Sylabs, Inc. v. Rose 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
SYLABS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GREGORY ROSE, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-00849-SVK
ORDER RESOLVING DISCOVERY
DISPUTES AT DKTS. 161, 171 AND 172
Re: Dkt. Nos. 161, 171, 172
Pending before the Court are two discovery disputes. First, Defendants challenge the
sufficiency of Plaintiff’s document production writ large. Dkt. 161. After the Court ordered
certain preliminary measures and a supplemental joint dispute statement in advance of a hearing,
(see Dkt. 162), Plaintiff made a supplemental production—“Sylabs Production #5”—and
Defendants now challenge the sufficiency of that production, (Dkt. 172). Separately, Defendants
seek to compel Plaintiff to provide a further response to two interrogatories, Interrogatory nos. 21
and 23. Dkt. 171. These matters came on for hearing on February 12, 2026. After considering
the Parties’ submissions and arguments, as well as the record in this matter and the relevant law,
the Court stated its reasoning and rulings on the record. For the convenience of the Court and the
Parties, the Court summarizes its rulings herein.1
A. 	Dkts. 161 & 172 – Defendants’ Challenge to Sylabs’ Production #5
In order to ensure a complete production, the Court ORDERS Sylabs to direct Consilio to
run all of the search terms at pages 5-6 of Dkt. 172 on:
////
////
1 In the event the Court’s ruling on the record differs from this Order, this Order controls.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 175 Filed 02/12/26 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
• 	All of the data sources listed at page 5 (i.e., GoogleDrives (both shared and
individual), Desktop computers and workstations (work and personal); Laptop and
tablet computers (work and personal); External hard drives and flash drives; Cell
phones and mobile devices (work and personal); Microsoft 365: OneDrive;
Outlook; SharePoint; Teams; Slack; Signal; GChat; Zoom Chat; WhatsApp;
Telegram; Facebook Messenger; Instagram Direct Messages; WeChat; Line; Viber;
Snapchat; iMessage; SMS/MMS (text messages); all other network shared drives
used by Sylabs; and all other cloud servers used by Sylabs) for which they have not
yet been run, including Slack and text messages even where such collection
requires Sylabs to collect individual laptops and/or cell phones;
• 	For each of the custodians listed at page 5 (Jason Tuschen, Jason Torey, Giovanni
Coglitore, Tony Gaughan, Michael Frisch, Adam Hughes, David Trudgian,
Yannick Cote, Ian Kaneshiro, Divya Cote, Michael Bauer, Mike Gray, Satish
Chebrolu, Marcelo Magallon, Cederic Clerget, John Dooley, Todd Brouillette,
Keith Cunningham, Gregory Kurtzer, Matthew Hayden, and Robert Adolph).
Such production shall include a verification by Sylabs and by its vendor, Consilio, that it is
complete except where Sylabs was unable to locate or unable to access a certain device or data
source; for such cases, Sylabs shall state which device and custodian (e.g., cell phone of Gregory
Kurtzer) was not available to it.
Given the stage of litigation, time is of the essence and therefore Sylabs shall complete the
above supplemental production by February 26, 2026.
Defendants’ request for discovery sanctions is DENIED without prejudice.
B. 	Dkt. 171 – Sylabs’ Responses to Interrogatory nos. 21 and 23
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court finds that Sylabs’ responses at this stage are
sufficient as to the facts known to it. Defendants request is DENIED.
////
////
////
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 175 Filed 02/12/26 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
C. 	Case Schedule Adjustment
Finally, in light of the above ordered production and the request of the Parties, the Court
will adjust the case schedule as discussed on the record. A separate case scheduling order will
issue.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 12, 2026
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 175 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 3