Judge Orders Evolution to Disclose Regulator Communications in Playtech–Linked Defamation Case

A New Jersey judge has ordered Evolution to turn over communications with U.S. regulators and other regulatory-related documents in its defamation lawsuit against law firm Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP. This development could prove significant in the legal fight.

The December 2 order from Atlantic County Superior Court Judge John C. Porto requires Evolution to disclose materials by December 5.

They include Evolution’s submissions to the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement (NJDGE) and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB).

The order also requires complete correspondence with both agencies, along with the identities and interview records of everyone questioned during the regulators’ investigations.

Case Background

In 2022, Evolution sued Calcagni & Kanefsky for defamation, following a complaint filed by the firm in 2021 on behalf of an unnamed client (recently identified as Playtech) with the NJDGE.

The complaint was based on an investigative report that claimed Evolution’s games were accessible in various sanctioned and restricted countries, such as Iran, Syria, and Sudan.

Evolution has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. In February 2024, the NJDGE concluded its investigation. It found no evidence that Evolution “sanctioned, promoted, permitted, or otherwise materially benefited” from operators offering its games in prohibited jurisdictions.

Following the clearance, a New Jersey court ordered Calcagni & Kanefsky to reveal the identity of its client. The firm disclosed that an Israeli private investigation firm, Black Cube, compiled the report. However, the firm did not disclose which company hired Black Cube.

Additional developments unfolded earlier this year. In August, Black Cube provided secret recordings of Evolution executives, alleging that they knew of illegal market access. In October, the competitor behind the operation was identified as Playtech.

While identifying Playtech was viewed as a significant win for Evolution, the December 2 ruling could shift momentum by compelling the company to produce the regulator-facing materials that shaped the original inquiries.

Court Grants Full Discovery Request

The defendants, including attorney Ralph Marra, Calcagni & Kanefsky LLP, and B.C. Strategy UK Ltd., the company behind the Black Cube assignment, sought targeted discovery under New Jersey’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA). The statute allows limited disclosure when defendants argue a lawsuit aims to punish protected expression.

Judge Porto granted the request “in its entirety,” instructing Evolution to provide:

• The February 15, 2024, Spectrum Report sent by the NJDGE to attorney Lloyd Levenson, plus all exhibits and addenda.
• All documents and information submitted to the NJDGE or PGCB regarding investigations into the Black Cube allegations.
• All communications between Evolution (or its attorneys) and regulators concerning those investigations.
• The identities of all individuals interviewed by the NJDGE or PGCB. Additionally, the names of the interviewers and the dates on which each interview occurred.
• All notes or transcripts from regulator-conducted interviews.

The scope is substantial. For the first time, the communications behind the regulators’ reviews — including how they processed the allegations and what they asked Evolution to explain — will be part of the litigation record, where parts may later become public through court filings.

Why This Development Matters

The requested documents could reshape the narrative in the over four-year-long dispute.

Although regulators concluded that no wrongdoing occurred, the new disclosures will reveal the information they received, the information they requested, and how Evolution responded to it.

This is important because the outcome of the investigation depends heavily on what investigators actually saw. The documents may show three possibilities:

• They fully support Evolution, showing regulators were satisfied the allegations lacked substance.
• They complicate Evolution’s narrative, revealing gaps, inconsistencies, or internal concerns about market access.
• They fall into a gray zone, where regulators found no clear violation but also noted areas of uncertainty — the scenario that often produces the most reputational drag.

For Evolution, the stakes are as much commercial as legal. The company has spent years challenging the investigative report’s findings. For Playtech-linked defendants, the materials could help argue that their actions were legitimate rather than malicious fabrication.

A dismissal under UPEPA would significantly narrow Evolution’s claims and shift momentum toward the defendants. A denial would push the dispute into broader document production and depositions.