Lynwood Investments CY Limited v. Konovalov et al

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LYNWOOD INVESTMENTS CY
LIMITED,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAXIM KONOVALOV, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 20-cv-03778-MMC (KAW)
ORDER REGARDING 10/27/2025
DISCOVERY LETTER
Re: Dkt. No. 254
[Discovery Letter No. 1]
The sole claim in this case is Plaintiff’s copyright claim based upon the NGINX Plus
software code, which was allegedly developed by individual Defendants while employed at
Rambler Internet Holding LLC in Russia. (See Sec. Amend. Compl. (“SAC”) ¶ 1.) Pending
before the Court is the parties’ discovery letter on two disputes concerning the protective order:
(1) whether Designated Hose Counsel should be permitted to view Highly Confidential-Attorney’s
Eyes Only (“HC-AEO”) materials, and (2) Plaintiff’s proposed simultaneous code inspection
provisions. (Discovery Letter at 4, Dkt. No. 254.)
A. House Counsel
Plaintiff seeks to allow its designated house counsel, Elena Kanevskaia, view HC-AEO
materials. (Discovery Letter at 4.) Plaintiff asserts that Ms. Kanevskaia’s input is required to
assist outside counsel with contextualizing communications, identifying individuals, pursuing
follow-up questions, and developing litigation strategy. (Id.) While Plaintiff agrees that Ms.
Kanevskaia will not access source code, Plaintiff believes Ms. Kanevskaia should be able to obtain
verbal summaries and derivative source code information. (Id.) Defendants, in turn, raise
concerns that the NGINX software is used by millions of individuals and businesses, including
Microsoft, IBM, Google, Apple, Amazon, and the U.S. government. (Id. at 6.) Defendants raise
Case 3:20-cv-03778-MMC Document 257 Filed 12/01/25 Page 1 of 3

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
security concerns, as Plaintiff is a holding company “apparently controlled by a Russian oligarch
and billionaire” while Ms. Kanevskaia is a Russian national who is not subject to the Court’s
jurisdiction should she violate the protective order. (Id. at 7.)
The Court finds that Ms. Kanevskaia may review HC-AEO materials except for source
code and derivative source code information. With respect to the latter, Plaintiff has not explained
why Ms. Kanevskaia would need the source code or derivative source code information. Rather,
Plaintiff explains that Ms. Kanevskaia’s input is focused on contextualizing communications,
identifying individuals, pursuing follow-up questions, and developing litigation strategy; Plaintiff
does not explain how any of this requires that Ms. Kanevskaia review source code or derivative
source code information. Compare with Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Corcept Therapeutics, Inc.,
Case No. 24-cv-3567-NW (VKD), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47510, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2025)
(finding that in-house counsel could not review highly confidential materials where the plaintiff
only offered “generic assertions that five of its in-house counsel have a need for access to all of
defendants’ highly confidential material [and] provides minimal descriptions of their activities on
[the plaintiff’s] behalf”). As to the other HC-AEO materials, Defendants fail to explain why Ms.
Kanevskaia should not have access to such materials, as their argument only focuses on the
security risks related to the source code.
B. Simultaneous Code Inspections
Plaintiff proposes modifications to section 8(c) of the model order regarding source code
discovery that would allow Plaintiff to load multiple sets of source code onto the same inspection
computer to allow for simultaneous code inspections. (Discovery Letter at 5.) To this end,
Plaintiff has proposed two additional paragraphs. Defendants do not object to the first paragraph,
which allows a receiving party to install onto and use on an inspection computer the additional
source code to be compared against the produced source code. (See id. at 6; Peden Decl. ¶ 8, Dkt.
No. 254-2.)
Defendants object to the second paragraph, which allows a receiving party to conduct the
simultaneous code inspection on the same computer, with producing parties permitted a
representative during the source code review. (Discovery Letter at 6; Peden Decl. ¶ 9.) It is not
Case 3:20-cv-03778-MMC Document 257 Filed 12/01/25 Page 2 of 3

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
clear to the Court what purpose this second paragraph serves; the first paragraph already appears
to allow for simultaneous code inspection by allowing the installation and use of additional source
code to be compared against the produced source code. Rather, the only explanation for this
second paragraph appears to be Plaintiff’s assertion that it is “designed for a one-party code
inspection.” (Peden Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff fails to explain what one-party code inspection is or
why it would be needed or warranted in this case. Absent an adequate explanation for including
the second paragraph, the Court declines to include it. If further procedures are ultimately
required, the parties should meet and confer and only file a discovery letter if they truly cannot
resolve the issue without judicial intervention.
This order disposes of Dkt. No. 254.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 1, 2025
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:20-cv-03778-MMC Document 257 Filed 12/01/25 Page 3 of 3