Silver Lake Controls WPE  🔗 **Source:** [Silver Lake Controls WPE](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/449370006) > [!note]+ Document Notes > ```markdown > > --- > tags: [litigation, WordPress, discovery] > author: [LaShondra Whitfield, David Zhang] > source: [MISSING] > reference: [https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/449370006] > date created: 2026-04-29 00:00 > > --- > # 🏷️ Title: Silver Lake Controls WPE <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 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) ### 🔗 References - Include links cited in or relevant to the article. ## 📝 Summary - Automattic moves to compel Silver Lake executives Lee Wittlinger and David Zhang to produce documents related to WP Engine (WPE). - Automattic argues Silver Lake has controlled WPE’s strategy and exit attempts and is withholding key discovery. - Stakeholders: Automattic/Mullenweg, WPE, Silver Lake, Wittlinger, Zhang, the court. - Risks: discovery delays, sanctions, adverse inferences, exposure of PE internal strategy. - Bottom line: Automattic seeks expedited, broad-but-targeted production from the two Silver Lake principals before depositions. ## 📖 Main Content - Automattic files a discovery motion asking Judge Krishnan to compel non‑parties Wittlinger and Zhang to search personal devices/accounts and produce documents responsive to narrowed RFPs 1, 4, 6, 9, 14, 22. - Automattic frames Silver Lake (SL) as the controlling investor in WPE since 2018, having bought a majority stake for $250M and placing three executives (including Wittlinger and Zhang) on WPE’s five‑person board, thereby “becoming the controlling force behind WPE’s strategy, finances, and M&A activity.” ([control description](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqcv6s9tdn8s0nsq7zzj9c15?endLexposition=00000_00007_00002-00DJ&startLexposition=00000_00007&emphasizeText=becoming+the+controlling+force+behind+WPE%27s+strategy%2C+finances%2C+and+M%26A+activity)) - According to Automattic, SL pursued a lucrative liquidity event for years but failed because WPE’s “product and prospects did not support the inflated price SL wanted,” so SL and WPE allegedly turned to litigation to recoup “lost enterprise value” that actually stems from WPE’s own shortcomings and SL’s failed exit strategy. - Automattic asserts that Wittlinger and Zhang “sit at the center of that story,” controlling WPE’s key decisions, and that WPE itself identified Wittlinger as a person with discoverable information and put his communications at issue in its complaint. Zhang is described as deeply involved in WPE finance and M&A at a granular level. ([central-role description](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqcv6s9tdn8s0nsq7zzj9c15?endLexposition=00000_00009_00004-004V&startLexposition=00000_00009&emphasizeText=The+Individuals+sit+at+the+center+of+that+story)) - Automattic says the non‑party executives, represented by the same counsel as WPE and SL, never claim irrelevance; instead they argue Automattic can get everything from WPE/SL productions. Automattic replies that: - The individuals are not WPE custodians; their personal files/devices are not in WPE’s production, and PE firms don’t share all internal deliberations with portfolio companies. - SL’s custodial productions for the individuals are “deficient,” with only ~270 documents, mostly non‑substantive; notable gaps include no text messages between Wittlinger and WPE CEO Heather Brunner despite WPE emails referencing such communications. ([deficient-production description](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqcv6s9tdn8s0nsq7zzj9c15?endLexposition=00000_0000H_00002-003n&startLexposition=00000_0000H&emphasizeText=SL+has+produced+only+270+documents%2C+comprising+mainly+non-substantive+news+alerts%2C+calendar+invites)) - Automattic maintains it has significantly narrowed its requests (from 27 to 6 RFPs), limited time periods, and offered tailored search terms, even excluding documents already produced by WPE/SL. The individuals allegedly refused to: - Use the proposed search terms - Provide hit counts or burden details - Propose alternatives - Disclose what terms SL used for its own searches - Automattic cites cases on search terms not being work product and on non‑movants needing to substantiate burden. It argues the individuals’ close connection to the dispute defeats any claim that non‑party status should shield them from reasonable discovery. - Relief requested: an order compelling searches of personal devices/accounts for specific RFPs using Defendants’ search terms, with compliance within 48 hours of the court’s ruling, because depositions begin May 5, 2026 and fact discovery closes May 14, 2026. ([relief section](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqcv6s9tdn8s0nsq7zzj9c15?endLexposition=00000_0000T_00002-000i&startLexposition=00000_0000L&emphasizeText=Relief+Requested+.+The+Court+should+compel+the+Individuals+to+search+their+personal+devices)) ### 🗒️ Notes - This is a discovery motion letter filed via ECF to Judge Krishnan, on behalf of Automattic Inc. and Matthew Mullenweg, signed by counsel at Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP. - Automattic characterizes Silver Lake as an “equity giant” that acquired majority control of WPE in January 2018 for $250M and installed three executives on a five‑member board, including Wittlinger (Managing Director) and Zhang (Director). ([SL control recap](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqcv6s9tdn8s0nsq7zzj9c15?endLexposition=00000_00007_00002-00DJ&startLexposition=00000_00007&emphasizeText=In+January+2018%2C+SL+bought+a+majority+interest+in+Plaintiff+WP+Engine)) - Automattic frames SL’s overarching narrative: SL built a liquidity timeline aimed at profit, sought a sale for years, but failed because WPE’s fundamentals allegedly didn’t justify SL’s desired price, not because of Automattic’s conduct. - The motion accuses SL and WPE of using litigation as an alternative liquidity event: they purportedly seek to recover “lost enterprise value” through damages that they couldn’t secure in the market. - Central thesis: because SL controlled WPE’s value‑driving decisions and stands to gain most from any verdict, SL’s principals Wittlinger and Zhang are core witnesses whose private communications are highly relevant to causation and damages. - Automattic notes WPE’s own initial disclosures identify Wittlinger as having relevant information and the complaint references his communications, placing them at issue; discovery shows Zhang is deeply involved in finance and M&A at WPE. - Automattic alleges obstruction: plaintiffs claim Automattic impaired WPE’s value while simultaneously blocking discovery into the two SL executives who steered WPE’s strategy and finances. - On objections, Automattic says the individuals do not claim irrelevance; instead they rely on supposed duplication with WPE/SL productions. Automattic responds that PE firms maintain separate internal deliberations, analyses, and fiduciary‑driven communications that never enter the portfolio company’s files. - Automattic characterizes SL’s prior production as token: ~270 documents, mostly news alerts, calendar invites, one menu photo; critically, no pre‑Aug 2024 substantive documents and no text messages between Wittlinger and CEO Heather Brunner despite emails referencing such texts. - The motion details a lengthy meet‑and‑confer history where Automattic claims it reduced RFPs (27→6), narrowed time frames, proposed search terms, and offered to exclude already‑produced material, but the individuals’ counsel resisted on search methodology and burden without specifics. - Automattic invokes precedent that search terms are not work product and that alleged undue burden must be supported with detail; it cites cases endorsing discovery from closely involved non‑ <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/Silver Lake Controls WPE.md|Silver Lake Controls WPE by LaShondra Whitfield, David Zhang]] ## Highlights - A private equity firm, like SL, with a controlling interest in a portfolio company, does not share all of its internal deliberations with that company. That firm is the controlling shareholder and an independent investment manager with its own fiduciary obligations, internal analyses, and communications that never reach the portfolio company’s files. The same is true for the documents of SL’s personnel like the Individuals. The documents sought here don’t duplicate what WPE has produced or will. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqcy9y9hbjhr8f7hds01tvnb))