Declaration of Michael Dore  🔗 **Source:** [Declaration of Michael Dore](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.437474/gov.uscourts.cand.437474.294.3_1.pdf) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [discovery-dispute, deposition, mullenweg-deposition, wordpress-governance, automattic-control, meet-and-confer, procedural-dispute, wp-engine-automattic] > author: Michael Dore (Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP) > source: CourtListener RECAP - N.D. Cal. 4:24-cv-06917-AMO > filing_type: declaration > docket: 294.3_1 > > # 🏷️ Declaration Supporting Automattic's Opposition to WP Engine's Motion for Additional Mullenweg Deposition Time > > # 🧭 Table of Contents > - Summary of procedural dispute over Matt Mullenweg's deposition > - Defense counsel's account of meet-and-confer process breakdown > - Timeline of missed deadlines and last-minute filing attempts > - Governance implications for WordPress leadership accountability > > # 🔗 References > **Dockets:** 294.3_1 (this declaration), exhibits 294-1 through 294-3 > **Rules:** FRCP 30(b)(6) (corporate depositions), Local Rules for joint letter briefs > **Parties:** WP Engine (plaintiff), Automattic/Mullenweg/WooCommerce (defendants), WordPress Foundation (counterclaimant) > > # 📝 Summary > Gibson Dunn partner Michael Dore declares in support of Automattic's position opposing WP Engine's request for an additional 5 hours of deposition time with Matt Mullenweg, who already sat for 21+ hours across three days. The declaration establishes a procedural defense: WP Engine missed agreed deadlines for joint briefing, failed to follow proper meet-and-confer protocols, and only belatedly sought additional deposition time after the discovery cutoff approached. This matters because Mullenweg's deposition is central to understanding WordPress governance structures and Automattic's control mechanisms. The filing suggests Automattic views WP Engine's discovery tactics as harassment rather than legitimate fact-finding. Bottom line: Automattic seeks to limit further exposure of its leadership to depositions by emphasizing WP Engine's procedural failures. > > # 📖 Main Content <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🗒️ Notes **Deposition Scope:** Mullenweg already deposed for 21+ hours over three days, with WP Engine seeking 5 additional hours plus designation of additional corporate witnesses under FRCP 30(b)(6). **Procedural Timeline Breakdown:** - May 15-17, 2026: WP Engine was supposed to provide joint letter brief portion - May 18, 2026: Filing deadline (missed by WP Engine) - May 19, 8:01 PM: WP Engine first requests meet-and-confer - May 20, 3:15 PM: Defendants respond, citing procedural failures - May 20, 7:50 PM: WP Engine finally provides joint brief portion - May 20-21: Multiple late-night draft filings from WP Engine **Defense Characterization:** Automattic claims WP Engine "devoted significant time to harassing and attempting to argue with the witness" rather than conducting productive examination, and that objections to Mullenweg's answers were waived. **30(b)(6) Topic Dispute:** Defendants assert WP Engine failed to specify which corporate deposition topics remain incomplete, undermining their request for additional witnesses. **Meet-and-Confer Attempt:** Defense counsel Michael Dore had "cordial conversation" with WP Engine's Mr. Mack, asking about alternatives to additional deposition time, with Mack agreeing to confer with his team. # 📚 References - FRCP Rule 30(b)(6) (corporate depositions) - Mullenweg deposition transcript (Exhibit 1) - Email exchanges between Orin Snyder and Rachel Kassabian, April 6-7, 2026 (Exhibit 2) - Follow-up emails April 26-May 6, 2026 (Exhibit 3) # 🗣️ Paraphrase Defense lawyer Michael Dore tells the court that WP Engine is trying to get more deposition time with Matt Mullenweg after he already answered questions for over 21 hours across three days. Dore says WP Engine messed up procedurally - they were supposed to file their request by May 18 but didn't contact Automattic until May 19 at 8 PM, then filed their papers late at night on May 20-21. Automattic's position is that WP Engine already had plenty of time to ask Mullenweg questions and spent that time being argumentative rather than getting useful information. They also say WP Engine hasn't explained which specific corporate topics they still need to cover. When the lawyers talked on the phone, Automattic asked if there were other ways to resolve this besides more deposition time. # 📰 Governance Digest Matt Mullenweg already spent over 21 hours answering questions under oath about how WordPress is run, but WP Engine wants more time with him. Automattic's lawyers are saying "enough is enough" and that WP Engine missed their deadlines to properly ask for more deposition time. This matters because Mullenweg's testimony is key to understanding who really controls WordPress - is it the independent WordPress Foundation, or is it Automattic pulling the strings behind the scenes? The fact that one deposition has stretched to 21+ hours suggests there's a lot to unpack about WordPress governance structures. # 🧪 Hypotheses 1. **Mullenweg's deposition revealed damaging information about Automattic's control over WordPress governance, prompting WP Engine to seek additional time** 2. **The 21+ hour deposition length indicates complex entanglements between Automattic, WordPress Foundation, and Mullenweg's personal interests that are difficult to parse** 3. **WP Engine's procedural failures suggest either poor case management or strategic delay tactics as discovery deadlines approach** 4. **Automattic's "harassment" characterization indicates Mullenweg provided evasive or incomplete answers that frustrated WP Engine's counsel** 5. **The meet-and-confer breakdown reflects broader adversarial escalation between parties rather than good-faith discovery cooperation** # 📊 Methodology This declaration relies on attorney Michael Dore's personal knowledge as counsel of record, supplemented by documentary evidence (deposition transcripts, email exchanges) attached as exhibits. Dore declares under penalty of perjury regarding facts within his direct knowledge (timeline of communications, meet-and-confer discussions) and information-and-belief regarding matters documented in the record. The evidentiary basis appears strong for procedural facts but represents only Automattic's perspective on deposition conduct and WP Engine's motivations. # ❓ Questions 1. What specific topics in Mullenweg's 21-hour deposition prompted WP Engine to seek additional time? 2. Which FRCP 30(b)(6) corporate topics does WP Engine claim remain incomplete? 3. What "alternatives to additional deposition time" did defense counsel suggest during meet-and-confer? 4. How does the deposition transcript (Exhibit 1) characterize Mullenweg's responsiveness versus evasiveness? 5. What discovery deadline pressures are driving this late-stage dispute? # 🔮 Future Research **Litigation threads:** Deposition transcript analysis for governance revelations; 30(b)(6) topic specifications; magistrate judge's ruling on additional deposition time; expert witness designations approaching **WordPress governance:** Real-world impact of litigation discoveries on community governance; WordPress Foundation independence verification; plugin directory control mechanisms documentation # 💡 Implications **Practice:** WordPress professionals should document governance decisions clearly as litigation exposes informal control structures **Policy:** WordPress Foundation may need stronger independence safeguards to maintain credibility as trademark steward **Security:** Extended depositions of key leaders create operational risks and distraction from core platform development **Community:** Public airing of governance disputes may undermine contributor confidence in WordPress leadership structures **Funding:** Legal costs and leadership time diverted from development affects WordPress.org resource allocation # 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment **Visual:** Document structure with numbered paragraphs, clear exhibits; **Aural:** Would benefit from oral argument transcript; **Verbal:** Dense legal language requires translation; **Kinesthetic:** Static document format; **Logical:** Strong procedural timeline structure; **Social:** Adversarial rather than collaborative tone; **Solitary:** Individual declaration format; **Naturalistic:** Legal taxonomy and classification patterns. **Reading level:** Graduate/professional (legal terminology, complex sentence structures). # 📊 Accessibility Assessment **Format:** Text-extractable PDF with proper structure; **Navigation:** Clear numbered paragraphs and exhibit references; **Artifacts:** Standard court formatting with case caption; **WCAG 2.2 AA:** Likely compliant for structure, though legal jargon creates comprehension barriers; **Improvements needed:** Plain-language summary, glossary of legal terms. # 🌍 DEIB Assessment **Cultural breadth:** Limited to U.S. legal context; **Inclusive language:** Professional but adversarial tone; **Neurodiversity support:** Dense text blocks challenging for some cognitive processing styles; **Representation:** Male-dominated legal team composition; **Psychological safety:** Adversarial litigation context inherently creates defensive positioning rather than open dialogue. # ✅ Logical Validity **Strong reasoning:** Clear procedural timeline, documented evidence via exhibits, personal knowledge foundation **Fallacies identified:** Possible *ad hominem* ("harassing" characterization) and *cherry-picking* (selecting only favorable procedural facts) **Tone:** Professional but defensive, emphasizing opponent's failures rather than substantive issues **Fix:** More balanced presentation of deposition challenges and legitimate discovery needs would strengthen credibility # 🛡️ DARVO Analysis **Subtle DARVO elements present:** **Deny** - disputes characterization of Mullenweg's deposition conduct; **Attack** - characterizes WP Engine as "harassing" witness and missing deadlines; **Reverse** - positions Automattic as victim of procedural abuse rather than addressing substantive discovery disputes. However, this appears more like standard adversarial litigation positioning than classic DARVO manipulation. # 🎯 Conclusion Automattic seeks to limit further deposition exposure by emphasizing WP Engine's procedural missteps rather than addressing substantive governance questions that prompted the 21+ hour deposition. The magistrate judge's ruling will signal whether courts prioritize procedural compliance over access to key governance testimony. Watch for: magistrate's discovery ruling, deposition transcript public filing, and any alternative discovery arrangements negotiated between parties. # 🧱 Refactor Appendix ## 📚 Literature Atoms > [!quote] "21+ hours already spent on the record" > Establishes extensive deposition scope already completed for WordPress governance inquiry > [!quote] "harassing and attempting to argue with the witness" > Automattic's characterization of WP Engine's deposition tactics as improper rather than substantive > [!quote] "you have not identified the 30(b)(6) topics you are referring to (which you also did not specify over the three days of the deposition)" > Corporate deposition topic specification dispute affecting WordPress governance discovery > [!quote] "The agreement between the parties called for WP Engine to provide its portion of a Joint Statement over the weekend of May 15-17 and file with the court by May 18" > Procedural timeline that WP Engine allegedly failed to meet ## 🧠 Permanent Candidates **Extended deposition scope (21+ hours):** Indicates complex WordPress governance structures requiring extensive examination **30(b)(6) topic specification disputes:** Corporate deposition mechanics affecting organizational accountability **Meet-and-confer protocol breakdowns:** Discovery dispute resolution mechanisms under pressure **Procedural compliance as litigation strategy:** Using opponent's deadline failures to limit substantive discovery ## ✏️ Fleeting Queue - Correlation between deposition length and governance complexity - Strategic use of procedural arguments to limit executive exposure - WordPress Foundation independence probing through Mullenweg testimony - Discovery deadline pressures affecting case strategy <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Declaration of Michael Dore.md|Declaration of Michael Dore by Araceli Martínez-Olguín]] ## Highlights - 2. I submit this declaration in support of Defendants/Counterclaimants' position on WP Engine, Inc.'s ("WP Engine") discovery letter brief requesting an order compelling Mr. Mullenweg to sit for an additional 5 hours of deposition and Defendants to designate additional witnesses. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksfvcwtq9hv5bj4x4r8jcekt)) - Note: Docket 294.3: Defendants' declaration opposing additional Mullenweg deposition time. - Tags: wp-engine-automattic, legal