Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 3243
`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 1 of 11 PagelD #: 3243
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
` EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 3244
`
`Prasad, Praatika
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Attachments:
`
`EXT - krissy.mckenna@lw.com
`
`Kelly,
`
`Krissy.McKenna@lw.com
`Thursday, August 29, 2024 5:24 PM
`Farnan@RLF.com; Prasad, Praatika; Jaffe, Jordan
`WSGR - Orca Wiz; haynes@rlf.com; Cottrell@RLF.com; orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com;
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld@MNAT.com
`RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`8.28.24 Orca_Wiz Revised Motion for Teleconference(WSGR 8.29 2) (LW_V2) (002).docx
`
`We have included our position in the attached. Please confirm we can file.
`
`Best,
`Krissy
`
`From: Farnan, Kelly E. <Farnan@RLF.com>
`Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:58 PM
`To: McKenna, Krissy (BN) <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>; pprasad@wsgr.com; jjaffe@wsgr.com
`Cc: WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com; Haynes, Christine D. <haynes@rlf.com>; Cottrell, Fred <Cottrell@RLF.com>; #C-M ORCA
`SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM <orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>; rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld
`<JBlumenfeld@MNAT.com>
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`Krissy,
`
`This sort of thing is pretty standard and I don’t know why Orca continues to refuse to include our position. We are
`being directly responsive to what the Court asked us to do and telling the Court our position. You may not file
`without it.
`
`Kelly
`
`Kelly E. Farnan
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`Farnan@RLF.com
`
`920 N. King Street | Wilmington, DE 19801
`O: 302-651-7705 | F: 302-498-7701
`vCard, bio, www.rlf.com,
`
`The information contained in this electronic communication is intended only for the use of the individual or
`entity named above and may be privileged and/or confidential. If the reader of this message is not the
`intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 3245
`
`this communication is strictly prohibited by law. If you have received this communication in error, please
`immediately notify us by return e-mail or telephone (302-651-7700) and destroy the original message.
`Thank you.
`
`From: Krissy.McKenna@lw.com <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>
`Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:57 PM
`To: pprasad@wsgr.com; jjaffe@wsgr.com
`Cc: WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com; Farnan, Kelly E. <Farnan@RLF.com>; Haynes, Christine D. <haynes@rlf.com>; Cottrell,
`Fred <Cottrell@RLF.com>; orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com; rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld
`<JBlumenfeld@MNAT.com>
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`Praatika,
`
`* EXTERNAL EMAIL *
`
`We will not agree to include Wiz’s footnote. Our draft states the Court’s language without elaborating on either party’s
`argument on the scope thereof. Please confirm we can get our version on file or let us know if Wiz would prefer to
`submit separate letters to the Court.
`
`Best,
`Krissy
`
`From: Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:47 PM
`To: McKenna, Krissy (BN) <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>; Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>
`Cc: WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; Farnan@rlf.com; haynes@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com; #C-M ORCA
`SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM <orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>; rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld@mnat.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`Krissy,
`
`We do not think it is appropriate for Orca to refuse to include Wiz’s position. Wiz has added the footnote back into its
`section. If Orca wants to respond with its position, it is free to include it. If no further changes are made, Wiz is signed
`off.
`
`Regards,
`Praatika
`
`From: Krissy.McKenna@lw.com <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>
`Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:35 PM
`To: Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>; Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>
`Cc: WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; Farnan@rlf.com; haynes@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com;
`orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com; rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld@mnat.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`EXT - krissy.mckenna@lw.com
`
`Praatika,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 3246
`
`Attached is our revised draft. As Wiz has refused to drop its dispute regarding Rogs 12 and 13, we have incorporated our
`dispute regarding Rog 15. Moreover, while we think it would be more beneficial for the Court to have the
`nonargumentative context regarding Orca’s first issue, we will not hold up the filing on that point and will drop the
`language you flagged. We will not, however, agree to Wiz’s argumentative footnote regarding its interpretation of the
`Court’s order. Please confirm we can get the attached version on file.
`
`Finally, given Wiz’s significant delay providing its position despite our email providing no new information and merely
`memorializing the parties’ discussion from two days ago, we will respond separately to your various inaccurate
`statements below.
`
`Best,
`Krissy
`
`From: Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 4:11 PM
`To: Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>; McKenna, Krissy (BN) <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>
`Cc: WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; Farnan@rlf.com; haynes@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com; #C-M ORCA
`SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM <orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>; rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld@mnat.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`Krissy,
`
`We write to correct the inaccuracies in your August 28 email. Our edits to the revised teleconference draft are in the
`attached. Additionally, Wiz does not understand the basis for Orca’s addition of the following to the joint motion: “and
`withholding of documentation regarding the development and operation of the accused functionalities.” Please remove
`this or explain your bases for its inclusion. If Orca removes this improper addition, you may file. Kelly Farnan will sign
`for Wiz.
`
`As Wiz made clear, Wiz understood the purpose of the meet and confer to be to resolve disputes so that there would be
`fewer issues before the Court. D.I. 123. Still, Orca insisted that no issues were resolved despite Wiz supplementing
`multiple of its responses as requested and refused to do anything beyond taking certain issues “off the table” for the
`time being. Orca maintained its position even after Wiz explained that many of Orca’s issues had been
`mooted. Contrary to Orca’s assertion that “Wiz did not propose narrowing any of its issues,” as Wiz made clear during
`the meet and confer, Wiz’s has already sufficiently narrowed the issues and was further open to discussing a
`compromise with Orca to moot the issues. Orca refused to engage in any such discussion. Additionally, Wiz made clear
`that it had no choice but to maintain its existing issues with the Court because, unlike Orca, Wiz has consistently worked
`to resolve issues with Orca and is only raising ripe and necessary issues with the Court.
`
`Separately, as Wiz told Orca yesterday before receiving your email, Wiz intends to update Orca regarding the purported
`“missing” Wiki pages and to produce additional Salesforce entries by early next week. Given the holiday weekend and
`the ESI production deadlines, Wiz may not be able to produce the documents by September 3 but can confirm that it will
`produce the documents by September 5.
`
`Discussion of parties’ issues:
` Wiz’s response to Rog 15 / Orca’s Response to Rogs 12 and 13: As Orca acknowledges, Wiz supplemented its
`response to Rog 15 on August 28 with everything it has found in its investigation to date. Contrary to Orca’s
`assertion, the response provides more information than Orca provided in response to Wiz’s interrogatory nos.
`12 and 13. The response does identify the employee who accessed the documentation and includes cites to the
`documents referenced in the response. While Orca’s response similarly includes the name of an employee who
`accessed the documentation, it only identifies one document (that it previously attached to its complaint) even
`though it states that the Orca employee accessed multiple documents. As Wiz stated, it preferred to reach an
`agreement, but is unable to do so because Orca refused to explain the reason its Rog response mentions
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 3247
`
`multiple documents but it only produced one document that was already in Wiz’s possession. And Orca refused
`to confirm that the one document is the only document that exists. Wiz will not remove Orca’s deficient
`responses to Rog Nos. 12 and 13 from the teleconference motion.
` Wiz’s responses to RFPs 91, 92, 94, and 113: Orca stated that it intends to maintain these issues even though
`Wiz supplemented its responses to these requests and mooted the issues. Wiz explained that it was forced to
`limit its agreement to produce to the “specifically accused ‘snapshot’ functionality” because that is what Wiz
`understands is the basis of Orca’s infringement claims. Wiz again explained that the requests, as written, are in
`no way “targeted” but instead seek every document that Wiz has ever created because Orca has made clear that
`it understands and asserts that Wiz is a one-product company. Wiz explained that there are many aspects of the
`Wiz platform that are not relevant to this case, as described in Wiz’s prior discovery briefing. See D.I. 64 at
`3. Instead of responding to Wiz’s concerns, Orca attempted to flip the burden to Wiz to propose a more
`reasonable RFP. However, this ignores that Wiz already proposed a more narrow response and agreed to
`produce with that scope. As Wiz explained, Orca’s requests are overbroad and seek information not
`proportional to the needs of the case.
`o Regarding Request 94, as discussed on the call, Orca’s offer to “narrow” its request does not narrow the
`request at all. As Wiz explained, requesting documents “relating to the Accused Products, Accused
`Functionalities, or Wiz’s financial information (e.g., revenues, profits, pricing, forecasted or projected
`revenues, etc.) related to the Accused Products or Accused Functionalities, Orca, Orca’s products, or this
`Action” is still extremely overbroad because it still requests information related to all the “Accused
`Products,” and as described above Orca asserts that Wiz is a one-product company.
` Documents Wiz exchanged with
`: As Wiz has explained multiple times, such documents and
`communications are protected by common interest privilege. Wiz is evaluating whether it can share the
`common interest agreement with Orca.
` Wiz’s response to Orca’s Rog Nos. 2 and 6: Orca stated that it would maintain its disputes regarding Rogs 2 and
`6 despite Wiz having supplemented its responses to both Rogs. Orca claimed that it was entitled to Wiz’s
`“complete source code” despite the Court previously making clear that it was not entitled to irrelevant source
`code. Wiz reiterated its offer to produce source code from Orca’s choice of time periods, but Orca refused to
`accept this proposal or even negotiate the point. Orca again claimed that Wiz’s production of JIRA tickets was
`somehow improper, even though Wiz has explained numerous times that no search terms were used. Orca then
`proposed a mutual exchange of search terms. Wiz is evaluating whether this is possible and will get back to
`Orca as soon as possible and therefore does not agree this dispute is ripe.
` Orca’s deficient core technical document production: Wiz reiterated that Orca has not produced any technical
`documents explaining how various functionalities, including the accused AI-powered search or AI security
`posture management, work. Orca stated that the source code and git history it produced describes those
`functionalities, but failed to identify any non-source code document. Wiz pointed out that Orca has previously
`taken the position that source code alone is not enough to meet the core technical production requirements
`and asked Orca to confirm whether no documents describing the functionalities exist. Orca refused to do so and
`instead asked Wiz to identify documents it contends are missing. But that is where the discussion started—Wiz
`pointing out that Orca has produced no technical documents regarding e.g., AI powered search. And regardless,
`there is no way for Wiz to know what documents Orca has in its possession. Please confirm whether there are
`no technical documents describing how each accused functionality works in any non-ESI source.
` Orca’s deficient responses to RFPs 72 & 73 / Wiz’s Response to RFPs 38 & 41: Wiz has removed RFP No. 72
`from its issues. Regarding RFP No. 73, although Orca has now represented that there are no non-privileged
`responsive documents relating to
`, Orca has not explained its basis for claiming privilege over
`documents related to a third-party. Additionally, Orca has not confirmed that no responsive documents exist
`relating to “Orca’s competitive business intelligence activities Relating to Wiz” generally.
`o Wiz confirms that it does not have any documents from any intelligence companies relating to Orca or
`Orca’s platform.
` Orca’s deficient responses to Rogs 2 & 4: Orca was again unable to confirm whether no additional documents
`exist in response to these Interrogatories. Orca was also unable to explain the metadata in the two documents
`it did produce in response to Rog No. 4.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 3248
`
` Orca’s deficient response to RFP 54: Wiz explained that it has sufficiently narrowed this request and will not
`continue to negotiate against itself. Wiz asked Orca what its basis for refusing to produce information related to
`competitors was given that it is claiming lost profits. Orca responded vaguely that it has produced information
`related to lost profits. Orca then asked Wiz if it was agreeing to produce information related to
`ThreatOptix. Wiz explained that it did not understand the connection between ThreatOptix and Wiz’s
`request. As Wiz has explained to Orca numerous times, Wiz understands ThreatOptix to be irrelevant to the
`claims at issue in this case. Orca has continually refused to explain information regarding ThreatOptix, which
`offers “agent-based technology” (See Orca’s RFP No. 86), is relevant or proportional to the needs of the case
`given the allegations in Orca’s operative complaint that Orca’s patents relate to a “novel agentless cloud
`security platform.”
`
`Regards,
`Praatika
`
`From: Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 12:51 PM
`To: Krissy.McKenna@lw.com; Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Cc: WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; Farnan@rlf.com; haynes@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com;
`orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com; rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld@mnat.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`Krissy,
`
`Orca sent this material to us at 10:22 pm ET last night. We’ll get back to you soon as we’re able to.
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe | Partner | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
`One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300 | San Francisco, CA 94105
`415.498.0556 | jjaffe@wsgr.com | LinkedIn
`
`From: Krissy.McKenna@lw.com <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>
`Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 9:15 AM
`To: Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>; Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Cc: WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; Farnan@rlf.com; haynes@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com;
`orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com; rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld@mnat.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`EXT - krissy.mckenna@lw.com
`
`Counsel, in light of the 5pm ET filing deadline today for the revised teleconference motion, by 2pm ET please provide (a)
`your position on the below outstanding items, and (b) any edits to the motion.
`
`Best,
`Krissy
`
`From: McKenna, Krissy (BN)
`Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2024 10:22 PM
`To: Jaffe, Jordan <jjaffe@wsgr.com>; 'Prasad, Praatika' <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Cc: 'WSGR - Orca Wiz' <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; 'Farnan@rlf.com' <Farnan@rlf.com>; 'haynes@rlf.com'
`<haynes@rlf.com>; 'Cottrell@rlf.com' <Cottrell@rlf.com>; #C-M ORCA SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM
`<orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>; 'rsmith@morrisnichols.com' <rsmith@morrisnichols.com>;
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 3249
`
`'JBlumenfeld@mnat.com' <JBlumenfeld@mnat.com>
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`Counsel,
`
`We write to memorialize the parties’ meet and confer yesterday (Aug. 27). In addition, attached is the revised
`teleconference draft consistent with the parties’ discussion. Please let us know if you have any edits by EOD today.
`
`The purpose of the meet and confer was to narrow the issues before the Court during the Sep. 11 teleconference. D.I.
`123. Orca explained that, in an effort to reduce the issues currently before the Court and in view of Wiz’s commitments
`to produce documents, Orca would not raise during the Sep. 11 teleconference: Wiz’s responses to Rogs 1, 4, 7, and 12,
`RFPs 93, 95, 110, 111, and 112; the “cloud native” ESI search term; and Wiz’s document production deficiencies – with
`the caveat that Wiz still owes Orca (1) an update on the missing wiki pages identified again in K. McKenna’s Aug. 18,
`2024 email; and (2) the salesforce entries identified in K. McKenna’s July 29, 2024 email. If Wiz cannot confirm that it will
`produce the salesforce entries by Tuesday, September 3, we will need to keep that issue before the Court. Orca made
`clear that it did not consider any of these issues resolved or moot, only that it expected the parties could continue
`discussing those issues, which it also expected to be further informed by the parties ESI production this week. Wiz did
`not propose narrowing any of its issues and maintained that it intended to raise all of them with the Court.
`
`The parties also discussed the following remaining issues:
` Wiz’s response to Rog 15 / Orca’s Response to Rogs 12 and 13: Wiz served a supplemental response to Rog 15
`on August 28 after the parties met and conferred. That response remains deficient, and still does not provide as
`much information as Orca provided in response to Wiz’s interrogatory nos. 12 and 13, including because Wiz has
`not identified the employees who accessed the Orca documentation in Wiz’s possession, identify any
`communications with third parties related to such documents or otherwise related to Orca proprietary or
`restricted information Wiz accessed or viewed, describe Wiz’s understanding of the confidentiality and
`contractual requirements regarding the Orca information in its possession, or confirm the identified Orca
`documents in Wiz’s possession. During the meet and confer, Wiz stated that it preferred to reach agreement on
`the parties’ respective responses to Wiz’s Rogs 12 and 13 and Orca’s Rog 15, rather than raise that issue with
`the Court at this juncture. Orca can agree to mutually remove these issues from the Sep. 11 teleconference
`agenda, which we believe will be further informed by email discovery. Please confirm. To the extent that Wiz
`intends to raise Orca’s response to interrogatory nos. 12 and 13, we will similarly maintain our request as to
`Wiz’s response to rog 15.
` Wiz’s responses to RFPs 91, 92, 94, and 113: As discussed on prior meet and confers, Orca again explained that
`Wiz has improperly narrowed its response to these Requests by agreeing to produce documents “related to the
`specifically accused ‘snapshot’ functionality as Wiz understands it” rather than documents related to the
`accused Wiz Platform and its accused functionalities. Wiz instead alleged that requests for documents as to the
`accused products were overbroad because Wiz has only one product, and thus any request about the accused
`products purportedly requests every document that Wiz has ever created. Orca explained that Wiz’s position
`misrepresents the targeted nature of these RFPs, and asked Wiz to explain the burden, if any, of collecting the
`targeted information that is sought. Wiz was unable to identify any such burden, or to provide any information
`as to the scope of the collection that would be required. As to RFP 113, Wiz stated that Orca’s request would
`effectively request every board meeting because every meeting discussed the accused products, and so the RFP
`was definitively overbroad. Orca explained that because Wiz has only been a company for approximately four
`years, it did not seem that there would be many board meetings to collect. Wiz would not identify any burden to
`collecting the information and would not quantify how many meetings would be collected. Orca also asked Wiz,
`relating to these RFPs, whether Wiz could identify any specific functionality that is not either accused of
`infringement or relevant to Wiz’s own counterclaims so that Orca could consider excluding that functionality
`from its request. Wiz refused to identify any such feature, contending instead that because Wiz is a one-product
`company it would be improper to seek discovery regarding the accused product because that could encompass
`many of Wiz’s documents. Orca disagrees, particularly considering Orca is similarly situated and Wiz has
`requested all documents relating to Orca’s product. We understand the parties remain at an impasse, but please
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 3250
`
`let us know if Wiz has reconsidered its positions or can provide any additional information on the burden of
`collecting the information requested.
`o Regarding Request 94, as discussed on the call, Orca can narrow its request to “documents sufficient to
`show the documents and communications exchanged with or presented to any actual or potential
`investor in Wiz’s Series E financing round announced on May 7, 2024 relating to the Accused Products,
`Accused Functionalities, or Wiz’s financial information (e.g., revenues, profits, pricing, forecasted or
`projected revenues, etc.) related to the Accused Products or Accused Functionalities, Orca, Orca’s
`products, or this Action.” Please confirm that Wiz will agree to this narrowed scope, which would
`remove the need to produce duplicative information to the extent the same information was shared
`with multiple actual or potential investors.
` Wiz’s Refusal to produce documents/communications relating to or exchanged with
`: Wiz maintained
`that such documents and communications are protected by common interest privilege and thus refuses to
`produce any documents. Orca disagrees and will request the Court’s assistance. Orca also asked Wiz to produce
`any common interest agreement with
` so that Orca could consider it, which Wiz said it would follow up
`on. Please confirm that you will provide any common interest agreement, or confirm that no such agreement
`exists, so that the Court and Orca can consider it as part of the parties’ briefing.
` Wiz’s response to Orca’s Rogs 2 and 6 and discovery into development of the Accused Wiz Product and
`Accused Functionalities, including Wiz’s refusal to produce source code, git history, and jira tickets: Orca again
`reiterated its request that Wiz produce documents that show the development of the accused functionalities,
`including prior versions of source code, git history stored with and describing the source code, and JIRA
`tickets. Wiz refused. Wiz did not identify any burden to collecting the requested information or explain why git
`history information for the source code for the accused functionalities is purportedly not relevant or responsive
`for the claims in this case. Orca also explained that Wiz has thus far failed to produce any documents regarding
`the functionality in Wiz’s asserted patents, which Wiz did not dispute. As to JIRA tickets specifically, Orca asked if
`Wiz would agree to a mutual exchange of search terms to locate potentially relevant JIRA tickets, as set forth in
`the Delaware Default Standard for Discovery paragraph 5.b. Wiz stated it would consider that and get back to
`us. Please confirm if Wiz will agree to a mutual exchange of 10 search terms for relevant JIRA tickets so that we
`can reduce that issue for the Court.
` Orca’s core technical document production: Wiz stated that it did not think enough core technical documents
`had been produced. Orca reiterated what has been discussed on numerous meet and confers that it did not
`know what additional documents Wiz was requesting, as Orca has produced thousands of technical documents
`in addition to the source code and git history documentation that describes the operation of the source code for
`any alleged accused functionalities. Orca also asked, again, if Wiz could identify any exemplary documents that
`it contends have been produced for other features or functionality that allegedly are missing for the core
`technical documents, which Wiz was unable to provide. Wiz asked Orca to confirm that there are no other
`technical documents that exist, and Orca explained that was improper at this stage of discovery. Orca explained
`that it is not withholding any additional non-public technical documents describing any allegedly accused
`functionalities that were identified after a reasonable search, but if Wiz can identify any specific information it
`contends is missing then we will of course look into it. Wiz was unable to articulate what it believes is missing
`from Orca’s production such that Orca could perform any additional searching. Orca also again explained that
`discovery is ongoing, and it’s possible that there may be additional technical information in its forthcoming ESI
`production.
` Orca’s responses to RFPs 72 & 73 / Wiz’s Response to RFPs 38 & 41: Orca reiterated that Request 72 is
`overbroad, as it seeks documents regarding competition with Orca generally, unlimited to any competitor, time
`period, or scope. Wiz refused to narrow the request and thus the parties agreed they are at an impasse.
`Regarding Request 73, Orca confirmed that there are no non-privileged responsive documents relating to
`, excluding email or other forms of electronic correspondence (which the parties agreed are not
`responsive to Wiz’s RFPs, D.I. 71 at 3), and that to the extent there are responsive ESI documents relating to
` they will be produced or logged at the appropriate time.
`o Regarding Orca’s RFPs 38 & 41, Wiz agreed during the August 14 meet and confer to produce “any
`documents referring or relating to any evaluations, investigations, studies, or analyses of Orca or the
`Orca Platform conducted by third parties, such as hired marketing companies or intelligence companies
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 3251
`
`(e.g., CGI Group, Bluehawk Intelligence Services, Kroll, or Blackcube)” but would not provide a date
`certain for doing so. During the August 27 meet and confer, Orca asked again for Wiz to provide a date
`by which it will provide such documents. Wiz stated that it believed it was a “null set” and would
`confirm in writing. Please expressly confirm that Wiz does not have any documents from any marketing
`companies or intelligence companies, including CGI Group, Bluehawk Intelligence Services, Kroll, or
`Blackcube, referring or relating to Orca or Orca’s platform.
` Orca’s responses to Rogs 2 & 4: Wiz maintains these issues for the Court despite Orca again explaining that it
`has produced what it has found to date and that it expects Friday’s ESI production exchange to include
`additional responsive information.
` Orca’s response to RFP 54: Wiz stated that it did not intend to withdraw this request. Orca reiterated that Wiz’s
`request for all documents and communications relating to any competitor regardless of scope or time period is
`overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. Orca also explained that Wiz’s request for all
`documents regarding competitors is not sustainable in view of Wiz’s own refusal to produce documents
`regarding ThreatOptix, considering Orca is Wiz’s competitor and Wiz knew that ThreatOptix’s product was
`specifically used in Orca’s product. Wiz disagreed but would not provide any explanation.
`
`Best,
`Krissy
`
`From: McKenna, Krissy (BN)
`Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 11:47 AM
`To: 'Prasad, Praatika' <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Cc: WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; Farnan@rlf.com; haynes@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com; #C-M ORCA
`SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM <orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>; rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld@mnat.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`Thanks, Praatika. We will circulate an invite for 4:30 pm ET.
`
`From: Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 10:53 AM
`To: McKenna, Krissy (BN) <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>
`Cc: WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; Farnan@rlf.com; haynes@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com; #C-M ORCA
`SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM <orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>; rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld@mnat.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`We are available between 4-6 ET on Tuesday.
`
`From: Krissy.McKenna@lw.com <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 9:28 AM
`To: Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Cc: WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; Farnan@rlf.com; haynes@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com;
`orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com; rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld@mnat.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`EXT - krissy.mckenna@lw.com
`
`Praatika, we are not available in that window. Could you do Monday 12-1pm ET, or Tuesday before noon ET or after
`4pm ET?
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:
`3252
`
`From: Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 9:16 AM
`To: McKenna, Krissy (BN) <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>
`Cc: WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; Farnan@rlf.com; haynes@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com; #C-M ORCA
`SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM <orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>; rsmith@morrisnichols.com; JBlumenfeld@mnat.com
`Subject: Re: Orca v. Wiz | M&C re: Teleconference
`
`Krissy,
`
`We are available on August 27 between 1:30-3 ET.
`
`Regards,
`Praatika
`
`On Aug 22, 2024, at 10:01 PM, Krissy.McKenna@lw.com wrote:
`
`EXT - krissy.mckenna@lw.com
`
`Counsel,
`
`In light of the Court’s oral order today and the August 29 deadline for a revised joint motion for
`teleconference, please let us know your availability to meet and confer on Monday or Tuesday next
`week (Aug. 26 or Aug. 27) to discuss narrowing the pending issues for teleconference.
`
`Best,
`Krissy
`
`Kristina (Krissy) McKenna
`
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`Direct Dial: +1.617.880.4626
`Email: krissy.mckenna@lw.com
`https://www.lw.com
`
`_________________________________
`
`This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole
`use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding
`without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
`the sender and delete all copies including any attachments.
`
`Latham & Watkins LLP or any of its affiliates may monitor electronic communications sent or received by
`our networks in order to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal
`requirements. Any personal information contained or referred to within this electronic communication
`will be processed in accordance with the firm's privacy notices and Global Privacy Standards available at
`www.lw.com.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH-SRF Document 142-2 Filed 09/11/24 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:
`3253
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the
`intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly
`prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the
`original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
`
`This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the
`intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) b