OsTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & BROITMAN PC. 437 MADISON AVENUE CounsELORS aT Law 24TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10022-7035 TEL: (212) 681-0600 FAX: (212) 681-0300 APPLICATION GRANTED SO ORDERED ROBERTO L. GOMEZ March 18, 2025 [email protected] VIA ECF Ys 6 Go i bi l | | “John G. Koelll, US.DJ. The Honorable John G. Koeltl United States District Judge Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 14A New York, NY 10007-1312 Re: Roth v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al,, Civil Action No. 25-cv-01137 Joint Letter Motion Requesting Stay of Action Dear Judge Koeltl: Plaintiff Andrew E. Roth, Nominal Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc., and Defendants Deutsche Telekom AG and Deutsche Telekom Holding B.V. (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly move to stay this case pending the final disposition of the appeals currently pending before the Second Circuit in the actions entitled Roth v. LAL Family Corporation, et al., Case No. 24-2464 (2d Cir.) (“LAL Appeal”) and Roth v. Drahi, et al., Case No. 24-2761 (2d. Cir.) @Drahi Appeal” together with the ZAL Appeal, the “Appeals”), inchiding any appeal of the Second Circuit decisions in the LAL and Drahi actions to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Appeals have been assigned to the Second Circuit’s Expedited Appeals Calendar. (LAL Appeal at DktEntry 18.1; Drahi Appeal at DktEntry 19.1.) A district court has “broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its docket.” Clinton v. Jones,

(1997). A district court deciding a motion to stay should consider the interests of each party, the interests of the courts, the interests of non- parties, and the public interest. See Royal Park Ivs, SA/NV v, Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co.,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 10, 2018). These factors weigh in favor of a stay here, The principal questions presented as articulated by the appellants in their briefs in both Appeals are (1) whether an issuer’s share repurchases can be attributed to an issuer’s controlling =~ stockholders for purposes of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b) and (2) whether a controlling stockholder has an indirect pecuniary interest in an issuer’s share repurchases under SEC Rule 16a-1(a)(2),

.16a-1(a)(2), See, e.g., LAL Appeal, Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant, pp. 3-5 (DktEntry 21.1); Drahi Appeal, Brief for Plaintiff-Appellant, pp. 3-5 (DktEntry 34.1}. The resolution of these questions is relevant to this Action, which is based on the same underlying theory—i.e., that stock sales by statutory “insiders” can be matched with an issuer’s repurchase of its own stock under Section 16(b). See, e.g, Complaint ff] 16-17 (SDNY ECF No. 1). Oral argument in both Appeals took place on March 6, 2025, with the Second Circuit taking the argument under advisement. The Parties believe that staying this Action pending the final disposition of the Appeals will be in the interests of the Parties and will conserve this Court’s

OsTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & BROITMAN PBC. Hon. John G. Koeltl March 18, 2025 Page 2 of 2 judicial resources. A stay will not prejudice any party or non-party, nor will the stay interfere with any current Court-issued deadlines. Accordingly, the Parties respectfully request that this Court grant this joint request for a stay. The Parties propose that they will submit a schedule for any answer, motion to dismiss, or other response to the Complaint within thirty (30) days following the final disposition of the LAL Appeal and the Drahi Appeal, whichever is later. For avoidance of doubt, Defendants shall not be required to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Complaint during the pendency of the stay. Defendants have agreed to accept service of the Summons and Complaint effective as of the date of this letter motion. Respectfully submitted, OSTRAGER CHONG FLAHERTY & CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP BROITMAN P.C. Wodub 3 bbeccptertoin h By: : Gary Bornstein Roberto L. Gomez CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 437 Madison Avenue, 24" Floor Worldwide Plaza New York, NY 10022 825 Eighth Avenue (212) 681-0600 New York, NY 10019 [email protected] (212) 474-1895 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Andrew E, Roth Attorneys for Defendants Deutsche Telekom AG and Deutsche Telekom Holding BLY. FENWICK & WEST LLP By: Alex A Keig | Ms Alex Weiss FENWICK & WEST LLP 902 Broadway, 18" Floor New York, NY 10010 (202) 430-2600 aweiss(@fenwick.com Attorneys for Nominal Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc.