sufficiency of any pleadings without the more detailed information.

Finally, as you suggested, we will further evaluate Government Code section 6254 to consider what additional protections, if any,
may be needed.

We appreciate you taking our concerns into consideration and we will revert with our thoughts. We also look forward to your
response.

Thanks again,
Tiffany Phan
GIBSON DUNN
Tel +1 213.229.7522 • Fax +1 213.229.6522
TPhan@gibsondunn.com • www.gibsondunn.com

Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 11:06 AM
To: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH <Siri.Thanasombat@dfeh.ca.gov>; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH <Mari.Mayeda@dfeh.ca.gov>; Toyama,

Thank you. We’ll talk to you at 11:30.

To: Smith, Katherine V.A. <KSmith@gibsondunn.com>; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH <Mari.Mayeda@dfeh.ca.gov>; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH
<Kaitlin.Toyama@dfeh.ca.gov>

[External Email]
Hi Katherine,

11:30 AM works for us. We just have to jump off the call by 12 PM for another meeting.

Siri

Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:55:56 AM
To: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH

Siri –

My sincere apologies—we’ve had some delays over here and are running late. Can we move this call to 11:30?


[External Email]
Katherine,

Yes, we are available tomorrow at 11 AM for a meet and confer. Do you have a conference call-in number that you can
circulate?

Thanks,
Siri

Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:55:37 AM
To: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH; Wipper, Janette@DFEH

Siri –

Could we speak tomorrow at 11 am?

Katherine

Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:36 AM
To: Smith, Katherine V.A. <KSmith@gibsondunn.com>; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH <Irina.Trasovan@dfeh.ca.gov>; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH
<Mari.Mayeda@dfeh.ca.gov>; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH <Kaitlin.Toyama@dfeh.ca.gov>; Wipper, Janette@DFEH

[External Email]
Counsel,


Siri



Counsel,



Thank you,
Katherine

GIBSON DUNN
Tel +1 213.229.7107 • Fax +1 213.229.6107

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT 12
To: Phan, Tiffany; Smith, Katherine V.A.; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH; Wipper, Janette@DFEH; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH
Date: Thursday, March 21, 2019 9:09:49 AM
Counsel,

Thank you for the call yesterday and for you email attempting to memorialize our conversation. DFEH would like to clarify
that we raised several issues on our call that were not addressed on Ms. Phan's email.

- Counsel stated that it was surprised to read that DFEH was considering court intervention if Riot Games did not produce
data by March 22, 2019, when a prior letter stated that Riot Games had until March 25, 2019 to produce the data.
- I said that it was my mistake; I meant to write March 25, 2019, as the deadline for the data.

- Mari and I asked whether we can expect the complete production of data on March 25, 2019. Counsel said that she
expected some of the production to be made on March 25, 2019, but that it will not be the complete production. When I
asked when DFEH can expect Riot Games to produce all the data requested, counsel said that she will let us know.

- Counsel asked whether Mari and I could provide you with an assurance that certain information (like salary information) will
be kept from the public if DFEH proceeds to litigation. In response, we stated that under DFEH policy, protective orders are
not applicable during an investigation, only in litigation. If we do proceed to litigation, then you or your clients will have the
opportunity to file a motion for protective order.

- You stated that you would not produce information requested in DFEH's Request for the Production of Documents, Set Two
until we put in writing that DFEH will not disclose information you deem confidential to the public, including in a public
filing.

- You mentioned that you could envision DFEH including your clients' salary information in a Complaint filed in court, before a
protective order could be filed.

- We stated that we are still very early in the investigation and have yet to receive any requested data from Riot Games. The
case may or may not proceed to litigation. We stated that we're concerned that this issue of confidentiality will be used to
hold up the production of documents.
- We also mentioned that if DFEH were to proceed to litigation, we would only consider a Complaint with fewer facts on the
condition that you and your clients agree not to raise the sufficiency of the Complaint as a defense.

- Counsel asked if there were government codes or regulations that prohibit DFEH from disclosing confidential information in
a publicly filed Complaint or press release.

- In response, we stated that Mari and I did not have the authority at this point in time to agree to what will be included in a
Complaint or a DFEH press release.

- However, to address your concerns about protecting the confidentiality of employees' names and contact information, we
stated that personally identifiable information will be redacted even after the investigation has been completed. We now
add that this includes redacting home addresses, home or cell phone numbers, email addresses, bank account numbers,
social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, citizenship status, and dates of birth for all individuals. DFEH Directive
Number 600 paragraph 4.E(5); Cal. Const., Art I, § 1; Gov. Code, §§ 6254, subd. (c); 6255; City of San Jose v. Superior
Court (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1008, 1018, 1024.

- DFEH also mentioned that under the Public Records Act, records that are privileged or confidential under state or federal
law will be kept confidential. Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (k)

- In response to your concern that DFEH will disclose salary information and employee surveys, we stated that personnel/
employment files, medical files, and banking/ financial information will not be disclosed. Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (c).

- We also mentioned that records pertaining to pending litigation to which DFEH is a party will not be produced. Such
documents are exempt from disclosure until the pending litigation has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled. (Gov.
Code, § 6254, subd. (b).)

- Lastly, as stated in our letter, records that were provided to DFEH with a promise of confidentiality will not be produced.
Such documents are exempt from disclosure. (Evid. Code, § 1040.) However, the promise of confidentiality means that DFEH
also will have to agree that the information should be designated as confidential. A party cannot unilaterally designate
information as confidential.

- You also mentioned that if DFEH did not deem certain information confidential that you or your client deemed confidential,
then there would be no remedy for protecting the information from disclosure. You also were concerned that DFEH would,
by then, already have access to the information.

- Along with other issues discussed above, we stated that we will get back to you with a response regarding a process for
designating information confidential in light of our concern that some Respondents over-designate information as
confidential.

- Both parties agreed to reconvene and further meet and confer about the above issues.

- While you mentioned press releases, we did not and cannot make any representations as to press releases.

These were my recollections of the call today. If I misstated anything, please let me know as soon as possible.

Siri
From: Phan, Tiffany <TPhan@gibsondunn.com>

Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 3:06:08 PM
To: Smith, Katherine V.A.; Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH

Hi Siri and Mari,

Thank you for talking through our confidentiality concerns today. We felt the call was very productive. As we noted, we’re
concerned confidential, trade secret, or identifying information such as employee names, salary information, stock grants, or internal
surveys could be publicly disclosed by the DFEH either through a PRA request or some other public document.

From the call, our understanding is that you will talk internally to provide us with some suggestions on how the parties could
determine confidentiality of documents prior to production so that Riot has reassurance that certain information will not be disclosed
and remain protected. Our concern is that if Riot produced documents it deemed confidential and the DFEH disagreed with the
designation, then Riot would be without recourse to ensure the information is not disclosed to others.

We also understand that you will consider how produced information will be used for the purposes of any public DFEH documents,
including press releases or a complaint. We expressed concern that if litigation ever resulted, the DFEH might disclose confidential
salary data or other confidential information before a protective order is in place. We understand that your counter is that Riot could
challenge the sufficiency of any pleadings without the more detailed information.

Finally, as you suggested, we will further evaluate Government Code section 6254 to consider what additional protections, if any,
may be needed.

We appreciate you taking our concerns into consideration and we will revert with our thoughts. We also look forward to your
response.

Thanks again,
Tiffany Phan
GIBSON DUNN
Tel +1 213.229.7522 • Fax +1 213.229.6522
TPhan@gibsondunn.com • www.gibsondunn.com

To: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH <Siri.Thanasombat@dfeh.ca.gov>; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH <Mari.Mayeda@dfeh.ca.gov>; Toyama,

Thank you. We’ll talk to you at 11:30.


[External Email]
Hi Katherine,

11:30 AM works for us. We just have to jump off the call by 12 PM for another meeting.

Siri

Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 10:55:56 AM
To: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH

Siri –

My sincere apologies—we’ve had some delays over here and are running late. Can we move this call to 11:30?


[External Email]
Katherine,

Yes, we are available tomorrow at 11 AM for a meet and confer. Do you have a conference call-in number that you can
circulate?

Thanks,
Siri

Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:55:37 AM
To: Thanasombat, Siri@DFEH; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH; Wipper, Janette@DFEH

Siri –

Could we speak tomorrow at 11 am?

Katherine

Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:36 AM
To: Smith, Katherine V.A. <KSmith@gibsondunn.com>; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH <Irina.Trasovan@dfeh.ca.gov>; Mayeda, Mari@DFEH
<Mari.Mayeda@dfeh.ca.gov>; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH <Kaitlin.Toyama@dfeh.ca.gov>; Wipper, Janette@DFEH

[External Email]
Counsel,


Siri



Counsel,



Thank you,
Katherine

GIBSON DUNN
Tel +1 213.229.7107 • Fax +1 213.229.6107

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBIT 13
Direct: +1 213.229.7107
Fax: +1 213.229.6107
KSmith@gibsondunn.com
Client: 79817-00003
March 25, 2019
VIA E-MAIL (SIRI.THANASOMBAT@DFEH.CA.GOV)
Siri Thanasombat
Senior FEH Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
Re: In the Matter of the Complaint of KEVIN KISH, Director, DEPARTMENT OF FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING v. RIOT GAMES, INC., RIOT GAMES
DIRECT, INC., RIOT GAMES MERCHANDISE, INC., and RIOT GAMES
PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Dear Ms. Thanasombat:
We write in response to our telephonic conversation and your email of March 22, 2019 to
further explain our concerns about confidentiality and disclosure of private information.
As an initial matter, we would like to clarify that we are not categorically refusing to produce
information, but rather are seeking reassurances that confidential and trade secret information
produced by Riot Games, Inc., Riot Games Direct, Inc., Riot Games Merchandise, Inc. and
Riot Games Productions, Inc. (“Riot”) will not be disclosed either in response to a Public
Records Act (“PRA”) request or publicly by the DFEH. We requested that the DFEH agree
to a protective order to govern the disclosure and use of confidential information on March
14, 2019, but you have stated that the DFEH typically does not agree to protective orders in
the context of an investigation and will not do so here. For this reason, we have significant
concerns about how confidential information will be managed by the DFEH.
We believe that confidential information such as salary data, employee surveys, employee
names, and employee contact information are protected from public disclosure and request
that the DFEH stipulate that this confidential information will not be publicly disseminated
by the DFEH in either a response to a PRA request or for any other reason.
We quite frankly are surprised that the DFEH has refused to agree to keep such information
confidential as courts routinely grant motions to seal such information from public
disclosure. While the DFEH initially stated in its March 14, 2019 letter that it would agree to
withhold documents produced by Riot in response to Requests for Production, Set Two to the
Siri Thanasombat
March 25, 2019
Page 2
extent permitted by law, the DFEH then subsequently stated that in an email that same day
that it would only agree to withhold information to “which both parties agree as to proper
confidentiality should occur.” Based on our understanding of California Evidence Code
section 1040 and DFEH Directive Number 600, the DFEH is able to withhold documents
from public disclosure if the “records were provided with the DFEH with a promise of
confidentiality.” DFEH Directive Number 600 however requires that the promise of
confidentiality means the “DFEH agreed to keep the information confidential at the time it
was received.” To date, we have not received consistent reassurances that salary
information, Riot’s internal surveys, and employee contact information will be kept
confidential.
Disclosure of Salary Data
It is presently unclear whether the DFEH agrees that it will not disclose employee salary
information either in response to a PRA request or on its own initiative, e.g., in connection
with a press release or public filing. In your March 21, 2019 email, you stated, “[i]n
response to your concern that DFEH will disclose salary information and employee surveys,
we stated that personnel/employment files, medical files, and banking/financial information
will not be disclosed. Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (c)”—which led us to believe that the DFEH
was agreeing that it would not disclose Riot’s confidential salary information. Thus, we
were surprised when, on our call on March 22, you stated that you believed salary
information was not confidential and would be subject to disclosure. In your following
March 22 email, you further asserted that salary information is not confidential under
California law, nor is it a trade secret. We are thus at a loss as to what the DFEH’s position
is as to the confidentiality of salary information. Regardless, there can be no question that
salary information is private and should be withheld from public disclosure.
California law makes clear that salary information of private sector employees is highly
confidential. In California, “individuals have a legally recognized privacy interest in their
personal financial information,” which includes a “privacy expectation regarding income
earned in the private sector.” Int’l Fed'n of Prof’l & Tech. Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v.
Superior Court, 42 Cal. 4th 319, 330–31 (2007) (emphasis added); see also id. at 353
(“Nongovernmental employees most certainly have a reasonable expectation of privacy
regarding [salary] information.” (emphasis added)); Teamsters Local 856 v. Priceless, LLC,
112 Cal. App. 4th 1500, 1516 (2003) (recognizing a reasonable expectation of privacy in
salary details contained in employees’ personnel files). Courts in other jurisdictions have
held the same. See Campbell v. U.S. Civil Service Commission, 539 F.2d 58, 62 (10th Cir.
1976) (disclosure of employees’ salaries “would be a serious invasion of privacy”); Painting
Industry of Hawaii v. Dept. of Air Force, 26 F.3D 1479, 1483–84 (9th Cir. 1994) (“It cannot
be disputed that” information concerning “wages, and wage deductions” “is normally
Siri Thanasombat
March 25, 2019
Page 3
considered private.”); Painting & Drywall Work Preservation Fund v. HUD, 936 F.2d 1300,
1303 (D.C. Cir.1991) (“[D]isclosure of the requested data would constitute a substantial
invasion of privacy.”); Hopkins v. HUD, 929 F.2d 81, 87 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[W]e have no
doubt that individual private employees have a significant privacy interest in avoiding
disclosure of their names and addresses, particularly where, as here, the names and addresses
would be coupled with personal financial information.” (citations omitted)).
Indeed, in California, the only instances in which courts have found public disclosure of
employee salary information to be appropriate have been where the disclosure at issue is of
the salaries of public employees. Courts in those cases have explained that “an individual’s
expectation of privacy in a salary earned in public employment is significantly less than the
privacy expectation regarding income earned in the private sector,” because (1) the
employee’s employment is “public,” and (2) people have a strong interest in knowing how
the government is spending its money. Local 21, 42 Cal. 4th at 331.
Your March 22, 2019 email does not cite to a single case that holds otherwise. Instead, your
correspondence cites and refers to only individual employees’ rights to voluntary disclose
and discuss their own salary information. However, such laws only show that the employee
has the right to disclose his or her salary information if he or she so desires. It does not,
however, relieve an employer of its duty to protect that information from unconsented public
disclosure. This is further shown in the fact that, in California, employers are not even
permitted to ask employees about their salary history during the employment application
process. See Labor Code section 432.3.
Salary information is also nonpublic competitive information which courts have routinely
allowed to be filed under seal. California Rule of Court 2.550 authorizes a court to order that
records be filed under seal if it finds that the following conditions have been met: (A) there
exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record, which
interest supports sealing the record; (B) a substantial probability exists that the overriding
interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed; and (C) the proposed sealing is
narrowly tailored and no less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. The
protection of privacy and business confidentiality are “overriding interests” sufficient to
warrant sealing of records. See NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.
4th 1178, 1222 n. 46 (1999); see also Advisory Comm. Cmt. to Rule 2.550 (“Courts have
found that, under appropriate circumstances, various statutory privileges, trade secrets, and
privacy interests, when properly asserted and not waived, may constitute ‘overriding
interests.’”). Indeed, “financial information involv[ing] confidential business operations of a
defendant[,] public revelation of [which] would interfere with its ability to effectively
compete in the marketplace” should ordinarily be sealed. Universal City Studios, Inc. v.
Superior Court, 110 Cal. App. 4th 1273, 1286 (Ct. App. 2003). Accordingly, California
Siri Thanasombat
March 25, 2019
Page 4
courts readily grant motions to seal documents containing sensitive, proprietary, or

confidential business information, including documents containing financial information like
salaries. See, e.g., Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Maxim Integrated Prod., Inc., 236 Cal.
App. 4th 243, 263, (2015) (“Salary information, unlike the mere names of employees, has
long been recognized as potentially sensitive in a competitive labor market.”); Moussouris v.
Microsoft Corp., No. 16-MC-80170-MEJ, 2016 WL 5870010, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016)
(granting motion to seal “personal contact and salary information”); Benedict v. Hewlett-
Packard Co., No. 13-CV-00119-BLF, 2016 WL 3568922, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2016)
(granting motion to seal “private salary information” in part because “if disclosed, [the
private salary information] may harm HP’s competitive standing and its employees.”);
Prutsman v. Rust Consulting, Inc., No. C 12-6448 PJH, 2013 WL 1222707, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
Mar. 25, 2013) (granting motion to seal declaration “as it contains plaintiff’s confidential
salary information”); Del Campo v. Am. Corrective Counseling Servs., Inc., No. C-01-
2115JWPVT, 2007 WL 902568, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2007) (noting that “salary and
benefit information must be redacted” from employment agreements produced in the action);
Automattic Inc. v. Steiner, 82 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (noting that salaries
were “submitted under seal”); Ortega v. Cty. of Los Angeles, No. 217CV06576DMGPLAX,
2018 WL 3945414, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2018) (ordering “[a]ny and all salary
information” to be produced under seal). Riot does not publicly disclose its salaries and
views this information as highly sensitive and competitive.
Ultimately, there is no public interest in the disclosure of Riot’s employees’ salaries;

however, in contrast, there clearly is an individualized privacy expectation held by Riot’s
employees, as well as a competitive interest in keeping Riot’s confidential salary structure
confidential. For these reasons, Riot will not disclose salary information without assurance
that such information will not be publicly disclosed.
Finally, we do not understand why there is even a dispute over the confidentiality of salary
information when, in your March 22, 2019 email, you admit that the Information Practices
Act (IPA) limits the rights of governmental agencies to disclose personal information—
including financial information—about an individual. As you note, the IPA imposes liability
on agencies and individuals for improperly disclosing personal information maintained by
agencies. The IPA defines “personal information” as “any information that is maintained by
an agency that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, his or her
name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number,
education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. It includes statements
made by, or attributed to, the individual.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.3, subd. (a). Disclosing
salary information, even if not associated with an individual, would violate the IPA because
there are a number of positions at Riot that are held by a limited number of people, such that
it would be quite easy to correlate the information with an individual.
Siri Thanasombat
March 25, 2019
Page 5
Employee Surveys
Siri Thanasombat
March 25, 2019
Page 6
Employee Names and Contact Information
Riot’s position is that disclosing employee names and contact information to the DFEH is not
warranted at this time, especially without appropriate confidentiality reassurances from the
DFEH. Riot’s employees have strong privacy interests in their contact information. See
Williams v. Superior Court, 3 Cal. 5th 531, 552, 554 (2017) (under the California
Constitution, “absent employees have a bona fide interest in the confidentiality of their
contact information” and, “[w]hile less sensitive than one’s medical history or financial data,
‘home contact information is generally considered private.’”) (quoting County of Los Angeles
v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com., 56 Cal. 4th 905, 927 (2013)); Belaire-West
Landscape, Inc. v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 4th 554, 561 (Ct. App. 2007) (concluding
that the contact information for “current and former employees deserves privacy protection,”
noting that employees have a “reasonable expectation” that their contact information will
remain confidential “in light of employers’ usual confidentiality customs and practices”);
Putnam v. Eli Lilly and Co., 508 F.Supp.2d 812, 814 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (“individuals have a
privacy interest in not having their names and addresses disclosed to third parties”); Artis v.
Deere & Co., 276 F.R.D. 348, 352 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (applicants “have a legally protected
interest in the privacy of their contact information and a reasonable expectation of privacy”).
Riot will provide employee ID numbers in lieu of employee contact information and
employee names.
***
It is our sincere hope that the DFEH will reconsider its position and agree in a signed
stipulation (which could be executed by a court, should this matter ever end up in litigation),
that Riot’s confidential salary information and survey data will not be publicly disclosed,
including in response to a PRA request or on the DFEH’s own initiative. However, if it is
necessary to take the matter to court, Riot is confident a court will agree, in light of the
overwhelming legal authority above, that these materials should be protected from
disclosure.
Please note that Riot will make a production of non-confidential presentations and resource
guides about compensation today, and that Riot stands ready to meet and confer on any of
the points herein.
Thank you for your attention to these issues.

Siri Thanasombat
March 25, 2019
Page 7
Sincerely,

Catherine A. Conway
KVS/mts
EXHIBIT 14
Direct: +1 213.229.7107
Fax: +1 213.229.6107
Client: 79817-00003
March 25, 2019
Siri Thanasombat
Senior FEH Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Non-privileged and non-confidential documents responsive to the Department of Fair

Employment and Housing’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set Two will be
produced via ShareFile. You will receive an invitation to join ShareFile to download the
documents. The documents have been stamped with Bates-numbers in the range from RG-
DFEH0000407 through RG-DFEH0000424.
Riot Games expressly reserves all privileges, all objections, and the right to request the
immediate return of any privileged documents or information that have been inadvertently
produced.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,

Catherine A. Conway
KVS/lmf
EXHIBIT 15


Via U.S. First Class Mail and E-Mail: KSmith@gibsondunn.com, CConway@gibsondunn.com
March 28, 2019
Catherine A. Conway
Attorneys for Respondents
Re: Kish v. Riot Games, Inc., et. al.

DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525
Dear Counsel:
We write in response to your letter of March 25, 2019. After reading your letter, it seems that the parties
may have been communicating at cross-purposes. The purpose of this communication is to attempt to
move our discussion forward and determine whether it remains possible to reach a mutually agreeable
resolution. To that end, we focus on areas where we believe we have agreement in the hopes of making
progress or at least clarifying the dispute.
In your March 25, 2019 correspondence, you state that Riot is “seeking reassurances that confidential and
trade secret information . . . will not be disclosed either in response to a Public Records Act (“PRA”)
request or publicly by the DFEH.”
To reiterate what we have previously stated, the following is our position:
In Response to a PRA Request
Pursuant to DFEH Directive Number 600, DFEH agreed to keep confidential home addresses, home
phone numbers, bank account numbers, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, citizenship
status and dates of birth. (3/14/19 Thanasombat Letter at 2, citing DFEH Executive Division Directive
Number 600 ¶4.G(5).)
Individual Salary Information: Your concern regarding confidentiality of individual salary information is
addressed by what we thought were our clear statements that we would not disclose home addresses,
home phone numbers, bank account numbers, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers,
citizenship statuses, and dates of birth. To be specific: in response to a PRA request, we would not
disclose that Jane Doe makes $68,232/year. We would not disclose her name, home address, home phone
number, bank account numbers, social security number, driver’s license number, citizenship status, and
date of birth.
The discussion on trade secrets in our March 22, 2019 email was directed at your blanket assertion that
salary information per se was a trade secret, which we do not believe it is. However, if your concern
about salary information is rooted in an individual’s privacy rights, then the DFEH believes DFEH
1
Directive Number 600 and the Information Practices Act, discussed below, address this concern by not
linking individuals to their salary information.
Employee Names and Contact Information: We do not understand your objection as the parties agree that
contact information cannot be publicly disclosed. As a government agency, however, we are entitled to
conduct an investigation which includes requiring Respondent to provide employee contact information to
the Department. We have confirmed above that we would not release employees’ home addresses, home
phone numbers, bank account numbers, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, citizenship
statuses, and dates of birth.
Outside of a PRA Request
Individual Salary Information, Employee Names, Employee Contact Information: As we have stated
before, the Information Practices Act (IPA) limits the right of governmental agencies to disclose personal
information about an individual. The IPA imposes liability on agencies and individuals for improperly
disclosing personal information maintained by agencies. The IPA defines “personal information” as “any
information that is maintained by an agency that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not
limited to, his or her name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone
number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. It includes statements made by,
or attributed to, the individual.” (Civ. Code, § 1798.3, subd. (a).) Therefore, employees of DFEH are
prohibited from disclosing the above information to the public in any manner that would link the
information disclosed to the individual to whom it pertains, in almost all circumstances (outside of
exceptions listed in Civil Code section 1798.24). Any DFEH employee who violates the IPA could be
subject to disciplinary action.
Employee Surveys: DFEH will need more information as to what is covered in these surveys. The case
law you cited only discussed surveys about managerial performance, consumer surveys, user satisfaction
surveys, and market research surveys. If your employee surveys include other topics, please let us know.
***
As to documents which contain employee names and contact information, we would agree that you could
designate those portions of the documents which contain the information as “Confidential.” You have our
agreement (and could so note on the document) that those items would be PRA exempt. You also have
our agreement that individual salary information linked to the individuals to whom they pertain will not
be disclosed in response to a PRA request.
Although not required by the PRA, to resolve our disagreement, we are willing to offer to provide you
notice if a PRA request is made for this investigative file within five years after the Director’s Complaint
or associated litigation has been closed, but we cannot violate our statutory obligation to respond to the
Requestor in 10 days. (Gov. Code §5263(c).) If you have any questions, feel free to contact us. We ask
that you provide us with a response to this letter by Thursday, April 4, 2019.
Siri Thanasombat
Senior FEH Counsel
2
EXHIBIT 16
Direct: +1 213.229.7107
Fax: +1 213.229.6107
Client: 79817-00003
April 4, 2019
Siri Thanasombat
Senior FEH Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
PRODUCTIONS, INC.
We write on behalf of Riot Games, Inc., Riot Games Direct, Inc., Riot Games Merchandise,
Inc. and Riot Games Productions, Inc. (“Riot”) in response to your March 28, 2019
correspondence. We are also hopeful that the parties can reach a mutually agreeable
resolution regarding our confidentiality concerns. While your letter helped clarify a number
of our concerns, we would like to request further clarification on a few matters and respond
to your question regarding the employee survey.
Disclosure of Salary Information
Our understanding is that the DFEH will not disclose personal information, including salary
information, in response to a Public Records Act (“PRA”) request or voluntarily for any
other reason. We appreciate this clarification. We would also like to understand whether the
DFEH would disclose that a particular position earns a certain salary. For example, it is
unclear if the DFEH would publicly disclose that, by way of hypothetical only, a particular
“Software Engineer earns $100,000 per year” or that a particular “Narrative Editor earns
$80,000 per year.” Salary information at Riot is distinct and unique to each person, so Riot’s
position is that a disclosure along these lines would be tantamount to “link[ing]” an
individual to his or her salary information. Disclosing salary information would also violate
the Information Practices Act because there are a number of positions at Riot that are held by
a limited number of people, such that it would be quite easy to correlate the information with
an individual. We would appreciate confirmation that the DFEH will not publicly disclose
salary information associated with a job title.
Siri Thanasombat
April 4, 2019
Page 2
Employee Survey
In your letter, you requested more information about what is covered in Riot’s employee
survey.
Further,
any names and contact information in the surveys are plainly confidential. Accordingly,
please confirm that DFEH will not publicly disclose any survey data marked “Confidential,”
either in response to a PRA request or voluntarily for any other reason.
Advance Notice of PRA Requests
We appreciate the DFEH’s offer to provide advance “notice if a PRA request is made for this
investigative file within five years after the Director’s Complaint or associated litigation has
been closed.” We understand that the DFEH cannot violate its statuary obligation to respond
to requests within 10 days, and thus we request that the DFEH notify us within three calendar
days of any relevant PRA request so that Riot has adequate time to seek relief from the
disclosure of any material. For the five years after the Director’s Complaint or associated
litigation has been closed, we request that the DFEH provide written notice to the following
individuals:
Siri Thanasombat
April 4, 2019
Page 3

333 South Grand Ave.
ksmith@gibsondunn.com
Dan Chang, General Counsel

Riot Games, Inc.,
12333 W Olympic Blvd.
dan.chang@riotgames.com
Procedure for Designating Materials as Confidential
Finally, we would like to ensure the parties are in agreement with the procedure for
designating materials “Confidential.” Riot intends to designate the following materials as
“Confidential”: personnel files, employment files, medical files, salary information, banking
information, financial information, driver’s license numbers, citizenship statuses, dates of
birth, and any information that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited
to, his or her name, social security number, physical description, home address, home
telephone number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history,
including statements made by, or attributed to, an individual. Please confirm that you agree
that if Riot designates any material falling within these categories as “Confidential,” that they
will be treated as confidential, exempt from the PRA, and exempt from public disclosure by
the DFEH. Riot will also designate the employee survey as “Confidential” pending written
confirmation from the DFEH that this is acceptable.
To the extent DFEH requests that Riot produce other confidential information not already
discussed, we are hopeful that DFEH will continue to meet and confer with Riot regarding
the necessary safeguards for production of those materials.
***
Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please let us know if you have any questions,
and we look forward to receiving your response.
Siri Thanasombat
April 4, 2019
Page 4
Sincerely,

Catherine A. Conway
KVS/lmf


April 16, 2019

Catherine A. Conway

DFEH’s Response to Riot Games, Inc’s 4/4/19 Letter
Dear Counsel:
We write again as a final attempt to resolve the remaining issues stated in your letter dated April 4,
2019. We believe to have adequately addressed your specific requests for clarification. However,
please note that your requests and objections are unusual, and inconsistent with the investigation and
enforcement framework under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and related authorities. 1
At this early investigation stage, DFEH offers the following clarifications in this correspondence with
respect to the administrative investigation of Kish v. Riot Games, Inc. et al. (DFEH Matter No. 201810-
04010525). In the event that DFEH determines to litigate this administrative complaint after the
investigation, a protective order would govern confidential documents during litigation.
With regards to salary information linked to individuals, if indeed “salary information is distinct and
unique to each person,” as you stated in your April 4th letter, DFEH will keep the salary information
linked to individuals confidential pursuant to DFEH Directive Number 600 and the Information
Practices Act (IPA).
With regards to the employee surveys, the parties do not agree that employee surveys are per se trade
secrets. Therefore, as a last attempt to resolve this dispute, DFEH requests that Riot Games, Inc.
provide both redacted and unredacted versions of the employee surveys so the parties can meet and
confer about specific designations. We reserve the right to challenge any of your designations.
With regards to providing advance notice of Public Records Act (PRA) requests, DFEH can provide
notice to Riot Games, Inc. if the Department determines that information that the parties have designated
as confidential in this investigation are disclosable public records under the PRA. This notice is not
required under the PRA. Nonetheless, as a last attempt to resolve this dispute, DFEH is willing to
1
See, e.g., Gov. Code § 11180 et seq., Gov. Code §§ 12930, 12946, 12975, 12976; 2 CCR § 11013.
1 of 2
provide notice to Riot Games, Inc. within 10 days of a DFEH determination that information designated
as confidential from the administrative investigative file for Kish v. Riot Games, Inc. et al. (DFEH
Matter No. 201810-04010525) is being requested and that same information is subject to disclosure
pursuant to the PRA. Before any documents or information from this file has been released to the
Requestor, DFEH agrees to provide written notification to Riot Games, Inc.’s counsel, Katherine Smith,
and Riot Games, Inc.’s General Counsel, Dan Chang.
As to the process for designating materials confidential so as to exempt them from a PRA request or
other DFEH public disclosure, we appreciate your list of categories that you wish to categorize as
confidential. However, we cannot provide a blanket agreement to general categories. It is unclear, for
example, what specific information will be covered in “personnel files, employment files . . . financial
information . . . and any information that identifies or describes an individual including, . . . financial
matters, and . . . employment history . . . .” Instead, DFEH offers the same process as that for the
employee surveys. DFEH asks that Riot Games, Inc. provide both redacted and unredacted versions of
the responsive materials for the parties to meet and confer about specific designations. DFEH will make
a good faith determination as to whether all or some of the marked materials should be designated as
confidential.
Please confirm no later than 5:00 pm on April 23, 2019, whether Riot Games, Inc. will produce
information in response to DFEH’s Requests for Production, Set Two by April 30, 2019. If you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
Siri Thanasombat
Siri.Thanasombat@dfeh.ca.gov
2 of 2
Direct: +1 213.229.7107
Fax: +1 213.229.6107
Client: 79817-00003
April 22, 2019
Siri Thanasombat
Elk Grove, CA 95758
PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Inc. and Riot Games Productions, Inc. (“Riot”) in response to your April 16, 2019
correspondence. We appreciate your ongoing willingness to discuss our concerns regarding
privacy and confidentiality. While Riot still has several questions about the production of its
confidential information, we are optimistic that continued discussions will resolve these
issues.
Salary Information. We appreciate your confirmation in your April 16 letter that DFEH will
keep any salary information linked to individuals confidential pursuant to DFEH Directive
600 and the Information Practices Act (“IPA”).
Employee Survey. As I explained in my April 4 letter, Riot’s employee survey is a self-

critical survey about Riot’s employment and business practices. We continue to believe that,
if the survey data were obtained by a third party, the information could be used to unfairly
recruit Riot’s employees, exploit Riot’s business practices, or obtain information on Riot’s
impressions of changes in the industry. Accordingly, Riot would like an agreement that such
information will not be disclosed in response to a Public Records Act (“PRA”) request or
voluntarily for any other reason.
DFEH proposes to resolve this issue by Riot producing both redacted and unredacted
versions of the survey data, followed by a meet and confer between the parties.
Unfortunately, this puts the cart before the horse—once the unredacted survey data is in
Siri Thanasombat
April 22, 2019
Page 2
DFEH’s possession, absent some agreement between the parties, Riot has no control over
what DFEH does with that data. Riot needs assurances from DFEH before producing the
unredacted survey data, not after. Accordingly, we would propose that Riot produce the
survey itself—but not the response data—to DFEH, so DFEH can see the complete survey.
It is our hope that you will then see why it would be competitively damaging to Riot for the
results of said survey to be released publicly, and why a court would almost certainly order
such materials sealed and protected from public disclosure. 1
The redacted survey will be produced on April 30, 2019, if not before, and we invite the
DFEH to meet and confer with us once it has had a chance to review the survey itself.
Procedure for Designating Materials as Confidential. We cannot agree to DFEH’s request

that Riot provide unredacted and redacted copies of responsive materials, so the parties can
meet and confer about “specific designations.” As with the survey data, our understanding is
that once the materials are in DFEH’s possession, they become subject to the PRA.
As a compromise and to move forward with the investigation, we propose that the DFEH
agree to hold confidential from public disclosure any information that Riot stamps as
“Confidential.” As explained in our April 4 letter, Riot will stamp “Confidential” materials
that it believes falls within the following categories in accordance with applicable protections
cited by DFEH:
Personnel files • PRA, Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (c),

• DFEH Directive 600 4.G(5)
• Cited in DFEH March 14, 2019 letter
Employment files • PRA, Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (c)
• Cited in DFEH March 14, 2019 letter
1
Your April 16 letter states that DFEH does not agree that employees surveys are per se trade secrets. Once
again, this is not the relevant standard for whether documents may or should be withheld from public
release. As set forth in my March 25 letter, California Rule of Court 2.550 authorizes courts to seal records
if there is an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access. This standard does not require
that the material at issue be a per se trade secret. Indeed, as I previously explained in detail, courts
routinely seal business surveys since disclosure of such information would place businesses at a
competitive disadvantage—which is exactly what would occur to Riot here, absent sealing or confirmation
from the DFEH that the survey will not be publicly disclosed. See March 25, 2019 Smith Letter at p. 5.
Siri Thanasombat
April 22, 2019
Page 3
Medical files • PRA, Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (c),

• Cited in your March 14, 2019 letter
Salary information • IPA, Civ. Code, § 1798.3, subd. (a)
• PRA, Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (c)
Banking information • PRA, Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (c)
Financial information • PRA, Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (c)
Driver’s license numbers • DFEH Directive 600 4.G(4)
Citizenship statuses • DFEH Directive 600 4.G(4)
Dates of birth • DFEH Directive 600 4.G(4)
“Any information that identifies • IPA, Civ. Code, § 1798.3, subd. (a)
or describes an individual, • DFEH Directive 600 4.G(4)
including, but not limited to, his
or her name, social security
number, physical description,
home address, home telephone
number, education, financial
matters, and medical or
employment history, including
statements made by, or attributed
to, an individual”
To the extent DFEH disagrees with any specific confidentiality designations, Riot will meet
and confer with DFEH in good faith to determine whether any materials can be re-produced
without a “Confidential” designation. Further, should the DFEH request that Riot produce
other confidential information not already discussed, we are hopeful that DFEH will continue
Siri Thanasombat
April 22, 2019
Page 4
to meet and confer with Riot regarding the necessary safeguards for production of those
materials.
Please let us know if this proposal is acceptable to the DFEH.
Finally, we appreciate DFEH’s willingness to notify Riot’s counsel in writing “within 10

days of a DFEH determination that information designated as confidential from the
administrative investigative file . . . and that same information is subject to disclosure
pursuant to the PRA.” However, notification within 10 days of DFEH’s determination seems
to coincide with DFEH’s deadline to respond to the PRA request. Our understanding is that
this will not provide Riot with sufficient time to seek relief from the disclosure of material.
We therefore request that DFEH notify Riot within five calendar days of any relevant PRA
request.
***
Sincerely,

Catherine A. Conway
KVS/lmf


April 26, 2019

Catherine A. Conway

DFEH’s Response to Riot Games, Inc.’s 4/22/19 Letter
Dear Counsel:
We write in response to your letter dated April 22, 2019. I will be the main DFEH contact on this matter
during Ms. Thanasombat’s leave.
Procedure for Designating Materials as Confidential
Thank you for your proposal regarding the process by which materials will be designated confidential.
To be clear, the following is our understanding of the proposed process:
1. Riot will designate certain information as confidential in good faith. Nothing will be redacted.
2. If the DFEH disagrees with any specific confidentiality designation, Riot and the DFEH will
meet and confer to determine whether these designations should remain.
3. Upon agreement after the meet and confer process, Riot will re-produce materials without a
“confidential” designation.
We will agree with your proposed process with two caveats. First, we cannot provide a blanket approval
to the broad categories you outlined as being confidential. Again, under applicable exemptions, we will
redact and withhold personal information such as bank account numbers, social security numbers,
driver’s license numbers, citizenship status, and dates of birth. Records in “personnel, medical, or
similar files,” however, should be designated as confidential only if the disclosure “would constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (See Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (c).)
Second, the DFEH’s right to “[p]resent information or evidence obtained or developed from the
investigation of unlawful activity to a court or at an administrative hearing in connection with any action
or proceeding” (See Gov. Code, § 11181, subd. (h)) must not be affected by our agreement.
1 of 2
Employee Surveys
We will agree to the same proposed process described above with respect to employee surveys.
Applying that process, please produce both the survey questions as well as the answers, designating
portions you believe are confidential without redactions. We will then review the documents and meet
and confer with you if we disagree with any of the designations.
PRA Requests
To clarify, the DFEH has 10 calendar days to respond to the Public Records Act (PRA) requests, not to
produce the documents which are responsive to those requests. In other words, the DFEH provides
written notification before any documents or information from this file has been released. (See Gov.
Code, § 6253, subd. (c); DFEH Directive 600, ¶¶ 4.C-4.D.)
Thus, we repeat that DFEH will agree to notify Riot’s counsel in writing within 10 days of a DFEH
determination that information designated as confidential from the administrative investigative file for
Kish v. Riot Games, Inc. et al. (DFEH Matter No. 201810-04010525) is being requested and that same
information is subject to disclosure pursuant to the PRA. Again, please note that the DFEH does not
have a legal obligation to provide notice to Riot but that we offer this proposal as a last attempt to
resolve the dispute.
Please respond no later than 5:00 pm on April 29, 2019, whether Riot Games, Inc. will agree to the
above and produce information in response to Requests for Production, Set Two by April 30, 2019.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Grace Shim
Staff Counsel
grace.shim@dfeh.ca.gov
2 of 2
Direct: +1 213.229.7107
Fax: +1 213.229.6107
Client: 79817-00003
April 30, 2019
VIA E-MAIL (GRACE.SHIM@DFEH.CA.GOV)
Grace Shim
Staff Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Dear Ms. Shim:
Inc. and Riot Games Productions, Inc. (“Riot”) in response to your April 26, 2019
correspondence.
Procedure for Designation Materials as Confidential. Thank you for confirming your
agreement with the procedure we outlined in our April 22, 2019 correspondence, pursuant to
which the DFEH will hold in confidence documents Riot in good faith marks as
“Confidential,” and the parties will meet and confer about whether and to what extent Riot
shall reproduce that information without such designation. We agree that your recitation of
the procedure is correct; however, consistent with our March 25, 2019 correspondence, we
will produce employee IDs in lieu of employee names, which may involve redacting
employee names where necessary. Riot will produce materials responsive to the DFEH’s
Requests for Production, Set 2 on a rolling basis as expeditiously as possible, with the
exception of the Employee Survey as discussed further below. Rolling productions will
allow Riot the necessary time to ensure that the confidentiality designations are consistent
with the DFEH’s guidelines and the parties’ recent agreement, and to prepare the materials
accordingly.
Employee Survey. We generally agree to produce the employee survey in accordance with
the procedure for designating materials as “Confidential.” However, we cannot agree to
designate only certain portions of the survey; the survey questions and answers exist in a
large Excel document spanning 392 columns and 2,560 rows. Marking specific cells as
Grace Shim
April 30, 2019
Page 2
Confidential would distort the Excel document itself and it would be impractical for DFEH
to review the survey with designations completed in this manner. Accordingly, we propose
producing the employee survey responses with a “Confidential” designation that is
applicable to the entire spreadsheet. We have concurrently produced the survey questions
and await the DFEH’s confirmation that it will agree to designate all employee survey
responses as “Confidential.”
PRA Requests. We appreciate DFEH’s agreement to notify Riot’s counsel in writing within
10 days of a DFEH determination that information designated as confidential from the
administrative investigative file for Kish v. Riot Games, Inc., et al. (DFEH Matter No.
201810-04010525) is being requested and that same information is subject to disclosure
pursuant to the PRA.
***
Sincerely,

Catherine A. Conway
KVS/lmf


May 2, 2019

Catherine A. Conway

DFEH’s Response to Riot Games, Inc.’s 4/30/19 Letter
Dear Counsel:
We write in response to your letter dated April 30, 2019.
We served our Requests for Production, Set Two on February 15, 2019. Your responses were originally
due March 17, 2019.
We have had numerous communications with you regarding your concerns since March 14, 2019 in an
attempt to resolve the matter. Now, in your April 30, 2019 letter, you raise rolling production for the
first time which will cause further delay.
We do not agree to employee names being redacted. As we stated in our March 14, 2019
correspondence, privacy considerations typically do not provide a basis for withholding information,
particularly where there are sufficient limitations on the disclosure of that information. And as we stated
in our March 28, 2019 correspondence, the Information Practices Act (IPA) limits the right of
governmental agencies to disclose personal information about an individual.
Please produce the responsive documents to Requests for Production, Set Two by May 8, 2019.
We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Grace Shim
Staff Counsel
1 of 1
EXHIBIT 17
Direct: +1 213.229.7107
Fax: +1 213.229.6107
Client: 79817-00003
May 8, 2019
Grace Shim
Staff Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Dear Ms. Shim:
Inc. and Riot Games Productions, Inc. (“Riot”) in response to your May 2, 2019
correspondence.
Employee Names. We appreciate your confirmation that DFEH will keep employee names
confidential pursuant to the Information Practices Act. In light of this assurance, Riot will
not redact employee names that appear on materials responsive to DFEH’s Requests for
Production, Set Two.
Production. With the exception of the responses to the Employee Survey as discussed
further below, non-privileged and non-confidential documents responsive to the Requests for
Production, Set Two will be produced today via ShareFile. After a diligent search and
inquiry, Riot is not currently aware of any other materials responsive to the Requests for
Production, Set Two. You will receive an invitation to join ShareFile to download the
documents. The documents have been Bates-stamped RG-DFEH0000468 to RG-
DFEH0002931. Documents have been designated as “Confidential” in accordance with
DFEH guidelines and the parties’ agreement. Riot Games expressly reserves all privileges,
all objections, and the right to request the immediate return of any privileged documents or
information that have been inadvertently produced.
Please note that RG-DFEH0000485 and RG-DFEH0000486 contain the term “Redacted” in
various cells. This text is pre-existing and is not the result of any redaction process by Riot
Grace Shim
May 8, 2019
Page 2
Games or its counsel for the purposes of responding to DFEH’s Requests for Production, Set
Two.
Employee Survey. We produced the employee survey questions alongside our letter on April
30, 2019. As stated in the letter, we will produce the survey responses once we receive
DFEH’s confirmation that it will agree to designate all employee survey responses as
“Confidential.”
Sincerely,

Catherine A. Conway
KVS/lmf
EXHIBIT 18


May 14, 2019

Catherine A. Conway

DFEH’s Questions re Riot’s Data
Dear Counsel:
We write with some questions about the data that Riot produced in response to DFEH’s investigative
discovery requests.
1. What is the snapshot date of the data produced?
1 of 2
8. Please describe all components of compensation at Riot Games (e.g., base pay, bonus, options,
RSUs, PSUs, equity). Please provide any components missing from the data produced.
Please respond by 5:00 pm on Wednesday, 5/22/2019. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Grace Shim
Staff Counsel
2 of 2
EXHIBIT 19
Direct: +1 213.229.7107
Fax: +1 213.229.6107
Client: 79817-00003
May 24, 2019
Grace Shim
Staff Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Dear Ms. Shim:
Inc. and Riot Games Productions, Inc. (“Riot”) in response to your May 14, 2019
correspondence inquiring about the data Riot produced on May 8, 2019.
Question 1: What is the snapshot date of the data produced?
Response to Question 1: We understand that Riot pulled the data from its internal databases
in March 2019. The data contains information on employees who worked at Riot Games,
Inc. in California at any point from October 25, 2015 through March 2019. Please let us
know if this does not answer your question regarding the “snapshot date.”
Grace Shim
May 24, 2019
Page 2
Grace Shim
May 24, 2019
Page 3
Question 8: Please describe all components of compensation at Riot Games (e.g., base pay,
bonus, options, RSUs, PSUs, equity). Please provide any components missing from the data
produced.
Response to Question 8: Our investigation into this question is ongoing and we will
provide an update on May 31, 2019.
***
Please let us know if you have any additional questions. We will provide a supplemental
response to Question 8 as soon as possible.
Sincerely,

Catherine A. Conway
KVS/lmf
EXHIBIT 20


May 30, 2019

Catherine A. Conway
Dear Counsel:
We write about several outstanding investigative discovery matters in Kish v. Riot Games, Inc. et al.
Compensation Studies
In your May 17, 2019 letter, you state that Riot has produced “all non-privileged materials responsive to
the Request for Production, Set Two” and that Riot “did not locate any non-privileged” documents in
response to Request for Production No. 8, which asks for:
ALL DOCUMENTS or CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO all equal employment

opportunity, pay equity, compensation benchmarking and/or diversity analyses, STUDIES,
surveys or reports regarding workforce utilization, COMPENSATION, promotion,
performance evaluations, and/or job or work assignments that RESPONDENT or its agent
has performed, including but not limited to the underlying data for such audits, analyses,
STUDIES, surveys or reports and any resulting changes or adjustments to employment
terms and conditions subsequent to any such audit, analysis, STUDY, survey, or report.
Please clarify whether your answer means that Riot does not have any responsive documents to this
request, or that Riot has responsive documents but asserts the documents are privileged. If Riot is
withholding the documents based upon privilege, please provide a detailed description of the basis for
the privilege.
Questions about Riot’s data
We are in receipt of Riot’s May 24, 2019 answers to DFEH’s questions about Riot’s data produced so
far in DFEH’s investigation. We have a few follow up comments and additional questions below:
DFEH’s Question 1: What is the snapshot date of the data produced?
1 of 3
Riot’s 5/24/2019 Response to Question 1: We understand that Riot pulled the data from
its internal databases in March 2019. The data contains information on employees who
worked at Riot Games, Inc. in California at any point from October 25, 2015 through
March 2019. Please let us know if this does not answer your question regarding the
“snapshot date.”
The definition of “snapshot date” is the “as of” date for the data. It is the pay, job classification/
categories, demographic information, experience, age, etc. for all employees as of a specific date. Given
that the data Riot Games provided spans October 25, 2015 through March 2019, the data should have at
least 4 snapshots: on 12/31/2015, 12/31/2016, 12/31/2017, and 12/31/2018. If an employee is employed
every year from October 2015 through March 2019 then there should be 4 records for this employee. If
an employee was employed as of 12/31/2015 but terminated in June of 2018, then there would be only 3
records (for 12/31/2015, 12/31/2016 and 12/31/2017).
Please provide snapshot dates for 12/31/2015, 12/31/2016, 12/31/2017, and 12/31/2018 for all
employees at a minimum. Additional snapshots would be useful. Within each snapshot, please also
include all information from the fields DFEH identified as relevant from the list of fields Riot previously
provided to DFEH in response to DFEH’s Special Interrogatories, Set One.
2 of 3
Designation of Confidentiality of Employee Surveys
Lastly, we would like to meet and confer about Riot’s confidentiality designation of the employee
survey questions and responses. I will send you an email with some available time slots for us so that we
can schedule a call with you.
Please respond by 5:00 pm on Thursday, 6/6/2019. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Grace Shim
Staff Counsel
3 of 3
EXHIBIT 21
Direct: +1 213.229.7107
Fax: +1 213.229.6107
Client: 79817-00003
June 6, 2019
Grace Shim
Staff Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Dear Ms. Shim:
Inc. and Riot Games Productions, Inc. (“Riot”) in response to your May 14, 2019 and May
30, 2019 correspondence.
Riot located documents responsive to DFEH’s Requests for Production, Set 2, Request for
Production No. 8 but did not produce them because they are protected by the attorney-client
privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.
Riot withheld materials, documents, and/or communications related to compensation

analyses performed by an outside consulting firm at the express request of Riot’s counsel for
purposes of advising Riot on currently active litigation. Gibson Dunn retained the consulting
firm and directed their analyses. The analyses thus reflect Gibson Dunn’s mental
impressions, opinions, conclusions and theories. Because these materials were prepared
explicitly for litigation purposes and were only shared with individuals who needed to know
the information, they are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work
product doctrine. Accordingly, Riot will not produce them.
In addition, Riot’s Legal Department directed two internal studies—one in 2017, one in
2018—that analyzed, respectively, Riot’s compensation structure and pay equity. The
studies were initiated and monitored by the Legal Department for the purpose of providing
legal advice to Riot. Outside of Riot’s legal team and the joint authors in the Compensation
Grace Shim
June 6, 2019
Page 2
Department, the studies were shared only with high-level executives for the purposes of
providing legal advice. All individuals who were provided the studies were expressly
informed that the materials were privileged and confidential. The studies thus reflect the
mental impressions, opinions, conclusions and theories of Riot’s attorneys. Because these
materials were prepared explicitly for providing legal advice and were only shared with high-
level executives at the company for that purpose, they are protected by the attorney client
privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. Accordingly, Riot will not produce them.
Questions about Riot’s Data
Question 1
We believe there may have been some confusion between the parties as to the definition of
the DFEH’s term “snapshot date.” We now understand that by “snapshot date,” DFEH is
referring to the “as of” date for the data and that the DFEH is requesting “as of ” data. To
clarify, the data that Riot produced includes all available historical records from October 25,
2015 through March 2019. Any data that would have been recorded as of a given “snapshot
date” is included in the aggregated data that Riot produced. If DFEH would like to review a
certain employee’s records as of a particular date, it can filter out records that occurred
before or after that particular date.
Grace Shim
June 6, 2019
Page 3
Question 8
The DFEH requested that Riot describe all components of compensation at Riot Games.
Components of compensation at Riot Games, Inc. in California varied throughout the years.
Prior to 2015, total compensation consisted of options and/or RSUs (known generally as
“equity”) and base pay. Employees were allowed to designate, within recommended
guidelines, their desired mixture of equity and base pay. Equity generally was issued in four
year grants. In 2016, options were converted into Tencent Holdings Limited RSUs and Riot
stopped making grants of Riot Equity. Instead, as of 2016, total compensation for new
employees consisted of base pay and SSP, and total compensation for current employees
consisted of base pay, SSP, and any outstanding RSUs awarded prior to 2016. For the latter
category, the initial roll out of SSP was dependent on each employee’s prior selection of their
equity and base pay mix. Employees who had previously selected more compensation
through options received higher SSP awards (if all of their equity had vested) compared to
those who had selected higher base pay prior to 2015, if all of their equity had vested. From
2016 through 2017, some employees with still-vesting RSUs were given less SSP until their
RSUs had fully vested. After 2017, managers were advised to give all employees their full
SSP and RSUs rather than more limited SSP to account for the RSUs vesting. In 2019, a
limited number of employees were granted RSUs as part of a retention plan.
Per the DFEH’s request to produce all components, Riot will produce the database of
individual grants that each employee was granted. This database was not maintained after
2015. In addition, Riot will produce information on the 2019 grants.
Employee Survey
In your May 30, 2019 letter, you stated that you would send an email with available time
slots to meet and confer. Please let us know when you are available to meet and confer about
the confidentiality of Riot’s employee survey.
Grace Shim
June 6, 2019
Page 4
Supplemental Responses and Productions
As a result of our investigation for response to Question 8, we believe that Riot’s former
equity program is responsive to some of DFEH’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1 and Requests
for Production, Set 2. We will supplement our responses and related productions as soon as
possible.
***
Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,

Catherine A. Conway
KVS/lmf
EXHIBIT 22


June 7, 2019

Catherine A. Conway

Riot Games, Inc.’s incomplete data production
Dear Counsel:
We write to further meet and confer with you about Riot Games, Inc.’s (Riot) incomplete data provided
to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH).
The DFEH served our Requests for Production, Set Two, on February 15, 2019. Riot’s responses were
originally due on March 17, 2019.
Since March 14, 2019, DFEH has engaged in numerous communications with you in an attempt to work
with your client in good faith and receive the responsive documents to conduct our investigation. And
yet, almost four months after the DFEH requested the information, Riot’s response is still incomplete.
Question 1
Your June 6, 2019 letter response to DFEH’s Question 1 implies that Riot is still confused about what a
snapshot date is, what fields are required in each snapshot dataset, and how to create a snapshot dataset
for production, despite DFEH’s detailed requests and numerous explanations about the requests over the
last three months. (DFEH’s Request for Production, Set Two [served on February 15, 2019]; DFEH
letter to Riot [served on May 14, 2019]; DFEH’s letter to Riot [served on May 30, 2019].)
This confusion is implausible. In your June 6, 2019 response, Riot concedes that the company
conducted multiple pay equity studies in the last three years, including with an outside consulting firm
and arguably under direction of counsel. Riot should not continue to resist, prevent, impede, or interfere
with DFEH’s access to the requested information. (Gov. Code, §§ 12975, 12946, 12963.4.)
As a last attempt to resolve the purported confusion, the table below illustrates what DFEH has
previously requested and explained. Note that this table does not include all fields that DFEH previously
identified as relevant from the list of fields Riot originally provided and DFEH requested (e.g.,
discipline, department, position, and several other fields are excluded here for simplicity).
1 of 3
Example:
Worker_ID Snapshot Level BasePay

1 12/31/2016 10 105,000
1 12/31/2017 11 120,000
1 12/31/2018 11 45,000
2 12/31/2015 9 50,000
2 12/31/2016 9 55,000
2 12/31/2017 10 75,000
As you can see in this example table, worker 1 has a record “as of” the 3 snapshot dates 12/31/2016,
12/31/2017, and 12/31/2018. His level and basepay are listed for each of the three snapshot datasets
where he is employed. Note, that his level and basepay can and do change each year.
Like worker 1, worker 2 has snapshots for 12/31/2016 and 12/31/2017. He does not have a record on
12/31/2018 (he was terminated) but he does have a record on 12/31/2015 because he was hired before
worker 1. With the complete data in this format, we can perform a statistical analysis.
In contrast, the table below illustrates what Riot has provided to DFEH. In the RG-
DFEH0000486_Confidential.xlsx file Riot produced, there is exactly one record per employee for the
entire period from 2015 until the present. Moreover, the snapshot date is not recorded for the data
produced.
Worker_ID Snapshot Level BasePay

1 11 45,000
2 10 75,000
The record presented above is only one record for each worker 1 and 2, although several records exist
for these workers in the previous example. It is incomplete and apparently what Riot produced to the
DFEH. Also, Riot did not identify the snapshot date or the year in which the basepay refers in the data
Riot produced.
Again, as originally requested, please produce all components of compensation from 2015 until present,
including one snapshot dataset for each year for each employee and contractor (“PERSONNEL” as
defined in DFEH’s Request for Production, Set Two), at a minimum.
Question 8
Riot has also produced incomplete compensation components in the files produced. It does not include
all equity and incentive compensation components from 2015 until the present.
As originally requested, please produce all components of compensation from 2015 until present,
including all equity types such as: options, RSUs and SSPs, that Riot or its parent awarded, vested
and/or paid to employees and contractors (“PERSONNEL” as defined in DFEH’s Request for
Production, Set Two) during that period.
2 of 3
Additionally, the data Riot previously produced does not include the bonus information, or the equity
and base pay mix for each employee or contractor for each year during that period. Please produce that
information for all employees and contractors (“PERSONNEL” as defined in DFEH’s Request for
Production, Set Two) for 2015 until present.
Please produce complete responsive documents to Requests for Production, Set Two, by 5:00 pm on
Monday, June 10, 2019.
Sincerely,
Grace Shim
Staff Counsel
3 of 3
EXHIBIT 23
To: Shim, Grace@DFEH; Conway, Catherine A.; Phan, Tiffany; Fischer, Lauren
Cc: Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH; Gomez, Victoria@DFEH
Subject: RE: Kish v. Riot Games, et al.
Date: Monday, June 10, 2019 5:04:39 PM
Grace –

I write in response to your letters sent at 11:00 am and 2:45 pm on Friday, June 7, which requested responses by today at 5:00 pm.
Unfortunately Cathy and I were both in out-of-town all-day commitments today. We are working diligently on a response, which we
anticipate having to you tomorrow.

Regards,
Katherine

From: Shim, Grace@DFEH <Grace.Shim@dfeh.ca.gov>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 2:44 PM
To: Smith, Katherine V.A. <KSmith@gibsondunn.com>; Conway, Catherine A. <CConway@gibsondunn.com>; Phan, Tiffany
<TPhan@gibsondunn.com>; Fischer, Lauren <LFischer@gibsondunn.com>
Cc: Mayeda, Mari@DFEH <Mari.Mayeda@dfeh.ca.gov>; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH <Irina.Trasovan@dfeh.ca.gov>; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH
<Kaitlin.Toyama@dfeh.ca.gov>; Gomez, Victoria@DFEH <Victoria.Gomez@dfeh.ca.gov>
Subject: Kish v. Riot Games, et al.

[External Email]
Counsel,

Please see attached.

Regards,
Grace

Grace Shim, Esq.
Staff Counsel
CA Department of Fair Employment and Housing
Elk Grove, CA 95758
Tel: 916.585.8139
Fax: 888.382.5293
Email: Grace.Shim@dfeh.ca.gov
www.dfeh.ca.gov

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,
disclosure, distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If it has been sent to you in
error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
Please see our website at https://www.gibsondunn.com/ for information regarding the firm and/or our privacy policy.
EXHIBIT 24
From: Shim, Grace@DFEH
To: Smith, Katherine V.A.; Conway, Catherine A.; Phan, Tiffany; Fischer, Lauren
Cc: Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH; Gomez, Victoria@DFEH
Date: Monday, June 10, 2019 5:58:58 PM
Counsel,

These requests have been outstanding for several months. We’ve exhausted the meet and confer process. We need complete and
accurate responsive documents by 12pm tomorrow, June 11, 2019.

Regards,
Grace

Grace Shim, Esq.
Staff Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
Tel: 916.585.8139
Fax: 888.382.5293
www.dfeh.ca.gov

Sent: Monday, June 10, 2019 5:05 PM
To: Shim, Grace@DFEH <Grace.Shim@dfeh.ca.gov>; Conway, Catherine A. <CConway@gibsondunn.com>; Phan, Tiffany

Grace –


Regards,
Katherine


[External Email]
Counsel,


Regards,
Grace

Grace Shim, Esq.
Staff Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
Tel: 916.585.8139
Fax: 888.382.5293
www.dfeh.ca.gov

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure,
distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to
EXHIBIT 25
To: Shim, Grace@DFEH
Cc: Mayeda, Mari@DFEH; Trasovan, Irina@DFEH; Toyama, Kaitlin@DFEH; Gomez, Victoria@DFEH; Conway, Catherine A.; Phan, Tiffany; Fischer, Lauren
Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:12:14 AM
Attachments: 2019-06-11 Riot Games Response to DFEH 6.7 and 6.10 Correspondence.pdf
Grace –

Please see the attached correspondence.

In addition, we are surprised to learn that DFEH believes the parties have “exhausted the meet and confer process” and disagree with
that assertion. As we have repeatedly said, we have been diligently working to provide complete and accurate responses and
responsive documents to DFEH’s discovery requests. We provided responses to the multiple distinct follow-up questions that DFEH
has raised in at least 11 different letters, some of which DFEH sent on the same day or only one day apart. We also have participated
in several calls with the DFEH.

We continue to believe that several of DFEH’s questions would benefit from discussion between the parties. We are thus still willing
and available to engage in the meet and confer process in good faith. Please let us know when you are available for a call.

Regards,
Katherine


[External Email]
Counsel,

These requests have been outstanding for several months. We’ve exhausted the meet and confer process. We need complete and
accurate responsive documents by 12pm tomorrow, June 11, 2019.

Regards,
Grace

Grace Shim, Esq.
Staff Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
Tel: 916.585.8139
Fax: 888.382.5293
www.dfeh.ca.gov

To: Shim, Grace@DFEH <Grace.Shim@dfeh.ca.gov>; Conway, Catherine A. <CConway@gibsondunn.com>; Phan, Tiffany

Grace –


Regards,
Katherine


[External Email]
Counsel,


Regards,
Grace

Grace Shim, Esq.
Staff Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
Tel: 916.585.8139
Fax: 888.382.5293
www.dfeh.ca.gov

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure,
distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to
This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review,
disclosure, distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If it has been sent to you in
error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete this message.
EXHIBIT 26
Direct: +1 213.229.7107
Fax: +1 213.229.6107
Client: 79817-00003
June 11, 2019
Grace Shim
Staff Counsel
Elk Grove, CA 95758
PRODUCTIONS, INC.
Dear Ms. Shim:
Inc. and Riot Games Productions, Inc. (“Riot”) in response to your June 7, 2019
correspondence requesting a detailed privilege log and requesting additional information
about the data Riot produced on May 8, 2019.
As we are certain DFEH can appreciate, preparation of a log such as the one described in
your letter would take far longer than two business days. We do not believe such a log
would be appropriate given that the significant burden of preparing such a log would greatly
outweigh any potential relevance, as even a broad description of these documents establish
that they are privileged.
As we explained in our June 6, 2019 correspondence, Riot withheld excel spreadsheets,

PowerPoint presentations, and email communications related to compensation analyses
performed by Radford Consulting at the express request of Gibson Dunn for purposes of
advising Riot on currently active litigation. Gibson Dunn retained Radford Consulting and
directed their analyses, so the analyses reflect Gibson Dunn’s mental impressions, opinions,
conclusions, and theories. Because these materials were prepared explicitly for litigation
purposes and were only shared with individuals who needed to know the information, and
who were explicitly told that the information was privileged and confidential, they are
plainly protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine.
Grace Shim
June 11, 2019
Page 2
Additionally, Riot’s in-house Legal Department directed two internal studies—one in 2017,
one in 2018—that analyzed, respectively, Riot’s compensation structure and pay equity.
Riot withheld PDFs and email communications related to these studies. The studies were
initiated and monitored by Riot’s in-house counsel for the purpose of providing legal advice
to Riot. Outside of Riot’s in-house counsel and the joint authors from Riot’s Compensation
Department, who were aware they were assisting with work for Riot’s in-house counsel, the
studies were shared only with high-level executives for the purposes of providing legal
advice to the company. The studies thus reflect the mental impressions, opinions,
conclusions and theories of Riot’s attorneys. Because these materials were prepared
explicitly for providing legal advice and were only shared with high-level executives at the
company for that purpose, they are also plainly protected by the attorney client privilege and
the attorney work product doctrine.
We are available to meet and confer about whether DFEH believes more detail is needed and
why.
Questions about Riot’s Data
We would like to meet and confer regarding DFEH’s questions about Riot’s data, including
but not limited to DFEH’s understanding of the responses we provided to Question 1 and
Question 8. We would like to reassure DFEH that Riot is diligently trying to respond to
DFEH’s questions and does not intend to resist, prevent, impede, or interfere with the
DFEH’s investigation. The raw data provided to DFEH is in a substantially similar format to
what was provided to outside consulting firms. Please provide us with your availability in
the next week to meet and confer.
Employee Survey
In your May 30, 2019 letter, you stated that you would send an email with available time
slots to meet and confer. As requested in our June 6, 2019 correspondence, please let us
know when you are available to meet and confer about the confidentiality of Riot’s employee
survey.
Supplemental Responses and Productions
As we stated in our June 6, 2019 correspondence, we believe that Riot’s former equity
program is responsive to some of DFEH’s Special Interrogatories, Set 1 and Requests for
Production, Set 2, and as such, we stated that we would supplement our responses and related
productions as soon as possible.
Grace Shim
June 11, 2019
Page 3
Accordingly, documents responsive to Requests for Production, Set Two will be produced
today via ShareFile. You will receive an invitation to join ShareFile to download the
documents. The documents have been Bates-stamped RG-DFEH0002933 to RG-
DFEH0002937, and have been designated as “Confidential” in accordance with DFEH
guidelines and the parties’ agreement. Riot Games expressly reserves all privileges, all
objections, and the right to request the immediate return of any privileged responses or
information that have been inadvertently produced.
We are preparing our supplemental responses and will provide them as soon as possible.
***
Please let us know if you have any additional questions, and please let us know when you are
available for a call to meet and confer about the matters set forth in this letter.
Sincerely,

Catherine A. Conway
KVS/lmf

2019.06.12 - Riot Games - Declaration

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2019.06.12 - Riot Games - Declaration

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1 2.

19 discovery and proof of service is attached as Exhibit 4.

22 this email dated March 12, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 5.

2 is attached as Exhibit 14.

20 dated May 2, 2019 -- is attached as Exhibit 16.

6 counsel’s letter dated May 24, 2019 is attached as Exhibit 19.

20 attached as Exhibit 22.

23 June 10, 2019 at 5:04 p.m. is attached as Exhibit 23.

15 Department whether they will oppose the application or appear in court.

17 true and correct.

18 Executed on this 12th day of June 2019, at Elk Grove, California.

BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act

(Gov. Code, § 12940 et. seq.)

In the Matter of the Complaint of DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525

RIOT GAMES, INC.; RIOT GAMES DIRECT,

12333 W. Olympic Blvd.

THE PARTICULAR ARE:

4. My belief is based on the following: See attached Notice of Group or Systemic

I, Kevin Kish, am the Authorized Representative in the above-entitled complaint. I have

Date: October 25, 2018

9 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

10 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

12 In the Matter of the Complaint of DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525

22 MERCHANDISE, INC.; and RIOT GAMES PRODUCTIONS, INC., 12333 W. Olympic

26 and 12965, the DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING (“Department” or

2 complaint and group or class relief will be sought as appropriate.

3 1. The Department has obtained information, which, if proven, indicates Respondents

7 employs five or more persons, have discriminated in compensation or in terms, conditions, or

9 violation of Government Code section 12940.

13 Government Code section 12940.

16 would constitute violations of Government Code section 12940.

19 allegations would constitute violations of Civil Code section 51.7.

21 employees and applicants for employment.

23 female employees and applicants for employment, in the State of California.

26 purposes in this matter.

5 Mari Mayeda, Associate Chief Counsel

9 DATED: October 25, 2018 DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT

BEFORE THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

Under the California Government Code

(Gov. Code, §§ 11180, 12940 et seq.)

In the Matter of the Complaint of DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525

RIOT GAMES, INC.; RIOT GAMES DIRECT,

12333 W. Olympic Blvd.

THE PARTICULARS ARE:

I, Kevin Kish, am the Authorized Representative in the above-entitled complaint. I have

___________________________________ June 10, 2019

9 BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING

10 OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

12 In the Matter of the Complaint of DFEH Case No. 201810-04010525

6 five or more persons, have discriminated in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of

17 allegations would constitute violations of Civil Code section 51.7.

18 5. These unlawful practices, if proven, adversely affect, in a similar manner, female

19 employees and applicants for employment.

23 violation of Government Code section 12940 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

24 7. Specifically, the Department alleges that Respondents discriminated against

25 employees in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on association, that employees

3 would constitute violations of Government Code section 12940.

4 9. These unlawful practices, if proven, adversely affect, in a similar manner, all

5 employees of and female applicants for employment with Respondents.

10 purposes in this matter.

15 Mari Mayeda, Associate Chief Counsel