IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
`ABRAHAM SHAFI AND GENRIKH
`KHACHATRYAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND
`DERIVATIVELY, ON BEHALF OF GET
`TOGETHER INC., AND KRUTAL DESAI,
`ELIJAH CHANCEY, INOU RIDDER,
`ALIA SHAFI, KUNAL LAKHAN-PAL,
`JACOB SHAFI, SHEHAB AMIN, AND
`NOAH SHAFI,
`Plaintiffs,
` v.
`CHI-HUA CHIEN, SERENA DAYAL,
`MIKE MAPLES, JR., SCOTT
`KAUFFMAN, GOODWATER CAPITAL,
`LLC, GOODWATER CAPITAL III, L.P.,
`SB INVESTMENT ADVISERS (US) INC.
`(AKA SOFTBANK INVESTMENT
`ADVISERS), FLOODGATE FUND V, L.P.,
`AND GET TOGETHER INC.,
`Defendants
`and
`GET TOGETHER, INC.,
`Nominal Defendant.
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`C.A. No. 2023-1157-LWW
`DEFENDANT CHI-HUA CHIEN’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
`Under Court of Chancery Rules 26(b) and 37(a), Defendant Chi-Hua Chien
`respectfully moves for an order compelling Plaintiffs Abraham Shafi, Genrikh
`Khachatryan and Krutal Desai (“Plaintiffs”) to answer interrogatories and to disclose
`38%/,&9(56,21),/('
`6(37(0%(5
`EFiled: Sep 02 2025 03:36PM EDT
`Transaction ID 76979129
`Case No. 2023-1157-LWW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`their processes for collecting and reviewing responsive documents. The
`interrogatories ask that Plaintiffs identify persons knowledgeable of facts regarding
`the litigation, the locations of responsive documents, and whether responsive
`materials have been destroyed. Finally, Chien respectfully asks that the Court extend
`the parties’ deadline to serve written discovery requests by 60 days.
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`1. This Action challenges the June 23, 2023 decision to dissolve Get
`Together, Inc., after whistleblowers, the federal government, and a special
`committee discovered and investigated Plaintiffs’ years-long efforts to defraud the
`public, defendants, and investors of Get Together.
`2. Until May 2023, Get Together, Inc. (“Get Together” or “Company”)
`operated what appeared to be a legitimate social media platform, “In Real Life” or
`“IRL.” The Company’s trajectory suggested it was destined for the same success as
`the likes of Instagram and Snapchat: venture capital firms including SoftBank had
`invested over $170 million in the Company’s 2021 Series C fundraising round,
`following Shafi’s bold claims that 25% of American teenagers under 18 years old
`had downloaded IRL; IRL had 12 million monthly active users and a 400% year-
`over-year growth rate; and IRL’s meteoric growth had been accomplished
`“organically,” with less than $50,000 per month devoted to customer acquisition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`See Chien’s Answer and Affirmative Defenses, Chien’s Allegations in Support of
`Affirmative Defenses (“Aff. Defs.”) ¶ 2.
`3. The legitimacy of IRL’s user base was publicly questioned in 2022. In
`May 2022, following whistleblower reports, The Information published an article
`reporting that Company employees believed IRL’s user metrics were exaggerated.
`Amended Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 86, 322. Beginning in August 2022, the U.S.
`Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) issued subpoenas to the Company,
`insiders including Shafi and his relatives, shell entities affiliated with insiders, and
`several of the Company’s vendors. When the Company investigated, findings
`revealed an utter lack of internal controls, widespread self-dealing, and that IRL’s
`user metrics were boosted by illegitimate and inauthentic activity. Shafi and his co-
`conspirators also took concerted efforts to prevent the Company’s board of directors
`(the “Board”) from learning the truth about IRL’s user base. See Aff. Defs. ¶ 8. The
`Board formed an independent Special Committee comprising Chien, Serena Dayal,
`and Mike Maples, Jr. to investigate the SEC’s concerns. See Aff. Defs. ¶ 7.
`4. The SEC’s and the Special Committee’s investigations revealed a web
`of lies. Shafi and insiders secretly paid vendors to mimic exponential organic growth
`by generating inauthentic user activity (sometimes through unlawful means). Shafi
`and insiders were stealing from the Company for years, enriching themselves at
`investors’ expense to the tune of millions of dollars. They perpetrated fraud through
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`shell entities and off-the-books payments. Shafi and his co-conspirators had been
`covering their tracks for years. See Aff. Defs. ¶¶ 8-14.
`5. After Get Together’s dissolution, the U.S. Department of Justice
`(“DOJ”) executed a search warrant at Shafi’s residence for evidence and fruits of
`wire fraud, spoliation, and witness tampering. Ex. A at SHAFI_00035782. On July
`31, 2023, the Company’s largest investor, SoftBank, sued Shafi and his co-
`conspirators for fraud. See SVF II Aggregator (DE) LLC et al v. Shafi et al. , 4:23-
`cv-03834-YGR (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2023) (“California Action”). On August 11,
`2023, the SEC issued a Wells Notice to Shafi. On July 31, 2024, the SEC sued Shafi,
`stating that he had “engaged in a fraudulent scheme to mislead investors and sell
`about $170 million of preferred stock in Get Together, Inc.” Securities & Exchange
`Commission v. Shafi et al., 4:24-cv-04636-YGR (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2024), ECF No.
`1 (“SEC Action”) ¶ 1.
`1
`6. Desperate to stave off judgment day, Plaintiffs filed this Action against
`Chien and other members of the Special Committee. Instead of providing evidence
`to support their claims, or allowing Chien discovery into the truth of Plaintiffs’ fraud,
`Plaintiffs have obfuscated. Plaintiffs have failed to respond to discovery requests
`
`1 On February 27, and March 31, 2025, a federal court held that the operative
`pleadings in the California Action and the SEC Action both satisfied the high pleading
`burden for federal securities claims. California Action, Dkt. 97; SEC Action, Dkt. 51.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`concerning the identities of relevant witnesses and the locations of responsive
`documents. Plaintiffs have also refused to disclose details of their discovery plans.
`7. Plaintiffs refuse to give Chien the tools he requires—and to which he is
`entitled—to effectively conduct discovery in this matter. As co-founders of the
`Company, Plaintiffs have detailed knowledge of the Company’s business and
`operations. After Plaintiffs were credibly accused of fraud, it became apparent that
`Plaintiffs had spent years covering their tracks: They funneled unsavory transactions
`through affiliated shell companies, communicated with co-conspirators outside
`Company-controlled channels, and destroyed or failed to preserve key evidence of
`their fraudulent business practices. Now, forced to defend Shafi’s removal and Get
`Together’s dissolution, Chien is entitled to know, among other things, who
`participated in Plaintiffs’ scheme, how Plaintiffs communicated with scheme
`participants, and information enabling Chien to obtain discovery from scheme
`participants.
`BACKGROUND
`8. On March 31, 2025, Chien served 47 requests for production
`(“Requests”) and 27 interrogatories (“Interrogatories”) on Plaintiffs. See Exs. B, F.
`On May 7, Plaintiffs responded and objected. See Exs. C-E; F.2 On June 18, Chien
`
`2 Each of the Plaintiffs served individual responses and objections to Chien’s
`Requests. They are identical in all respects material to this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`sent letters to Plaintiffs, identifying deficiencies in their responses and requesting
`that Plaintiffs disclose the details of their discovery plan (“Discovery Plan”). Exs.
`G, H. Chien also asked Plaintiffs to prioritize responding fully to Interrogatory Nos.
`1-4, which sought basic discovery information about witnesses likely in possession
`of relevant information (“Knowledge Persons”), repositories likely to contain
`responsive documents, and destruction or failure to preserve responsive documents.
`9. Plaintiffs refused to respond to Chien’s June 18 letters in writing. See
`Ex. J at 46 (“We see no reason to engage in a letter-writing campaign.”).
`10. The Parties have met and conferred six times in the past three months.
`Plaintiffs have failed to provide the transparency that Delaware law requires. Instead,
`Plaintiffs have delayed responding to discovery requests and failed to disclose their
`Discovery Plan.
`ARGUMENT
`I. PLAINTIFFS MUST FULLY RESPOND TO INTERROGATORY NOS.
`1-4
`11. Chien’s Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 request information regarding
`Knowledge Persons and likely locations of responsive documents. Among other
`things, Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 ask Plaintiffs to: (1) provide basic identifying
`information concerning Knowledge Persons, including those specified in Appendix
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`A to Chien’s discovery requests (as supplemented); 3 (2) identify the locations of
`responsive documents; (3) state whether potentially relevant documents have been
`deleted or destroyed and describe such instances; and (4) state whether Plaintiffs or
`their affiliates used or disabled auto-delete functions for documents. See Ex. B at
`14-15.
`12. Chien requires this information to formulate his discovery plan in this
`Action. Plaintiffs’ responses prevent that. Since June, Chien has repeatedly asked
`Plaintiffs to supplement their responses. Plaintiffs put Chien off by promising to do
`so by July 25; but Plaintiffs’ supplemental responses fall short because they only
`supplemented responses to subparts of Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, and even those
`supplements were scant. See Ex. I.
`4 Plaintiffs have yet to furnish any Interrogatory
`responses relating to identification of document repositories containing relevant
`documents, or responses to Interrogatories concerning the deletion or destruction of
`relevant documents. Plaintiffs have denied countless requests that they commit to
`responding fully by a date certain.
`
`3 The identifying information requested includes full name, email address(es), last
`known address, phone numbers and employment information. Chien requested this
`information for all Knowledge Persons, including persons enumerated on Chien’s
`Appendix A. Chien’s Appendix A includes Plaintiffs, Shafi’s co-conspirators, key
`Company insiders, entities affiliated with Plaintiffs and their co-conspirators, and vendors
`believed to possess information relevant to this Action.
`4 Each of the Plaintiffs served individual supplemental responses to Chien’s
`Interrogatories. They are identical in all material respects.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`13. Plaintiffs could provide the requested information today. The Court
`should compel them to do so. See Twitter, Inc. v. Musk , 2022 WL 3646413, at *2
`(Del. Ch. Aug. 23, 2022) (compelling party to identify “sources of relevant
`information” and “persons with knowledge of or involvement in key issues and
`events”); Kaufman v. DNARx LLC , 2023 WL 9052704, at *2 (Del. Ch. Dec. 29,
`2023) (rejecting refusal “to answer basic interrogatories concerning the existence,
`volume, and location of documents”).
`5
`14. Chien respectfully requests that the Court order that Plaintiffs fully
`respond to Chien’s Interrogatory Nos. 1-4 within five days of ruling on this motion.
`II. PLAINTIFFS MUST FULLY DISCLOSE THEIR DISCOVERY PLAN
`15. Chien has requested that Plaintiffs provide the specifics of their
`Discovery Plan since June 18, 2025. Chien has repeated this request on multiple
`meet-and-confers, but Plaintiffs have not given a clear answer. The discovery rules
`require that Plaintiffs disclose what documents and data Plaintiffs have collected and
`how Plaintiffs are reviewing them.
`16. Chien still has no responses to many questions about Plaintiffs’
`Discovery Plan, including: (1) the date range Plaintiffs are using to review
`documents; (2) what data and applications were collected from Plaintiffs’ laptops;
`
`5 See also Musk , 2022 WL 3646413, at *2 n.19 (holding that not knowing all
`requested information does not excuse party from obligation to respond to interrogatories).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`(3) what remote or cloud-based data has been collected; (4) whether Plaintiffs Desai
`and Khachatryan had personal laptops that have responsive documents; or (5) the
`parameters used to limit collection of Plaintiffs’ Gmails. The responses to those
`questions are instrumental for Chien to assess the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’
`Discovery Plan.
`17. Given Plaintiffs’ failure to provide the requested information, Chien
`even proposed to Plaintiffs the repositories Plaintiffs should search and the search
`terms Plaintiffs should use. See Ex. J at 47-48. Plaintiffs refused.
`18. Instead, Plaintiffs have sprinkled breadcrumbs of information regarding
`their document collection and review plans, but have never explained what their
`Discovery Plan entails in full. Plaintiffs have thus placed the onus on Chien to piece
`together Plaintiffs’ Discovery Plan. Since June, Plaintiffs have forced Chien to ask
`repeated questions about Plaintiffs’ document collection and review plans. In
`addition to refusing to engage with Chien’s questions through letter-writing,
`Plaintiffs have also evaded most of Chien’s questions on the parties’ meet-and-
`confer calls, stating that Plaintiffs do not have the requested information at their
`“fingertips,” and subsequently asking Chien to present his questions in writing.
`Despite multiple written and oral follow-up requests, Plaintiffs have failed to deliver
`full responses.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`
`
`19. Plaintiffs must disclose their Discovery Plan. Delaware law requires
`that Plaintiffs negotiate discovery transparently. That way, Defendants can evaluate
`the reasonableness of Plaintiffs’ Discovery Plan. See Virtus Cap., L.P. v. Eastman
`Chem. Co., C.A. No. 9808-VCL, at 24 (Del. Ch. July 23, 2015) (TRANSCRIPT)
`(litigants must be “transparent regarding what they’ve done in discovery and what
`they’re going to do. That means if somebody asks you for a hit report, you’re going
`to give it to them. It means if somebody asks you ‘From whom did you collect
`custodians?,’ you’re going to tell them. If somebody asks you ‘How did you go about
`collecting documents? What did you ask for? Where did you look?,’ you’re going to
`tell them. . . . [And] you’re going to tell each other your search terms.”); Wright v.
`SLWM, LLC, 2025 WL 1752312, at *9 (Del. Ch. June 25, 2025) (“A cooperative
`discovery effort also requires that the producing party share details about the search
`and culling techniques that were applied and provide related metrics, including
`search set volumes and test results relating to the effectiveness of the searches.”).
`20. Plaintiffs refuse to affirmatively disclose their complete Discovery Plan.
`Instead, Plaintiffs have sought to “negotiate” their discovery obligations in this case
`by, for example, asserting that Plaintiffs will only collect documents from certain
`repositories if all individual defendants agree to identical collections. That is wrong.
`See, e.g. , Wright , 2025 WL 1752312, at *9 (“The responding party bears the
`obligation to design and implement a reasonable process that will lead to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`
`
`production of relevant evidence. The responding party has unique access to and
`knowledge of its own data environment and the responding party’s attorneys can
`work with their clients.”).
`21. Chien asks that the Court compel Plaintiffs to provide, in writing and
`with specificity, and by no later than five days after the entry of an order on this
`motion, a discovery plan that sets forth the following, for each Plaintiff:
`(i) all document repositories and sources containing potentially responsive
`documents;
`(ii) all repositories collected to date and the parameters of those collections,
`including date of collection, who conducted the collection, whether search
`terms or other methods were applied to limit collection, and, with respect to
`devices, whether application data was collected from remote sources (e.g.,
`the cloud) and what application data was collected;
`(iii) the time period Plaintiffs are using to limit their review of documents in this
`Action;
`(iv) the search terms Plaintiffs are using to limit their review of documents in this
`Action; and
`(v) Plaintiffs’ discovery plans in the SEC Action and the California Action,
`including custodians, document repositories, date ranges and search terms.
`22. Chien also asks that the Court compel Plaintiffs to run the search terms
`Chien proposed to Plaintiffs on August 15, and to provide a hit report within five
`business days. See Ex. J at 1-2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 12
`
`
`III. THE COURT SHOULD EXTEND THE DEADLINE TO SERVE
`DISCOVERY REQUESTS
`23. The parties’ deadline to serve discovery requests is August 29, 2025.
`Because of Plaintiffs’ delay and non-disclosure, discovery in this Action has not
`progressed beyond its early stages. A 60-day extension of time to serve discovery
`requests is warranted.
`24. There are numerous examples of Plaintiffs’ discovery roadblocks. As
`one example, Chien requested Plaintiffs’ proposed search terms and hit reports on
`June 18, but did not receive a hit report until July 22; even then, the report lacked
`sufficient information to evaluate it meaningfully, including the date range applied,
`document repositories covered by the hit report, and whether the report was run on
`de-duplicated data. Plaintiffs withheld that information until August 12.
`25. As another example, Plaintiffs refused to search Shafi’s Gmail account
`for months, insisting he did not use it for work purposes. On July 20, Chien
`identified examples of Shafi using his Gmail for work purposes. Even then,
`Plaintiffs did not agree to collect Shafi’s Gmail until August 4, 2025, and they have
`yet to provide a hit report including those documents.
`26. Despite multiple requests, Plaintiffs have also unreasonably refused to
`run Chien’s proposed search terms. See Virtus Cap., at 24 (“[I]f somebody asks you
`for a hit report, you’re going to give it to them.”). This is especially important
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 13
`
`
`because the hit report for Plaintiffs’ terms shows that Plaintiffs’ parameters return a
`meager 2,328 unique documents from Shafi’s custodial files (compared to over
`35,000 from Desai and over 17,000 from Khachatryan). See Ex. K.
`27. Plaintiffs’ failure to provide the requested information leaves Chien
`without the information necessary to determine where responsive documents are
`located, who the Knowledge Persons are, or what Plaintiffs are doing to identify
`responsive documents. Plaintiffs’ attempts to delay Chien from obtaining relevant
`information and documents should not be rewarded. Defendants have asked
`Plaintiffs to extend the time for parties to serve discovery requests but are awaiting
`Plaintiffs’ response. Good cause exists to extend the parties’ deadline to serve
`discovery requests by 60 days. A 60-day extension will not prejudice Plaintiffs
`because the deadline for the substantial completion of document production is
`December 15, 2025. Plaintiffs presumably will moot this aspect of this motion, but
`Chien raises it in an abundance of caution.
`28. Chien respectfully requests that the Court grant the 60-day extension.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Michael D. Celio
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`310 University Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94301-1744
`(650) 849-5326
`Mark H. Mixon, Jr. (#6252)
`G
`IBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166-0193
`(212) 351-4000
`Date: August 22, 2025
`/s/ E. Wade Houston
`A. Thompson Bayliss (#4379)
`E. Wade Houston (#6289)
`S. Michael Blochberger (#7165)
`A
`BRAMS & BAYLISS LLP
`20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
`Wilmington, Delaware 19807
`(302) 778-1000
`bayliss@abramsbayliss.com
`houston@abramsbayliss.com
`blochberger@abramsbayliss.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Chi-Hua Chien
`Words: 2,633 / 3,000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`