Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 36
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SYLABS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.
GREGORY ROSE, et al., Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00849-SVK
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE AT DKT. 161; SETTING DISCOVERY HEARING Re: Dkt. No. 161
Before the Court is the Parties' Joint Submission wherein Defendants complain about deficiencies in Plaintiff's document production and interrogatory responses. Dkts. 161 (Joint Submission), 161-1 (Joint Chart). The Court has reviewed the disputed issues and the arguments of counsel and ORDERS the Parties to proceed as follows in preparation for a discovery hearing via videoconference on January 27, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. All engagements ordered below are to be conducted by counsel with personal knowledge of the issues in dispute and with full authority to negotiate and compromise at the time of the engagement.
1. In re Plaintiff's Production of Documents
a. The issues of missing metadata and unaccounted for custodian productions appear to be largely tied to a failure by Plaintiff to properly manage its ESI production. No later than January 13, 2026, the Parties and third party Consilio are to hold a joint conference to address any open issues regarding Consilio working with Plaintiffs to enable Plaintiffs to make a full and complete document production in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the ESI Order (Dkt. 112) and this Order, including correcting past productions and facilitating the remaining productions ordered herein. The conference shall include specific information supplied by Plaintiff as to volume and format of documents, a reasonable estimate of time to completion by
AUTHENTICATED U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION GPO
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
United States District Court Northern District of California

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Consilio and any other issues either Party identifies in preparation for or in the course
of the production.
b. 	There also appears to be a separate issue of Plaintiff failing to conduct the requisite
diligent search for documents. No later than January 22, 2026, Plaintiff must
complete its review and supplemental production for each request for documents for
which Plaintiff has represented to the Court that it “will make another search and
provide a supplemental response to this request and will produce any additional
documents located that are responsive to this request.” Dkt. 161-1. Plaintiff’s
supplemental responses must be verified, even though verification of responses to
document requests is not required by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 34. If a date for production of
responsive documents is subject to Consilio’s schedule as noted in (a) above, the
Consilio date shall control, except the date for verified supplemental responses shall
not change.
c. 	Defendants complain of over-redaction, production of incomplete documents and
partial screen shots. Dkt. 161 at 3-4. No specific documents are identified or
addressed in the dispute chart. Accordingly, no later than January 15, 2026, the
Parties are to meet and confer regarding specific documents at issue. All Parties are
admonished that privilege is the only proper ground for redaction and any such
redaction must be accounted for on a privilege log which conforms with this Court’s
standing order. A supplemental production by Plaintiff resulting from the Parties’ meet
and confer efforts is to be completed no later than January 22, 2026. If, however, a
date for production of responsive documents is subject to Consilio’s schedule as noted
in (a) above, the Consilio date shall control.
d. 	Defendants’ document requests directed to support for the Tarbell declaration are
DENIED without prejudice. At this juncture, the Parties’ focus must be on the
completion of fact discovery, including production of documents and depositions.
While the Tarbell declaration may overlap with issues in fact discovery, Defendants
will have ample opportunity to explore the Tarbell declaration, and all support
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 36

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
therefore, in the course of expert discovery.
e. 	The Court is alarmed that Plaintiff, who bears the burden of proof in this action, has
allowed its inadequate production—particularly as it relates to essential metadata—to
exist for the better part of the discovery period in this case. The Court will continue to
evaluate the prejudice not only to Defendants but to the Court resulting from Plaintiff’s
lack of diligence. However, Defendants are not given leave to address this issue
further at this time.
2. 	In re Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Responses
The Court refers the Parties to Attachment A hereto which reflects the Courts rulings as
the disputed interrogatories. No later than January 22, 2026, verified, supplemental responses
are to be served by Plaintiff where required by Attachment A.
3. 	Meet and Confer re Discovery Schedule; Status Report to the Court
In consideration of the foregoing orders and the impending close of fact discovery, the
Parties are to meet and confer regarding the case schedule. No later than 12:00 p.m. on January
26 2026, the Parties are to file a short, joint status report informing the Court of the following:
1. 	Whether the Parties renew their December 5 request for modest adjustments to the case
schedule (Dkt. 160) or propose further extensions;
2. 	The status of Plaintiff’s document productions pursuant to sections 1(a)-(c) above;
3. 	The status of Plaintiff’s supplemental responses pursuant to sections 1(b) and 2 above; and
4. 	Whether there are issues that it would be productive to address on January 27, 2026 or
whether the Parties request that the hearing be continued or vacated.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 12, 2026
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 36

Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 36

ATTACHMENT A

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
2
I. 	Sylabs’ Responses to CIQ’s Interrogatories
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
CIQ ROG No.
20: For each
Request For
Admission
propounded by
Defendants in
this Action that
You deny,
identify all facts
for the basis of
Your denial.
Responding Party provides the
following supplemental
responses:
[Sylabs responses to RFA Nos.
13, 19, 22-28, 32-37, 41-42, 44
are included below]
Sylabs supplemental
response continues to fail
in identifying all facts for
the basis of its denial to
RFA Nos. 13, 19, 22-28,
32-37, 41-42, 44, as
described below.
It is imperative that Sylabs
comply with its discovery
obligations because many
of these admissions relate
to key issues in this action,
such as whether the
Release was entered into
under fraudulent conditions
Sylabs must supplement its
Response to CIQ ROG No.
20 to identify all facts for
the basis of its denials to
RFA Nos 13, 19, 22-28, 32-
37, 41-42, 44.
See substantive rulings relating
to each request, below.
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
13: “Admit that
Jonathan Dooley
was the Chief
Jonathan Dooley was the Chief
Financial Officer of and
shareholder in R-Stor, Inc., but
not Sylabs. There was no
employment relationship
This response is
contradicted by Dooley’s
signature of the Release as
“Sylabs” CFO. 	The empty
assertion falls far short of
NOTE: Defendants’ request
for judicial intervention is
not ripe for judicial review.
Specifically, such
intervention is unnecessary
Request DENIED. Plaintiff’s
answer is sufficient.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
3
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
Financial Officer
of Sylabs in
March and April
2020.”
between Mr. Dooley and
Sylabs. It appears that Mr.
Dooley may have acted
informally to assist Sylabs
through his position as R-Stor,
Inc.’s Chief Financial Officer.
identifying “all” facts for
the basis of the denial,
including what Sylabs
means by “acted
informally” and to what
end Dooley “assisted”
Sylabs.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts regarding
Jonathan Dooley’s role at
Sylabs in March and April
2020.
because Sylabs has not
refused to provide a
response. Specifically,
Sylabs has provided a valid
response. It is a response
with which Defendants
disagree, but that does not
make it an improper or
inappropriate response.
Defendants will be able to
seek clarification (assuming
it exists) during their
deposition of Sylabs’ Rule
30(b)(6) representatives.
Further, the response rejects
the premise by providing a
specific response as to why
Mr. Dooley was not Sylabs’
chief financial officer. Of
course, if Mr. Dooley was
NOT the chief financial
officer of Sylabs at the time
of the execution of the
Release, then the Release is
unenforceable against Sylabs
because no person with
authority signed it on behalf
of Sylabs. The burden of
proof establishing the
enforceability of the Release
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
4
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
is with Defendants, not
Sylabs.
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
19: Admit that
You voluntarily
entered into the
Release.
Sylabs has reconsidered its
previous response to this
request (set forth here) and
stands on its original response:
The Release is unenforceable
because it was the product of
fraud and contrary to public
policy. Thus, Sylabs did not
voluntarily enter into any
Release.
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
5
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
22: 	Admit that,
as of April 29,
2020, the GK
Released Parties
in section 3(B)
of the Release
includes
Matthew
Hayden
Sylabs admits that the Release
reads as follows: “B.
[Omitted].” However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. In addition,
the Release does not apply to
defendant Hayden. Further, the
Release, including section
3(B), is unenforceable because
it was the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy.
Finally, defendant Hayden
neither signed nor was a party
to the Release, and section
3(B) of the Release does not
identify or include defendant
Hayden in its language.
Finally, the Court has indicated
that defendant Hayden does not
have standing to enforce the
Release (Dkt. 152, Sealed),
and, therefore, he is not
covered by the Release.
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that Defendant
Hayden is not covered by
the Release.
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
6
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
23: Admit that,
as of April 29,
2020, the GK
Released Parties
in section 3(B)
of the Release
includes CIQ.
Sylabs has reconsidered its
previous response to this
request (set forth here) and
stands on its original response:
Sylabs admits that the Release
reads as follows: “B.
[Omitted].” However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. In addition,
the Release, including section
3(B), is unenforceable because
it was the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy.
Finally, defendant CIQ neither
signed nor was a party to the
Release, and section 3(B) of
the Release does not identify or
include defendant CIQ in its
language.
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that Defendant
CIQ is not covered by the
Release.
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 9 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
7
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
24: 	Admit that,
as of April 29,
2020, the GK
Released Parties
in section 3(B)
of the Release
includes
Gregory Kurtzer
Sylabs admits that the Release
reads as follows: “B.
[Omitted].” Sylabs further
admits that defendant Kurtzer’s
name appears in the Release
and in his deposition Mr.
Kurtzer admitted that he signed
the Release. During his
deposition Mr. Kurtzer further
testified that he believed that
he was one of the “GK
Released Parties” under the
Release. However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. In addition,
the Release, including section
3(B), is unenforceable because
it was the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy.
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that Defendant
Kurtzer is not covered by
the Release.
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 10 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
8
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
25: 	Admit that
pursuant to
section 3 of the
Release, You
released and
forever
discharged the
GK Released
Parties from all
claims “arising
out of or relating
to any of the
acts, omissions,
or other conduct
prior to and
including” April
29, 2020.
Sylabs admits that the Release
reads as follows: “B.
[Omitted].” Sylabs further
admits that defendant CIQ
neither signed nor was a party
to the Release, and section
3(B) of the Release does not
identify or include defendant
CIQ in its language. Sylabs
admits that defendant Hayden
neither signed nor was a party
to the Release, and section
3(B) of the Release does not
identify or include defendant
Hayden in its language. Sylabs
further admits that defendant
Kurtzer’s name appears in the
Release and in his deposition
Mr. Kurtzer admitted that he
signed the Release. During his
deposition Mr. Kurtzer further
testified that he believed that
he was one of the “GK
Released Parties” under the
Release and was released from
all liability through the
Release. However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. In addition,
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that the GK
Released Parties are not
released from all claims
“arising out of or relating
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 11 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
9
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
the Release, including section
3, is unenforceable because it
was the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy.
to any of the acts,
omissions, or other conduct
prior to and including”
April 29, 2020.
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
26: 	Admit that
pursuant to
section 3 of the
Release, You
released and
forever
discharged
Gregory Kurtzer
from all claims
“arising out of or
relating to any of
the acts,
omissions, or
other conduct
prior to and
including” April
29, 2020.
Sylabs admits that the Release
reads as follows: “B.
[Omitted].” Sylabs further
admits that defendant Kurtzer’s
name appears in the Release
and in his deposition Mr.
Kurtzer admitted that he signed
the Release. During his
deposition Mr. Kurtzer further
testified that he believed that
he was one of the “GK
Released Parties” under the
Release and was released from
all liability through the
Release. However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. In addition,
the Release, including section
3, is unenforceable because it
was the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy.
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 12 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
10
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
all facts supporting its
position that Defendant
Kurtzer is not released
from all claims “arising out
of or relating to any of the
acts, omissions, or other
conduct prior to and
including” April 29, 2020.
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
27: 	Admit that
pursuant to
section 3 of the
Release, You
released and
forever
discharged
Matthew
Hayden from all
claims “arising
out of or relating
to any of the
acts, omissions,
or other conduct
prior to and
including” April
29, 2020.
Sylabs admits that the Release
reads as follows: “B.
[Omitted].” However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. In addition,
the Release does not apply to
defendant Hayden. Further, the
Release, including section 3, is
unenforceable because it was
the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy.
Finally, defendant Hayden
neither signed nor was a party
to the Release, and section 3 of
the Release does not identify or
include defendant Hayden in
its language. Finally, the Court
has indicated that defendant
Hayden does not have standing
to enforce the Release (Dkt.
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 13 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
11
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
152, Sealed), and, therefore, he
is not covered by the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that Defendant
Hayden is not released
from all claims “arising out
of or relating to any of the
acts, omissions, or other
conduct prior to and
including” April 29, 2020.
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
28: 	Admit that
pursuant to
section 3 of the
Release, You
released and
forever
discharged CIQ
from all claims
“arising out of or
relating to any of
the acts,
omissions, or
other conduct
prior to and
Sylabs admits that the Release
reads as follows: “B.
[Omitted].” 	Sylabs further
admits that defendant CIQ
neither signed nor was a party
to the Release, and section 3 of
the Release does not identify or
include defendant CIQ in its
language. However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. In addition,
the Release, including section
3, is unenforceable because it
was the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy.
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 14 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
12
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
including” April
29, 2020.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that Defendant
CIQ is not released from
all claims “arising out of or
relating to any of the acts,
omissions, or other conduct
prior to and including”
April 29, 2020.
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
32: 	Admit that
You agreed in
section 7 of the
Release that, as
of April 29,
2020, the GK
Released Parties
“are free to
compete or
develop any
information,
inventions,
Sylabs admits that Section 7 of
the Release reads, in part, as
follows: “. . . are free to
compete or develop any
information, inventions,
programs, processes, services
and products without any claim
or interference from the other
parties.” Sylabs further admits
that defendant CIQ neither
signed nor was a party to the
Release, and the above-
referenced Section 7 of the
Release does not identify or
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 15 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
13
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
programs,
processes,
services and
products without
any claim or
interference
from the other
parties.”
include defendant CIQ in its
language. Sylabs admits that
defendant Hayden neither
signed nor was a party to the
Release, and the above-
referenced Section 7 of the
Release does not identify or
include defendant Hayden in
its language. Sylabs further
admits that defendant Kurtzer’s
name appears in the Release
and in his deposition Mr.
Kurtzer admitted that he signed
the Release. During his
deposition Mr. Kurtzer further
testified that he believed that
he was one of the “GK
Released Parties” under the
Release and was released from
all liability through the
Release. However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. Sylabs
further denies that Defendants
are free to utilize Sylabs’ trade
secrets to compete against
Sylabs. In addition, since
Defendants unlawfully stole
Sylabs’ trade secrets,
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that Defendants
are not “free to compete or
develop any information,
inventions, programs,
processes, services and
products without any claim
or interference from the
other parties.”
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 16 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
14
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
inventions, programs,
processes, services, customer
information, financial
information, and products,
Sylabs further denies that
Defendants are free to utilize
Sylabs’ trade secrets,
inventions, programs,
processes, services, customer
information, financial
information, and products to
market or develop products or
services. In addition, the
Release, including the above-
referenced portion of Section
7, is unenforceable because it
was the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy.
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
33: 	Admit that
You agreed in
section 7 of the
Release that, as
of April 29,
2020,
“[n]othing in
this [Release]
will be
construed as a
Sylabs admits that Section 7 of
the Release reads, in part, as
follows: “. . . “[n]othing in this
[Release] will be construed as
a representation or agreement
to restrict or in any manner
affect or limit any party’s
present or future business
activities.” Sylabs further
admits that defendant CIQ
neither signed nor was a party
to the Release, and the above-
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 17 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
15
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
representation or
agreement to
restrict or in any
manner affect or
limit any party’s
present or future
business
activities.
referenced Section 7 of the
Release does not identify or
include defendant CIQ in its
language. Sylabs admits that
defendant Hayden neither
signed nor was a party to the
Release, and the above-
referenced Section 7 of the
Release does not identify or
include defendant Hayden in
its language. Sylabs further
admits that defendant Kurtzer’s
name appears in the Release
and in his deposition Mr.
Kurtzer admitted that he signed
the Release. During his
deposition Mr. Kurtzer further
testified that he believed that
he was one of the “GK
Released Parties” under the
Release and was released from
all liability through the
Release. However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. Sylabs
further denies that Defendants
are free to utilize Sylabs’ trade
secrets to compete against
Sylabs or conduct future
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 18 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
16
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
business activities. In addition,
since Defendants unlawfully
stole Sylabs’ trade secrets,
inventions, programs,
processes, services, customer
information, financial
information, and products,
Sylabs further denies that
Defendants are free to utilize
Sylabs’ trade secrets,
inventions, programs,
processes, services, customer
information, financial
information, and products to
market or develop products or
services, or to conduct future
business activities. In addition,
the Release, including the
above-referenced portion of
Section 7, is unenforceable
because it was the product of
fraud and contrary to public
policy.
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
34: 	Admit that
You agreed in
section 8 of the
Release that, as
of April 29,
Sylabs admits that Section 8 of
the Release reads, in part, as
follows: “. . . are free to . . .
solicit or attempt to solicit for
employment or hire any
personnel in any capacity from
any Party.” Sylabs further
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 19 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
17
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
2020, the GK
Released Parties
“are free to . . .
solicit or attempt
to solicit for
employment or
hire any
personnel in any
capacity from
any Party.”
admits that defendant CIQ
neither signed nor was a party
to the Release, and the above-
referenced Section 8 of the
Release does not identify or
include defendant CIQ in its
language. Sylabs admits that
defendant Hayden neither
signed nor was a party to the
Release, and the above-
referenced Section 8 of the
Release does not identify or
include defendant Hayden in
its language. Sylabs further
admits that defendant Kurtzer’s
name appears in the Release
and in his deposition Mr.
Kurtzer admitted that he signed
the Release. During his
deposition Mr. Kurtzer further
testified that he believed that
he was one of the “GK
Released Parties” under the
Release and was released from
all liability through the
Release. However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. Sylabs
further denies that Defendants
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that Defendants
are not “free to . . . solicit
or attempt to solicit for
employment or hire any
personnel in any capacity
from any Party.”
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 20 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
18
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
are free to utilize Sylabs’ trade
secrets, employee information,
independent contractor, joint-
venture information,
collaboration information,
consultant information, advisor
information, customer
information, financial
information, or other staff
information unlawfully
obtained. In addition, since
Defendants unlawfully stole
Sylabs’ trade secrets, employee
information, independent
contractor, joint-venture
information, collaboration
information, consultant
information, advisor
information, customer
information, financial
information, or other staff
information unlawfully
obtained, Sylabs further denies
that Defendants are free to
utilize that information to
solicit or attempt to solicit for
employment or hire any
personnel in any capacity from
Sylabs. In addition, the
Release, including the above-
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 21 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
19
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
referenced portion of Section
8, is unenforceable because it
was the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy.
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
35: 	Admit that
You agreed in
section 8 of the
Release that, as
of April 29,
2020, the GK
Released Parties
“are free to . . .
solicit business
from, or offer to
provide products
or services that
are similar to
any product or
service provided
or that could be
provided by any
other Party or
that are
otherwise
competitive with
the business of
any other Party,
Sylabs admits that Section 8 of
the Release reads, in part, as
follows: “. . . are free to . . .
solicit business from, or offer
to provide products or services
that are similar to any product
or service provided or that
could be provided by any other
Party or that are otherwise
competitive with the business
of any other Party, any
customer of another Party.”
Sylabs further admits that
defendant CIQ neither signed
nor was a party to the Release,
and the above-referenced
Section 8 of the Release does
not identify or include
defendant CIQ in its language.
Sylabs admits that defendant
Hayden neither signed nor was
a party to the Release, and the
above-referenced Section 8 of
the Release does not identify or
include defendant Hayden in
its language. Sylabs further
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 22 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
20
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
any customer of
another Party.”
admits that defendant Kurtzer’s
name appears in the Release
and in his deposition Mr.
Kurtzer admitted that he signed
the Release. During his
deposition Mr. Kurtzer further
testified that he believed that
he was one of the “GK
Released Parties” under the
Release and was released from
all liability through the
Release. However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. Sylabs
further denies that Defendants
are free to utilize Sylabs’ trade
secrets, customer information,
or financial information to
solicit business from, or offer
to provide products or services
that are similar to any product
or service provided or that
could be provided by Sylabs or
to conduct future business
activities. In addition, since
Defendants unlawfully stole
Sylabs’ trade secrets,
inventions, programs,
processes, services, customer
all facts supporting its
position that Defendants
are not “free to . . . solicit
business from, or offer to
provide products or
services that are similar to
any product or service
provided or that could be
provided by any other
Party or that are otherwise
competitive with the
business of any other Party,
any customer of another
Party.”
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 23 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
21
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
information, financial
information, and products,
Sylabs further denies that
Defendants are free to utilize
Sylabs’ trade secrets, customer
information, or financial
information to solicit business
from, or offer to provide
products or services that are
similar to any product or
service provided or that could
be provided by Sylabs, or to
conduct future business
activities. In addition, the
Release, including the above-
referenced portion of Section
8, is unenforceable because it
was the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy.
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
36: 	Admit that
the Release
applies to Your
allegation in
paragraph 118 of
the Complaint
that “on March
18, 2020,
defendant Greg
Sylabs further admits that
defendant Kurtzer’s name
appears in the Release and in
his deposition Mr. Kurtzer
admitted that he signed the
Release. During his deposition
Mr. Kurtzer further testified
that he believed that he was
one of the “GK Released
Parties” under the Release and
was released from all liability
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 24 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
22
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
Kurtzer
commenced
recruiting future
employees and
engineers, and
solicited job
applicants for
defendant CIQ.”
through the Release. However,
Sylabs denies that the Release
releases anyone from the
claims in Sylabs’ Complaint.
Sylabs further denies that
Defendants were free to recruit
Sylabs’ employees and
engineers to leave Sylabs with
defendant Kurtzer and move to
work at CIQ. The Release is
unenforceable because it was
the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy. In
addition, Requesting Party
attaches an improper and
incorrect scope, interpretation,
and application of the Release.
Further, neither defendant
Hayden nor defendant CIQ
signed or was a party to the
Release.
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that Defendants
were not “free to recruit
Sylabs’ employees and
engineers to leave Sylabs
with defendant Kurtzer and
move to work at CIQ.”
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
37: 	Admit that
the Release
applies to Your
allegation in
paragraph 121 of
the Complaint
Sylabs further admits that
defendant Kurtzer’s name
appears in the Release and in
his deposition Mr. Kurtzer
admitted that he signed the
Release. During his deposition
Mr. Kurtzer further testified
that he believed that he was
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 25 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
23
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
that that “Greg
Kurtzer arranged
for all sales
inquiries and
purchase
requests to be
held until April
1, 2020, when he
would no longer
be employed by
Sylabs, and
directed those
sales inquiries
and purchase
requests to his
Personal Email
Accounts.”
one of the “GK Released
Parties” under the Release and
was released from all liability
through the Release. However,
Sylabs denies that the Release
releases anyone from the
claims in Sylabs’ Complaint.
Sylabs further denies that
Defendants were free to
interfere with and take and
redirect Sylabs’ prospective
sales, sales inquiries, pending
sales inquiries, purchase
requests to his personal email
accounts. The Release is
unenforceable because it was
the product of fraud and
contrary to public policy. In
addition, Requesting Party
attaches an improper and
incorrect scope, interpretation,
and application of the Release.
Further, neither defendant
Hayden nor defendant CIQ
signed or was a party to the
Release.
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that the Release
does not cover Defendants’
alleged “interfere[ence]
with and tak[ing] and
redirect[ing] Sylabs’
prospective sales, sales
inquiries, pending sales
inquiries, purchase requests
to his personal email
accounts.”
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 26 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
24
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
41: Admit that
You released
Gregory Kurtzer
for “mov[ing]
sales content to
his personal
Google Drive
through Sylabs.”
Sylabs further admits that
defendant Kurtzer’s name
appears in the Release and in
his deposition Mr. Kurtzer
admitted that he signed the
Release. During his deposition
Mr. Kurtzer further testified
that he believed that he was
one of the “GK Released
Parties” under the Release and
was released from all liability
through the Release. However,
Sylabs denies that the Release
releases anyone from the
claims in Sylabs’ Complaint.
Sylabs further denies that
Defendants were free to move
sales content to his personal
Google Drive through Sylabs.
The Release is unenforceable
because it was the product of
fraud and contrary to public
policy. In addition, Requesting
Party attaches an improper and
incorrect scope, interpretation,
and application of the Release
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that the Release
does not cover Defendants’
allegedly “mov[ing] sales
content to his personal
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 27 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
25
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
Google Drive through
Sylabs.”
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
42: 	Admit that
You
acknowledged in
the Release that,
as of April 29,
2020, Gregory
Kurtzer had
‘provided access
to [sales content
on his Google
Drive] to Adam
Hughes who will
have the ability
to restore or
move this
content as
directed by
Sylabs.
Sylabs admits that the Release
reads, in part, as follows: “. . .
provided access to [sales
content on his Google Drive]
to Adam Hughes who will have
the ability to restore or move
this content as directed by
Sylabs.” Sylabs further admits
that defendant Kurtzer’s name
appears in the Release and in
his deposition Mr. Kurtzer
admitted that he signed the
Release. During his deposition
Mr. Kurtzer further testified
that he believed that he was
one of the “GK Released
Parties” under the Release and
was released from all liability
through the Release. However,
Sylabs denies that the Release
releases anyone from the
claims in Sylabs’ Complaint.
Sylabs further denies that
defendant Kurtzer is free to
move or releases from moving
Sylabs’ sales content, customer
information, or financial
information off of Sylabs’
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position the release does
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 28 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
26
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
server then claim that he gave
access to his private drive so
Responding Party could
reacquire the stolen
information. In addition, the
Release, including the above-
referenced portion of the
Release, is unenforceable
because it was the product of
fraud and contrary to public
policy.
not cover Defendant
Kurtzer allegedly
“mov[ing] or release[ing]
from moving Sylabs’ sales
content, customer
information, or financial
information off of Sylabs’
server then claim that he
gave access to his private
drive so Responding Party
could reacquire the stolen
information.”
CIQ ROG No.
20 – RFA No.
44: 	Admit that
You
acknowledged in
the Release that,
as of April 29,
2020, “[n]either
GK nor any of
his Affiliates
have access to
any such local
backups/copies
[of Sylabs
Proprietary
Information].”
Sylabs admits that the Release
reads, in part, as follows: “. . .
[n]either GK nor any of his
Affiliates have access to any
such local backups/copies [of
Sylabs Proprietary
Information].” Sylabs further
admits that defendant Kurtzer’s
name appears in the Release
and in his deposition Mr.
Kurtzer admitted that he signed
the Release. During his
deposition Mr. Kurtzer further
testified that he believed that
he was one of the “GK
Released Parties” under the
Release and was released from
all liability through the
Sylabs’ improper legal
conclusion that the Release
was entered into under
fraud identifies no facts in
support of this conclusion.
Given the central nature of
the Release to the issues in
this action, and
implications of Sylabs’
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraud, Sylabs’ refusal to
state any facts supporting
that position is a bad faith
attempt to avoid its
discovery obligations.
COMPROMISE: Sylabs
will prepare a supplemental
responsive to this request.
Request GRANTED.
Supplemental response
providing facts underlying the
asserted denial due no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 29 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
27
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
Release. However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. Sylabs
further admits that defendant
Kurtzer’s name appears in the
Release. However, Sylabs
denies that the Release releases
anyone from the claims in
Sylabs’ Complaint. Sylabs
further denies that Defendants
did not have access to any such
local backups or copies of
Sylabs’ trade secrets or
proprietary information. In
addition, the Release, including
the above-referenced portion of
the Release, is unenforceable
because it was the product of
fraud and contrary to public
policy.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
state all facts supporting its
position that the Release
was entered into under
fraudulent conditions
and/or contrary to public
policy, and further identify
all facts supporting its
position that Defendants
retained “access to any
such local backups or
copies of Sylabs’ trade
secrets or proprietary
information.”
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 30 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
28
II. 	Sylabs’ Deficient Responses to Kurtzer’s Interrogatories
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
Kurtzer ROG
No. 10: Identify
and describe all
facts and
circumstances
relating to
Giovanni
Coglitore’s 2019
request and/or
promise to
compensate R-
Stor executives
with their end-
of-year bonuses
via Sylabs
equity
Objection: Sylabs has
reconsidered its previous
response to this request (set
forth here) and stands on its
original objections:
1. It is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible
evidence and it is designed to
harass and cause harm to
Sylabs, and the only possible
purpose of this request is to
harass and cause hardship to
Responding Party and
needlessly increase the cost of
litigation to Sylabs, as it
requests information relating to
a company and individuals
who are not parties to this
Action, i.e., R-Stor, Inc. and its
executives, regarding
information that is not
reasonably related to this
Action, i.e., executive
compensation of non-parties at
a non-party, R-Stor, Inc.
2. It is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible
Sylabs’ supplemental
Response restates only
objections with no
substantive response.
Sylabs may not withhold
any information on the
basis that its Response may
contain confidential
information because the
disclosure of non-party
confidential information
was contemplated and is
governed by the Stipulated
Protective Order in this
case. See Dkt. 111.
This information is highly
relevant to the claims and
defenses in this action
because Mr. Coglitore was
funneling Sylabs’ assets
into R-Stor at the same
time that Mr. Kurtzer was
attempting to infuse capital
into Sylabs—ultimately
contributing significantly
to Mr. Kurtzer’s departure
from Sylabs and the
NOTE: Sylabs stands by its
response to this Request.
Defendants’ request for
judicial intervention is not
ripe for judicial review.
Further, such intervention is
unnecessary because Sylabs
has not refused to provide a
response. Specifically,
Sylabs has provided a valid
response. It is a response
with which Defendants
disagree, but that does not
make it an improper or
inappropriate response.
Request GRANTED. The
inquiry is within the
parameters of relevance and
proportionality for purposes of
discovery (pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26) even though it may
ultimately not be admissible
before a trier of fact (see Fed.
R. Evid. 401 and 403).
Plaintiff is provide a verified
supplement response no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 31 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
29
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
evidence because there is no
connection between the claims
in this Action and anything that
a non-party, Giovanni
Coglitore, might or might not
have done in 2019 at a
company that is not a party to
this Action, i.e., R-Stor, Inc.
3. It is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible
evidence because there is no
connection between the
information sought by this
request and the facts
reasonably related to this
Action as it relates to
confidential
employee/executive
information at a company that
is not a party to this Action,
i.e., R-Stor, Inc, including
information relating to R-Stor,
Inc.’s executives, who are also
not parties to this Action.
4. It assumes a fact that is not
established, i.e., that a non-
party, Giovanni Coglitore,
made requests and/or promises
to non-parties, i.e., R-Stor,
breakdown of the business
relationship. This context is
essential to understanding
the parties’ motivations, the
business environment, and
any alleged obligations.
The fact that R-Stor is a
non-party does not absolve
Sylabs’ discovery
obligations.
Sylabs must immediately
its response to identify and
describe all facts and
circumstances relating to
Giovanni Coglitore’s 2019
request and/or promise to
compensate R-Stor
executives with their end-
of-year bonuses via Sylabs
equity.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 32 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
30
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
Inc.’s executives, regarding
executive compensation
promised from a non-party
company, i.e., R-Stor, Inc.
5. It is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible
evidence because the
information requested is
confidential and protected
employee information about
nonparties, i.e., R-Stor, Inc.’s
executives, who are employees
at a company that is not a party
to this Action, i.e., R-Stor, Inc.
6. It is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible
evidence because the
information requested is
confidential and protected
employee information about
nonparties, i.e., R-Stor, Inc.’s
executives, who are employees
at a company that is not a party
to this Action, i.e., R-Stor, Inc.,
which Responding Party has no
control over or authorization to
release.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 33 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
31
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
7. It is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible
evidence because Requesting
Party’s request appears to
relate to claims of non-parties
to this Action concerning
claims that are not reasonably
related to the claims in this
Action.
Kurtzer ROG
No. 11: Identify
and describe all
facts and
circumstances
relating to
Giovanni
Coglitore’s
acquisition of all
founder shares
in Sylabs.
Objection: Sylabs has
reconsidered its previous
response to this request (set
forth here) and stands on its
original objections:
1. It is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible
evidence and it is designed to
harass and cause harm to
Sylabs, and the only possible
purpose of this request is to
harass and cause hardship to
Sylabs and needlessly increase
the cost of litigation to Sylabs,
as it requests information
relating to an individual who is
not a party to this Action, i.e.,
Giovanni Coglitore, regarding
information that is not
Sylabs’ Supplemental
Response states only
objections with no
substantive response
Sylabs may not withhold
any information on the
basis that its Response may
contain confidential
information because the
disclosure of non-party
confidential information
was contemplated and is
governed by the Stipulated
Protective Order in this
case. See Dkt. 111.
Furthermore, this
information is highly
relevant to the claims and
defenses in this action for
NOTE: Sylabs stands by its
response to this Request.
Defendants’ request for
judicial intervention is not
ripe for judicial review.
Further, such intervention is
unnecessary because Sylabs
has not refused to provide a
response. Specifically,
Sylabs has provided a valid
disagree, but that does not
make it an improper or
inappropriate response.
response. It is a response
with which Defendants
Request GRANTED. The
inquiry is within the
parameters of relevance and
proportionality for purposes of
discovery (pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26) even though it may
ultimately not be admissible
before a trier of fact (see Fed.
R. Evid. 401 and 403).
Plaintiff is provide a verified
supplement response no later
than January 22, 2026.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 34 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
32
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
reasonably related to this
Action.
2. It is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible
evidence because there is no
connection between the claims
in this Action and anything that
a non-party, Giovanni
Coglitore, might or might not
have acquired.
3. It is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible
evidence because there is no
connection between the
information sought by this
request and the facts
reasonably related to this
Action as it relates to
confidential information
relating to a non-party,
Giovanni Coglitore.
4. It is not reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible
evidence because Requesting
Party’s request appears to
relate to claims of non-parties
to this Action concerning
claims that are not reasonably
the same reasons. Mr.
Coglitore’s acquisition of
founder shares in Sylabs is
part of the broader pattern
of asset diversion and
corporate maneuvering that
occurred while Mr. Kurtzer
was attempting to invest in
and support Sylabs. This
information is essential to
understanding the
corporate governance
issues, conflicts of interest,
and business dynamics that
led to Mr. Kurtzer’s
departure and subsequent
founding of Defendant
CIQ.
Sylabs must immediately
supplement its response to
identify and describe all
facts and circumstances
relating to Giovanni
Coglitore’s acquisition of
all founder shares in
Sylabs.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 35 of 36

Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-00849-SVK 	Attachment A re Disputed Discovery Requests and Responses
33
Request 	Response 	Defendants’ Proposed
Compromises
Sylabs’ Proposed
Compromises
Court’s Use Only
related to the claims in this
Action.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 162 Filed 01/12/26 Page 36 of 36