1
`
`November 7, 2025
`
`The Honorable Lisa J. Cisneros
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California
`San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom G – 15th Floor
`450 Golden Gate Avenue
`San Francisco, CA 94102
`Re: In Re Mosaic LLM Litigation; Case No. 3:24-cv-01451-CRB
`Dear Magistrate Judge Cisneros,
`The parties submit this letter brief regarding a discovery dispute concerning Plaintiffs’
`request to expand the default limit on the number of depositions they may take from 10 to 15. The
`parties met and conferred on October 31, 2025, but were unable to reach a resolution.
`1
`
`
`1 The relevant discovery and case management deadlines are as follows: (1) Close of Fact Discovery on Plaintiffs’
`copyright claim/fair use: November 21, 2025; (2) Close of Expert Discovery: March 25, 2026; (3) Summary
`Judgment Motions on Plaintiffs’ copyright claim/fair use: April 24, 2026; (4) Oppositions to Summary Judgment
`Motions: June 8, 2026; (5) Replies to Summary Judgment Motions: July 10, 2026.
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 184 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs' Po sition
`Plaintiffs respectfully request leave of Co urt to take fifteen total depositions of D efendants
`and their fo1mer and cunent employees pursuant to Ru le 30(b)(l) and (6).2 Co urts in this district
`regularly pennit paiiies to exceed the presum ptive limit of ten depositions "w here the com plexity
`of the case clearly wa n ant[ s] m ore than ten depositions." Andersen v. Stability Al Ltd., No. 23-CV -
`00201-WHO (LJC), 2025 WL 870358, at *10 (N.D. Cal. M ai·. 19, 2025) (J. Cisneros) (citations
`omitted). Ge nerative A I copyright class actions like this case ai·e precisely the type of com plex
`cases requiring additional depositions. See id. ( expanding the limit to thirty total depositions in
`generative A I class action, given the "comp lexity of the case[.]"); See also Kadrey v. Meta
`Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-03417, 2024 WL 4502099, at *2 (N.D . Cal. Oc t. 15, 2024) (pe1mitting
`Plaintiff to take twenty-five fact depositions in generative AI class action); Nazemian v. Nvidia, No.
`4:24-cv-01454 (N.D . Cal. June 3, 2025), Dk t. 151 at 2 (granting paiiies stipulation as to "20.5 Ru le
`30(b)(l) depositions[.]").
`A llow ing five additional depositions for a total of fifteen fact depositions is propo1iional
`given the comp lexities and scope of this proposed copyright class action involving two cmporate
`defendants, the issues at stake, and the substantial am ount in controversy. See, e.g., Perez v. Indian
`Harbor Ins. Co., Case No. 19-cv-07288-YGR, E CF No . 61 (Jul. 27, 2020) ("Plaintiff is suing for
`$267 million, so lifting the cap of 10 depositions is propo1iional to the needs of the case."). T he
`paiiy witnesses Plaintiffs seek to depose have unique knowledge on issues relevant to Plaintiffs'
`claims and the fair use defense. Attached as Exhibit K is a cha1i listing the ten w itnesses Plaintiffs
`have afready deposed or noticed for deposition, and the five additional witnesses Plaintiffs seek to
`depose, along w ith their job titles. Three of the five additional witnesses (Alexander Trott, Kasey
`Uh lenhuth, and Joshua H aiim an) were designated by D efendants as custodians under the ESI
`O rder based on their "connection to the instant litigation."
`1. Alexander Trott: According to Defendants' statem ent designating Dr. Trott as a
`docum ent custodian under the ES I O rder, Dr. Trott has infonnation relevant to this litigation
`because he was "involved in data processing and prepai·ation" and "developm ent and training
`regarding the M PT m odels." D ocum ents produced in discove1y confnm that Dr. Trott played an
`integral role in acquiring and curating datasets containin Plaintiffs' and C lass m em bers' works.
`See Exh A MOSAIC ONAN 00004838
`Important y, Dr. Trott paii1c1pate m
`developing D efendants' Sto1ywr iter M PT m odel's ability to output fictional content w hich is
`hi hl relevant to fair-use factor four. See Exh B MOSA IC ONAN 00004389
`Co m i recently
`recognize , " c opymg aut ors' oo s an pro ucm g vers10ns 'sum lai· enough ' in content or
`style to the originals that readers abandoned the original books in favor of the derivatives[]" wo uld
`presum ably nm afoul of fair-use factor four. In re Mosaic, 2025 WL 2294910, at *3.
`2. Ka sey U hlenhuth: Ms. Uhlenhuth is the only custodian identified by D efendants as
`"responsible for user experience, including how users of the M PT m odels interact with the M PT
`2 Plaintiffs intend to seek a limited number of other third-party depositions, consistent with how this Court has
`analyzed similar issues in Andersen. See Andersen, 2025 WL 870358, at *10 (granting Plaintiffs leave to take thirty
`depositions, and stating "[tjlte thirty-deposition limit does not include depositions of non-parties, expert witnesses,
`offo1mer employees.") (emphasis added).
`2
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 184 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mode ls." Discove1y confnm s that as Director of Product Manageme nt, she oversaw the
`functioning of the models and customer use, including model fine-tuning. See e.g., Exh . J,
`MOSAIC ONAN 00035775 . B ecause customer use of the MPT models is relevant to fair use - -
`factor four, Plaintiffs are entitled to take discove1y into whether De fendants' customers use the
`MPT models in ways that hann the m arket for Plaintiffs' wo rks.
`3. Joshua Hartman: Mr. H artman is a Director responsible for "financial forecasting and
`revenue generation regarding the M PT models." Plaintiffs must be able to examine such
`witnesses with know ledge concerning how Defendants are commerc ializing the models and
`profiting from their infringement. See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569,578
`(1994) (analyzing commerciality inquiiy in the context of the first fail-use factor); Oracle Am .,
`Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2016 WL 2342365, at *4 (N.D . Cal. May 3, 2016)
`(requii·ing evidence of causal connection between infringement and gross revenue for proving
`entitlement to disgorgement of profits); Model Civ. Jmy Instr. 9th Cir. 17.35 (2025) (in
`dete1mining statuto1y damages for copyright infringeme nt, jury m ay consider the profits earned
`by the defendant as a result of the infringement). Th e Co mt should reject Defendants' argument
`that, as the CTO and Co -Founder of Mosaic ML , Dr. Tang is "as knowledgeable" on issues like
`finance and revenue as Mr . Hartman. The Comt emphasized that Plaintiffs should take
`depositions of "senior employees"-like Mr. Haitman- "w ho were involved in strategic
`decision-making or have relevant knowledge regai·ding ... alleged Databricks' financial benefit
`from [infringing] activities." Order, ECF No. 181 at 5.
`ose Mr . Sovine because he possesses unique,
`relevant knowledge datasets containing Plaintiffs' and
`C ONAN_00005787-
`• Exh . D MOSAIC 00019549
`. No other w itness interfaced w ith third paities and custom ers to the
`same extent as Mr. Sovme. De fendants ai·gue these comm unications include other witnesses
`w hich indicates his deposition wo uld be cumulative. However, this is because Defendants have
`yet to produce Mr . Sovine's agreed-upon custodial file. Thus, Plaintiffs mus t rely on documen ts
`from other custodians' files; even still, they reveal that Mr. Sovine was integral in dealing with
`thii·d paity customers and should be a w itness.
`5. Abhinav Venigalla: Discove1y shows that Mr. Ve nigalla possesses first-hand, non­
`duplicative know ledge on relevant topics such as developing the Sto1ywr iter model before
`handing it off to Mr. Trott for eneratin works of creative fiction. See Exh. B
`MOSAIC ONAN 00004389
`MOSAIC_ ONAN_ 00008150), and has evaluated
`3
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 184 Filed 11/07/25 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exh . H , MOSAIC ONAN 00005296 .
`Exh . I, MOSAIC_ONAN_00035329. Defendants' inte1Togato1yresponse addressing
`Sto1y Writer is not an adequate substitute for deposition testimony. See Garcia v. Cnty. of
`Riverside, 2017 WL 11917347, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Ma r. 21, 2017) citing Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d
`1289, 1297 (9th Cir. 1993).
`Defendants Should Not be Rewarded for Their Delay in Scheduling and Production.
`Th e Court should reject any argumen t that completion of the additional depositions before
`the Nove mber 21, 2025 fact discove1y cut-off wo uld not be feasible. Plaintiffs have proceeded
`with deposition discove1y diligently, requesting dates for the first defense witness deposition on
`A ugust 12, 2025. 3 And although Plaintiffs requested Ms . Uhlenhuth's availability on Septemb er 8
`(nearly two m onths ago), Defendants have still not yet provided her availability. Plaintiffs
`identified Messrs. Ve nigalla and Sovine from D efendants' documents, m ost of w hich we re
`produced after Defendants substantially completed production on August 22, 2025. Th ough
`Plaintiffs requested them as custodians on Septemb er 23 and October 8, respectively, and
`Defendants subsequently agreed, Defendants have still not yet produced any custodial files for
`them. Indeed, Defendants failed to mee t the original July 15, 2025 substantial completion deadline.
`Plaintiffs' constant and consistent diligence is clear. Defendants should not be allowed to avoid
`impo1tant depositions because of their delays in both scheduling and producing documents.
`Final proposed Compromise: Plaintiffs depose Dr. Trott, Mr. Sovine, and Mr . Ve nigalla
`for up to 7 hours each, and Mr. Haitman and Ms. Uhlenhuth for up to 4 hours each.
`Defendants' Position
`Sticking to their playbook from other cases, Plaintiffs seek to exceed Rule 30's ten­
`deposition limit, claiming that this is the "type" of generative A I case that wa ITants additional
`depositions. But not all generative AI cases ai·e the same. U nlike the cases Plaintiffs cite, this case
`involves a direct infringem ent claim against only Mosa icM L , w hich was a sm all strut-up at the
`relevant time, with an even sm aller group of scientists w ho paiticipated in the conduct at issue.
`And, as Plaintiffs are fond of pointing out, those saine scientists continued their wo rk as Databricks
`employees after Databricks acquired Mosa icML, m aking depositions of additional Databricks
`employees unnecessa1y and cumulative. Moreover, this case is not neai·ly as complex as other
`generative A I cases, as the Comt has streamlined discove1y by limiting it to fair use and
`infringem ent, leaving class ce1tification and dam ages issues for a later phase. See Dkt. 53.
`Th e witnesses D efendants have ak eady agreed to produce include MosaicML 's founders
`and m emb ers of the senior leadership team, as we ll as the scientists w ho handled data acquisition,
`pretraining, post training, and customer interactions. Plaintiffs have failed to m ake the required
`show ing that any additional witnesses have different infonnation that Plaintiffs could not obtain
`from existing deponents. And Plaintiffs have not been diligent in seeking these depositions. Fact
`discove1y closes in two weeks, and Plaintiffs served their 30(b)(6) topics only a few weeks ago.
`3 De fendants provided a single September date for that witness (which did not work for Plaintiffs), followed by a
`single October date.
`4
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 184 Filed 11/07/25 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Moreover, until the morning of November 6, Plaintiffs had requested a total of fifteen
`depositions. But at the eleventh hour, they radically expanded their request to seek fifteen “party”
`depositions, excluding an unknown number of unspecified “non-party” depositions. See Exhibit
`L. The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ late, unnecessary, and burdensome request. And certainly,
`the Court should not allow Plaintiffs to exceed their own proposed limit of 15 “total” depositions.
`The additional depositions Plaintiffs seek are cumulative and unnecessarily
`burdensome. “A party seeking to exceed Rule 30(a)(2)’s presumptive ten deposition limit bears
`the burden of making a particularized showing of the need for additional depositions.” Jones v.
`Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., No. 22-cv-05954-AMO (PHK), 2023 WL 10691302, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov.
`16, 2023) (citation modified). Courts deny additional depositions that seek information a party
`already has or could have obtained, or are unreasonably burdensome. See id. Generally, a party
`seeking to exceed the limit must also first exhaust less burdensome and expensive discovery. X
`One, Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 16-cv-06050-LHK (SVK), 2019 WL 2207645, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
`May 22, 2019) (denying request to exceed the ten -deposition limit). Further, designation of an
`individual as a custodian does not necessarily warrant exceeding the limit. See Sunbelt, 2023 WL
`10691302, at *4-5 (denying request to depose “every single custodian of records”).
`Unlike other cases Plaintiffs cite, this case does not involve sprawling companies with large
`numbers of relevant individuals or “multiple discrete issues” across “broad topics/time periods.”
`See Perez, Dkt. 60 (letter brief) at 2 (N.D. Cal. July 24, 2020). MosaicML was a start -up with
`fewer than a hundred total employees when most of the relevant events (training of the MPT
`models) occurred. And only a fraction of those employees were involved in MPT model training.
`Plaintiffs are already deposing eight MosaicML witnesses, along with a 30(b)(6) deposition of
`Databricks. The additional requested depositions are cumulative and unnecessarily burdensome.
`Alexander Trott: Plaintiffs claim tha t they need Dr. Trott ’s deposition because he was
`“involved in data processing and preparation” and “development and training regarding the MPT
`models.” But Defendants disclosed several other individuals with this information, including
`Jonathan Frankle, Cody Blakeney, Vitaliy Chiley, Matthew Leavitt, and Brandon Cui —all of
`whom Plaintiffs are deposing. Nor does Dr. Trott’s involvement in MosaicML’s MPT StoryWriter
`model make the information he has unique. In addition to Databricks’ verified interrogatory
`response about how StoryWriter was built and trained, other testifying witnesses (for example, Dr.
`Frankle) were involved with StoryWriter, and Plaintiffs are taking a 30(b)(6) deposition of
`Databricks on topics including the process of training the MPT models, including StoryWriter.
`Tellingly, Plaintiffs have not argued (nor can they) that they have tried but were unable to get the
`information that they supposedly need from Dr. Trott from other witnesses.
`Kasey Uhlenhuth: Plaintiffs’ suggestion that only Ms. Uhlenhuth could provide testimony
`about how users interact with the MPT models is flat wrong. Defendants identified Hanlin Tang,
`MosaicML’s CTO and current CTO for Neural Networks as knowledgeable about customer use
`of relevant MPT models and model serving by MosaicML and Databricks (the same information
`that Plaintiffs supposedly need from Ms. Uhlenhuth). Moreover, the one document Plaintiffs cite
`dates about a year after the MPT models’ release and does not mention the MPT models.
`Joshua Hartman: Mr. Hartman’s testimony would be cumulative at best. Dr. Tang was
`disclosed as having knowledge about the MPT models’ revenue, the market for MosaicML and
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 184 Filed 11/07/25 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Databricks’ services, and MosaicML and Databricks’ business models. Dr. Tang is a “senior
`employee[] involved in strategic decision -making” with “relevant knowledge” about any
`“financial benefit” who testified as a 30(b)(6) witness on topics related to revenue from the MPT
`models. Dkt. 181 at 5.
`Scott Sovine: Plaintiffs seek to depose Mr. Sovine based on his purported knowledge of
`interactions with third -party customers, including how certain training datasets were made
`available for model training . Notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ assertion that “[n]o other witness
`interfaced with third parties and customers to the same extent,” the documents Plaintiffs cite show
`that multiple individuals interacted with customers, including Dr. Leavitt and Dr. Tang, both of
`whom are being deposed. Plaintiffs have failed to make a “particularized showing” why they also
`need Mr. Sovine’s testimony, and Databricks is providing a 30(b)(6) witness on this topic. And
`Plaintiffs’ complaint that they do not have Mr. Sovine’s documents —which they requested less
`than a month ago—does not justify their last-minute effort to depose him. Plaintiffs received the
`documents they cite in July and August; their lack of diligence does not justify adding a witness.
`Abhinav Venigalla : Plaintiffs seek to depose Mr. Venigalla based on his purported
`knowledge about the StoryWriter model. But Plaintiffs have been able to obtain this information
`from other witnesses, interrogatories, and their 30(b)(6) deposition. The same applies to Plaintiffs’
`assertion about Mr. Venigalla’s involvement with making certain datasets available for model
`training. The single document they cite is responding to Dr. Tang, a witness Plaintiffs deposed.
`Plaintiffs’ request is delayed and unreasonably burdensome. Plaintiffs’ attempt to
`blame Defendants for their belated request also fails. Courts regularly deny delayed requests for
`additional depositions. See Aristocrat Techs. v. Int ’l Game Tech., No. C-06-03717 RMW, 2010
`WL 3060162, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2010) (denying additional depositions where information
`was “not a newly discovered fact” but plaintiff waited “roughly one month before the close of
`discovery” to seek additional depositions); see also Kadrey, Dkt. 146 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2024)
`(denying additional depositions because it was “18 days before the…close of fact discovery.”).
`4
`Here, Defendants worked with Plaintiffs to find mutually agreeable dates for the witnesses
`Defendants agreed to, and those depositions have all been scheduled within fact discovery .
`Meanwhile, Plaintiffs sought to add Mr. Sovine and Mr. Venigalla only in October—even though
`the documents that purportedly motivated th ese requests were produced in July and August.
`Moreover, Plaintiffs served their 30(b)(6) topics only on October 16 (after Defendants requested
`them, given the approaching end of fact discovery), and therefore Plaintiffs have not even tried
`getting the information they claim they need from Databricks, or the other witnesses. Adding
`depositions at this late stage creates a significant burden not proportional to the needs of the case,
`particularly when the information Plaintiffs seek is cumulative, and Plaintiffs have failed to make
`the required “particularized showing” as to any witness.
`Final Compromise: The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request, and in all events, should
`not allow Plaintiffs to exceed their own proposed limit of 15 “total” depositions.
`
`4 The court later allowed additional depositions because the discovery deadline moved, but noted
`that it would be “not proportional to the needs of the case” and “unduly burdensome” to “cram 21
`more fact depositions into the last few weeks of discovery.” Kadrey, 2024 WL 4502099, at *2.
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 184 Filed 11/07/25 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Joseph R. Saveri By: /s/ Jedediah Wakefield
`Joseph R. Saveri (SBN 130064)
`Christopher K.L. Young (SBN 318371)
`Evan Creutz (SBN 349728)
`Elissa A. Buchanan (SBN 249996)
`William Castillo Guardado (SBN 294159)
`Holden Benon (SBN 325847)
`JOSEPH SA VERI LAW FIRM, LLP
`601 California Street, Suite 1505
`San Francisco, CA 94108
`Telephone: (415) 500-6800
`Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
`jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
`cyoung@saverilawfirm.com
`ecreutz@saverilawfirm.com
`eabuchanan@saverilawfirm.com
`wcastillo@saverilawfirm.com
`hbenon@saverilawfirm.com
`
`Jedediah Wakefield (CSB No. 178058)
`Ryan Kwock (CSB No. 336414)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 875-2300
`Telephone: (415) 281-1350
`jwakefield@fenwick.com
`rkwock@fenwick.com
`
`David Lloyd Hayes (CSB No. 122894)
`Diana C. Buck (CSB No. 339314)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: (650) 988-8500
`dhayes@fenwick.com
`dbuck@fenwick.com
`Matthew Butterick (SBN 250953)
`1920 Hillhurst Avenue, #406
`Los Angeles, CA 90027
`Telephone: (323) 968-2632
`Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
`mb@buttericklaw.com
`
`Bryan L. Clobes (admitted pro hac vice)
`Alexander J. Sweatman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Mohammed A. Rathur (admitted pro hac vice)
`CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
`& SPRENGEL LLP
`135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3210
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: (312) 782-4880
`bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
`asweatman@caffertyclobes.com
`mrathur@caffertyclobes.com
`
`Charles Moulins (admitted pro hac vice)
`Justine Vandermel (admitted pro hac vice)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`902 Broadway, Suite 14
`New York, NY 10010
`Telephone: (212) 430-2600
`Facsimile: (650) 938-5200
`cmoulins@fenwick.com
`justine.vandermel@fenwick.com
`
`Brian D. Buckley (admitted pro hac vice)
`Deena Feit (admitted pro hac vice)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`401 Union Street, 5th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 389-4510
`dfeit@fenwick.com
`bbuckley@fenwick.com
`
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 184 Filed 11/07/25 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`Justin A. Nelson (admitted pro hac vice)
`Alejandra C. Salinas (admitted pro hac vice)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002-5096
`Telephone: (713) 651-9366
`jnelson@susmangodfrey.com
`asalinas@susmangodfrey.com
`Zachary Harned (CSB No. 335898)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`730 Arizona Avenue, 1st Floor
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Telephone: (310) 434-5400
`zharned@fenwick.com
`
`Rohit D. Nath (SBN 316062)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-2906
`Telephone: (310) 789-3100
`RNath@susmangodfrey.com
`Counsel for Defendants
`Databricks, Inc., and Mosaic ML, LLC,
`formerly Mosaic ML, Inc.
`
`Elisha Barron (admitted pro hac vice)
`Craig Smyser (admitted pro hac vice)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`One Manhattan West, 51st Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: (212) 336-8330
`ebarron@susmangodfrey.com
`csmyser@susmangodfrey.com
`
`
`Jordan W. Connors (admitted pro hac vice)
`Trevor D. Nystrom (admitted pro hac vice)
`SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P
`401 Union Street, Suite 3000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 516-3880
`jconnors@susmangodfrey.com
`tnystrom@susmangodfrey.com
`
`
`Rachel J. Geman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Danna Z. Elmasry (admitted pro hac vice)
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN
` & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013
`Telephone: (212) 355-9500
`rgeman@lchb.com
`delmasry@lchb.com
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 184 Filed 11/07/25 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Anne B. Shaver
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN
` & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 956-1000
`ashaver@lchb.com
`
`
`Betsy A. Sugar (admitted pro hac vice)
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN
` & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`222 2nd Avenue S. Suite 1640
`Nashville, TN 37201
`Telephone: (615) 313-9000
`bsugar@lchb.com
`
`
`Rachel J. Geman (admitted pro hac vice)
`Danna Z. Elmasry (admitted pro hac vice)
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN
` & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
`New York, NY 10013
`Telephone: (212) 355-9500
`rgeman@lchb.com
`delmasry@lchb.com
`
`
`Counsel for Individual and Representative
`Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
`
`
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 184 Filed 11/07/25 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 5-1(i)(3)
`I, Joseph R. Saveri, attest that the other Signatory has concurred in the filing of this
`document.
`Dated: November 7, 2025 /s/ Joseph R. Saveri
` Joseph R. Saveri
`Case 3:24-cv-01451-CRB Document 184 Filed 11/07/25 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`