Exhibit 3  🔗 **Source:** [Exhibit 3](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.437474/gov.uscourts.cand.437474.302.7.pdf) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [wp-engine-automattic, discovery-dispute, trademark, wordpress-governance, wordpress-foundation, audrey-capital, acf-plugin, ephemeral-communications, financial-discovery] > author: WPEngine, Inc. > source: CourtListener RECAP - N.D. Cal. 4:24-cv-06917-AMO > filing_type: discovery request > docket: 302.7 > > # 🏷️ WPEngine's Second Discovery Requests Target WordPress Governance Structure and Financial Entanglements > > # 🧭 Table of Contents > > - [References](#-references) > - [Summary](#-summary) > - [Main Content](#-main-content) > - [Paraphrase](#-paraphrase) > - [Governance Digest](#-governance-digest) > - [Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) > - [Methodology](#-methodology) > - [Questions](#-questions) > - [Future Research](#-future-research) > - [Implications](#-implications) > - [Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) > - [Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) > - [DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) > - [Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) > - [DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) > - [Conclusion](#-conclusion) > - [Refactor Appendix](#-refactor-appendix) > > # 🔗 References > > **Dockets:** 302.7 > **Rules:** FRCP 34 (document production) > **Cases:** Asmahan Attayeb v. Matthew Mullenweg (CGC-22-600093), Jennifer Westmoreland v. Matthew Mullenweg (CGC-22-600095) > **Parties:** WPEngine Inc. (Quinn Emanuel), Automattic Inc. & Matthew Mullenweg (Gibson Dunn) > > # 📝 Summary > > This is WPEngine's second set of document production requests targeting the governance and financial structure of WordPress. Filed July 30, 2025, these 58+ requests (numbered 165-223) probe three critical areas: (1) entanglement between Automattic and Mullenweg's personal investment vehicles (Audrey Capital/HC), (2) manipulation of the WordPress.org plugin directory's search algorithms, and (3) monetization of WordPress trademarks through the nominally independent WordPress Foundation. The requests expose fundamental governance questions about corporate capture of open-source infrastructure and the blurred boundaries between for-profit and nonprofit control of community resources. > > # 📖 Main Content > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🗒️ Notes **Corporate Entanglement (Requests 167-170)** - Shared employees between Automattic and Audrey HC/Capital since 2020 - Dual compensation structures and resource sharing - Mullenweg's personal real estate holdings and residency patterns **Algorithm Manipulation (Requests 172-179)** - WordPress.org plugin directory search function operations - Download metrics for ACF vs. SCF (Secure Custom Fields) from October 2024 - Search result prioritization methods and blacklist functionality - Changes to search algorithms from 2018-present **Trademark Monetization (Requests 219-223)** - Revenue streams from "Challenged Terms" (WordPress trademarks) - Licensing decisions and non-disclosure of legal rights - Financial records showing trademark-derived income **Foundation Governance (Request 218)** - IRS and California AG filings by WordPress Foundation - Conflicts of interest and related-party transaction disclosures - Inaccurate submissions to governmental agencies **Evidence Preservation (Request 166)** - Use of ephemeral communication platforms - Auto-deletion of communications between parties # 📚 References Primary sources: Quinn Emanuel discovery requests dated July 30, 2025; Certificate of Service to Gibson Dunn; Referenced prior sanctions in Attayeb/Westmoreland cases # 🗣️ Paraphrase WPEngine is demanding documents that would reveal how Automattic and Mullenweg blur the lines between their for-profit operations and control of WordPress's supposedly neutral infrastructure. They want to see if Automattic employees also work for Mullenweg's investment funds, how the plugin directory's search results are manipulated, whether the WordPress Foundation properly disclosed conflicts when filing with regulators, and how much money flows from trademark licensing. They're also asking about ephemeral messaging apps, suggesting concerns about evidence destruction, and want details on Mullenweg's personal assets. # 📰 Governance Digest WPEngine is pulling back the curtain on WordPress governance, demanding proof of what many have suspected: that the lines between Automattic's corporate interests and WordPress's community infrastructure are thoroughly blurred. The discovery requests target everything from shared employees between Mullenweg's investment funds and Automattic, to potential manipulation of plugin directory search results, to whether the WordPress Foundation has been honest with tax authorities about conflicts of interest. If successful, these requests could expose the financial flows and algorithmic controls that shape the WordPress ecosystem—and whether the community's trust in "neutral" governance has been misplaced. # 🧪 Hypotheses 1. **Automattic employees are simultaneously compensated by Mullenweg's investment vehicles** - testable through payroll records and employment agreements (Requests 167-168) 2. **WordPress.org plugin directory search algorithms were modified to favor SCF over ACF** - verifiable through download metrics and algorithm documentation (Requests 172-179) 3. **WordPress Foundation failed to disclose material conflicts of interest to regulators** - confirmable through IRS/AG filings and internal communications (Request 218) 4. **Defendants generate substantial undisclosed revenue from WordPress trademark licensing** - measurable through financial records and licensing agreements (Requests 219-220) 5. **Key communications about the "nuclear war" campaign were conducted through ephemeral platforms** - discoverable through device records and platform usage data (Request 166) 6. **Mullenweg's personal real estate portfolio reflects undisclosed financial interests** - verifiable through property records and ownership structures (Request 170) # 📊 Methodology **Evidentiary Basis:** Federal discovery under FRCP 34, seeking documents and communications from January 2018 to present. **Personal Knowledge:** Not applicable - this is a document production request rather than a declaration. **Procedural Posture:** Second set of discovery requests in established litigation during fact discovery phase (closed May 14, 2026). # ❓ Questions - Will Automattic claim privilege over internal WordPress Foundation governance discussions? - How will defendants respond to requests for ephemeral communication records if platforms have auto-deletion enabled? - Can WPEngine compel production of WordPress.org's proprietary search algorithms as trade secrets? - Will the court enforce broad financial discovery against Mullenweg's personal investment vehicles? - How do these discovery requests interact with the ongoing sanctions from the Attayeb/Westmoreland cases? # 🔮 Future Research **Litigation Threads:** Defendants' responses to these discovery requests; potential motions to compel; privilege claims over Foundation communications; sanctions enforcement from related cases. **WordPress Governance:** Investigation into WordPress Foundation's regulatory compliance; community oversight of plugin directory algorithms; transparency requirements for trademark licensing; separation between Automattic and community infrastructure. # 💡 Implications **Practice:** Plugin developers may face algorithmic manipulation of their distribution channels; community contributors risk entanglement in corporate legal strategies. **Policy:** Open-source foundations need clearer conflict-of-interest policies; trademark governance requires community oversight mechanisms. **Security:** Ephemeral communications by infrastructure controllers threaten accountability and audit trails. **Education:** WordPress community needs training on recognizing and addressing corporate capture of governance structures. **Funding:** Revenue flows from trademark licensing should be transparent to community stakeholders who build the ecosystem's value. # 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment **Visual:** Document structure with numbered requests and legal formatting **Aural:** Would benefit from oral argument context **Verbal:** Dense legal terminology requires translation **Kinesthetic:** Discovery process involves hands-on document collection **Logical:** Systematic request numbering and legal reasoning structure **Social:** Multi-party litigation with community stakeholder interests **Solitary:** Individual document review and analysis required **Naturalistic:** Pattern recognition across governance structures **Reading Level:** Graduate/legal professional (complex procedural and substantive legal concepts) # 📊 Accessibility Assessment **Format:** Text-extractable PDF with standard legal formatting. **Structure:** Clear headings with "REQUEST NO." prefixes and sequential numbering. **Artifacts:** Minimal line number artifacts from court formatting. **WCAG 2.2 AA:** Generally compliant but dense legal language creates cognitive barriers. # 🌍 DEIB Assessment **Cultural Breadth:** US-centric legal framework with global WordPress community implications. **Inclusive Language:** Standard legal terminology without exclusionary language. **Neurodiversity Support:** Dense formatting and legal jargon create barriers for some cognitive styles. **Representation:** Corporate litigation context may not reflect diverse community voices. **Psychological Safety:** Adversarial discovery process inherently creates tension for participants. # ✅ Logical Validity **Strong Reasoning:** Systematic progression from corporate entanglement to algorithm manipulation to financial disclosure. **Fallacies:** None identified - requests follow logical discovery strategy. **Tone:** Professional legal advocacy appropriate for federal court proceedings. # 🛡️ DARVO Analysis Not applicable to this source - this is a discovery request seeking factual documentation rather than a defensive or counter-narrative strategy. # 🎯 Conclusion WPEngine's discovery strategy targets the fundamental governance questions underlying this litigation: whether Automattic has captured WordPress's community infrastructure through financial entanglement, algorithmic manipulation, and regulatory non-disclosure. The breadth of these requests—from employee sharing to search algorithms to trademark monetization—suggests WPEngine believes it can prove systematic corporate control of supposedly neutral community resources. Watch for defendants' responses, privilege claims, and any motions to narrow discovery scope. # 🧱 Refactor Appendix ## 📚 Literature Atoms > [!quote] "All Documents showing shared resources, employees, agents, or facilities between Automattic and Audrey HC, LLC." (Request 168) > [!quote] "Documents sufficient to show how the search function on the wordpress.org plugin directory...operates, including whether results are returned based on keywords, AI, or natural language processing, and whether it employs a firewall, blacklist, blocklist, or access restriction of any kind." (Request 177) > [!quote] "All Documents and Communications Relating to...actual or potential non-disclosure of conflicts of interest, any actual or potential non-disclosure of related-party transactions, or any inaccurate or incomplete information on any form or Document submitted by the WordPress Foundation to the IRS, California Attorney General, or any other governmental or administrative agency." (Request 218) ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates - **Algorithmic governance transparency** in open-source ecosystems - **Corporate entanglement** between for-profit and nonprofit entities - **Trademark monetization** by community-controlled foundations - **Ephemeral communications** as evidence preservation challenge - **Plugin directory manipulation** as community harm vector #### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - Connection between Mullenweg's real estate holdings and undisclosed financial interests - Relationship between sanctions in prior cases and current discovery strategy - Timeline correlation between ACF fork (October 2024) and search algorithm changes <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Exhibit 3.md|Exhibit 3 by storage.courtlistener.com]] ## Highlights - 3 4 5 REQUEST NO. 165: All Documents Relating to sanctions awarded in (i) Asmahan Attayeb v. Matthew Mullenweg, et al., Case No. CGC- 22-600093, and/or (ii) Jennifer Westmoreland v. Matthew Mullenweg, et al., Case No. CGC-22-600095. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksfvaq301jm393xqkgbx0jsq)) - Note: Docket 302.7: RFP No. 165 — sanctions in two prior Mullenweg suits (Attayeb, Westmoreland). - Tags: wp-engine-automattic, legal