Exhibit C  🔗 **Source:** [Exhibit C](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.437474/gov.uscourts.cand.437474.293.4.pdf) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [wp-engine-automattic, discovery-responses, wordpress-foundation, tax-filings, exclusive-licensing, hosting-products, trademark-governance, automattic-control] > author: Matthew Charles Mullenweg > source: CourtListener RECAP - N.D. Cal. 4:24-cv-06917-AMO > filing_type: exhibit > docket: 293.4 > > # 🏷️ Mullenweg's Second Amended Discovery Responses on WordPress Foundation Licensing and Automattic Product Features > > # 🧭 Table of Contents > - [References](#-references) > - [Summary](#-summary) > - [Main Content](#-main-content) > - [Paraphrase](#-paraphrase) > - [Governance Digest](#-governance-digest) > - [Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) > - [Questions](#-questions) > - [Future Research](#-future-research) > - [Implications](#-implications) > - [Conclusion](#-conclusion) > > # 🔗 References > - **Docket**: 293.4 (Exhibit C) > - **Case**: WPEngine, Inc. v. Automattic Inc., et al., N.D. Cal. No. 4:24-cv-06917-AMO > - **Judge**: Honorable Araceli Martinez-Olguin > - **Discovery Cutoff**: May 14, 2026 > - **FRCP**: Rules governing requests for admission > > # 📝 Summary > This exhibit contains Matthew Mullenweg's second amended responses to WP Engine's requests for admission, specifically addressing two critical governance issues: (1) disclosure of WordPress Foundation's exclusive licensing arrangements with Automattic in tax filings, and (2) Automattic's hosting product limitations. The responses reveal Mullenweg's strategic evasion on foundational questions about WordPress governance transparency and Automattic's competitive practices. Key stakeholders include the WordPress Foundation's tax compliance obligations and Automattic's product positioning. The filing exposes risks around nonprofit governance transparency and potential market manipulation through selective feature limitations. > > # 📖 Main Content > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🗒️ Notes **Request 45 Analysis**: WP Engine seeks admission that Mullenweg failed to disclose the WordPress Foundation-Automattic exclusive license agreement in California tax filings. Mullenweg's response strategy includes: - Objecting to "exclusive license agreement" as "vague and ambiguous" - Claiming insufficient knowledge despite his leadership roles - Invoking California tax return protection laws - Denying the request based on purported inability to verify **Request 46 Analysis**: WP Engine targets Automattic's hosting product feature limitations, specifically around revision controls. Mullenweg objects to virtually every term: - "hosting products" as undefined - "limited," "revisions," and "default" as vague - Lack of temporal scope - No substantive response provided **Legal Representation**: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP deploys significant resources with attorneys from San Francisco, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, and New York offices, indicating high-stakes litigation posture. # 📚 References - WordPress Foundation tax filings with California government - Automattic hosting product specifications - California tax return disclosure protection statutes # 🗣️ Paraphrase WP Engine asked Mullenweg to admit he didn't tell California tax authorities about WordPress Foundation's exclusive deal with Automattic. Mullenweg basically said "I don't know what you're talking about" and claimed the tax returns are protected anyway. When asked about Automattic's hosting products having limited features, Mullenweg objected to almost every word in the question and didn't give a real answer. # 📰 Governance Digest The WordPress Foundation's financial transparency is under scrutiny as Mullenweg dodges questions about whether the organization properly disclosed its exclusive licensing deal with Automattic to tax authorities. Meanwhile, questions about Automattic artificially limiting hosting features suggest potential market manipulation in the WordPress ecosystem. Both issues strike at the heart of whether WordPress governance operates with the transparency and fairness the community expects. # 🧪 Hypotheses 1. WordPress Foundation tax filings contain incomplete disclosures about Automattic relationships 2. Mullenweg maintains strategic ignorance about Foundation governance to avoid legal liability 3. Automattic implements deliberate feature limitations to drive premium product adoption 4. The exclusive licensing arrangement between WordPress Foundation and Automattic lacks proper nonprofit oversight 5. Discovery responses indicate broader pattern of governance opacity across WordPress entities # 📊 Methodology The filing represents formal discovery responses under FRCP procedures, with Mullenweg's personal knowledge claims forming the evidentiary basis. However, his assertions of insufficient knowledge appear strategically deployed rather than genuine, given his central role in WordPress governance structures. # ❓ Questions - What specific exclusive licensing terms exist between WordPress Foundation and Automattic? - How does the WordPress Foundation's board oversight function when Mullenweg claims ignorance of key agreements? - Which Automattic hosting products implement artificial feature limitations? - What governance mechanisms exist to ensure WordPress Foundation independence? - How do tax filing disclosure requirements apply to nonprofit-corporate licensing arrangements? # 🔮 Future Research **Litigation threads**: Tax filing discovery, WordPress Foundation governance structure depositions, Automattic product feature analysis **Governance threads**: Nonprofit oversight mechanisms, licensing agreement transparency, community input on Foundation decisions # 💡 Implications **Practice**: WordPress developers may face uncertainty about Foundation independence and licensing stability **Policy**: Nonprofit governance standards for open-source foundations require strengthening **Funding**: Exclusive licensing arrangements may distort competitive hosting market **Education**: Community needs better understanding of WordPress Foundation's actual governance structure # 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment **Visual**: Legal document structure with clear section headers (Strong) **Aural**: Limited audio learning value (Weak) **Verbal**: Dense legal terminology requires advanced reading skills (Moderate) **Kinesthetic**: No hands-on elements (Weak) **Logical**: Step-by-step legal reasoning present (Strong) **Social**: Adversarial context limits collaborative learning (Weak) **Solitary**: Individual document analysis suited (Strong) **Naturalistic**: Pattern recognition in legal objections (Moderate) **Reading Level**: Graduate/professional (16+ years education) # 📊 Accessibility Assessment **Text extraction**: Good - standard legal document format **Structure**: Clear headings and numbered requests **Artifacts**: Minimal line number interference **WCAG 2.2 AA**: Generally compliant for legal document standards # 🌍 DEIB Assessment **Cultural breadth**: Limited - U.S. legal system focus **Inclusive language**: Standard legal terminology, not exclusionary **Neurodiversity support**: Dense legal format challenging for some processing styles **Representation**: Corporate legal representation, limited diverse perspectives **Psychological safety**: Adversarial litigation context inherently challenging # ✅ Logical Validity **Strong reasoning**: Legal objection strategies follow established discovery practice **Fallacies**: False precision fallacy in objecting to commonly understood terms like "exclusive license agreement" **Tone**: Professional but evasive legal advocacy # 🛡️ DARVO Analysis **Deny**: Mullenweg denies knowledge of licensing disclosure requirements **Attack**: Objects to question terminology as vague **Reverse**: Frames WP Engine's questions as improper rather than addressing governance concerns Pattern suggests defensive strategy against governance transparency claims. # 🎯 Conclusion Mullenweg's evasive discovery responses highlight critical gaps in WordPress governance transparency, particularly around WordPress Foundation tax compliance and Automattic's market practices. Watch for deposition testimony that may force more direct answers and document production revealing the actual licensing arrangements between WordPress Foundation and Automattic. # 🧱 Refactor Appendix ## 📚 Literature Atoms > [!quote] Request 45 Response Strategy > "Mr. Mullenweg has made a reasonable inquiry and the information Mr. Mullenweg knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable Mr. Mullenweg to admit or deny this Request, and on that basis denies this Request." > [!quote] Legal Team Deployment > "JOSEPH R. ROSE... MICHAEL H. DORE... ILISSA SAMPLIN... JOSH A. KREVITT... ORIN SNYDER... HOWARD S. HOGAN... Attorneys for Defendants Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg and Counterclaimants WordPress Foundation and WooCommerce Inc." ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates - WordPress Foundation tax filing disclosure requirements - Exclusive licensing arrangement governance oversight - Automattic hosting product feature limitation strategies - Discovery response strategic evasion techniques #### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - Relationship between nonprofit tax compliance and open-source governance - Market manipulation through selective feature deployment - Legal representation cost implications for WordPress ecosystem disputes <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Exhibit C.md|Exhibit C by storage.courtlistener.com]] ## Highlights - 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Mr. Mullenweg restates and incorporates his Preliminary Statement, General Objections, Objections to Definition, and Objections to Instruction as though fully set forth in this Response. Mr. Mullenweg objects to the use of the terms "exclusive license agreement" as vague and ambiguous. Mr. Mullenweg objects to this Request as overbroad because it is not limited by time period. Mr. Mullenweg objects to this Request on the ground that it lacks foundation and incorporates incorrect and misleading characterizations and assumptions. Mr. Mullenweg objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information beyond Mr. Mullenweg's possession, custody, or control. Mr. Mullenweg objects on the ground that tax returns are protected from disclosure under California law. By responding to this Request, Mr. Mullenweg does not admit Plaintiff's allegations and/or claims in this action. Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, and without waiving any of his rights and privileges, Mr. Mullenweg has made a reasonable inquiry and the information Mr. Mullenweg knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to enable Mr. Mullenweg to admit or deny this Request, and on that basis denies this Request. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ksfvedebnjqskekct3amjveq)) - Note: Docket 293.4: Mullenweg's objection-laden non-answer to RFA 45 (tax-return privilege, vagueness). - Tags: wp-engine-automattic, legal