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 RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE RE
INSPECTION OF SOURCE CODE
Re: Dkt. No. 166
Before the Court is the Parties’ dispute arising out of Plaintiffs’ planned inspection of
Defendant CTRL IQ, Inc. d/b/a CIQ’s (“CIQ”) source code. Dkt. 166. Specifically, the Parties
dispute what information must be exchanged in advance of the inspection. The Court is very
familiar with the litigation history, the operative Protective Order (Dkt. 111) and the relevant law
and determines that this matter may be resolved without oral argument. Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
Plaintiff has identified two persons who will inspect source code, Greg Crouse and Ritesh
Kayathi. Plaintiff attests to Mr. Kayathi’s role as a member of FTI’s Investigation and
Technology Advisory Team who:
is not a consulting or testifying expert; [] has never been a consulting
or testifying expert; 	[and] has never offered an opinion, expert,
consulting or otherwise. 	Mr. Kayathi is a technology researcher at
FTI and performs his duties at Mr. Crouse’s direction.
Dkt. 166-2 at 2. From these facts, it is reasonable to infer, as CIQ should have, that Mr. Kayathi is
neither an expert nor a consultant within the meaning of section 2.7 of the Protective Order. He is
merely a technical assistant provided by the expert-services firm, a common practice in this
Court’s experience. No further information regarding Mr. Kayathi need be provided in advance of
his assisting Mr. Crouse with source code inspection. However, Plaintiff must provide CIQ with
Mr. Kayathi’s signed Acknowledgement A, if it has not already done so, as ordered below.
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 167 Filed 01/21/26 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
Regarding Mr. Crouse, there is no dispute that he is an “Expert.” As such, pursuant to
section 7.4(a)(2) of the Protective Order, Plaintiff must disclose the persons or entities to whom
Mr. Crouse has provided professional services in the preceding five years. Dkt. 111 at 13-14.
This provision is intended, and well understood, to require disclosure not only of the expert-
services firm who may sign the expert’s paycheck, the but the expert-services firm’s clients for
whom the expert has rendered professional services. It is this disclosure that allows the producing
party to evaluate, and if necessary raise, any risks regarding disclosure of its source code.
Additionally, Plaintiff must provide Mr. Crouse’s signed Acknowledgement A. All of the
foregoing information is to be provided in accordance with this Order as set forth below.
Finally, the Parties dispute the need for CIQ to provide technical information informally
requested by Plaintiff to allow Mr. Crouse to “efficiently and expeditiously” conduct his review of
the source code. Some of the information is detailed and no easier for CIQ to retrieve and provide
than it will be for Mr. Crouse to do so at the time of the inspection. At least a couple of the
categories, however, are easily available to CIQ and, at the end of the day, it is in both Parties’
interest to have this inspection proceed efficiently so the case can move to resolution.
Accordingly, CIQ is to provide Plaintiff with the following information from the list set forth in
the Joint Statement:
2. Primary languages/technologies in the codebase (e.g., Java,
SQL, Python, etc.);
* * *
4. High-level map of the code repositories.
The Court notes that request no. 1 regarding print-outs is expressly addressed in section 9.8 of the
Protective Order which will not be amended here. See Dkt. 111 at 18. The information above is
to be provided as set forth below.
////
////
////
////
////
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 167 Filed 01/21/26 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
All information ordered herein is to be provided no later Friday, January 23, 2026. The
Parties may agree to a modest extension of this deadline if necessary. In closing, the Court directs
both Parties to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1 which requires that the Rules, and by association
discovery disputes arising under the Rules, be addressed “to secure the just, speedy and
inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” The Parties can do better in meeting
this mandate.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 21, 2026
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:23-cv-00849-SVK Document 167 Filed 01/21/26 Page 3 of 3