Exhibit 2  🔗 **Source:** [Exhibit 2](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/449369982) > [!note]+ Document Notes > ```markdown > --- > tags: [litigation, discovery, subpoenas] > author: Suhr, Rachel Rose > source: [MISSING] > reference: [https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/449369982] > date created: 2026-04-29 00:00 > --- > # 🏷️ Title: Exhibit 2 > ## 🧭 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 > - What happened: Counsel for Silver Lake and Automattic/other defendants exchange emails about subpoenas and discovery related to Silver Lake, Lee Wittlinger, and David Zhang in *WP Engine v. Automattic, et al.* > - Why it matters: Dispute over scope and burden of discovery on non‑party Silver Lake and individual directors, especially search terms and personal devices. > - Key stakeholders: WP Engine (plaintiff), Automattic and co‑defendants, Silver Lake, Lee Wittlinger, David Zhang, counsel (Coblentz, Quinn Emanuel). > - Risks and tradeoffs: Overbroad discovery vs. risk of missing relevant texts/emails; Rule 45 burden on non‑parties vs. defendants’ need for evidence. > - Bottom line: The parties reach an impasse on search strings, device scope, and meet‑and‑confer obligations, prompting threats of unilateral joint discovery letters and sanctions requests. > ## 📖 Main Content > - Core arguments: > - Silver Lake’s counsel (Becher/Quinn) argues defendants’ proposed search terms and device searches are overbroad, improperly expanded, and inconsistent with Judge Krishnan’s Standing Order and Rule 45 obligations to avoid undue burden on non‑parties. > - Defendants’ counsel (Bruggebrew/Coblentz) argues Silver Lake has not adequately searched/produced custodial data for Wittlinger and Zhang, especially text messages from personal devices, and that search terms are not protected work product (citing *FormFactor* and *Price v. Facebook*). > - Silver Lake insists Silver Lake, not the individuals, will produce any work‑related communications from their devices and that duplicative subpoenas to the individuals are harassment and an attempt to evade page limits. > - Defendants insist on specific confirmations about preservation, search terms, apps used, and date ranges for communications from personal devices. > - Context & terms: > - Rule 45 (FRCP) governs subpoenas to non‑parties and requires reasonable steps to avoid undue burden/expense. > - “Joint discovery letter” is the Northern District of California’s short, joint briefing format for discovery disputes. > - Search terms include both neutral and loaded words (e.g., “acquis*”, “monopol*”, “war”, “parasite”, “WooCommerce”, “WP Engine”) aimed at surfacing potentially key communications. > - Uncertainties: > - Exact completeness of Silver Lake’s production; whether all relevant SMS from Wittlinger/Zhang were collected. > - How the court will weigh non‑party burden vs. defendants’ need for individualized discovery from directors. > ### 🗒️ Notes > - The exhibit is an email chain (March–April 2026) between: > - Dan Bruggebrew (Coblentz) for Automattic/defendants. > - Robert Becher and Sara Jenkins (Quinn Emanuel) for Silver Lake, Wittlinger, Zhang. > - Key disputes: > - Defendants want detailed search strings run across Silver Lake and personal devices, including terms like “acquis*”, “monopol*”, “war”, “parasite”, “WooCommerce”, “WP Engine”, “wordpressenginetracker.com”, “takeover”, “steal*”. > - Silver Lake objects that many terms (60 identified) were not previously shared and are newly introduced in a draft joint letter. > - Silver Lake demands defendants explain: > - What unique information each term would uncover beyond WP Engine’s own productions. > - How burden on non‑party individuals is minimized as required by Rule 45 and a December 22, 2025 court order. > - Defendants stress: > - They have narrowed requests to specific categories (A–E) and a set of RFPs. > - There is a “dearth of responsive text messages” and missing messages (e.g., between Wittlinger and Heather Brunner), suggesting incomplete searches. > - Personal devices: > - Silver Lake represents that any Silver Lake‑related data on Wittlinger/Zhang personal devices is Silver Lake’s responsibility and will be produced as Silver Lake documents. > - Defendants ask for explicit confirmation that: > - Personal devices and accounts were searched. > - All responsive communications stored only on those devices are being produced. > - Only SMS (not WhatsApp/Signal/Telegram) were used for work communications. > - Date ranges for collections are defined. > - Work product & search terms: > - Defendants argue search terms are not protected work product and cite: > - *FormFactor, Inc. v. Micro-Probe, Inc.*, 2012 WL 1575093 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2012). > - *Price v. Facebook, Inc.*, 2020 WL 13200227 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020). > - Silver Lake counters that defendants have not complied with meet‑and‑confer obligations before escalating via joint letter. > - Process & tone: > - Both sides accuse the other of bad faith and “obstreperous and duplicative litigation tactics.” > - Silver Lake threatens to seek reimbursement of fees and costs as sanctions. > - Defendants threaten to file a unilateral joint letter if Silver Lake refuses to participate on their proposed schedule. > - The correspondence documents multiple Zoom/phone meet‑and‑confers, schedule negotiations, and confirmation requests. > ## 📚 References > - *FormFactor, Inc. v. Micro-Probe, Inc.*, 2012 WL 1575093 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2012). > - *Price v. Facebook, Inc.*, 2020 WL 13200227 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2020). > - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (Subpoenas). > - Standing Orders of Judge Krishnan (N.D. Cal) – joint discovery letters and meet‑and‑confer requirements. > ## 🗣️ Paraphrase > - Paragraph A: The emails show defense counsel pressing Silver Lake to run extensive, specific search terms against Silver Lake and individual custodians’ devices, arguing prior searches were incomplete and that search methodologies must be shared. > - Paragraph B: Silver Lake’s counsel pushes back that the requests are overbroad, duplicative of WP Engine’s productions, impose undue burden on non‑party individuals, and were advanced without proper meet‑and‑confer, warranting resistance and potential sanctions. > ## 📰 Newsletter > In this week’s WordPress‑adjacent legal corner, *WP Engine v. Automattic* continues to highlight how discovery on investors and directors can become a battleground. Exhibit 2, an email chain between Automattic’s counsel and Silver Lake’s counsel, unpacks disputes over search terms, personal devices, and Rule 45 limits on non‑party subpoenas. > For WordPress builders and hosts, the lesson is clear: governance, data retention, and communication channels (SMS vs. apps) matter long before litigation appears. Good documentation and clear policies can reduce friction if regulators or courts come knocking. > Keep sharpening your stack with: > - WordPress.org documentation on [site administration best practices](https://wordpress.org/support/article/administration-screens/). > - Guides to legal‑adjacent issues like logging and privacy from your hosting provider or legal counsel. > ## ✅ Action Items > #### DevRel > - Clarify internal guidance for contributors and partners on acceptable communication channels and retention. > - Develop a short workshop on “Discovery‑aware development” for enterprise WordPress teams. > - Add examples/snippets that show how to log key product decisions in auditable systems, not private chats. > - Publish a blog post explaining, in neutral terms, how litigation‑driven discovery can touch open‑source communities. > #### OSPO Full text of this document omitted because this document is a PDF [Download original file →](https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/449369982), Exhibit 2, Suhr, Rachel Rose, 01kqcv6p7ddad9ps4696hyw3hr.