Wrong Again  🔗 **Source:** [Wrong Again](https://automattic.com/2026/08/12/wrong-again/) > [!note]+ Document Notes > --- > tags: [wordpress-governance, wp-engine-litigation, ediscovery, litigation-hold, corporate-communications] > author: Andy Missan > source: Automattic > reference: https://automattic.com/2026/08/12/wrong-again/ > date created: 2026-08-12 > --- > > [!info] Generated analysis — not the author's words. Sections below are machine-written > > from the captured source. Only text inside `> [!quote]` blocks is verbatim from the author. > > Do not quote or attribute any other line to the named author. > # 🏷️ Title: WRONG AGAIN > ## 🧭 Table of Contents > - References > - Summary > - Main Content > - Analysis and assessments > - Refactor Appendix > - Template Library > ## 🔗 References > - [Captured source](https://automattic.com/2026/08/12/wrong-again/) > - Court filings and rulings are the controlling sources for disputed procedural facts; this note does not treat advocacy or commentary as a judicial finding. > ## 📝 Summary > Automattic Chief Legal Officer Andy Missan responds to a sanctions motion attributed to WP Engine. The post argues that Automattic preserved extensive material, collected messages and devices, and produced substantial discovery. Every factual statement here is a litigant’s claim in advocacy, not an independent finding or court ruling. The durable value is as a primary-source example of corporate litigation messaging and evidence-framing. > ## 📖 Main Content > - Claims a litigation hold covered employees including Matt Mullenweg. > - Claims more than six terabytes were collected, more than 1.5 million documents reviewed, and five personal devices imaged. > - Claims messaging-platform collections covered long periods and that WP Engine had not identified a relevant missing message. > - Claims discovery included more than 225,000 produced documents and 114 hours of deposition testimony. > - These are Automattic’s representations about a filing; verify against the filed brief, exhibits, opposing papers, and any ruling. > ### 🗒️ Notes > - **Evidence status:** party advocacy by Automattic’s chief legal officer. > - **Not established here:** completeness of preservation, legal sufficiency, intent, prejudice, sanctions standards, or what a judge has found. > - **Safe downstream use:** quote as the named speaker’s position and link to the exact source; do not paraphrase disputed claims as settled fact. > ## 📚 References > - [Source item](https://automattic.com/2026/08/12/wrong-again/) > - [CourtListener](https://www.courtlistener.com/) — locate the exact docket, filing, exhibits, and orders before making a legal claim. > - The opposing party’s filing and Automattic’s referenced brief should be read together. > ## 🗣️ Paraphrase > Automattic Chief Legal Officer Andy Missan responds to a sanctions motion attributed to WP Engine. The post argues that Automattic preserved extensive material, collected messages and devices, and produced substantial discovery. Every factual statement here is a litigant’s claim in advocacy, not an independent finding or court ruling. The durable value is as a primary-source example of corporate litigation messaging and evidence-framing. > ## 📰 Newsletter > Automattic’s legal team has moved part of the WordPress dispute into corporate-blog messaging, emphasizing collection volume, device imaging, and deposition hours. Those figures describe Automattic’s position; the docket and any judicial ruling remain the place to evaluate relevance, completeness, and sanctions arguments. > ## ✅ Action Items > ### DevRel > - Keep public summaries source-labeled and separate court findings from party claims. > ### OSPO > - Track governance effects without treating litigation advocacy as neutral history. > ### Community > - Link exact filings when discussing active proceedings and avoid dogpiling individuals. > ### WordPress > - **Core:** Not applicable; no core code change is discussed. > - **Core Performance:** Not applicable. > - **Core AI:** Not applicable. > - **Core Program Team:** preserve institutional records relevant to project governance. > - **Mobile:** Not applicable. > - **Playground:** Not applicable. > - **Community:** model careful attribution in official channels. > - **Training:** teach source hierarchy for litigation-related community reporting. > - **Marketing:** distinguish corporate advocacy from neutral case reporting. > - **Support:** Not applicable. > - **Design:** Not applicable. > - **Documentation:** preserve stable links and dates for public statements. > - **Photos:** Not applicable. > - **TV:** Not applicable. > - **Polyglots:** preserve attribution and legal-status qualifiers in translations. > - **Accessibility:** ensure linked legal documents have usable text alternatives where possible. > - **Meta:** retain public-post revisions and publication timestamps. > - **CLI:** Not applicable. > - **Hosting:** Not applicable. > - **Tide:** Not applicable. > - **Openverse:** Not applicable. > - **Themes:** Not applicable. > - **Plugins:** Not applicable. > ### The WPOCC > - Document governance implications only after separating filings, testimony, rulings, and public commentary. > ### FAIR > - Treat transparent source registers as a governance artifact. > ## 🧪 Hypotheses > - Corporate blog advocacy during active litigation increases community polarization. > - Readers over-weight large discovery-volume numbers even when those numbers do not answer relevance or completeness. > - Posts that link exact docket entries generate fewer factual disputes than posts that link only corporate summaries. > ## 📊 Methodology > - Build a dated source register separating motions, oppositions, declarations, exhibits, transcripts, orders, and commentary. > - Code each public claim by speaker, evidence type, disputed status, and later judicial treatment. > - Compare engagement and correction rates for posts with and without pinpoint docket citations. > ## ❓ Questions > - What exact motion and opposition are being described? > - Which statements are supported by declarations or exhibits? > - Has the court made findings about preservation, access, relevance, prejudice, or sanctions? > - Were any disputed messages unrecoverable, and if so, were they relevant? > ## 🔮 Future Research > - Revisit after the court rules on the motion. > - Create a neutral timeline that links each procedural event to its primary docket entry. > - Compare corporate statements with the language of filed briefs and orders. > ## 💡 Implications > - **Practice:** use a strict source hierarchy. > - **Policy:** preserve potentially relevant business communications under legal hold. > - **Security:** device imaging and encrypted-message access raise chain-of-custody and key-management questions, but this source does not resolve them. > - **Education:** teach the difference between evidence, attorney argument, testimony, and judicial finding. > - **Funding:** Not applicable to this source. > ## 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment > - Reading level: approximately grade 9–11; short prose but specialized legal context. > ### 👀 Visual learners > - Add a procedural timeline. > ### 🔊 Aural learners > - Add a neutral spoken recap after a ruling. > ### 🗣️ Verbal learners > - Define litigation hold, discovery, sanctions, and forensic image. > ### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners > - Use a source-sorting exercise. > ### 🧠 Logical learners > - Map each claim to its filing and evidence status. > ### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners > - Use moderated discussion rules requiring primary-source links. > ### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners > - Provide a docket-reading checklist. > ### 🌿 Naturalistic learners > - Not applicable; the topic does not benefit from a natural-system analogy. > ## 📊 Accessibility Assessment > ### Screen reader semantics > - Short source text is readable; linked filings may require OCR and heading repair. > ### Keyboard navigation > - Standard article/post navigation should remain keyboard-operable. > ### Contrast and readability > - Preserve readable contrast and avoid image-only legal excerpts. > ### Text resizing and reflow > - Long URLs and docket identifiers should wrap. > ### Media and captions > - Not applicable; no essential media is captured. > ### Forms and interactions > - Social-platform interactions depend on the platform and are not assessed here. > ### Standards reference > - Relevant WCAG 2.2 AA criteria include 1.3.1, 1.4.3, 1.4.10, 2.1.1, 2.4.4, and 4.1.2. > ## 🌍 DEIB Assessment > ### Cultural breadth > WP Engine’s motion is a desperate attempt to get sanctions and other extreme remedies because Matt used ephemeral messaging in personal communications with romantic partners having nothing to do with this case. Here’s what really happened, as the brief we filed tonight shows: * **We preserved and collected.** A litigation hold was issued to our employees, including Matt. We collected over six terabytes of documents. More than 1.5 million documents were reviewed. Five of Matt’s personal devices were forensically imaged, including his Telegram, WhatsApp, and Signal messaging applications. * **Nothing relevant was part of any ephemeral messaging.** Our e-discovery vendor collected messages from Matt’s messaging platforms going back to 2012 (Telegram), 2015 (WhatsApp) and 2019 (Signal) through March 2026 — the entire key period in the case and years on either side. WP Engine cannot identify a single missing message about anything having to do with this case. * **They had every chance to find evidence of their accusations.** Fact discovery produced more than 225,000 documents and over 114 hours of deposition testimony — including 21 hours of Matt across three days, with three attorneys, more than 80 exhibits, and over 1,300 questions., Wrong Again, Andy Missan, 01kzva5qzktqb0w52apmap2td0.