Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 64-1 Filed 05/21/24 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1731
`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 64-1 Filed 05/21/24 Page 1 of 21 PagelD #: 1731
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
` EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 64-1 Filed 05/21/24 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 1732
`
`Prasad, Praatika
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Prasad, Praatika
`Friday, May 10, 2024 5:47 PM
`Krissy.McKenna@lw.com
`Lacey, Catherine; WSGR - Orca Wiz; haynes@rlf.com; Farnan@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com;
`orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com; JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com;
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`RE: Orca v. Wiz (23-758) | Deficient Core Technical Document Production
`
`Counsel,
`
`We write to address the misrepresentations in your April 26 email.
`
`
`1. As Wiz explained during the April 23 meet and confer, Orca’s supplemental responses to Wiz’s Interrogatory
`Nos. 12 and 13 are deficient. Orca stated that it would investigate and follow-up with Orca. Please provide your
`position on the below.
`a.
`Interrogatory No. 12: As Wiz explained, this interrogatory asks Orca to describe “how, from whom, and
`when” Orca received access to the non-publicly accessible Wiz webpage, attached as Exhibit 4 to Orca’s
`complaint, and to describe Orca’s understanding of the “confidentiality and contractual requirements
`governing receipt of” that proprietary information. In its supplemental response, Orca merely claims
`that it received Exhibit 4 “from a third party some time in 2022.” As Wiz explained, this does not answer
`the interrogatory. Instead, as Orca recognized, it merely regurgitates information Orca previously shared
`with Wiz. Wiz demands a complete response, including an identification of who the third-party is, how
`Orca received the document, and when exactly the document was received.
`Interrogatory No. 13: Similarly, Wiz explained that this interrogatory ask Orca for a description of how,
`from whom, and when Orca received access to any documents from Wiz, related to Wiz, or created by
`Wiz, not limited to the RFP 14 referenced in the Jacques litigation. Orca simply identified one document
`related to the specific RFP that appears to be a communication with the third-party after the lawsuit was
`resolved.
`
`b.
`
`
`
`2. Wiz does not agree to Orca’s proposal regarding confidentiality designations. There is no basis for Orca to
`maintain its confidentiality designations for Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 13, and in the same sentence ask that Wiz’s
`responses to Orca’s interrogatory Nos. 4, 10, 11, and 12 be de-designated. For example, in its response to
`Interrogatory No. 2, Orca states that at least some of the founders of Wiz were present at the “confidential
`meeting.” And this meeting is the basis of Orca’s claims against Wiz in this lawsuit. Wiz does not see the basis
`for Orca’s AEO designation. Please provide authority that supports your position that Interrogatory Nos. 2 and
`13 are highly confidential.
`
`3. Regarding Wiz’s RFP No. 31, Orca again claimed that it does not think first awareness is relevant to its request
`for injunctive relief or any of Wiz’s defenses. Wiz explained that given this was the second time this RFP was
`discussed and Orca refused to provide a more detailed explanation for its position, Wiz understands the parties
`to be at an impasse. As we pointed out on the call, the Federal Circuit has long recognized that “delay in
`bringing an infringement action” undercuts a claim for irreparable harm for an injunction, and Orca’s first
`knowledge of Wiz’s products is relevant to this issue. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 678 F.3d 1314, 1325
`(Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`4. Regarding Wiz’s RFPs 50 and 51 and Orca’s RFP 71, Wiz shared the standing order that shows the relevance of
`litigation funding agreements during the call. In the two cases Orca cites (TQ Delta LLC v. Adtran, Inc., C.A. No.
`14-954-RGA, D.I. 419 at 2 (D. Del. June 6, 2018) and United Access Technologies, LLC v. AT&T Corp., C.A. No. 11-
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 64-1 Filed 05/21/24 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 1733
`
`338-LPS, 2020 WL 3128269, at *1 (D. Del. June 12, 2020)) discovery of litigation funding was denied because the
`requesting party had not properly articulated the relevance of such discovery. As Wiz explained, there is no
`blanket rule barring discovery of litigation funding in Delaware. See United Access Techs, 2020 WL 3128269, at
`*1 (explaining there is “no binding precedent governing this issue.”). And here, discovery into litigation funding
`sources and related information is plainly relevant to assessing the value of the Asserted Patents. Please explain
`if Orca’s position is that it will not produce any documents in response to Wiz’s RFPs 50 and 51 and does not
`expect Wiz to produce any documents in response to Orca’s RFP No. 71.
`
`5. Regarding Wiz’s RFP 52, Wiz did not raise it for the first time during this meet and confer—Orca offered to meet
`and confer regarding this request on March 15, 2024. Wiz explained that the request is relevant for a variety of
`reasons, including as to the value of the Asserted Patents as compared to any other aspects of Orca’s business
`and to the extent Orca points to secondary considerations. Orca stated that it believes Wiz’s RFP No. 47 covers
`this request but refused to agree to supplement its response to RFP No. 52. Please provide a basis for Orca’s
`position.
`
`6. Regarding Wiz’s RFP 53, Wiz explained that the request is relevant because the circumstances of Orca’s layoffs
`or similar reductions in workforce directly relate to Orca’s claims for lost profits and injunctive relief related to
`Wiz’s conduct. Wiz also clarified on the call that it is not seeking information regarding the termination of
`individual employees, but instead events impacting a significant enough number of employees that would
`typically be characterized as layoffs. Orca stated that it believes the scope to be overbroad but did not articulate
`any burden from providing the discovery sought. Orca stated that it would take the request back and follow-up
`with Wiz. Please let us know if Orca will agree to supplement its response, and if so, what scope Orca thinks is
`reasonable.
`
`7. Regarding Wiz’s RFP 54, Wiz offered to narrow the request to Orca’s competitors with respect to Orca’s
`allegedly practicing products. Wiz pointed out that information regarding other competitors besides Wiz is
`relevant to at least Orca’s claims for lost profits and injunctive relief. Orca stated that it would consider the
`narrowed request and get back to Wiz. Please let us know if Orca will agree to supplement its response, and
`provide a date certain for such supplementation.
`
`8. Regarding Wiz’s RFP 55, Orca asked Wiz to clarify the meaning of the phrase “whether by you, a third party, or a
`competitor,” which renders the scope of the RFP difficult to understand. Wiz stated it would follow up to explain
`the intended scope of the request for Orca to consider. Accordingly, Wiz’s revised RFP 55 is “All Documents and
`Communications Relating to the practice of each Asserted Patent that You have developed, made, used, sold,
`offered for sale, licensed, leased, released, or imported into the United States, including released and
`unreleased and all versions and builds.” Please let us know if Orca will agree to supplement its response, and
`provide a date certain for such supplementation.
`
`9. Regarding Orca’s Interrogatories 1-3, 6, 7, 11, and 14-16, Wiz explained that for the responses that refer to Rule
`33(d), any dispute is premature because Wiz is going to start rolling out document productions responsive to
`those requests. And regarding Orca’s requests for supplemental responses, Wiz agreed to provide its position
`regarding providing such responses and a date certain for those responses. Accordingly, Wiz will supplement
`Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 6, and 14-16 today. Wiz has already provided a supplemental response for Interrogatory
`No. 7 and a narrative response for Interrogatory No. 11.
`
`
`a. As Wiz has previously clarified, at no point did Wiz state that it would not provide dates because there
`were no interim court deadlines. Interim court deadlines were not even mentioned on this meet and
`confer. In previous meet and confers, Wiz has asked Orca what the urgency for certain document
`productions are and has asked Orca to point to any deadlines that require those documents. Orca has
`not pointed to any deadlines for which it requires documents urgently, other than stating that it needs
`to inspect Wiz’s source code before its infringement contentions are due. In response to Orca’s
`representation, Wiz has made its source code available. Additionally, the suggestion that Wiz is
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 64-1 Filed 05/21/24 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 1734
`
`“strategically” preventing “Orca from considering Wiz’s internal documents in preparing Orca’s
`contentions” is not well taken. As explained, Orca has not pointed to any documents it needs to inspect
`in advance of its infringement contentions deadline, other than source code. Wiz is simply making
`documents available as soon as it is able to and is planning to make a document production today.
`
`
`Best,
`Praatika
`
`From: Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Monday, April 29, 2024 7:06 PM
`To: Krissy.McKenna@lw.com
`Cc: Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>; WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; haynes@rlf.com;
`Farnan@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com; orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com; JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com;
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz (23-758) | Deficient Core Technical Document Production
`
`Counsel,
`
`We do not agree with multiple aspects of your summary. We will follow-up with corrections to those inaccuracies.
`
`Regards,
`Praatika
`
`From: Krissy.McKenna@lw.com <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>
`Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 6:58 AM
`To: Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Cc: Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>; WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; haynes@rlf.com;
`Farnan@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com; orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com; JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com;
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz (23-758) | Deficient Core Technical Document Production
`
`EXT - krissy.mckenna@lw.com
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`We write to memorialize the parties’ April 23 meet and confer.
`1. Orca served its supplemental responses to Wiz’s Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 shortly before the meet and
`confer, along with a third document production of over 2,000 documents. Wiz acknowledged it did not yet have
`an opportunity to review the responses but alleged that the responses were deficient. Orca disagreed but stated
`it would consider whether further information could be provided after Wiz reviewed the responses and
`identified any alleged deficiencies in writing. Orca also explained that it expects Wiz to provide substantive
`responses to Orca’s non-contention interrogatories before Orca continues further supplementation.
`2. Orca agreed to review the confidentiality designations of its responses to Wiz’s Interrogatory Nos. 2, 12, and 13.
`a. For interrogatory No. 2, Orca maintains its designation. Wiz asserted that its counsel would like to
`investigate the additional information provided by the interrogatory response by sharing it with Wiz,
`and that such information should not be designated because it describes a meeting with one of Wiz’s
`founders. We disagree. Orca’s response describes a confidential meeting between Orca and Microsoft,
`not with Wiz, and Orca does not consent to descriptions beyond the public information set forth in
`Orca’s Complaint to be shared with Wiz.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 64-1 Filed 05/21/24 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 1735
`
`b. For interrogatory No. 13, Orca maintains its designation. Orca’s response describes confidential
`communications between Orca and a potential customer, and that information cannot be shared with
`Wiz.
`c. For interrogatory No. 12, subject to Wiz agreeing that Orca can review Wiz’s responses to Orca’s
`Interrogatory Nos. 4, 10, 11 and 12, Orca will agree that its first supplemental response to interrogatory
`no. 12 (dated April 23, 2024) can be shared with Wiz. Please confirm that Wiz agrees to this proposal.
`3. The parties walked through Wiz’s RFP Nos. 1, 4, 6, 8, 14, 19, 26, 31, 42, 48, and 49 one by one as Orca explained
`the basis for its need to meet and confer for each request. The parties discussed the scope of these requests,
`ambiguous language used therein, and potential narrowing language. Following the parties’ discussions, Orca
`agreed to supplement these RFPs by April 30. Orca also agreed to supplement its responses to Wiz’s RFPs 58-60
`(which had been discussed on a prior meet and confer) by April 30.
`4. Wiz agreed to supplement its responses to Orca’s RFP Nos. 19, 51, 62, and 72 by April 30. As part of that
`supplemental response, Wiz agreed to clarify that (a) it will produce documents for Related Patents; and (b) it
`will produce non-privileged documents responsive to RFPs 51 and 62 or confirm that no such non-privileged
`documents exist.
`5. Regarding Wiz’s RFPs 50 and 51 and Orca’s RFP 71, the parties agreed to provide case law supporting their
`positions on the relevance (or lack thereof) of litigation funding agreements. Orca maintains that litigation
`funding agreements, to the extent any such agreements exist, are not relevant to any claim or defense. See, e.g.,
`TQ Delta LLC v. Adtran, Inc., C.A. No. 14-954-RGA, D.I. 419 at 2 (D. Del. June 6, 2018) and United Access
`Technologies, LLC v. AT&T Corp., C.A. No. 11-338-LPS, 2020 WL 3128269, at *1 (D. Del. June 12, 2020).
`6. Wiz raised its RFP 52 for the first time on the meet and confer. Wiz agreed that it would follow up with its
`position explaining the relevance of income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements, separate
`from products alleged to infringe or practice the patents in suit (which are separately requested in Wiz’s RFP 47).
`7. Regarding Wiz’s RFP 53, Orca explained that this request was overbroad because it seeks information regarding
`any of Orca’s layoffs irrespective of any claim or defense at issue in the case. Wiz agreed to provide a proposed
`narrower scope and/or case law supporting its position that layoffs are relevant to the claims at issue.
`8. Regarding Wiz’s RFP 54, Orca explained that this request is overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the
`case because it does not specify competitors or industry and is unlimited in time. Orca explained that some
`information within the scope of the request may be included in responses to Wiz’s other requests, and invited
`Wiz to provide more targeted or narrowed requests for Orca to consider.
`9. Regarding Wiz’s RFP 55, Orca asked Wiz to clarify the meaning of the phrase “whether by you, a third party, or a
`competitor,” which renders the scope of the RFP difficult to understand. Wiz stated it would follow up to explain
`the intended scope of the request for Orca to consider.
`10. Regarding Wiz’s RFPs 5, 9, 18, 20, and 27 Orca confirmed that it has already produced responsive non-privileged
`documents related to Orca’s analysis of infringement before filing this lawsuit, including citing such documents
`in its complaint, and that Orca continues its search for and production of responsive, relevant, non-privileged
`documents.
`11. The parties then discussed Orca’s Interrogatories 1-3, 6, 7, 11, and 14-16, which are non-contention
`interrogatories for which Wiz has provided no substantive response. The parties discussed each interrogatory
`individually.
`a. Orca explained that interrogatory No. 1 asks for an identification of Wiz products and components that
`relate to the accused functionalities or any accused product, which is information uniquely in Wiz’s
`possession and critical for Orca’s forthcoming infringement contentions. Orca explained that documents
`are not sufficient, particularly where no documents have been produced, and that a narrative response
`is required. Wiz stated it would consider providing a narrative response but would not provide any date
`for such a response. Wiz also stated that it expects to begin producing documents on or after May 10
`that may be responsive to this interrogatory. Wiz did not provide any basis for waiting until that date to
`begin producing documents, which is the same day that Orca’s preliminary infringement contentions are
`due and thus appears strategically motivated to prevent Orca from considering Wiz’s internal
`documents in preparing Orca’s contentions.
`b. For interrogatory No. 7, Wiz did not dispute that the financial information sought is plainly relevant and
`within its possession. Wiz agreed to supplement its response by April 30. Orca asked Wiz to confirm that
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 64-1 Filed 05/21/24 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 1736
`
`its response would provide more information than simply referring to the one-page summary document
`that was produced as part of Wiz’s core technical document production. Wiz refused to agree or
`describe the scope of its intended supplement.
`c. For the remaining interrogatories (2, 3, 6, 11, and 14-16), Wiz agreed that it would respond to each
`interrogatory but would not provide any dates for those supplements or produce any responsive
`documents. Wiz stated that it did not need to provide any dates because there were no interim court
`deadlines by which it must comply.
` i. For interrogatory No. 2, Wiz stated it would supplement “as documents roll out.” Orca asked
`for Wiz to provide a date certain for that information. Wiz refused.
` ii. For interrogatory No. 3, which requests information relating to Wiz’s pricing model, Wiz did
`not dispute that a narrative response was appropriate but refused to provide a date for that
`response.
` iii. For interrogatory No. 6, which asks for information regarding when features were
`implemented and changed, Orca asked what type of documents Wiz expects to produce given it
`cites Rule 33(d), but Wiz (a) has not produced any documents and (b) does not agree to produce
`change logs and Git repository documents that would in part describe what is requested by the
`interrogatory. Wiz would not provide an answer and said it would follow up “in the next few
`days.”
` iv. For interrogatory No. 11, Wiz again stated it will supplement “as documents roll out” but
`could not tell Orca when that would be or whether Wiz has begun searching for responsive
`documents or had any documents in mind when it cited Rule 33(d) in its response.
` v. For interrogatory No. 14, Orca made clear that this interrogatory seeks competitive analysis
`information between the Accused Products and Orca’s Platform. Wiz agreed to supplement its
`response but would not provide dates when it would do so.
` vi. For interrogatory No. 15, Orca explained that this interrogatory is similar to what Wiz
`insisted Orca provide supplemental responses to. Wiz did not dispute this, or dispute the
`relevance and proportionality of the interrogatory, but refused to provide dates for its own
`response.
` vii. For interrogatory No. 16, Wiz could not identify anything it needed to meet and confer on
`and stated only that given the parties’ discussions surrounding Orca’s interrogatory No. 15 and
`Wiz’s Interrogatory Nos. 12 & 13, Wiz would supplement this response too but would not
`provide a date for that supplement.
`
`
`Best,
`Krissy
`
`From: Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 1:06 PM
`To: McKenna, Krissy (BN) <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>
`Cc: Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>; WSGR - Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; haynes@rlf.com;
`Farnan@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com; #C-M ORCA SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM <orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>;
`JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com; rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`Subject: Re: Orca v. Wiz (23-758) | Deficient Core Technical Document Production
`
`Counsel, 


`
`We are available to meet and confer today between 3-5 ET. Please send a calendar invite. Regarding the representations
`in your email:
`1. The order you cite to nowhere states that the production of complete versions of source code is required in all
`instances.
`2. As Wiz has repeatedly told Orca, Wiz is planning to produce documents in the near future. Wiz cannot provide a date
`certain because the collection process is ongoing. Wiz will provide a date certain in the coming days.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 64-1 Filed 05/21/24 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 1737
`
`3. We agree that no submission is necessary regarding Paragraph 14 of the Scheduling Order.
`4. Regarding Orca’s responses to the RFPs & Rogs that were discussed during the Parties’ April 18 meet and confer:
` a) We did not receive your supplemental responses to Wiz’s Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 or RFP Nos. 58-60 yesterday.
`Please let us know what time we can expect those responses today. We did not specifically discuss Orca’s RFP Nos. 28,
`36, 37, 54, 55, 57, 59 on the April 18 meet and confer but Wiz’s positions are outlined in Wiz’s supplemental responses
`served on April 15.
` b) Please provide a date certain by which Orca will supplement its responses to Wiz’s RFPs 1, 4, 8, 19, 42, and 48. Wiz
`will supplement its responses to similar requests, e.g., Orca’s RFPs 19, and 72 next week. We did not discuss Orca’s RFP
`51 on April 18 but can do so today.
` c) As discussed, Wiz’s RFP Nos. 6, 26, and 31 are plainly relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses. We can discuss
`them further on today’s M&C.
`5. We are happy to discuss Orca’s additional issues today after we have finished discussing Wiz’s outstanding issues.
`6. We can discuss the de-designation of interrogatories on the M&C.
`
`Regards,
`Praatika
`
`
`On Apr 22, 2024, at 3:17 PM, Krissy.McKenna@lw.com wrote:
`
`
`
`EXT - krissy.mckenna@lw.com
`
`
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`I write to memorialize the parties’ April 18 meet and confer, including certain outstanding issues.
`1. As discussed during the April 4, 12, and 18 meet and confers, we are at an impasse on Wiz’s core
`technical document production, including source code, and the parties agreed to move forward
`with requesting the Court’s guidance.
`1. Wiz requested that Orca identify case law ordering the production of complete versions
`of source code for accused products. See, e.g., CosmoKey Solutions GmbH & Co. KG v.
`Duo Security, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-01477-CFC, D.I. 114 (D. Del. Sept. 28, 2023).
`2. Also as discussed during the parties’ April 4, 12, and 18 meet and confers, Wiz has failed to
`produce any documents other than the three documents in its (deficient) core technical
`document production. Wiz provided no basis for its failure to produce any additional documents
`and refused to provide a date certain for any forthcoming document productions. When Orca
`most recently attempted to discuss this issue during the April 18 meet and confer, Wiz refused
`to discuss it. We therefore remain at an impasse and will include this issue in our request for
`teleconference.
`3. Thank you for confirming Wiz’s agreement that paragraph 14 of the scheduling order contains a
`typo, and that the Parties agree that it should read “the parties must finally supplement, inter
`alia, the identification of all accused products and of all invalidity references” as reflected in the
`chart at the end of the scheduling order. Given there is no dispute here and given the
`Scheduling Order chart already correctly details what is required and when, we don’t believe
`any submission is necessary.
`4. Regarding Orca’s responses to the RFPs & Rogs that were discussed during the Parties’ April 18
`meet and confer:
`1. Orca continues to dispute that Wiz’s interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 are relevant to any
`potential defenses in this case, including any alleged “unclean hands,” but Orca will
`supplement its response to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 13 today, April 22. Orca
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 64-1 Filed 05/21/24 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 1738
`
`understands that Wiz will similarly produce documents relating to Ms. Jacques and
`Wiz’s RFP to Equifax, including in response to Orca’s RFP Nos. 28, 36, 37, 54, 55, 57, 59.
`2. Orca will supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 2 by April 26.
`3. Orca will supplement its responses to Wiz’s RFPs 1, 4, 8, 19, 42, and 48, consistent with
`the parties’ discussion during the meet and confer—namely, that Wiz will also
`supplement its responses to similar requests, e.g., Orca’s RFPs 19, 51, and 72.
`1. As noted above, Orca also explained during the meet and confer that Wiz’s
`insistence on further productions by Orca are particularly inappropriate
`considering Wiz’s failure to produce any documents in response to discovery
`requests. Wiz refused to address its failures to produce documents and comply
`with its discovery obligations.
`1. Wiz stated that it will clarify the scope of RFP 6 and 26 and follow up with Orca.
`2. We remain open to discussing RFP 31, including considering any case law to support
`Wiz’s position that this request is relevant to and claim or defense in this case.
`1. During the parties’ meet and confer, Wiz stated it would not agree to provide
`case law support for Wiz’s RFP 31 unless Orca cited case law supporting its
`position that complete source code history should be produced. Wiz’s continued
`treatment of discovery as tit-for-tat is inappropriate. Please provide any case
`law supporting Wiz’s RFP 31 so that we can consider it.
`1. We are available to meet and confer tomorrow, April 23 from 3-5pm ET to address the
`remaining issues flagged in your April 11 email as well as Orca’s issues identified in our April 15,
`16, and 17 emails (some of which have been outstanding since at least March 29). Given the
`numerous topics to discuss, please confirm your availability to meet for 2 hours.
`1.
`In particular, please be prepared to discuss at least the following:
`1. Wiz’s failure to provide any substantive response to Orca’s interrogatory nos. 1-
`3, 6, 7, 11, and 14-16; and
`2. Wiz’s supplemental RFP responses (RFPs 19, 51, 62, 71, 72) and general
`objections to producing documents for Related Patents and for the full scope of
`Accused Products.
`1. Regarding Orca’s AEO designation of its interrogatory responses, we discussed during the April 4
`meet and confer that both parties’ interrogatory responses were properly designated AEO. We
`also confirmed that agreement in our email on April 6. Your April 8 correspondence sent in
`response to that email did not address anything further on designations, so we understood this
`issue to be resolved. If your position has changed, please explain your change in position and
`detail how, in light of that position, Wiz’s responses are properly designated.
`
`
`
`Best,
`Krissy
`
`
`From: Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>
`Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 11:17 AM
`To: McKenna, Krissy (BN) <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>; Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>; WSGR -
`Orca Wiz <WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; haynes@rlf.com; Farnan@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com
`Cc: #C-M ORCA SECURITY - WIZ - LW TEAM <orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com>;
`JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com; RSmith@morrisnichols.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz (23-758) | Deficient Core Technical Document Production
`
`
`Krissy,
`
`Please provide times on Tuesday, April 23 to continue to meet and confer about Orca’s deficient
`responses.
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 64-1 Filed 05/21/24 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 1739
`
`Regards,
`Praatika
`
`
`From: Krissy.McKenna@lw.com <Krissy.McKenna@lw.com>
`Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 9:43 PM
`To: Prasad, Praatika <pprasad@wsgr.com>; Lacey, Catherine <clacey@wsgr.com>; WSGR - Orca Wiz
`<WSGR-Orca-Wiz@wsgr.com>; haynes@rlf.com; Farnan@rlf.com; Cottrell@rlf.com
`Cc: orcasecuritywiz.lwteam@lw.com; JBlumenfeld@morrisnichols.com; RSmith@morrisnichols.com
`Subject: RE: Orca v. Wiz (23-758) | Deficient Core Technical Document Production
`
`
`EXT - krissy.mckenna@lw.com
`
`
`
`
`Praatika,
`
`
`Your email confirms that the parties are at an impasse on the scope of source code production. Wiz has
`provided no authority to support its position limiting source code production to (a) less than the full
`scope of Accused Products and (b) three “source code snapshots” instead of providing complete version
`history, especially for a company that has only existed for four years. As your own discovery responses
`acknowledge (Response to RFP 11), the parties have met and conferred on this issue twice, exchanged
`numerous written correspondence, and are still in disagreement. No more is required. Orca will present
`this dispute to the Court. For a third time, we ask that you provide your available dates for a
`teleconference across this and next week.
`
`
`Regarding Wiz’s representation that it will produce limited source code next week, please confirm and
`be prepared to discuss during tomorrow’s meet and confer whether Wiz has searched for other core
`technical documents beyond the 3 customer-facing documents it produced, whether it intends to, and if
`so, a date certain by which such documents will be produced. Orca will follow up with any additional
`core technical document issues once it has had an opportunity to review what Wiz produces. Moreover,
`Orca has never “entirely refus[ed] to produce its own source code” as your email states. On the
`contrary, during the April 4 meet and confer, Orca clearly stated that it would produce source code. And
`Orca offered early production, but Wiz refused that proposal. If you have any authority requiring Orca to
`produce source code at this time, we are happy to consider it.
`
`
`Regarding interrogatory responses, Orca identified deficiencies in Wiz’s responses in the March 29 letter
`and during the April 4 meet and confer. Indeed, some of the identified interrogatory responses were
`discussed alongside the 61 RFPs to which Wiz responded only that it was willing to meet and confer. Wiz
`represented that it would supplement those discovery requests but then supplemented only the RFPs.
`Interrogatories 7 and 14-16 are deficient for the same reasons that Wiz’s initial responses to the 61 RFPs
`were deficient. And as Wiz has failed to produce any documents other than the 4 “core technical
`documents” it produced last week and fails to specify any particular documents in its responses, Wiz’s
`reliance on Rule 33(d) for Rogs 1-3, 6, and 11 is inappropriate. As we asked in our March 29 letter,
`please confirm that Wiz will provide supplemental responses to these interrogatories immediately.
`Notably, Orca already has provided a date certain by which it will supplement responses to Wiz’s
`interrogatories 12 and 13 (April 22, see April 9, 2024 email from K. McKenna to C. Lacey). We ask that
`Wiz do the same. Orca also provided its availability to meet and confer on the RFP issues Wiz identified
`last week within one day of being asked. Orca has continued to work in good faith to resolve discovery
`disputes and provide responses promptly. We only ask that Wiz do the same.
`
`
`For tomorrow’s meet and confer, please be prepared to address the following issues related to Wiz’s
`supplemental RFP Responses, in addition to providing any authority supporting your failure to produce
`any documents in response to discovery absent a “deadline”:
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 64-1 Filed 05/21/24 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 1740
`
`1. Wiz provided no supplement to RFPs 19, 71, and 72 and thus still responds only that Wiz is
`“willing to meet and confer” on these requests. Please be prepared to identify what Wiz needs
`to confer about before it can substantively respond.
`2. Wiz’s supplemental responses to RFPs 51 and 62 solely state privilege assertions. Please be
`prepared to explain your privilege objection for each request, including whether Wiz represents
`that no nonprivileged documents exist and, if you maintain that objection, a date certain by
`which Wiz will provide a privilege log describing these documents.
`3. Wiz maintains its general objections to (a) producing any documents for Related Patents and (b)
`producin