{"cached_at":"2026-11-11T11:49:42.159966+00:00","cl_docket_id":"16395340","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","id":16395340,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/","court_id":"cand","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/fjc-integrated-database/25593170/","date_created":"2020-08-27T02:01:28.879282-07:00","date_modified":"2022-01-28T13:42:11.180544-08:00","dataset_source":9,"office":"4","docket_number":"1907123","origin":1,"date_filed":"2019-10-29","jurisdiction":3,"nature_of_suit":890,"title":"28","section":"1331","subsection":"","diversity_of_residence":null,"class_action":null,"monetary_demand":0,"county_of_residence":6081,"arbitration_at_filing":"","arbitration_at_termination":"","multidistrict_litigation_docket_number":"","plaintiff":"WHATSAPP INC., ET AL","defendant":"NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES , ET AL","date_transfer":"2020-03-20","transfer_office":"3","transfer_docket_number":"1907123","transfer_origin":"1","date_terminated":null,"termination_class_action_status":null,"procedural_progress":null,"disposition":null,"nature_of_judgement":null,"amount_received":null,"judgment":null,"pro_se":0,"year_of_tape":2099,"nature_of_offense":"","version":null,"circuit":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/ca9/","district":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cand/"},"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10172776/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9598685/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9596916/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9597080/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9597149/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9597264/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9597932/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9609835/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9610519/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9611565/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9611905/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/9612285/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10362011/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/11037649/","https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10379462/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1346/","referred_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/9091/","bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2019-10-29T11:08:10.452171-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-06T14:45:04.481234-08:00","source":9,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Phyllis J. Hamilton","referred_to_str":"Sallie Kim","panel_str":"","date_last_index":"2024-12-10T03:00:57.724323-08:00","date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2019-10-29","date_terminated":"2026-02-02","date_last_filing":"2026-11-06","case_name_short":"","case_name":"WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited","case_name_full":"","slug":"whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited","docket_number":"4:19-cv-07123","docket_number_core":"1907123","docket_number_raw":"4:19-cv-07123","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"4","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"PJH","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"350613","cause":"28:1331 Fed. Question","nature_of_suit":"Other Statutory Actions","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2019-10-29T11:08:10.447989-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/15429142/","id":15429142,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278798/","attorney_id":10278798,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278798/","attorney_id":10278798,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6368846/","attorney_id":6368846,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6368846/","attorney_id":6368846,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8642112/","attorney_id":8642112,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6368847/","attorney_id":6368847,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6368847/","attorney_id":6368847,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241439/","attorney_id":6241439,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241439/","attorney_id":6241439,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6267202/","attorney_id":6267202,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278799/","attorney_id":10278799,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278799/","attorney_id":10278799,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9846635/","attorney_id":9846635,"date_action":"2025-09-02","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9846635/","attorney_id":9846635,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6370568/","attorney_id":6370568,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6370568/","attorney_id":6370568,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6344676/","attorney_id":6344676,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6344676/","attorney_id":6344676,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9383818/","attorney_id":9383818,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9383818/","attorney_id":9383818,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241440/","attorney_id":6241440,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8063499/","attorney_id":8063499,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9635283/","attorney_id":9635283,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9635283/","attorney_id":9635283,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278800/","attorney_id":10278800,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278800/","attorney_id":10278800,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6368848/","attorney_id":6368848,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6266947/","attorney_id":6266947,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6266947/","attorney_id":6266947,"date_action":"2023-12-15","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241442/","attorney_id":6241442,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278801/","attorney_id":10278801,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278801/","attorney_id":10278801,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278802/","attorney_id":10278802,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278802/","attorney_id":10278802,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8409546/","attorney_id":8409546,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8409546/","attorney_id":8409546,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241438/","attorney_id":6241438,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"formerly known as\nFacebook Inc.","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-05-02T13:07:26.205035-07:00","date_modified":"2025-05-02T13:07:26.205050-07:00","name":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14737165/","id":14737165,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9895365/","attorney_id":9895365,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Miscellaneous","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-10-29T19:20:19.214332-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-29T19:20:19.214339-07:00","name":"Westbridge Technologies, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14706046/","id":14706046,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9895365/","attorney_id":9895365,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Miscellaneous","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-10-21T19:04:40.306809-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-21T19:04:40.306816-07:00","name":"Terry Divittorio","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14706045/","id":14706045,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9895365/","attorney_id":9895365,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Miscellaneous","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-10-21T19:04:40.268287-07:00","date_modified":"2024-10-21T19:04:40.268294-07:00","name":"Josh Shaner","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/14370579/","id":14370579,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9677226/","attorney_id":9677226,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9677226/","attorney_id":9677226,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Third Party Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-07-13T20:59:54.306190-07:00","date_modified":"2024-07-13T20:59:54.306197-07:00","name":"Francisco Partners LP","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13418567/","id":13418567,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9022156/","attorney_id":9022156,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9022156/","attorney_id":9022156,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Miscellaneous","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-03T23:35:44.243410-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-03T23:35:44.243418-08:00","name":"The Citizen Lab","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/13418566/","id":13418566,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9022154/","attorney_id":9022154,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9022154/","attorney_id":9022154,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":8},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9022154/","attorney_id":9022154,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9022154/","attorney_id":9022154,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9022155/","attorney_id":9022155,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9022155/","attorney_id":9022155,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9022156/","attorney_id":9022156,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9022156/","attorney_id":9022156,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9022156/","attorney_id":9022156,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Miscellaneous","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2024-03-03T23:35:44.126312-08:00","date_modified":"2024-03-03T23:35:44.126325-08:00","name":"Bill Marczak","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9487715/","id":9487715,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6275979/","attorney_id":6275979,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6275979/","attorney_id":6275979,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Interested Party","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-04-30T07:17:36.684352-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-30T07:17:36.684370-07:00","name":"United States Department of Justice","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9474304/","id":9474304,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6266948/","attorney_id":6266948,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Miscellaneous","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-04-24T14:23:54.410671-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-24T14:23:54.410697-07:00","name":"King & Spalding LLP","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9439329/","id":9439329,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11255711/","attorney_id":11255711,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11255711/","attorney_id":11255711,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689693/","attorney_id":13689693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689693/","attorney_id":13689693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7307088/","attorney_id":7307088,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7307088/","attorney_id":7307088,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689694/","attorney_id":13689694,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689694/","attorney_id":13689694,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689694/","attorney_id":13689694,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689695/","attorney_id":13689695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689695/","attorney_id":13689695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689695/","attorney_id":13689695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689696/","attorney_id":13689696,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689696/","attorney_id":13689696,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689696/","attorney_id":13689696,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241444/","attorney_id":6241444,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10252580/","attorney_id":10252580,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10464061/","attorney_id":10464061,"date_action":"2025-06-23","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9723772/","attorney_id":9723772,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9723772/","attorney_id":9723772,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-04-13T09:27:09.743168-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-13T09:27:09.743221-07:00","name":"Q Cyber Technologies Limited","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9439328/","id":9439328,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11255711/","attorney_id":11255711,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11255711/","attorney_id":11255711,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164515/","attorney_id":10164515,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164515/","attorney_id":10164515,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164515/","attorney_id":10164515,"date_action":"2026-04-10","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689693/","attorney_id":13689693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689693/","attorney_id":13689693,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164516/","attorney_id":10164516,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164516/","attorney_id":10164516,"date_action":"2026-04-09","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164516/","attorney_id":10164516,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7307088/","attorney_id":7307088,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/7307088/","attorney_id":7307088,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689694/","attorney_id":13689694,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689694/","attorney_id":13689694,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689694/","attorney_id":13689694,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164517/","attorney_id":10164517,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164517/","attorney_id":10164517,"date_action":"2026-04-09","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164517/","attorney_id":10164517,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689695/","attorney_id":13689695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689695/","attorney_id":13689695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689695/","attorney_id":13689695,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689696/","attorney_id":13689696,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689696/","attorney_id":13689696,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13689696/","attorney_id":13689696,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241444/","attorney_id":6241444,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164518/","attorney_id":10164518,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164518/","attorney_id":10164518,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10252579/","attorney_id":10252579,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10252580/","attorney_id":10252580,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10464061/","attorney_id":10464061,"date_action":"2025-06-23","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164519/","attorney_id":10164519,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10164519/","attorney_id":10164519,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9723772/","attorney_id":9723772,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9723772/","attorney_id":9723772,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-04-13T09:27:09.696395-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-13T09:27:09.696439-07:00","name":"NSO Group Technologies Limited","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/9439326/","id":9439326,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278798/","attorney_id":10278798,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278798/","attorney_id":10278798,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6368846/","attorney_id":6368846,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6368846/","attorney_id":6368846,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8642112/","attorney_id":8642112,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6368847/","attorney_id":6368847,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6368847/","attorney_id":6368847,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241439/","attorney_id":6241439,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241439/","attorney_id":6241439,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6267202/","attorney_id":6267202,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278799/","attorney_id":10278799,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278799/","attorney_id":10278799,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9846635/","attorney_id":9846635,"date_action":"2025-09-02","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9846635/","attorney_id":9846635,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6370568/","attorney_id":6370568,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6370568/","attorney_id":6370568,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6344676/","attorney_id":6344676,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6344676/","attorney_id":6344676,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9383818/","attorney_id":9383818,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9383818/","attorney_id":9383818,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241440/","attorney_id":6241440,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8063499/","attorney_id":8063499,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9635283/","attorney_id":9635283,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/9635283/","attorney_id":9635283,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278800/","attorney_id":10278800,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278800/","attorney_id":10278800,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6368848/","attorney_id":6368848,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6266947/","attorney_id":6266947,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6266947/","attorney_id":6266947,"date_action":"2023-12-15","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241442/","attorney_id":6241442,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278801/","attorney_id":10278801,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278801/","attorney_id":10278801,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278802/","attorney_id":10278802,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10278802/","attorney_id":10278802,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8409546/","attorney_id":8409546,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":4},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/8409546/","attorney_id":8409546,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/6241438/","attorney_id":6241438,"date_action":"2020-09-25","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","docket_id":16395340,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"a Delaware corporation","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2020-04-13T09:27:09.457907-07:00","date_modified":"2020-04-13T09:27:09.457946-07:00","name":"WhatsApp Inc.","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484772156/","id":484772156,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500620143/","id":500620143,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/892/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-06T14:06:25.768320-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-09T14:42:23.047604-08:00","sha1":"b81d5b14b06b539c50e7d9193dc29acd6f8c5c86","page_count":7,"file_size":303376,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.892.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.892.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 892 Filed 11/06/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:\n 34780\n\n\n\n 1 Juan O. Perla (appearance pro hac vice)\n Turner Smith (appearance pro hac vice)\n 2 David V. Holmes (appearance pro hac vice)\n CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST,\n 3\n COLT & MOSLE LLP\n 4 101 Park Avenue\n New York, NY 10178\n 5 Tel: (212) 696-6084\n jperla@curtis.com\n 6 tsmith@curtis.com\n 7 dholmes@curtis.com\n\n 8 Jerrold L. Bregman (SBN 149896)\n BG LAW LLP\n 9 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 500\n Woodland Hills, CA 91367\n10 Tel: (818) 827-9101\n11 Fax: (818) 827-9099\n jbregman@bg.law\n12\n Attorneys for Defendants\n13 NSO Group Technologies Limited and\n Q Cyber Technologies Limited\n14\n\n15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n16 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n17 OAKLAND DIVISION\n18\n WHATSAPP LLC and\n19 META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n\n20 Plaintiffs, DEFENDANTS\u2019 LOCAL RULE 79-5(F)(3)\n STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF\n21 v. SEALING IDENTIFIED MATERIALS\n22\n NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton\n23 and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Action Filed: October 29, 2019\n\n24 Defendants.\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RULE 79-5(F)(3) STATEMENT CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 892 Filed 11/06/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:\n 34781\n\n\n\n 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) and (c), NSO Group Technologies Limited and\n\n 2 Q Cyber Technologies Limited (collectively, the \u201cDefendants\u201d) submit this statement in support\n\n 3 of Plaintiffs\u2019 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party\u2019s Material Should Be\n\n 4 Filed Under Seal (\u201cAdministrative Motion\u201d) (Dkt. No. 887). Plaintiffs identified portions of their\n\n 5 Motion to Compel, Dkt. No. 888, along with Exhibits H-AA to the supporting Declaration of Luca\n\n 6 Marzorati, Dkt. No. 889 (the \u201cMarzorati Declaration\u201d), as containing information that Defendants\n\n 7 have designated as confidential pursuant to the August 31, 2020 Stipulated Protective Order, Dkt.\n\n 8 No. 132, and accordingly filed them under seal.\n\n 9 Defendants agree that some, but not all, of these materials should remain sealed. Both\n\n10 compelling reasons and good cause exist to keep the following materials sealed: (1) Defendants\u2019\n\n11 audited financial statements (Dkt. No. 889-8\u201411, Exs. H, I, J, K); (2) Defendants\u2019 organizational\n\n12 chart showing its corporate structure (Dkt. No. 889-14, Ex. N); and (3) a promissory note involving\n\n13 non-parties (Dkt No. 889-27, Ex. AA). Accordingly, references to the contents of those materials\n\n14 in Plaintiffs\u2019 brief should also remain redacted as set forth below.\n\n15 I. LEGAL STANDARD\n\n16 While courts recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records, \u201caccess to\n\n17 judicial records is not absolute.\u201d Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th\n\n18 Cir. 2006). As such, courts routinely seal \u201csensitive confidential information.\u201d See In re\n\n19 Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185481, at *6 (S.D. Cal.\n\n20 Nov. 8, 2017).\n\n21 Courts in the Ninth Circuit apply two different standards to determine whether to seal\n\n22 materials. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). For\n\n23 the sealing of materials that are \u201cmore than tangentially related to the merits of a case,\u201d courts\n\n24 require a showing of \u201ccompelling reasons.\u201d Id. at 1099. It is in the \u201csound discretion of the trial\n\n25 court\u201d to determine what constitutes a \u201ccompelling reason.\u201d Id. at 1097.\n\n26 However, \u201ca party need only satisfy the less exacting \u2018good cause\u2019 standard\u201d to seal\n\n27 \u201cmaterials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case.\u201d Id.; see also 3D Sys.\n\n28\n 1\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RULE 79-5(F)(3) STATEMENT CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 892 Filed 11/06/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:\n 34782\n\n\n\n 1 v. Wynne, Case No.: 21-cv-1141-AGS-DDL, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219158, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept.\n\n 2 25, 2026) (noting that most courts apply the \u201cgood cause\u201d standard to discovery motions). This is\n\n 3 because \u201cthe public policies that support the right of access to dispositive motions, and related\n\n 4 materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.\u201d Kamakana, 447 F.3d at\n\n 5 1179; see also Phillips ex. rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.\n\n 6 2002) (citing Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1983)) (\u201cMuch of the information\n\n 7 that surfaces \u2026 may be unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.\n\n 8 Therefore, restraints placed on the discovered, but not yet admitted, information are not a\n\n 9 restriction on a traditionally public source of information\u201d). Under the \u201cgood cause\u201d standard,\n\n10 courts only require that the party make a \u201cparticularized showing that specific prejudice or harm\n\n11 will result\u201d if the information is disclosed. Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11. A particularized showing\n\n12 requires \u201cspecific examples or articulated reasoning\u201d of the alleged harm or prejudice that will\n\n13 result. Shulte v. LinkedIn Corp., Case No. 22-cv-00237-HSG, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201398, at\n\n14 *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2026).\n\n15 Because here the sealed materials are attached to a motion to compel discovery - which is\n\n16 unrelated to the merits of the case - only the good cause standard applies. In any case, the relevant\n\n17 materials should be sealed under either standard.\n\n18 II. DEFENDANTS\u2019 LOCAL RULE 79-5(F)(3) STATEMENT\n\n19 Not all redacted portions of Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion to Compel, nor all of the Exhibits H through\n\n20 AA to the Marzorati Declaration, require sealing. However, as shown below, compelling reasons\n\n21 and thus good cause exist to seal certain of these materials. Therefore, the Court should grant\n\n22 Plaintiffs\u2019 Administrative Motion in part, and maintain the following materials under seal.\n\n23 1. Defendants\u2019 Audited Financial Statements (Dkt. No. 889-8\u201411, Exs. H, I, J, K)\n\n24 Defendants\u2019 non-public, audited financial statements should remain under seal.\n\n25 A company\u2019s financial data that is \u201cnot readily ascertainable from a public source but\n\n26 instead developed with a substantial amount of time, effort, and money\u201d may be sealable as a trade\n\n27 secret. Yeiser Rsch. & Dev. LLC v. Teknor Apex Co., 281 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1046 (S.D. Cal. 2017).\n\n28\n 2\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RULE 79-5(F)(3) STATEMENT CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 892 Filed 11/06/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:\n 34783\n\n\n\n 1 However, even if a company\u2019s financial data is not sealable as a trade secret, there are \u201ccompelling\n\n 2 reasons,\u201d and thus \u201cgood cause,\u201d to seal \u201csensitive financial information\u201d that \u201cwould allow a\n\n 3 competitor an unfair advantage\u201d \u201cby allowing them to glean otherwise confidential information\n\n 4 about\u201d a party\u2019s \u201cstrengths and areas for improvement in various geographic areas and market\n\n 5 segments that is not otherwise available to the public.\u201d Hunt v. Cont\u2019l Cas. Co., No. 13-cv-05966-\n\n 6 HSG, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122228, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015).\n\n 7 Courts throughout this circuit have found financial information to be sealable under both\n\n 8 the compelling reasons and good cause standard. See Brown v. Brown, No. CV 13-03318SI, 2013\n\n 9 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207027, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2013) (finding that sealing information\n\n10 about the profits, losses, income, investments, and expenses of two privately held companies was\n\n11 warranted under the compelling reasons standard); see also Palantir Techs. Inc. v. Abramowitz,\n\n12 Case No. 19-cv-06879-BLF, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109622, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2022)\n\n13 (granting sealing of Palantir\u2019s financial statements, overhead costs, and accounting practices);\n\n14 Hodges v. Apple Inc., Case No. 13-cv-01128-WHO (WHO), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164674, at *7\n\n15 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (granting a motion to seal a spreadsheet containing Apple\u2019s confidential\n\n16 financial information under the compelling reasons standard).\n\n17 Defendants are private companies and, as such, do not make their audited financial\n\n18 statements publicly available. These documents contain confidential financial and business\n\n19 information that could be used to Defendants\u2019 detriment if made public. Specifically, Defendants\u2019\n\n20 competitors may be able to leverage this information to undermine Defendants\u2019 business and\n\n21 competitive standing. These risks could not be mitigated by any less restrictive means than\n\n22 complete sealing, as the entirety of these documents contain confidential information on profits,\n\n23 income, losses and other metrics traditionally associated with a company\u2019s annual financial\n\n24 reports. This Court should thus grant the continued sealing of these documents in their entirety.\n\n25 2. Defendants\u2019 Organizational Chart (Dkt. No. 889-14, Ex. N)\n\n26 Defendants\u2019 organizational chart should remain under seal.\n\n27\n\n28\n 3\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RULE 79-5(F)(3) STATEMENT CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 892 Filed 11/06/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:\n 34784\n\n\n\n 1 Courts in this circuit have routinely sealed or redacted documents where disclosure would\n\n 2 reveal an organization\u2019s non-public corporate structure and organization. See Bold Ltd. v. Rocket\n\n 3 Resume, Inc., Case No. 22-cv-01045-BLF, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2074, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3,\n\n 4 2024) (acknowledging that good cause exists to seal \u201cconfidential business information,\u201d which\n\n 5 included non-public information about a company\u2019s corporate structure); see also Droplets, Inc. v.\n\n 6 Yahoo! Inc., Case No. 12-cv-03733-JST, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232393, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. June\n\n 7 18, 2019) (granting Yahoo\u2019s motion to seal confidential corporate structure charts because they\n\n 8 contained \u201cconfidential business information\u201d); Clark v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 3:08-cv-00158-LRH-\n\n 9 VPC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145834, at *3 (D. Nev. Mar. 16, 2010) (granting MetLife\u2019s motion\n\n10 to file certain documents under seal where they \u201cbring attention to MetLife\u2019s confidential internal\n\n11 business deliberations, organization, and capabilities\u201d); Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Case\n\n12 No.13-cv-00119-BLF, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86250, at *11 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2016) (granting\n\n13 sealing of an exhibit which showed confidential information on Hewlett-Packard\u2019s company\n\n14 structure).\n\n15 Defendants\u2019 organizational chart contains non-public, confidential information about\n\n16 Defendants\u2019 corporate structure and reveals strategic deliberations and decision-making about how\n\n17 and where to structure affiliates and subsidiaries. If made public, competitors could use this\n\n18 information to cause competitive harm not only to Defendants, but also potentially to their non-\n\n19 party affiliates and subsidiaries. For instance, a competitor might utilize this information to discern\n\n20 operational efficiencies, and replicate those to the detriment of Defendants, or to gain leverage in\n\n21 negotiations with vendors or customers. These risks could not be mitigated by any less restrictive\n\n22 means than complete sealing, as the exhibit itself shows Defendants\u2019 entire confidential corporate\n\n23 structure. As such, this Court should grant the continued sealing of this document in its entirety.\n\n24 3. Promissory Note Between Defendants and a Non-party (Dkt. No. 889-27, Ex. AA)\n\n25 Financing documents, such as a promissory note involving non-parties, should be sealed.\n\n26 Courts regularly find that confidential business agreements with third parties are sealable\n\n27 on the basis that they contain protected business and financial information of both parties and non-\n\n28\n 4\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RULE 79-5(F)(3) STATEMENT CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 892 Filed 11/06/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:\n 34785\n\n\n\n 1 parties. See Brady v. Energy, 5:21-cv-01843-FWS-SHK, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216895, at *6-7\n\n 2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2024) (stating that there were compelling reasons to seal a confidential term\n\n 3 sheet and confidential promissory note between defendant and non-parties on the basis that non-\n\n 4 parties\u2019 privacy interests could be harmed if their private financial information were disclosed and\n\n 5 that the defendant could suffer a competitive disadvantage if the materials were publicly\n\n 6 disseminated); see also Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015\n\n 7 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85107, at *16 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2015) (holding that the parties may file\n\n 8 business agreements with third parties under seal); Stout v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., No. CV\n\n 9 11-6186 CW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172088, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2012) (noting that this\n\n10 Court has previously held that litigants may file under seal their contracts with third parties, which\n\n11 contain proprietary and confidential business information).\n\n12 The promissory note includes highly sensitive and confidential financial, business and\n\n13 strategic information which, if disclosed, would present significant business risk for Defendants\n\n14 and the non-parties. Public disclosure of a confidential promissory note would allow Defendants\u2019\n\n15 competitors to assess Defendants\u2019 finances and creditworthiness, and potentially leverage that\n\n16 information to Defendants\u2019 disadvantage. These risks could not be mitigated by any less restrictive\n\n17 means than complete sealing, as the structure and terms of the entire document is confidential\n\n18 business and financial information of both Defendants and the non-parties. This Court should thus\n\n19 grant the continued sealing of this document in its entirety.\n\n20 4. Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 888)\n\n21 The redacted portions of Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion to Compel on page 4 (lines 1-2, 4-5, 28), page\n\n22 5 (lines 1-9, 11, 14-15), page 14 (lines 17-21), page 16 (lines 10-12) and page 17 (lines 11-13)\n\n23 should remain redacted.1 These portions reference confidential and competitively sensitive\n\n24 financial and business information derived from the aforementioned documents, the disclosure and\n\n25\n 1\n In addition, page 2 (lines 2-3) and page 15 (lines 20-21) contain information from Defendants\u2019\n26 financial statements that ordinarily could also be appropriately redacted in this context, but they\n27 reference data that was already publicly disclosed at the damages trial.\n\n28\n 5\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RULE 79-5(F)(3) STATEMENT CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 892 Filed 11/06/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:\n 34786\n\n\n\n 1 public dissemination of which would put Defendants at a competitive disadvantage and harm their\n\n 2 private business interests and those of uninvolved non-parties.\n\n 3 III. CONCLUSION\n\n 4 For the above reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 5 Administrative Motion in part and enter the Proposed Order filed concurrently herewith ordering\n\n 6 that the materials described above remain sealed.\n\n 7\n\n 8 Dated: November 6, 2026\n 9 Respectfully submitted,\n10\n CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST,\n11 COLT & MOSLE LLP\n\n12 /s/ Juan O. Perla\n Juan O. Perla\n13 Turner Smith\n14 David V. Holmes\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n15 CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST,\n COLT & MOSLE LLP\n16 101 Park Avenue\n New York, New York 10178\n17\n Telephone: (212) 696-6084\n18 Email: jperla@curtis.com\n tsmith@curtis.com\n19 dholmes@curtis.com\n\n20 Jerrold L. Bregman (SBN 149896)\n BG LAW LLP\n21\n 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 500\n22 Woodland Hills, CA 91367\n Telephone: (818) 827-9101\n23 Facsimile: (818) 827-9099\n Email: jbregman@bg.law\n24\n Attorneys for Defendants\n25\n NSO Group Technologies Ltd. and\n26 Q Cyber Technologies Ltd.\n\n27\n\n28\n 6\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RULE 79-5(F)(3) STATEMENT CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-11-06T14:45:03.394726-08:00","document_number":"892","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027902953","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Opposition/Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500628609/","id":500628609,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/892/1/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-06T14:38:50.483854-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-06T14:38:50.483878-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":135285,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"892","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027902954","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-06T14:06:25.748970-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-06T14:06:25.754972-08:00","date_filed":"2026-11-06","time_filed":"13:48:58","entry_number":892,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-11-06.001","pacer_sequence_number":2878,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/484035385/","id":484035385,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499866909/","id":499866909,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-11-02T11:07:53.315759-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T11:07:53.315781-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Clerk's Notice AND ~Util - Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-11-02T11:07:53.304368-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T11:07:53.304384-08:00","date_filed":"2026-11-02","time_filed":"10:34:14","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-11-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483786865/","id":483786865,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499611814/","id":499611814,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/888/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-10-30T22:02:08.927366-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-03T19:53:22.837354-08:00","sha1":"079e3a2b5f2d91552d060d24a412f657132dd883","page_count":28,"file_size":764868,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.888.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.888.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 28 PageID\n #: 34575\n\n\n\n 1 Greg D. Andres\n Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n 2 Luca Marzorati\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 3 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 450 Lexington Avenue\n 4 New York, New York 10017\n Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n 5 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n 6 antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n 7\n Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n 8 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200\n 9 Redwood City, California 94063\n Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n10 Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n11\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n12 WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.\n\n13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n14 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n15 OAKLAND DIVISION\n\n16\n WHATSAPP LLC and ) Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n17 META PLATFORMS, INC., )\n )\n18 Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFFS\u2019 NOTICE OF MOTION\n ) AND MOTION TO COMPEL POST-\n19 v. ) JUDGMENT DISCOVERY; MEMO-\n ) RANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORI-\n20 NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ) TIES IN SUPPORT\n and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, )\n21 ) DISCOVERY MATTER\n Defendants. )\n22 ) Date: December 17, 2026\n ) Time: 1:30 p.m.\n23 ) Ctrm: 3\n )\n ) Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton\n24\n )\n25 )\n ) Action Filed: October 29, 2019\n26 )\n )\n27\n [PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION]\n28\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 28 PageID\n #: 34576\n\n\n\n 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:\n\n 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 17, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon after that as\n\n 3 the matter may be heard, Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC (\u201cWhatsApp\u201d) and Meta Platforms, Inc. (\u201cMeta,\u201d\n\n 4 and together with WhatsApp, \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d), will move before the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, in\n\n 5 Courtroom 3 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay\n\n 6 Street, Oakland, California, for an order compelling Defendants NSO Group Technologies Limited\n\n 7 and Q Cyber Technologies Limited (together, \u201cNSO\u201d) to produce documents, respond to interroga-\n\n 8 tories, and produce a witness for deposition.\n\n 9 The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the following Memorandum of\n\n10 Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Luca Marzorati (\u201cMarzorati Decl.\u201d) filed with it, the plead-\n\n11 ings and papers in this action, the arguments of counsel, and any other matter that the Court may\n\n12 properly consider.\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 1\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 28 PageID\n #: 34577\n\n\n\n Dated: October 30, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n 1\n\n 2 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n\n 3\n By: /s/ Micah G. Block\n 4 Greg D. Andres\n Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n 5 Luca Marzorati\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 6 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 7 450 Lexington Avenue\n New York, New York 10017\n 8 Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n 9 Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n10 luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n11\n Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n12 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200\n13 Redwood City, California 94063\n Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n14\n Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n15 Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n\n16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 2\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 28 PageID\n #: 34578\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n 2 PAGE\n 3\n\n 4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .........................................................................................................1\n\n 5 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................2\n\n 6 A. The Judgment and NSO\u2019s Refusal to Pay ........................................................2\n\n 7 B. Plaintiffs\u2019 Requests and NSO\u2019s Objections .....................................................3\n\n 8 C. NSO\u2019s Partial Production and the Court\u2019s Guidance .......................................3\n\n 9 LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................................6\n\n10 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................................7\n\n11 I. NSO\u2019S THRESHOLD OBJECTIONS DO NOT LIMIT RULE 69 DISCOVERY ....7\n\n12 A. NSO\u2019s Pending Appeal Does Not Suspend Discovery ....................................7\n\n13 B. Discovery Extends to NSO\u2019s Assets Abroad, Whether or Not They Can\n Be Executed Upon Here..................................................................................8\n14\n C. Discovery Reaches Back to January 2023 .....................................................11\n15\n D. NSO\u2019s Own Financial Records Are Not \u201cNonparty\u201d Discovery ...................12\n16\n II. EACH DISPUTED CATEGORY GOES TO THE CORE OF RULE 69 .................12\n17\n A. Credit and Loan Agreements (RFP No. 1).....................................................13\n18\n B. Distributions and Compensation (RFP No. 4 and Interrogatory No. 9) ........15\n19\n C. Valuations (RFP No. 13 and Interrogatory Nos. 5\u20137) ...................................16\n20\n D. NSO May Not Condition Production on Plaintiffs\u2019 Waiver of Their\n21 Requests .........................................................................................................18\n\n22 III. NSO MUST PROVIDE RULE 30(b)(6) TESTIMONY AND PRODUCE ITS\n CEO FOR DEPOSITION ..........................................................................................18\n23\n CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................20\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n i\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 28 PageID\n #: 34579\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n 1\n\n 2 CASES\n\n 3 PAGE(S)\n\n 4\n Al-Sadhan v. Twitter Inc.,\n 5 2024 WL 3012491 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2024) ............................................................................ 19\n 6 Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. ESG Republic, Inc.,\n 2026 WL 242045 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026) ............................................................................... 13\n 7\n Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina,\n 8 589 F. App'x 16 (2d Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 9\n 9 Averbuch v. Otkritie Int\u2019l Inv. Mgmt. Ltd.,\n10 CivA 9474/16 (Isr. Feb. 18, 2018) ................................................................................................ 8\n\n11 Beautyko LLC v. Amazon Fulfillment Servs.,\n 2018 WL 1792183 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 16, 2018) ....................................................................... 12\n12\n Blankenship v. Hearst Corp.,\n13 519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1975) ........................................................................................................ 7\n\n14 Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain,\n 2026 WL 1785188 (D.D.C. June 22, 2026) ................................................................................ 10\n15\n Brae Asset Funding, L.P. v. Applied Fin., LLC,\n16 2006 WL 3497876 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2006) .......................................................................... 8, 18\n17 Caisson Corp. v. Cnty. W. Bldg. Corp.,\n 62 F.R.D. 331 (E.D. Pa. 1974) .............................................................................................. 15, 18\n18\n Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Int\u2019l, Inc.,\n19 160 F.3d 428 (8th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................... 18\n20 Crews v. Sun Sols. AZ LLC,\n21 2024 WL 4120273 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2024) ......................................................................... 10, 16\n CSPC Dophen Corp. v. Hu,\n22\n 2020 WL 4059521 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2020) ............................................................................. 19\n23\n Devas Multimedia Priv. Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.,\n24 2021 WL 3616787 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021) ................................................................. 10, 11\n\n25 Directv, Inc. v. Trone,\n 209 F.R.D. 455 (C.D. Cal. 2002) .................................................................................................. 7\n26\n E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus.,\n27 286 F.R.D. 288 (E.D. Va. 2012) ................................................................................................. 10\n28 EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina,\n ii\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 28 PageID\n #: 34580\n\n\n\n 695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012), aff\u2019d, 573 U.S. 134 (2014) ............................................................. 9\n 1\n Erickson Prods., Inc. v. Kast,\n 2 2025 WL 2577886 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025) ............................................................................. 13\n 3 JW Gaming Dev., LLC v. James,\n 4 2021 WL 2322265 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2021) ............................................................ 10, 11, 13, 17\n\n 5 King & Ballow v. Thompson,\n 2018 WL 2350082 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 11, 2018) ......................................................................... 17\n 6\n Nat\u2019l Serv. Indus., Inc. v. Vafla Corp.,\n 7 694 F.2d 246 (11th Cir. 1982) ...................................................................................................... 8\n\n 8 Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Bonert's, Inc.,\n 2019 WL 1123165 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019) ................................................................ 13, 14, 16\n 9\n Patriot Rail Corp. v. Sierra R.R. Co.,\n10 2016 WL 492702 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016) ..................................................................... 11, 12, 15\n11 Reebok Int\u2019l v. McLaughlin,\n 49 F.3d 1387 (9th Cir. 1995) ........................................................................................................ 8\n12\n Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.,\n13 573 U.S. 134 (2014) ............................................................................................................ 7, 9, 10\n14 Richmond Techs., Inc. v. Aumtech Bus. Sols.,\n15 2011 WL 2607158 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2011) .............................................................................. 19\n\n16 Ryan Inv. Corp. v. Pedregal De Cabo San Lucas,\n 2009 WL 5114077 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009) .................................................................... Passim\n17\n Solid Income Ltd. v. EnergyInvest LLC,\n18 2025 WL 2417181 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025) ..................................................................... 13, 17\n\n19 Sys. Div., Inc. v. Teknek Elecs., Ltd.,\n 2005 WL 8260387 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2005) ............................................................................ 18\n20\n Textron Fin. Corp. v. Gallegos,\n21 2016 WL 4077505 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016) .............................................................................. 15\n22 Tradewinds Ltd. v. Discovery,\n 2024 WL 3086665 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2024) ............................................................................ 13\n23\n Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher Int'l, Inc.,\n24 2021 WL 5863937 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) ........................................................................... 12\n25 Uniden Corp. v. Duce Trading Co.,\n 1993 WL 286102 (W.D.N.Y. July 19, 1993) ............................................................................. 12\n26\n Warner Bros. Int\u2019l Television Distrib. v. Golden Channels & Co.,\n27\n 2005 WL 8162980 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2005) ............................................................................ 15\n28\n iii\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 28 PageID\n #: 34581\n\n\n\n 1 STATUTES & RULES\n 2\n 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1963 ............................................................................................................................ 3, 7\n 3\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ....................................................................................................................... 18, 19\n 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1) .................................................................................................................... 19\n 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2) .................................................................................................................... 18\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ............................................................................................................................... 7\n 6\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 ......................................................................................................................... 6, 18\n 7\n OTHER AUTHORITIES\n 8\n\n 9 Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law, \u00a7 3.2 (Isr. 1958) .............................................................. 8\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n iv\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 8 of 28 PageID\n #: 34582\n\n\n\n 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n\n 2 Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC (\u201cWhatsApp\u201d) and Meta Platforms, Inc. (\u201cMeta,\u201d and together with\n\n 3 WhatsApp, \u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) move to compel Defendants NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber\n\n 4 Technologies Limited (together, \u201cNSO\u201d) to respond fully to Plaintiffs\u2019 First Set of Requests for Pro-\n\n 5 duction of Documents in Aid of Judgment (the \u201cRFPs\u201d) and First Set of Interrogatories in Aid of\n\n 6 Judgment (the \u201cInterrogatories\u201d), and to produce a witness for deposition.\n\n 7 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n 8 NSO owes Plaintiffs more than $20 million. It has paid nothing, posted no bond, and sought\n\n 9 no stay. Nearly eight months after Plaintiffs served basic post-judgment discovery, NSO still has not\n\n10 said what it owns, whom it owes, or where its money has gone. This motion asks for two things that\n\n11 would answer those questions: the remaining documents in the three narrow categories the Court\n\n12 itself identified at the August 20 hearing\u2014loan and credit agreements, payments and distributions to\n\n13 insiders, and valuation and identification of assets\u2014and related deposition testimony.\n\n14 Plaintiffs served their RFPs and Interrogatories on March 4, 2026. Plaintiffs met and con-\n\n15 ferred with NSO on May 8, May 22, June 16, and June 26, presented the disputes by joint letter, and\n\n16 returned to the table for the final conference the Court ordered, held on September 3. In the nearly\n\n17 eight months since Plaintiffs served their requests, NSO has produced only approximately 181 pages\n\n18 and refuses to produce its loan and credit agreements. It has said that it will produce more responsive\n\n19 documents, but only if Plaintiffs first agree that the production \u201csatisf[ies]\u201d or \u201celiminate[s]\u201d their\n\n20 requests. On September 3, NSO offered summaries, redacted counterparty identities, and anony-\n\n21 mized payment data\u2014all conditioned on a global resolution of both the RFPs and Interrogatories,\n\n22 and none of which would show whom NSO owes, who owes NSO, or whom NSO has paid. Plaintiffs\n\n23 declined those deficient substitutes. NSO will not schedule any deposition until the document dis-\n\n24 putes are resolved, and it insists that its CEO and presumptive corporate representative, Akiva Ros-\n\n25 ner\u2014the one person NSO says controls every significant transfer of its funds\u2014 may be deposed only\n\n26 through the Hague Convention. Each position has the same effect: it further delays Plaintiffs\u2019 ability\n\n27 to identify NSO\u2019s assets and collect on the judgment.\n\n28\n 1\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 9 of 28 PageID\n #: 34583\n\n\n\n 1 What remains in dispute is narrow: the three categories the Court identified, each correspond-\n\n 2 ing to a specific gap in NSO\u2019s own production. NSO\u2019s 2024 financial statements report $219.5 mil-\n\n 3 lion in total assets, $161.5 million of them receivables owed mostly by other group companies. But\n\n 4 NSO has not identified those obligors, the agreements underlying the charges registered against its\n\n 5 assets, or the payments it has made to insiders. NSO\u2019s offered substitutes are insufficient: summaries\n\n 6 cannot replace the agreements themselves, and anonymized payments cannot replace the identities\n\n 7 of the payees, because neither would show where NSO\u2019s value actually is. Testimony is the ordinary\n\n 8 next step; a corporate designee\u2019s testimony is how a creditor tests a corporate debtor\u2019s account of its\n\n 9 assets. And Mr. Rosner\u2014whom NSO identified as the only person authorized to approve any trans-\n\n10 fer, check, or contract above $25,000\u2014is the witness best positioned to explain where NSO\u2019s money\n\n11 has gone. If NSO designates him as its Rule 30(b)(6) witness, his individual and corporate testimony\n\n12 can be taken in one sitting.\n\n13 NSO\u2019s threshold objections do not change that analysis. Rule 69 discovery exists to find a\n\n14 debtor\u2019s assets; it does not require the creditor first to prove those assets can be executed upon. Part\n\n15 I of this motion shows that NSO\u2019s pending appeal, the foreign location of its assets, the timing of\n\n16 pre-judgment transfers, and its position that its own records are \u201cnonparty\u201d documents do not limit\n\n17 discovery. Part II shows that each of the three categories of discovery Plaintiffs seek to compel goes\n\n18 to the core of Rule 69 and that NSO\u2019s partial offers fall short. Part III shows that NSO has no legit-\n\n19 imate basis to withhold Rule 30(b)(6) testimony or Mr. Rosner. The Court should order complete\n\n20 production and that testimony now, so that this process moves forward rather than repeats.\n\n21 BACKGROUND\n\n22 A. The Judgment and NSO\u2019s Refusal to Pay\n\n23 On December 20, 2024, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs on liability. Dkt.\n\n24 No. 494. On May 6, 2025, a jury returned a verdict on damages. Dkt. No. 736. The Court entered\n\n25 final judgment of $4,447,190 on November 12, 2025, Dkt. No. 810, and awarded $15,914,095 in\n\n26 attorneys\u2019 fees on January 30, 2026, Dkt. No. 835\u2014a total of $20,361,285, exclusive of post-judg-\n\n27 ment interest. NSO has appealed both awards but has neither posted a bond nor obtained a stay of\n\n28\n 2\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 10 of 28 PageID\n #: 34584\n\n\n\n 1 execution or of post-judgment discovery. Nearly a year after judgment, it has paid nothing. Mar-\n\n 2 zorati Decl. \u00b6 5.\n\n 3 B. Plaintiffs\u2019 Requests and NSO\u2019s Objections\n\n 4 On March 4, 2026, Plaintiffs served RFPs and Interrogatories covering standard categories\n\n 5 for enforcing a money judgment, beginning January 9, 2023, when NSO\u2019s immunity defenses had\n\n 6 been finally rejected and the case returned to this Court to proceed on the merits. Plaintiffs\u2019 RFPs\n\n 7 and Interrogatories requested corporate governance and financing (RFP No. 1), payments and distri-\n\n 8 butions to insiders (RFP No. 4; Interrogatory No. 9), tax returns (RFP No. 11), valuations and asset\n\n 9 identification (RFP No. 13; Interrogatory Nos. 5\u20137), and persons with authority over NSO\u2019s assets\n\n10 (Interrogatory No. 10). Marzorati Decl. Exs. A\u2013B; Dkt. No. 840.1 NSO served its responses and\n\n11 objections on May 4, 2026. Marzorati Decl. Exs. C\u2013D; Dkt. No. 852. It refused any information\n\n12 about assets outside the United States or predating December 12, 2025, when the Rule 62(a) auto-\n\n13 matic stay expired, citing 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1963, the asserted lack of U.S. jurisdiction to attach foreign\n\n14 assets, and the asserted unenforceability of a U.S. judgment in Israel pending appeal. Marzorati Decl.\n\n15 Ex C, at 4\u20135; id. Ex. D, at 4\u20135; see, e.g., id. Ex. C, at 8\u20139 (Resp. to RFP No. 1); id. Ex. D, at 10\n\n16 (Resp. to Interrogatory No. 3). Subject to those objections, NSO identified two U.S. trademarks and\n\n17 stated that it owned nothing else in the United States. id. Ex. D, at 12 (Resp. to Interrogatory No. 6).\n\n18 C. NSO\u2019s Partial Production and the Court\u2019s Guidance\n\n19 The parties met and conferred on May 8, May 22, June 16, and June 26, 2026. Dkt. No. 870\n\n20 at 1; Marzorati Decl. \u00b6 6. NSO has made three document productions, totaling approximately 181\n\n21 pages.2 The first, on July 13, 2026, consisted of NSO\u2019s\n\n22 (Marzorati Decl. Ex. H (PJ-NSO-000001\u2013024), id. Ex. I (PJ-NSO-000025\u2013042), id.\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25 1\n Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-2, Plaintiffs\u2019 RFPs and Interrogatories, and NSO's responses and\n objections to them, are attached as Exhibits A-D to the Marzorati Declaration; NSO\u2019s supple-\n26 mental responses are filed at Dkt. No. 870-6.\n 2\n NSO has designated its post-judgment productions as confidential under the Stipulated Protective\n27 Order, Dkt. No. 132. Plaintiffs have therefore provisionally filed under seal the portions of this\n motion and the accompanying exhibits that describe those materials, pursuant to Civil Local Rule\n28 79-5(f), and take no position on whether they warrant sealing.\n 3\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 11 of 28 PageID\n #: 34585\n\n\n\n 1 Ex. J (PJ-NSO-000043\u201363), id. Ex. K (PJ-NSO-000064\u2013081)); documents\n\n 2 ( id. Ex.\n\n 3 L (PJ-NSO-000082), id. Ex. M (PJ-NSO-000083), id. Ex. Q (PJ-NSO-000095), id. Ex. R (PJ-NSO-\n\n 4 000096));\n\n 5 (id. Ex. N (PJ-NSO-000084)); and printouts of the\n\n 6 public USPTO records for two U.S. trademark registrations (id. Ex. O (PJ-NSO-000085\u2013089), id. Ex.\n\n 7 P (PJ-NSO-000090\u2013094)). With that production, NSO served supplemental responses stating that it\n\n 8 had made no transfers above $100,000 since January 9, 2023 other than those \u201cidentified in the final,\n\n 9 audited financial statements\u201d or \u201ccarried out in the ordinary course of business,\u201d and that, since Oc-\n\n10 tober 9, 2025, its CEO, Akiva Rosner, has been the only person with authority to approve any transfer,\n\n11 check, or contract above $25,000. Dkt. No. 870-6 at 6\u20137 (Supp. Resp. to Interrogatory Nos. 8, 10).\n\n12 NSO made its second production on August 7, 2026\u2014only after Plaintiffs had presented the\n\n13 disputes to the Court by joint letter. Dkt. No. 873-1 at 2\u20133. It consists of\n\n14 ( Mar-\n\n15 zorati Decl. Ex. S (PJ-NSO-000097\u2013107), id. Ex. T (PJ-NSO-0000108\u2013114), id. Ex. Z (PJ-NSO-\n\n16 0000162\u2013164)); NSO Group\u2019s amended articles of association (id. Ex. U (PJ-NSO-000115\u201352));\n\n17 NSO Group\u2019s certificate of incorporation (id. Ex. V (PJ-NSO-000153); and Q Cyber\u2019s name-change\n\n18 certificate and the early articles and certificate of incorporation of Q Cyber\u2019s predecessor ( id. Ex. W\n\n19 (PJ-NSO-000154), id. Ex. X (PJ-NSO-000153\u2013160), id. Ex. Y (PJ-NSO-000161)). NSO\u2019s cover\n\n20 letter stated that no shareholder agreements exist and that no board minutes or written offers or\n\n21 presentations \u201cindicating a valuation of Defendants\u2019 total enterprise value\u201d exist from January 9,\n\n22 2023 forward, and it stood on NSO\u2019s objections to producing payment and distribution information.\n\n23 Dkt. No. 873-1 at 2\u20133. NSO is withholding its 2023 and 2024 tax returns pending an order governing\n\n24 translation and has deferred its 2025 financial statements until they are completed. Id. at 3; Dkt. No.\n\n25 853 \u00b6 2.\n\n26 NSO\u2019s third production came on October 28, 2026, after Plaintiffs subpoenaed Hippocrene\n\n27 Ventures LLC, the Delaware entity that acquired the rights of NSO\u2019s secured lenders in 2025. Mar-\n\n28 zorati Decl. \u00b6 15 & Ex. G. It is a single document:\n 4\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 12 of 28 PageID\n #: 34586\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2 Marzorati Decl. Ex. AA (PJ-NSO-000165\u2013181), at -000165, 000178\u2013180. According to the\n\n 3 document,\n\n 4 . Id. at -000169, 000178\u2013179.\n\n 5\n\n 6\n\n 7\n\n 8 Id. at -000165, 000169.\n\n 9 Id. at -000176\u2013177.\n\n10 These productions do not identify NSO\u2019s specific assets in Israel or Luxembourg or their\n\n11 value, the obligors on the ,\n\n12 the terms of or counterparties to the agreements underlying the registered charges, or the individual\n\n13 payments NSO has made to insiders. Id. Ex. H (PJ-NSO-000001\u2013024), id. Ex. I (PJ-NSO-000025\u2013\n\n14 042), id. Ex. J (PJ-NSO-000043\u201363), id. Ex. K (PJ-NSO-000064\u2013081).\n\n15 Id. On June 23, 2026, NSO offered to\n\n16 produce additional documents on the condition that the corresponding requests \u201cwould be deemed\n\n17 satisfied and eliminated.\u201d Dkt. No. 870-7 at 1; Marzorati Decl. \u00b6 6. On July 15, 2026, NSO proposed\n\n18 a revised stipulation that deferred negotiation of the loan and credit agreements. Dkt. No. 870-12;\n\n19 Marzorati Decl. \u00b6 6. NSO has declined to produce its loan and credit agreements. Dkt. No. 870 at 1.\n\n20 On July 31, 2026, the parties presented the disputes over RFP Nos. 1, 4, 11, and 13 and In-\n\n21 terrogatory Nos. 5\u20137 and 9 by joint letter. Dkt. No. 870. NSO then filed a unilateral letter describing\n\n22 a seven-document production while expressly \u201cstand[ing] on [its] objections including with respect\n\n23 to third party non-debtors\u2019 assets.\u201d Dkt. No. 873-1 at 3. Plaintiffs responded that the production\n\n24 mooted none of the disputes. Dkt. No. 874. At the August 20, 2026 hearing, the Court ordered a\n\n25 final meet and confer on three categories: (i) loan and credit agreements, (ii) payments and distribu-\n\n26 tions to officers and equity holders, and (iii) valuation and identification of assets. Marzorati Decl.\n\n27 Ex. E, at 49:2\u20134, 51:3\u201313\n\n28\n 5\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 13 of 28 PageID\n #: 34587\n\n\n\n 1 That September 3, 2026 conference did not resolve the disputes. Dkt. No. 881 at 1. NSO\n\n 2 offered\u2014only as part of a global resolution\u2014a summary of the economic terms of its loan and credit\n\n 3 agreements or the agreements with counterparty identities withheld; information about assets above\n\n 4 $150,000 outside Israel and Luxembourg, where NSO and its parent entities are headquartered; and\n\n 5 payment and distribution information with personally identifying information redacted. Id. at 3\u20134;\n\n 6 Marzorati Decl. \u00b6 12.\n\n 7 Separately, Plaintiffs noticed a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on July 23, 2026, and a Rule 30(b)(1)\n\n 8 deposition of NSO\u2019s CEO, Akiva Rosner, on August 25, 2026. Dkt. Nos. 881-1, 881-2. Plaintiffs\n\n 9 have no objection to NSO designating Mr. Rosner as its Rule 30(b)(6) witness, in which case both\n\n10 could proceed in a single sitting. At an August 13, 2026 meet and confer, NSO told Plaintiffs it\n\n11 would send a markup of the Rule 30(b)(6) topics reflecting its objections. Marzorati Decl. \u00b6 8. It\n\n12 never did. It instead proposed to wait until the Court rules on \u201cthe proper scope of asset discovery,\u201d\n\n13 Dkt. No. 881-3 at 4, and at the September 3 conference refused to provide any markup, Marzorati\n\n14 Decl. \u00b6 13. NSO now refuses to schedule any deposition until the document disputes are resolved,\n\n15 and contends that Mr. Rosner may be deposed only through the Hague Convention. Dkt. No. 881 at\n\n16 2; Marzorati Decl. \u00b6 13. On October 16, 2026, the Court directed the parties to present all outstanding\n\n17 disputes, including the deposition disputes, by cross-motion. Dkt. No. 885.\n\n18 LEGAL STANDARD\n\n19 Rule 69(a)(2) provides that \u201c[i]n aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor . . .\n\n20 may obtain discovery from any person\u2014including the judgment debtor\u2014as provided in these rules\n\n21 or by the procedure of the state where the court is located.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2). Every discovery\n\n22 procedure in the Federal Rules, including the motion to compel, is therefore available. See Fed. R.\n\n23 Civ. P. 69 advisory committee\u2019s note to 1970 amendment (\u201cThe amendment assures that, in aid of\n\n24 execution on a judgment, all discovery procedures provided in the rules are available[.]\u201d). A party\n\n25 may move to compel when the responding party \u201cfails to answer an interrogatory submitted under\n\n26 Rule 33,\u201d \u201cfails to produce documents . . . as requested under Rule 34,\u201d or, for a corporation, \u201cfails\n\n27 to make a designation under Rule 30(b)(6).\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(ii)\u2013(iv). \u201c[A]n evasive or\n\n28\n 6\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 14 of 28 PageID\n #: 34588\n\n\n\n 1 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or re-\n\n 2 spond.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). For post-judgment discovery, relevance is measured against Rule\n\n 3 69\u2019s purposes: \u201cto identify assets that can be used to satisfy a judgment\u201d and \u201cto discover concealed\n\n 4 or fraudulently transferred assets.\u201d Ryan Inv. Corp. v. Pedregal de Cabo San Lucas, 2009 WL\n\n 5 5114077, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009); see also Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573\n\n 6 U.S. 134, 138 (2014) (\u201cThe rules governing discovery in postjudgment execution proceedings are\n\n 7 quite permissive.\u201d). \u201cThe party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should\n\n 8 not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.\u201d DI-\n\n 9 RECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp.,\n\n10 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)).\n\n11 ARGUMENT\n\n12 I. NSO\u2019S THRESHOLD OBJECTIONS DO NOT LIMIT RULE 69 DISCOVERY\n\n13 NSO raises four categorical objections that cut across every request: (1) its pending appeal,\n\n14 (2) the foreign location of its assets, (3) the timing of pre-judgment transfers, and (4) its characteri-\n\n15 zation of its own records as \u201cnonparty\u201d discovery. Each confuses collecting on a judgment with\n\n16 finding assets. Rule 69(a)(1) governs how a creditor collects; Rule 69(a)(2) governs how it finds\n\n17 what there is to collect. None of the four objections limits Plaintiffs\u2019 ability to discover assets.\n\n18 A. NSO\u2019s Pending Appeal Does Not Suspend Discovery\n\n19 A pending appeal does not automatically suspend discovery. NSO argues that because its\n\n20 appeal is pending and the judgment has not been registered elsewhere under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1963, Plain-\n\n21 tiffs have \u201cno right to enforce the judgment outside this District\u201d and may discover only NSO\u2019s assets\n\n22 in the United States as of December 12, 2025. Dkt. No. 870 at 4; see Marzorati Decl. Ex. C, at 4\u20135;\n\n23 Marzorati Decl. Ex. D, at 4\u20135. But Section 1963 says nothing about discovery. It allows a creditor\n\n24 to register a judgment in another district so it can be enforced there\u2014ordinarily once the judgment is\n\n25 final on appeal, or earlier for good cause. 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1963. And there is \u201csettled authority indicating\n\n26 that discovery in aid of execution is not precluded by the filing of an appeal.\u201d Ryan, 2009 WL\n\n27 5114077, at *2. Brae Asset Funding, L.P. v. Applied Financial, LLC illustrates the point. 2006 WL\n\n28 3497876 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2006). With an appeal pending, the court there addressed registration\n 7\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 15 of 28 PageID\n #: 34589\n\n\n\n 1 under Section 1963 and discovery under Rule 69 in separate parts of its order, and it resolved the\n\n 2 discovery request under Rule 69 alone, without relying on registration. Id. at *3. It permitted the\n\n 3 creditor to depose the debtors\u2019 former CEO and former president because \u201c[i]f a judgment may be\n\n 4 executed upon after an appeal has been filed, certainly discovery in aid of its execution is not pre-\n\n 5 cluded by the filing of an appeal.\u201d Id. at *1, *3 (quoting Nat\u2019l Serv. Indus., Inc. v. Vafla Corp., 694\n\n 6 F.2d 246 (11th Cir. 1982)). The same is true here: NSO has posted no bond and obtained no stay, so\n\n 7 the judgment remains enforceable and discovery in aid of it may proceed.\n\n 8 NSO\u2019s foreign-law argument fails for the same reason. NSO says a foreign judgment is not\n\n 9 enforceable in Israel until it \u201cis no longer appealable,\u201d and that the law of Luxembourg, where NSO\u2019s\n\n10 ultimate parent is incorporated, is \u201csimilar.\u201d Dkt. No. 870 at 4 (citing Foreign Judgments Enforce-\n\n11 ment Law, \u00a7 3.2 (Isr. 1958), and Reebok Int\u2019l, Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.\n\n12 1995)). Ryan rejected the exact argument that NSO now makes. The foreign debtors there argued\n\n13 that because Mexican law barred execution on their Mexican property pending appeal, \u201cif their prop-\n\n14 erty cannot yet be subject to execution, it is premature to supply [the judgment creditor] with infor-\n\n15 mation about such property.\u201d 2009 WL 5114077, at *2. The court held that in federal court the\n\n16 Federal Rules govern discovery, even where foreign law restricts execution. Id. Similarly, here,\n\n17 NSO cannot invoke a foreign-law restriction on execution to resist Rule 69 discovery pending appeal.\n\n18 Nor does NSO identify any bar to discovery in this Court. Its one Israeli decision holds only\n\n19 that Israeli enforcement mechanisms, including asset discovery in Israeli proceedings, are unavaila-\n\n20 ble pending appeal. Dkt. No. 870 at 4 n.5 (citing Averbuch v. Otkritie Int\u2019l Inv. Mgmt. Ltd., CivA\n\n21 9474/16 (Isr. Feb. 18, 2018)). That concerns what Israeli courts will do, and NSO does not contend\n\n22 that any Israeli or Luxembourg law bars it from producing information in this case. Having neither\n\n23 sought nor obtained a stay of post-judgment discovery, NSO must comply now.\n\n24 B. Discovery Extends to NSO\u2019s Assets Abroad, Whether or Not They Can Be\n\n25 Executed Upon Here\n\n26 NSO next objects that \u201cU.S. courts generally lack jurisdiction to attach and execute on assets\n\n27 located outside the United States.\u201d Marzorati Decl. Ex. C, at 5; id. Ex. D, at 5. But whether or not a\n\n28 court can execute on foreign assets, the Supreme Court has rejected the premise that discovery is\n 8\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 16 of 28 PageID\n #: 34590\n\n\n\n 1 limited to assets the court can execute on.\n\n 2 In NML, the Court rejected the argument that \u201cif a judgment creditor could not ultimately\n\n 3 execute a judgment against certain property, then it has no business pursuing discovery of infor-\n\n 4 mation pertaining to that property,\u201d because a creditor seeking discovery \u201cdoes not yet know what\n\n 5 property [the debtor] has and where it is, let alone whether it is executable under the relevant juris-\n\n 6 diction\u2019s law.\u201d 573 U.S. at 144; see also EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 208 (2d\n\n 7 Cir. 2012) (\u201c[T]he district court\u2019s power to order discovery to enforce its judgment does not derive\n\n 8 from its ultimate ability to attach the property in question.\u201d), aff\u2019d, 573 U.S. 134 (2014). The Second\n\n 9 Circuit later applied NML to affirm worldwide asset discovery, holding that potential immunity from\n\n10 attachment \u201cdoes not preclude discovery of that property,\u201d and that a debtor\u2019s \u201cself-serving legal\n\n11 assertion\u201d that its property is beyond reach \u201cdoes not entitle it to withhold otherwise discoverable\n\n12 information.\u201d Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 589 F. App\u2019x 16, 17\u201318 (2d\n\n13 Cir. 2014).\n\n14 NSO\u2019s principal authority, a single sentence from NML, does not support it. In addressing\n\n15 Argentina\u2019s argument that discovery should be limited to property that could ultimately be attached,\n\n16 the Court observed that \u201cinformation that could not possibly lead to executable assets is simply not\n\n17 \u2018relevant\u2019 to execution in the first place.\u201d 573 U.S. at 144. NSO reads that sentence incorrectly as\n\n18 confining Rule 69 discovery to assets that can be executed upon. Dkt. No. 870 at 3. To the contrary,\n\n19 read in context, it confirms that Plaintiffs\u2019 requests here are proper. The Court made that observation\n\n20 about a hypothetical subpoena that \u201cbizarrely\u201d sought only information that could not possibly lead\n\n21 to executable assets, and immediately added: \u201c[b]ut of course that is not what the subpoenas seek.\u201d\n\n22 NML, 573 U.S. at 144\u201345. The subpoenas in NML instead asked for information about the debtor\u2019s\n\n23 \u201cworldwide assets generally,\u201d and the Court approved them so that the creditor could \u201cidentify where\n\n24 Argentina may be holding property that is subject to execution.\u201d Id. at 145. Plaintiffs\u2019 requests are\n\n25 of the same kind: they seek the information needed to determine what can be reached. And even on\n\n26 NSO\u2019s reading, Plaintiffs\u2019 requests qualify, because the information they seek can plainly lead to\n\n27 executable assets.\n\n28 NSO\u2019s receivables illustrate the point. Other companies in NSO\u2019s corporate group owe NSO\n 9\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 17 of 28 PageID\n #: 34591\n\n\n\n 1 $161.5 million. If any of them has money or does business in the United States, Plaintiffs may be\n\n 2 able to collect that debt here. But Plaintiffs cannot know until NSO says who those companies are.\n\n 3 Nor are NSO\u2019s assets in Israel and Luxembourg permanently beyond reach. By NSO\u2019s own account,\n\n 4 the restriction it invokes lifts once the appeal is resolved, and those assets will be reachable thereafter.\n\n 5 NSO\u2019s objection would invert NML: it would require Plaintiffs to establish executability before they\n\n 6 may learn what NSO owns, when the purpose of the discovery is to make that determination possi-\n\n 7 ble.3 That is also contrary to the aims of Rule 69, which are \u201cto determine what assets the judgment\n\n 8 debtor has and how they be collected on\u201d because \u201ca judgment creditor is entitled to fish for assets\n\n 9 of the judgment debtor.\u201d JW Gaming Dev., LLC v. James, 2021 WL 2322265, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June\n\n10 7, 2021) (citing Ryan, 2009 WL 5114077, at *4).\n\n11 NSO\u2019s other authorities limited discovery only where it reached beyond the judgment debtor\n\n12 or lacked any connection to the debtor\u2019s assets. Neither is true here. Blasket Renewable Investments,\n\n13 LLC v. Kingdom of Spain quashed subpoenas to nonparty U.S. businesses \u201ctwo steps removed\u201d from\n\n14 the debtor, while recognizing that a creditor \u201ccannot know whether such payments exist without\n\n15 postjudgment discovery.\u201d 2026 WL 1785188, at *4 (D.D.C. June 22, 2026). Crews v. Sun Solutions\n\n16 AZ LLC limited discovery because the person whose finances were sought \u201cis not a \u2018judgment debtor\u2019\n\n17 in this action.\u201d 2024 WL 4120273, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2024). NSO is. By contrast, E.I. DuPont\n\n18 de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc. compelled a foreign judgment debtor to identify each\n\n19 customer from which it \u201cholds a receivable\u201d or that \u201cotherwise holds [its] assets,\u201d along with the\n\n20 asset\u2019s location and value. 286 F.R.D. 288, 290, 293 (E.D. Va. 2012). That is precisely what Plain-\n\n21 tiffs seek for NSO\u2019s receivables. Nor can NSO distinguish Devas Multimedia Priv. Ltd. v. Antrix\n\n22 Corp., 2021 WL 3616787 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021), on the ground that Plaintiffs already \u201cknow\u201d\n\n23 the judgment cannot be enforced in Israel or Luxembourg. Dkt. No. 870 at 4 n.6. Devas held that\n\n24 \u201c[r]egardless of whether this Court lacks authority to permit execution against assets located in other\n\n25\n 3\n NSO also contends that NML \u201cheld only\u201d that the FSIA does not immunize foreign states from\n26 Rule 69 discovery. Dkt. No. 870 at 3 n.2. If so, NML\u2019s relevance passage cannot narrow Rule\n 69 either. Nor does NML\u2019s footnote 6 assist NSO. It notes only that \u201cother sources of law,\u201d such\n27 as \u201csettled doctrines of privilege\u201d and a court\u2019s discretion to \u201cconsider comity interests and the\n burden that the discovery might cause,\u201d may bear on such requests. 573 U.S. at 146 n.6 . NSO\n28 asserts no privilege and identifies no conflict with any foreign sovereign\u2019s law or policy.\n 10\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 18 of 28 PageID\n #: 34592\n\n\n\n 1 countries,\u201d the creditors \u201care entitled to obtain discovery of Respondent\u2019s assets both within and\n\n 2 outside of the United States.\u201d Devas, 2021 WL 3616787, at *6.\n\n 3 C. Discovery Reaches Back to January 2023\n\n 4 NSO maintains that anything predating December 12, 2025, when the judgment became en-\n\n 5 forceable, is irrelevant, and has offered at most a May 6, 2025 start date\u2014the date of the jury ver-\n\n 6 dict\u2014for certain categories. Dkt. No. 870 at 4\u20135; Dkt. No. 870-7 at 2\u20133. That limit would shut off\n\n 7 discovery into the very period when NSO had the greatest incentive to move assets: between this\n\n 8 Court\u2019s December 2024 liability ruling and the May 2025 verdict, when NSO knew it would owe\n\n 9 damages but not how much. What NSO owned and transferred then is directly relevant to \u201cdis-\n\n10 cover[ing] concealed or fraudulently transferred assets.\u201d Ryan, 2009 WL 5114077, at *1.\n\n11 NSO\u2019s limit is also contrary to the practice of courts in this Circuit, which routinely permit\n\n12 Rule 69 discovery reaching back to the start of the underlying litigation. See id. at *2\u20133 (rejecting\n\n13 overbreadth objection and finding reasonable requests reaching back to 2006, when the action began,\n\n14 roughly three years before judgment); Patriot Rail Corp. v. Sierra R.R. Co., 2016 WL 492702, at *6\n\n15 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016) (overruling objection to discovery reaching back to the start of the litigation,\n\n16 because both cases discussed by the parties \u201callowed discovery all the way back to the date litigation\n\n17 commenced\u201d); JW Gaming, 2021 WL 2322265, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2021) (rejecting temporal-\n\n18 scope objection to five and a half years of records where the debtor cited \u201cno authority that tethers\n\n19 permissible post-judgment discovery to the date on which the judgment was entered\u201d). Plaintiffs ask\n\n20 for a period that covers far less: this action was filed in October 2019, more than three years before\n\n21 the January 2023 start date. Despite the fact that this litigation put Defendants on notice of a potential\n\n22 monetary judgment, Plaintiffs request discovery covering only the period after which this Court lifted\n\n23 its stay pending Defendants\u2019 appeal of this Court\u2019s denial of NSO\u2019s motion to dismiss. Devas is not\n\n24 to the contrary. The court there began discovery at the arbitral award only because the intervenors\n\n25 \u201cha[d] already agreed to this timeframe.\u201d 2021 WL 3616787, at *8. It never decided how far back\n\n26 Rule 69 discovery may reach.\n\n27\n\n28\n 11\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 19 of 28 PageID\n #: 34593\n\n\n\n 1 D. NSO\u2019s Own Financial Records Are Not \u201cNonparty\u201d Discovery\n\n 2 Finally, NSO argues that payments to its officers and equity holders, and its loan and credit\n\n 3 agreements, concern \u201cnon-debtors\u2019 assets\u201d because \u201c[a] payment or debt is not an attachable asset of\n\n 4 Defendants.\u201d Dkt. No. 870 at 4. That argument misreads Rule 69, contradicts the Court\u2019s guidance\n\n 5 at the August 20 hearing, and rests on authorities that address discovery into the finances of someone\n\n 6 other than the judgment debtor. Money NSO has paid out to insiders is exactly what a creditor must\n\n 7 trace to \u201cdiscover concealed or fraudulently transferred assets,\u201d Ryan, 2009 WL 5114077, at *1, and\n\n 8 NSO\u2019s debts show which of its own assets are encumbered and which remain available. The Court\n\n 9 has already said as much: \u201cin my view, this is not third-party discovery.\u201d Marzorati Decl. Ex. E, at\n\n10 49:5\u20136. In this motion, Plaintiffs seek no discovery from any nonparty and none into any nonparty\u2019s\n\n11 own finances\u2014only documents in NSO\u2019s possession, custody, or control about NSO\u2019s own assets,\n\n12 liabilities, and transfers.\n\n13 NSO\u2019s authorities do not change that. They require a threshold showing of fraudulent transfer\n\n14 or alter ego before a creditor may examine the finances of someone other than the judgment debtor.\n\n15 See Dkt. No. 870 at 4 (citing, e.g., Uniden Corp. of Am. v. Duce Trading Co., 1993 WL 286102, at\n\n16 *1 (W.D.N.Y. July 19, 1993); Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher Int'l, Inc., 2021 WL 5863937, at *3\n\n17 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021)). NSO says the showing applies even to requests directed to the debtor,\n\n18 pointing to Beautyko, which involved a request that the judgment debtors produce \u201cpersonal financial\n\n19 information of nondebtor[s].\u201d Dkt. No. 870 at 4 n.4 (citing Beautyko LLC v. Amazon Fulfillment\n\n20 Servs., 2018 WL 1792183, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 16, 2018)). But Plaintiffs seek no insider\u2019s per-\n\n21 sonal finances\u2014only NSO\u2019s records of what NSO itself paid and owes. Courts reject the threshold-\n\n22 showing argument in exactly that setting. See Patriot Rail, 2016 WL 492702, at *5\u20136 (overruling\n\n23 judgment debtor\u2019s objection that a showing of \u201cfraudulent conveyance or alter ego\u201d was required,\n\n24 because the cases it cited \u201cinvolve discovery or enforcement efforts directed to non-parties, which is\n\n25 not what is sought here\u201d).\n\n26 II. EACH DISPUTED CATEGORY GOES TO THE CORE OF RULE 69\n\n27 With those objections cleared away, each disputed category\u2014credit and loan agreements,\n\n28 payments to insiders, and valuations\u2014goes to the core of Rule 69: what NSO owns, what it owes,\n 12\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 20 of 28 PageID\n #: 34594\n\n\n\n 1 and where its money has gone. A judgment creditor is entitled to \u201ca very thorough examination of a\n\n 2 judgment debtor with respect to its assets, including discovery of the identity and location of any of\n\n 3 the judgment debtor\u2019s assets, wherever located,\u201d Ryan, 2009 WL 5114077, at *1, and \u201c[t]he pre-\n\n 4 sumption should be in favor of discovery,\u201d Solid Income Ltd. v. EnergyInvest LLC, 2025 WL\n\n 5 2417181, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025). The three categories fill the gaps in NSO\u2019s production:\n\n 6 valuations and asset identification show what NSO owns and where; the loan and credit agreements\n\n 7 show which of those assets are already encumbered, and to whom; and the insider-payment records\n\n 8 show what has left the company. NSO cannot carry its burden of showing that these core financial\n\n 9 records fall outside Rule 69.\n\n10 A. Credit and Loan Agreements (RFP No. 1)\n\n11 NSO must produce its loan and credit agreements. They will show what NSO owes, to whom,\n\n12 and which of its assets secure those debts\u2014precisely the information that allows a judgment creditor\n\n13 to \u201cidentify sources of income and assets that may be used to satisfy the judgment.\u201d Erickson Prods.,\n\n14 Inc. v. Kast, 2025 WL 2577886, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025) (granting motion to compel judgment\n\n15 debtor to produce \u201cdocuments relating to any debts owed to or by [the judgment debtor] to third\n\n16 parties\u201d). NSO has produced some documents responsive to RFP No. 1 but refuses to produce the\n\n17 agreements themselves.\n\n18 Courts routinely order production of these agreements. See, e.g., Packaging Corp. of Am. v.\n\n19 Bonert\u2019s, Inc., 2019 WL 1123165, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019) (ordering production of \u201cinfor-\n\n20 mation regarding loans to [Defendant\u2019s] shareholders,\u201d as well as \u201cloan agreements, promissory\n\n21 notes, and other agreements evidencing \u2018all loans ever made to [Defendant]\u2019\u201d); Am. Zurich Ins. Co.\n\n22 v. ESG Republic, Inc., 2026 WL 242045, at *2\u20133 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026) (directing judgment debtor\n\n23 to produce \u201c[l]oan/mortgage documents,\u201d \u201c[l]ines of credit and/or loans,\u201d and \u201c[d]ocuments regard-\n\n24 ing other outstanding debts, judgments, attachments, or liens\u201d); JW Gaming, 2021 WL 2322265, at\n\n25 *4 (rejecting objection that subpoena for judgment debtor\u2019s bank records was overbroad because it\n\n26 \u201cinquire[d] about debts, loans, and credit lines in addition to tangible assets,\u201d since the debtor \u201ccon-\n\n27 flate[d]\u201d post-judgment information-gathering \u201cwith the actual execution of a judgment\u201d);\n\n28 Tradewinds Ltd. v. Grupo Dolphin Discovery, 2024 WL 3086665, at *4\u20135 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2024)\n 13\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 21 of 28 PageID\n #: 34595\n\n\n\n 1 (ordering judgment debtor to produce documents relating to a $30 million loan). NSO\u2019s attempts to\n\n 2 distinguish these cases fail. NSO says Packaging required a threshold showing of suspected fraudu-\n\n 3 lent transfer and that American Zurich was unopposed. Dkt. No. 870 at 4 n.4. But the Packaging\n\n 4 showing applied only because the subpoenas were directed to nonparties. See 2019 WL 1123165, at\n\n 5 *1 (\u201cTo obtain discovery from a nonparty, a judgment creditor must make a threshold showing.\u201d).\n\n 6 And opposed or not, American Zurich reflects the ordinary scope of discovery from a judgment\n\n 7 debtor. Plaintiffs seek NSO\u2019s own agreements from NSO.\n\n 8 Neither the registry extracts NSO has produced nor its latest offer\u2014a summary of economic\n\n 9 terms, or the agreements with counterparty identities withheld\u2014fills that gap.\n\n10\n\n11 Marzorati Decl. Ex.\n\n12 S (PJ-NSO-000097\u2013107), id. Ex. T (PJ-NSO-000108\u2013114). But they do not show how much each\n\n13 lender is owed, which lender gets paid first, or what lets a lender seize the pledged assets. Plaintiffs\n\n14 need to know that to tell which NSO assets are already spoken for. They also need to know who the\n\n15 lenders are. If a lender is tied to NSO\u2019s insiders or parent companies, a pledge to that lender could\n\n16 be a way to keep NSO\u2019s assets away from Plaintiffs\u2014a real concern given that lenders changed after\n\n17 judgment. The one agreement NSO has produced confirms the point.\n\n18\n\n19 Id.\n\n20 Ex. AA (PJ-NSO-000165\u2013181) at 000169\u2013171.\n\n21 Id. at -000176\u2013177. NSO has produced neither the Credit Agreement\n\n22 nor the amendment. The Court contemplated redaction only where \u201cthe other party [to the agree-\n\n23 ment] was one of their government customers . . . whose identity has not been ordered.\u201d Id. Ex. E,\n\n24 at 49:23\u201350:13. No sovereign interest is implicated here, and the protective order addresses any\n\n25 ordinary confidentiality concern. Without the agreements, Plaintiffs would hold a list of charges they\n\n26 cannot evaluate, with no way to tell whether any NSO asset is actually available to satisfy the judg-\n\n27 ment.\n\n28\n 14\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 22 of 28 PageID\n #: 34596\n\n\n\n 1 The Court should order NSO to produce its loan and credit agreements responsive to RFP No.\n\n 2 1 from January 9, 2023 forward, without redaction of counterparty identities, subject to the existing\n\n 3 protective order.\n\n 4 B. Distributions and Compensation (RFP No. 4 and Interrogatory No. 9)\n\n 5 NSO must produce transaction-level records of its payments to insiders. RFP No. 4 and In-\n\n 6 terrogatory No. 9 seek payments, distributions, and compensation to NSO\u2019s officers, managers, mem-\n\n 7 bers, and equity holders since January 9, 2023. Id. Ex. A, at 5; Id. Ex. B, at 5. RFP No. 4 also seeks\n\n 8 capital contributions to NSO during the same period. Id. Ex. A, at 5. This information shows where\n\n 9 NSO\u2019s money has gone, and \u201cthe judgment creditor must be given the freedom to make a broad\n\n10 inquiry to discover hidden or concealed assets of the judgment debtor.\u201d Textron Fin. Corp. v.\n\n11 Gallegos, 2016 WL 4077505, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016) (quoting Caisson Corp. v. Cnty. W.\n\n12 Bldg. Corp., 62 F.R.D. 331, 334 (E.D. Pa. 1974)); see Patriot Rail, 2016 WL 492702, at *9 (granting\n\n13 motion to compel discovery of \u201cinformation about the executive compensation paid out to [the\n\n14 debtor\u2019s] executives,\u201d whose \u201crelevance . . . is apparent from [its] face\u201d because it \u201cseeks to learn\n\n15 what happened [to] the assets of [the judgment debtor]\u201d); Warner Bros. Int\u2019l Television Distrib. v.\n\n16 Golden Channels & Co., 2005 WL 8162980, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2005) (\u201c[T]he scope of post-\n\n17 judgment discovery is broad, enabling judgment creditors to seek discovery of both current assets\n\n18 and past financial transactions that could lead to the existence of fraudulently concealed or fraudu-\n\n19 lently conveyed assets.\u201d (cleaned up)).\n\n20 Nothing NSO has produced or offered shows where NSO\u2019s assets went. Its financial state-\n\n21 ments report only aggregates\u2014a $14 million intercompany set-off at year-end 2024, for example,\n\n22 without saying who received what. Marzorati Decl. Ex. H (PJ-NSO-000001\u2013024), id. Ex. I (PJ-\n\n23 NSO-000025\u2013042), id. Ex. J (PJ-NSO-000043\u201363), id. Ex. K (PJ-NSO-000064\u2013081). Its transfer\n\n24 disclosure excludes anything in those statements or made \u201cin the ordinary course of business\u201d (ac-\n\n25 cording to NSO) and so omits at least salary, bonuses, equity awards, and distributions, as well as\n\n26 whatever else NSO may be using that caveat to withhold. Dkt. No. 870-6 at 6\u20137. And its offers fall\n\n27 short: each would withhold payees\u2019 identities, none includes capital contributions, and its June 23\n\n28 proposal started only on May 6, 2025\u2014leaving out both the months after the December 2024 liability\n 15\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 23 of 28 PageID\n #: 34597\n\n\n\n 1 ruling, when NSO had the strongest incentive to move assets, and the names needed to trace pay-\n\n 2 ments. Dkt. No. 870-7 at 2\u20133; Dkt. No. 881 at 4. NSO invokes Israel\u2019s Protection of Privacy Law,\n\n 3 5741-1981, Dkt. No. 870-7 at 2; Marzorati Decl. \u00b6 12, but it has not identified any provision of that\n\n 4 statute that bars producing payees\u2019 identities in a U.S. proceeding under a protective order. And after\n\n 5 judgment \u201cthe desire for confidentiality must necessarily yield,\u201d with \u201cany legitimate confidentiality\n\n 6 concerns . . . remedied with a protective order.\u201d Crews, 2024 WL 4120273, at *2 (citation omitted).\n\n 7 The existing order does that: NSO may designate the records Attorneys\u2019 Eyes Only and file any\n\n 8 names under seal, Dkt. No. 132, as it has done with material Israel permitted it to share only on those\n\n 9 terms. See Dkt. No. 798-1 \u00b6\u00b6 3\u201312. A debtor that has paid nothing on more than $20 million in\n\n10 judgments while continuing to operate is spending its money somewhere.\n\n11\n\n12 Marzorati\n\n13 Decl. Ex. AA (PJ-NSO-000165\u2013181), at -000169, 000178\u2013179. These records are the only way to\n\n14 find out where that money went.\n\n15 The Court should order NSO to produce documents sufficient to show payments, distribu-\n\n16 tions, and other compensation to officers, managers, members, and equity holders from January 9,\n\n17 2023 forward, identifying for each payment the amount, date, recipient\u2019s role or category, and pur-\n\n18 pose.\n\n19 C. Valuations (RFP No. 13 and Interrogatory Nos. 5\u20137)\n\n20 NSO must produce its valuations and identify its assets. RFP No. 13 and Interrogatory Nos.\n\n21 5\u20137 seek any valuation of NSO\u2019s business or assets\u2014including formal or informal appraisals, esti-\n\n22 mates of value, offers, proposals, and pro forma indications of value\u2014and identification of NSO\u2019s\n\n23 real property, intellectual property, and other assets. Valuations reveal a debtor\u2019s net worth and the\n\n24 assets that drive it, and courts routinely permit discovery into them. See Packaging, 2019 WL\n\n25 1123165, at *2 (granting in part and denying in part motion to quash third-party subpoenas seeking\n\n26 \u201cany requests for financing by [Defendant], including . . . appraisals\u201d and \u201cdocuments concerning\n\n27 \u2018efforts by [Defendant] to sell or transfer its business,\u2019\u201d including \u201cvaluations\u201d); see also King &\n\n28 Ballow v. Thompson, 2018 WL 2350082, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 11, 2018) (finding requests for\n 16\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 24 of 28 PageID\n #: 34598\n\n\n\n 1 \u201cbusiness valuations\u201d and financial statements \u201cclearly within the broad scope of permissible post-\n\n 2 judgment discovery\u201d), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 2336593 (M.D. Tenn. May\n\n 3 23, 2018). Breadth is no objection: \u201c[t]he scope of discovery under Rule 69 encompasses the ability\n\n 4 to find actual assets, uncover hidden assets, and trace assets,\u201d and is therefore \u201cvery broad.\u201d Solid\n\n 5 Income Ltd., 2025 WL 2417181, at *3 (citing JW Gaming, 2021 WL 2322265, at *4).\n\n 6 NSO\u2019s response falls short. On valuations, it states only that no \u201cboard minutes, or written\n\n 7 offers or presentations to third parties, indicating a valuation of Defendants\u2019 total enterprise value\u201d\n\n 8 exist from January 9, 2023 forward. Dkt. No. 873-1 at 2\u20133. But RFP No. 13 seeks \u201cany valuation\n\n 9 of [Defendants\u2019] business or assets,\u201d formal or informal, and whether or not addressed to \u201ctotal en-\n\n10 terprise value.\u201d Marzorati Decl. Ex. A, at 6; see Dkt. No. 870-9 at 1. And NSO\u2019s own production\n\n11 shows that\n\n12\n\n13 Marzorati Decl. Ex. AA (PJ-NSO-000165\u2013181) at -000171. Whatever analysis\n\n14 supports that figure is responsive and has not been produced. On asset identification, NSO proposes\n\n15 to disclose only assets above an arbitrary $150,000 threshold and to exclude Israel and Luxem-\n\n16 bourg\u2014where NSO and its parents are headquartered and its bank accounts are held\u2014without iden-\n\n17 tifying any basis for either limit. Those limits would block the first step of enforcement. NSO\u2019s\n\n18 financial statements report asset classes only in the aggregate; they do not identify the affiliates that\n\n19 owe NSO its receivables. Id. Ex. H (PJ-NSO-000001\u2013024), id. Ex. I (PJ-NSO-000025\u2013042), id. Ex.\n\n20 J (PJ-NSO-000043\u201363), id. Ex. K (PJ-NSO-000064\u2013081). Valuations and asset identification supply\n\n21 that information and will tell Plaintiffs where to register or domesticate the judgment once the appeal\n\n22 is resolved. Without them, Plaintiffs would know of two U.S. trademarks and no other specific,\n\n23 identifiable asset\u2014and would have to start over after the appeal, at risk of NSO secretly moving or\n\n24 encumbering the very assets Plaintiffs seek to identify.\n\n25 The Court should order NSO to produce all valuations responsive to RFP No. 13 from January\n\n26 9, 2023 forward, including informal appraisals, estimates, offers, proposals, and other indications of\n\n27 value, and to answer Interrogatory Nos. 5\u20137 fully, without a monetary threshold or the exclusion of\n\n28 Israel and Luxembourg.\n 17\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 25 of 28 PageID\n #: 34599\n\n\n\n 1 D. NSO May Not Condition Production on Plaintiffs\u2019 Waiver of Their Requests\n\n 2 NSO also may not condition production on Plaintiffs\u2019 advance agreement that a partial pro-\n\n 3 duction \u201csatisfie[s]\u201d or \u201celiminate[s]\u201d the underlying requests. Dkt. No. 870 at 1. NSO calls this\n\n 4 ordinary negotiation over scope. Id. at 5. But narrowing by agreement is one thing; requiring the\n\n 5 requesting party to give up, before seeing the production, its right to review it and seek warranted\n\n 6 supplementation is another. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), 34(b)(2).\n\n 7 III. NSO MUST PROVIDE RULE 30(b)(6) TESTIMONY AND PRODUCE ITS CEO\n\n 8 FOR DEPOSITION\n\n 9 NSO refuses to produce any deposition witness. It says the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition must\n\n10 wait until the document disputes are resolved, and that its CEO may be deposed only through the\n\n11 Hague Convention. Rule 69 permits discovery from \u201cany person\u201d \u201cas provided in these rules,\u201d Fed.\n\n12 R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2), and depositions are a core tool of that discovery. See, e.g., Brae, 2006 WL\n\n13 3497876, at *3 (permitting, while appeal was pending, depositions of judgment debtors\u2019 former CEO\n\n14 and former president, who held the same offices at the successor entity added as a judgment debtor).\n\n15 That right reaches a corporate debtor\u2019s officers: a creditor \u201cis entitled to a very thorough examination\n\n16 of the judgment debtor,\u201d and a corporate debtor\u2019s officer \u201cmay be deposed in that capacity.\u201d Caisson,\n\n17 62 F.R.D. at 335; see also Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Int\u2019l, Inc., 160 F.3d 428, 430\u201331 (8th Cir.\n\n18 1998) (district court abused its discretion by refusing to compel depositions of corporate judgment\n\n19 debtor and its sole officer, because \u201cthe presumption should be in favor of full discovery of any\n\n20 matters arguably related to [the creditor\u2019s] efforts to trace [the debtor\u2019s] assets\u201d). Foreign debtors\n\n21 are no exception. In Systems Division, Inc. v. Teknek Electronics, Ltd., the court compelled a Scottish\n\n22 judgment debtor and its U.S. affiliate to designate Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, ordered the depositions\n\n23 to proceed \u201cwithin the jurisdiction of this Court\u201d rather than in Scotland and Chicago as the debtors\n\n24 requested, and awarded Rule 37 expenses. 2005 WL 8260387, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2005).\n\n25 Neither of NSO\u2019s objections justifies its refusal to appear.\n\n26 NSO\u2019s first objection\u2014that the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition must wait until the document dis-\n\n27 putes are resolved\u2014would hold that deposition hostage. Plaintiffs served the notice on July 23, 2026.\n\n28 Dkt. No. 881-1. On August 13, NSO agreed to mark up the topics to reflect its view of the proper\n 18\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 26 of 28 PageID\n #: 34600\n\n\n\n 1 scope of post-judgment discovery, Marzorati Decl. \u00b6 8, then reversed course and proposed to wait\n\n 2 until the Court rules on \u201cthe proper scope of asset discovery.\u201d Dkt. No. 881-3 at 3. That has it\n\n 3 backwards: the markup was NSO\u2019s vehicle for pressing its scope objections. More than two months\n\n 4 later, NSO has provided neither the markup nor a witness. Marzorati Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 8, 10\u201313 & Ex. F. A\n\n 5 party that objects to deposition topics must seek a protective order; it may not simply decline to\n\n 6 appear. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), 30(b)(1).\n\n 7 NSO\u2019s second objection, to deposing Mr. Rosner, fares no better. NSO identified him in its\n\n 8 answer to Interrogatory No. 10 as the only person with general authority to approve any transfer,\n\n 9 check, or contract above $25,000, Dkt. No. 870-6 at 6\u20137, and that authority is undisputed. No one is\n\n10 better placed to testify about where NSO\u2019s money has gone. The choice of Rule 30(b)(6) designee\n\n11 belongs to NSO, but given Mr. Rosner\u2019s role, NSO could readily designate him and resolve both\n\n12 notices in a single sitting\u2014sparing itself the burden of preparing multiple witnesses. NSO objects to\n\n13 any Rule 30(b)(1) deposition of Mr. Rosner that is not limited to topics related to enforcement of the\n\n14 money judgment. Marzorati Decl. \u00b6 13. But disagreement over the scope of particular questions is\n\n15 no reason to refuse to produce a witness at all.\n\n16 Nor does the Hague Convention supply a reason to withhold him. If service of process itself\n\n17 may be made on a foreign defendant through its U.S. counsel\u2014in Hague Convention countries, and\n\n18 even where counsel disclaims authority to accept\u2014so may a deposition notice. See Richmond Techs.,\n\n19 Inc. v. Aumtech Bus. Sols., 2011 WL 2607158, at *13 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2011) (\u201cNothing in the Hague\n\n20 Convention prohibits such service\u201d); Al-Sadhan v. Twitter Inc., 2024 WL 3012491, at *2\u20133 (N.D.\n\n21 Cal. June 14, 2024) (collecting cases permitting such service \u201ceven when the attorney has not been\n\n22 authorized to accept service of process\u201d); CSPC Dophen Corp. v. Hu, 2020 WL 4059521, at *5 (E.D.\n\n23 Cal. July 20, 2020) (authorizing service through U.S. counsel that disclaimed authority, because\n\n24 counsel had \u201crepeatedly appeared on behalf of [those parties]\u201d), report and recommendation adopted,\n\n25 2020 WL 6118611 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2020). NSO\u2019s U.S. counsel has appeared for NSO and ac-\n\n26 cepted service of all documents throughout this litigation. Marzorati Decl. \u00b6 36. And NSO has never\n\n27 before insisted on the Hague Convention: before judgment, Plaintiffs deposed four NSO execu-\n\n28 tives\u2014including its then-CEO, Yaron Shohat\u2014on Rule 30 notices served by email on that same\n 19\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 27 of 28 PageID\n #: 34601\n\n\n\n 1 counsel. Id. \u00b6 36 & Exs. BB\u2013EE. NSO offers no reason counsel cannot accept the same notice for\n\n 2 its current CEO.\n\n 3 NSO\u2019s deposition objections follow the pattern of its document objections: each defers dis-\n\n 4 covery, and none identifies an actual bar. The Court should order NSO to produce a Rule 30(b)(6)\n\n 5 designee and to make Mr. Rosner available for deposition under Rule 30(b)(1) within 30 days of the\n\n 6 Court\u2019s order; should NSO designate Mr. Rosner, both may proceed in a single sitting.\n\n 7 CONCLUSION\n\n 8 Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their motion to compel and order NSO to:\n\n 9 (1) within 14 days of the Court\u2019s order, produce, without geographic limitation and from January 9,\n\n10 2023 forward, documents and information responsive to RFP Nos. 1, 4, and 13 and supplement its\n\n11 answers to Interrogatory Nos. 5\u20137 and 9, as set forth in Parts II.A\u2013C, without conditioning that pro-\n\n12 duction on Plaintiffs\u2019 agreement that it satisfies or eliminates any request; and (2) within 30 days of\n\n13 the Court\u2019s order, produce a Rule 30(b)(6) designee and make Mr. Rosner available for deposition\n\n14 under Rule 30(b)(1), in a single sitting should NSO designate him, as set forth in Part III.\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 20\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 28 of 28 PageID\n #: 34602\n\n\n\n Dated: October 30, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n 1\n\n 2 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n\n 3\n By: /s/ Micah G. Block\n 4 Greg D. Andres\n Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n 5 Luca Marzorati\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 6 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 7 450 Lexington Avenue\n New York, New York 10017\n 8 Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n 9 Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n10 luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n11\n Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n12 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200\n13 Redwood City, California 94063\n Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n14\n Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n15 Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n\n16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 21\n MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-11-02T07:16:24.866531-08:00","document_number":"888","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872663","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Compel","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499795897/","id":499795897,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/888/1/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-02T07:16:12.566690-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-02T07:16:12.566712-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":372134,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"888","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872664","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T22:02:08.908935-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T22:02:08.914289-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"21:32:46","entry_number":888,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":2865,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483786858/","id":483786858,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499611807/","id":499611807,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-10-30T22:02:08.559958-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-09T13:09:12.038783-08:00","sha1":"ae29f19458db7062f83ad9f8ed61fa6312ea345c","page_count":8,"file_size":411736,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.889.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.889.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:\n 34606\n\n\n\n Greg D. Andres\n 1 Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n 2 Luca Marzorati\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 3 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 450 Lexington Avenue\n 4 New York, New York 10017\n Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n 5\n Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n 6 Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n 7 luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n\n 8 Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 9\n 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200\n10 Redwood City, California 94063\n Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n11 Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n12\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n13\n WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.\n14\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n15\n FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n16\n\n17 OAKLAND DIVISION\n\n18 )\n WHATSAPP LLC and ) Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n19 META PLATFORMS, INC., )\n )\n20 Plaintiffs, ) DECLARATION OF LUCA\n ) MARZORATI IN SUPPORT OF\n21 v. ) PLAINTIFFS\u2019 MOTION TO COMPEL\n ) POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY\n22 NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED )\n and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, ) DISCOVERY MATTER\n23 )\n Defendants. ) Date: December 17, 2026\n24 ) Time: 1:30 p.m.\n ) Ctrm: 3\n25 )\n ) Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton\n26 )\n )\n27 ) Action Filed: October 29, 2019\n )\n28 )\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:\n 34607\n\n\n\n 1 I, Luca Marzorati, declare as follows:\n\n 2 1. I am an associate at the law firm of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP and admitted pro\n\n 3 hac vice to practice before this Court. I am counsel for Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms,\n\n 4 Inc. (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) in the above-captioned action filed on October 29, 2019 against Defendants NSO\n\n 5 Group Technologies Limited (\u201cNSO Group\u201d) and Q Cyber Technologies Limited (\u201cQ Cyber\u201d)\n\n 6 (together, \u201cNSO\u201d or \u201cDefendants\u201d). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below and, if\n\n 7 called as a witness in a court of law, could and would testify competently thereto.\n\n 8 2. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion to Compel Post-Judgment\n\n 9 Discovery, filed concurrently herewith.\n\n10 3. On March 4, 2026, Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Production of\n\n11 Documents in Aid of Judgment (the \u201cRFPs\u201d) and their First Set of Interrogatories in Aid of Judgment\n\n12 (the \u201cInterrogatories\u201d) on Defendants. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the\n\n13 RFPs, and attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Interrogatories.\n\n14 4. On May 4, 2026, Defendants served their Responses and Objections to the RFPs and\n\n15 their Answers and Objections to the Interrogatories. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and\n\n16 correct copy of Defendants\u2019 Responses and Objections to the RFPs, and attached hereto as Exhibit\n\n17 D is a true and correct copy of Defendants\u2019 Answers and Objections to the Interrogatories.\n\n18 5. As of the date of this declaration, Defendants have not paid any portion of the\n\n19 $4,447,190 judgment entered on November 12, 2025 (Dkt. No. 810) or the $15,914,095 in attorneys\u2019\n\n20 fees awarded on January 30, 2026 (Dkt. No. 835), have not posted a supersedeas bond, and have not\n\n21 obtained a stay of execution or of post-judgment discovery.\n\n22 6. Counsel for the parties met and conferred by videoconference regarding the RFPs and\n\n23 Interrogatories on May 8 and May 22, 2026, and, on the balance of the requests, on June 16 and June\n\n24 26, 2026, and exchanged extensive correspondence between those conferences. On June 4, 2026, the\n\n25 parties filed a stipulation under which Defendants agreed to produce certain categories of documents\n\n26 while negotiations continued as to the remaining scope of the requests. Dkt. No. 853. On June 5,\n\n27 2026, I sent Defendants\u2019 counsel an agenda for a further meet-and-confer on the balance of the RFPs\n\n28 and Interrogatories. Dkt. No. 870-9. On June 23, 2026, Defendants offered to produce additional\n\n 1\n DECL. OF LUCA MARZORATI IN SUPP. OF PLS.\u2019 MOT. TO COMPEL POST-J. DISCOVERY - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:\n 34608\n\n\n\n 1 documents on the condition that the corresponding requests \u201cwould be deemed satisfied and\n\n 2 eliminated.\u201d Dkt. No. 870-7 at 1. On July 15, 2026, Defendants proposed a revised stipulation that\n\n 3 deferred negotiation of the loan and credit agreements. Dkt. No. 870-12. On July 31, 2026, the\n\n 4 parties filed a joint letter presenting the disputes over RFP Nos. 1, 4, 11, and 13 and Interrogatory\n\n 5 Nos. 5\u20137 and 9. Dkt. No. 870.\n\n 6 7. On July 23, 2026, Plaintiffs served a notice of deposition of Defendants pursuant to\n\n 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), and on August 25, 2026, Plaintiffs served a notice of\n\n 8 deposition of NSO\u2019s Chief Executive Officer, Akiva Rosner, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(1). Dkt. Nos.\n\n 9 881-1, 881-2. Both notices were served by email on Defendants\u2019 U.S. counsel of record.\n\n10 8. On August 13, 2026, counsel for the parties met and conferred regarding the Rule\n\n11 30(b)(6) notice. During that conference, Defendants\u2019 counsel stated that Defendants would provide\n\n12 a markup of the noticed topics reflecting Defendants\u2019 objections early the following week. At\n\n13 Defendants\u2019 urging, Plaintiffs agreed to address the injunction-related topics separately from the\n\n14 topics relating to enforcement of the money judgment. Defendants did not provide the promised\n\n15 markup.\n\n16 9. On August 20, 2026, the Court held a hearing at which it addressed the parties\u2019 post-\n\n17 judgment discovery disputes and directed the parties to hold a final meet and confer on (i) loan and\n\n18 credit agreements, (ii) payments and distributions to officers and equity holders, and (iii) valuation\n\n19 and identification of assets. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of excerpts of\n\n20 the transcript of the August 20, 2026 hearing.\n\n21 10. On August 21, 2026, I wrote to Defendants\u2019 counsel requesting the markup and\n\n22 Defendants\u2019 availability for a further meet-and-confer. Defendants\u2019 counsel responded that\n\n23 discussion of a deposition and of the markup should be deferred until the Court ruled on any further\n\n24 contempt proceedings and, as to topics outside the scope of Defendants\u2019 discovery responses and\n\n25 production to date, until the Court ruled on any motion for protective order or motion to compel \u201cas\n\n26 to the proper scope of asset discovery.\u201d\n\n27 11. On August 25, 2026, I wrote again to request that Defendants confirm whether they\n\n28 would engage on the deposition topics, provide the promised markup, and make Mr. Rosner\n\n 2\n DECL. OF LUCA MARZORATI IN SUPP. OF PLS.\u2019 MOT. TO COMPEL POST-J. DISCOVERY - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:\n 34609\n\n\n\n 1 available, noting that Defendants had previously indicated that October would work for a deposition\n\n 2 and that Plaintiffs had been requesting deposition availability since July 23. Attached hereto as\n\n 3 Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an email chain between counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for\n\n 4 Defendants dated August 21 through September 2, 2026. See also Dkt. No. 881-3.\n\n 5 12. On September 3, 2026, counsel for the parties held the final meet-and-confer directed\n\n 6 by the Court. During that conference, Defendants\u2019 counsel offered, only as part of a global resolution\n\n 7 of all three categories: (a) the economic terms of Defendants\u2019 loan and credit agreements in the form\n\n 8 of a certified answer, or the agreements themselves without third-party identifying information; (b)\n\n 9 information about assets owned by Defendants in any jurisdiction other than Israel and Luxembourg\n\n10 where Defendants hold assets valued above $150,000 in the aggregate, together with any valuations\n\n11 of assets in those jurisdictions; and (c) information concerning payments and distributions to officers\n\n12 and equity holders, subject to redaction of personally identifying information, which Defendants\u2019\n\n13 counsel stated Israeli privacy law requires. Plaintiffs declined those proposals. See Dkt. No. 881 at\n\n14 1\u20133.\n\n15 13. At the September 3 conference, Defendants\u2019 counsel also stated that the parties\u2019\n\n16 discussions to that point had contemplated that Mr. Rosner would be deposed as Defendants\u2019 Rule\n\n17 30(b)(6) witness, and that he would likely be available in early-to-mid October 2026 on the post-\n\n18 judgment Rule 30(b)(6) topics. When counsel for Plaintiffs asked for a date, Defendants\u2019 counsel\n\n19 did not offer one and stated that he would need to confirm with Defendants. Defendants\u2019 counsel\n\n20 refused to provide any markup of the Rule 30(b)(6) topics, including a markup limited to the\n\n21 judgment-enforcement topics (Topics 1\u201316), and stated that no deposition should proceed until the\n\n22 Court provided guidance on the document disputes. Defendants\u2019 counsel further stated that\n\n23 Defendants would object to any Rule 30(b)(1) deposition of Mr. Rosner that was not limited to topics\n\n24 related to enforcement of the money judgment, and that, absent his appearance as a corporate witness,\n\n25 Mr. Rosner could be deposed individually only through Hague Convention procedures.\n\n26 14. On September 10, 2026, the parties filed a joint status statement reporting that the\n\n27 September 3 conference had not resolved the disputes. Dkt. No. 881. In that statement, Defendants\n\n28 represented that they \u201ccould be generally available after October 4, subject to any further rulings by\n\n 3\n DECL. OF LUCA MARZORATI IN SUPP. OF PLS.\u2019 MOT. TO COMPEL POST-J. DISCOVERY - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:\n 34610\n\n\n\n 1 this Court.\u201d Id. at 4. On October 16, 2026, the Court directed the parties to present all outstanding\n\n 2 disputes, including the deposition disputes, by cross-motion. Dkt. No. 885.\n\n 3 15. On September 23, 2026, Plaintiffs served a subpoena on non-party Hippocrene\n\n 4 Ventures LLC (\u201cHippocrene\u201d), a Delaware entity that acquired the rights of NSO\u2019s secured creditors\n\n 5 in October 2025. On October 28, 2026, Defendants\u2019 counsel sent me an email stating that, in response\n\n 6 to RFP No. 6 and without prejudice to Defendants\u2019 objections, Defendants would produce documents\n\n 7 sufficient to identify any notes issued to Hippocrene by or for the benefit of Defendants, and that\n\n 8 Defendants were producing a confidential document in conjunction with that email. Attached hereto\n\n 9 as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the October 28, 2026 email from David Holmes, counsel\n\n10 for Defendants.\n\n11 16. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of NSO Group\u2019s audited\n\n12 financial statements for fiscal year 2024, produced by Defendants on July 13, 2026 and bearing Bates\n\n13 numbers PJ-NSO-000001 through PJ-NSO-000024. Defendants have designated this document\n\n14 Confidential under the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 132), and Plaintiffs are filing it provisionally under\n\n15 seal.\n\n16 17. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Q Cyber\u2019s audited financial\n\n17 statements for fiscal year 2024, produced by Defendants on July 13, 2026 and bearing Bates numbers\n\n18 PJ-NSO-000025 through PJ-NSO-000042. Defendants have designated this document Confidential\n\n19 under the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 132), and Plaintiffs are filing it provisionally under seal.\n\n20 18. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of NSO Group\u2019s audited\n\n21 financial statements for fiscal year 2023, produced by Defendants on July 13, 2026 and bearing Bates\n\n22 numbers PJ-NSO-000043 through PJ-NSO-000063. Defendants have designated this document\n\n23 Confidential under the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 132), and Plaintiffs are filing it provisionally under\n\n24 seal.\n\n25 19. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Q Cyber\u2019s audited financial\n\n26 statements for fiscal year 2023, produced by Defendants on July 13, 2026 and bearing Bates numbers\n\n27 PJ-NSO-000064 through PJ-NSO-000081. Defendants have designated this document Confidential\n\n28 under the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 132), and Plaintiffs are filing it provisionally under seal.\n\n 4\n DECL. OF LUCA MARZORATI IN SUPP. OF PLS.\u2019 MOT. TO COMPEL POST-J. DISCOVERY - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:\n 34611\n\n\n\n 1 20. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of a document identifying\n\n 2 NSO Group\u2019s bank details, produced by Defendants on July 13, 2026 and bearing Bates number PJ-\n\n 3 NSO-000082.\n\n 4 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of a document identifying\n\n 5 NSO Group\u2019s bank account at Bank Hapoalim, produced by Defendants on July 13, 2026 and bearing\n\n 6 Bates number PJ-NSO-000083.\n\n 7 22. Attached hereto as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of an organizational chart\n\n 8 showing NSO\u2019s ownership chain, produced by Defendants on July 13, 2026 and bearing Bates\n\n 9 number PJ-NSO-000084. Defendants have designated this document Confidential under the\n\n10 Protective Order (Dkt. No. 132), and Plaintiffs are filing it provisionally under seal.\n\n11 23. Attached hereto as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of a trademark search showing\n\n12 a trademark (No. 6111028) registered to NSO, produced by Defendants on July 13, 2026 and bearing\n\n13 Bates numbers PJ-NSO-000085 through PJ-NSO-000089.\n\n14 24. Attached hereto as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of a trademark search showing\n\n15 a trademark (No. 6111029) registered to NSO, produced by Defendants on July 13, 2026 and bearing\n\n16 Bates numbers PJ-NSO-000090 through PJ-NSO-000094.\n\n17 25. Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of a \u201cConfirmation of Account\n\n18 Ownership\u201d issued to Q Cyber for an account at Bank Leumi, produced by Defendants on July 13,\n\n19 2026 and bearing Bates number PJ-NSO-000095.\n\n20 26. Attached hereto as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of a \u201cConfirmation of Account\n\n21 Ownership\u201d issued to NSO Group for an account at Bank Leumi, produced by Defendants on July\n\n22 13, 2026 and bearing Bates number PJ-NSO-000096.\n\n23 27. Attached hereto as Exhibit S is a true and correct copy of an Israeli Company Registry\n\n24 Extract for NSO Group dated July 7, 2026, produced by Defendants on August 7, 2026 and bearing\n\n25 Bates numbers PJ-NSO-000097 through PJ-NSO-000107.\n\n26 28. Attached hereto as Exhibit T is a true and correct copy of an Israeli Company Registry\n\n27 Extract for Q Cyber dated July 24, 2026, produced by Defendants on August 7, 2026 and bearing\n\n28 Bates numbers PJ-NSO-000108 through PJ-NSO-000114.\n\n 5\n DECL. OF LUCA MARZORATI IN SUPP. OF PLS.\u2019 MOT. TO COMPEL POST-J. DISCOVERY - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:\n 34612\n\n\n\n 1 29. Attached hereto as Exhibit U is a true and correct copy of NSO Group\u2019s Amended\n\n 2 Articles of Association, produced by Defendants on August 7, 2026 and bearing Bates numbers PJ-\n\n 3 NSO-000115 through PJ-NSO-000152.\n\n 4 30. Attached hereto as Exhibit V is a true and correct copy of a Certificate of\n\n 5 Incorporation for NSO Group, produced by Defendants on August 7, 2026 and bearing Bates number\n\n 6 PJ-NSO-000153.\n\n 7 31. Attached hereto as Exhibit W is a true and correct copy of a Company Name Change\n\n 8 Certificate for Q Cyber, produced by Defendants on August 7, 2026 and bearing Bates number PJ-\n\n 9 NSO-000154.\n\n10 32. Attached hereto as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of the early articles of\n\n11 association for Q Cyber\u2019s predecessor, produced by Defendants on August 7, 2026 and bearing Bates\n\n12 numbers PJ-NSO-000155 through PJ-NSO-000160.\n\n13 33. Attached hereto as Exhibit Y is a true and correct copy of a Certificate of\n\n14 Incorporation for Q Cyber\u2019s predecessor, produced by Defendants on August 7, 2026 and bearing\n\n15 Bates number PJ-NSO-000161.\n\n16 34. Attached hereto as Exhibit Z is a true and correct copy of an Israeli Company Registry\n\n17 Extract for NSO Group dated May 6, 2026, produced by Defendants on August 7, 2026 and bearing\n\n18 Bates numbers PJ-NSO-000162 through PJ-NSO-000164.\n\n19 35. Attached hereto as Exhibit AA is a true and correct copy of a Convertible Promissory\n\n20 Note dated September 17, 2026, produced by Defendants on October 28, 2026 and bearing Bates\n\n21 numbers PJ-NSO-000165 through PJ-NSO-000181. Defendants have designated this document\n\n22 Confidential under the Protective Order (Dkt. No. 132), and Plaintiffs are filing it provisionally under\n\n23 seal.\n\n24 36. Defendants\u2019 U.S. counsel of record has appeared on behalf of Defendants and\n\n25 accepted service of documents throughout this litigation. Before judgment, Plaintiffs deposed four\n\n26 NSO executives, including its then-CEO, Yaron Shohat, on deposition notices served by email on\n\n27 Defendants\u2019 U.S. counsel of record, and Defendants did not insist on Hague Convention procedures.\n\n28 Attached hereto as Exhibits BB through EE are true and correct copies of those deposition notices.\n\n 6\n DECL. OF LUCA MARZORATI IN SUPP. OF PLS.\u2019 MOT. TO COMPEL POST-J. DISCOVERY - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889 Filed 10/30/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:\n 34613\n\n\n\n 1 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\n 2 foregoing is true and correct.\n\n 3 Executed on the 30th day of October 2026 in New York, New York.\n\n 4\n By: /s/ Luca Marzorati\n 5 Luca Marzorati\n 6\n\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n 7\n DECL. OF LUCA MARZORATI IN SUPP. OF PLS.\u2019 MOT. TO COMPEL POST-J. DISCOVERY - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-11-05T20:31:45.465814-08:00","document_number":"889","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872673","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Declaration in Support","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488473/","id":500488473,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/1/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.430350-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.728238-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":11,"file_size":211235,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872674","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488474/","id":500488474,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/2/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.465326-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.744489-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":9,"file_size":195425,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872675","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488475/","id":500488475,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/3/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.481387-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.753965-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":27,"file_size":200658,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872676","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488476/","id":500488476,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/4/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.492975-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.763174-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":18,"file_size":335214,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872677","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit D","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488477/","id":500488477,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/5/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.527561-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.784088-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":56,"file_size":207516,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872678","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit E","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488478/","id":500488478,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/6/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.549008-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-09T13:10:27.964999-08:00","sha1":"d230482c91292a43e44d5200dac24325bb61b1a8","page_count":5,"file_size":285290,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.889.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.889.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889-6 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID\n #: 34735\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT F\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889-6 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID\n #: 34736\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Holmes, David \nSent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 3:08 PM\nTo: Marzorati, Luca \nCc: Andres, Greg D. ; Perez-Marques, Antonio J. ; Block,\nMicah G. ; fb.nso ; Perla, Juan ; Smith,\nTurner P. ; Jerrold Bregman ; derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com; Gilman, Felix\n; Campanini, Kaitlin \nSubject: RE: WhatsApp LLC et. al. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited et. al., No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH (N.D. Cal.)\n\nLuca,\n\nWe will not respond to the substance of your email here and instead will discuss our position at tomorrow\u2019s meet and\nconfer. Consistent with the court\u2019s direction to meet and confer, presumably in good faith, on the remaining document\nissues \u201calone,\u201d we have been working with our client to prepare a proposal that we hope will resolve the pending\ndocument issues without further court intervention.\n\nIn that regard, we do want to note our surprise and concern, based on the tone and substance of your email, that plaintiffs\nmay not be coming to the court-ordered meet and confer in a spirit of cooperation and good faith to try to resolve the\npending document issues without further court intervention. In particular, the court directed the parties to meet and confer,\nand then submit a joint status statement within a week (i.e., by September 10) on whether a motion to compel or a motion\nfor a protective order would be more appropriate to address any unresolved document issues. Yet, your email jumps\nstraight to threatening to file a motion to compel without offering any potential compromise and proposes a briefing\nschedule that contemplates filing a motion to compel on the day the court-ordered joint status statement would be due,\nessentially sidelining the court\u2019s role in deciding the appropriate path forward.\n\nWe sincerely hope that plaintiffs will engage in a meaningful, good faith discussion at tomorrow\u2019s meet and confer with\nthe aim of finding a resolution to the remaining document issues. Please confirm today whether that is plaintiffs\u2019 intent so\nwe can finalize our proposal for tomorrow; otherwise, we\u2019re concerned that our efforts are futile and the court-ordered\nmeet and confer will be a meaningless exercise.\n\nDefendants reserve all rights and objections and waive none.\n\nSincerely,\nDavid Holmes\nAssociate (he/him)\nCurtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP\n101 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10178-0061\n\nDirect Dial: +1 212 696 6000\ndholmes@curtis.com\n\n\n\n www.curtis.com\n\n Please consider the\n environment before\n printing this email.\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889-6 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID\n #: 34737\nFrom: Marzorati, Luca \nSent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 12:39 PM\nTo: Holmes, David \nCc: Andres, Greg D. ; Perez-Marques, Antonio J. ; Block,\nMicah G. ; fb.nso ; Perla, Juan ; Smith,\nTurner P. ; Jerrold Bregman ; derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com; Gilman, Felix\n; Campanini, Kaitlin \nSubject: RE: WhatsApp LLC et. al. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited et. al., No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH (N.D. Cal.)\n\n***EXTERNAL EMAIL***\nCounsel,\n\nThank you for your email.\n\nWe disagree with your characterization that Plaintiffs \u201cattempted to take advantage\u201d of the hearing. Plaintiffs\u2019\nAugust 17 letter expressly stated that \u201cPlaintiffs respectfully request that the Court rule on these issues and are\nprepared to address them at the August 20 hearing.\u201d Dkt. No. 874. Moreover, Judge Hamilton raised the\ndiscovery issue of her own accord before any party said a word about it, stating at the outset: \u201cI\u2019d like to also\naddress the discovery disputes that you-all have written to me about.\u201d Defendants chose to have separate\ncounsel handle post-judgment discovery matters and chose not to have discovery counsel present at a hearing\nat which they knew (or should have known) the Court might address the discovery dispute\u2014nor to have\ndiscovery counsel join after the Court raised the issue. That is a consequence of Defendants\u2019 own choice and\ndoes not support a suggestion of gamesmanship on Plaintiffs\u2019 part.\n\nThe Court\u2019s guidance on the three pending document categories was clear. Judge Hamilton stated: \u201cin my\nview, this is not third-party discovery,\u201d and added that \u201cit doesn\u2019t seem to me that you need to get the\ninformation from a third party, even if it involves a third party. If NSO\u2019s party to a particular loan agreement or\ncredit agreement, they can provide the information without the third party.\u201d If Defendants intend to maintain the\n\u201cnonparty\u201d objection notwithstanding the Court\u2019s guidance, we are prepared to move to compel.\n\nWe see no basis for deferring discussion of the depositions regarding enforcement of the damages award. At\nyour urging, Plaintiffs agreed to handle injunction-related topics separately from the 30(b)(6) deposition on\ndamages-related topics, so your there is no basis for your suggestion that damages-related discovery should\nwait until the Court rules on contempt. Moreover, Plaintiffs\u2019 proposed order to show cause (Dkt. No. 879-1)\ndoes not seek document or deposition discovery from NSO\u2014it asks only that NSO submit a sworn declaration\nto the Court regarding its compliance with the injunction. That proposal does not relate to post-judgment asset\ndiscovery and provides no basis for delay. Separately, Plaintiffs have noticed the deposition of Mr. Rosner in\nhis individual capacity. Whatever objections Defendants may have to the 30(b)(6) topics, they do not provide a\nbasis for withholding Mr. Rosner, whose sole general authority over Defendants\u2019 assets is undisputed.\nDefendants have identified no basis for refusing to produce him. You previously indicated October would work\nfor a deposition. We have been requesting availability since July 23\u2014now nearly five weeks past the noticed\ndate\u2014without receiving a counterproposal.\n\nWe are available to meet and confer on September 3 and are prepared to discuss all three pending document\nissues. Please confirm by September 1 whether Defendants will also engage on deposition topics, provide the\npromised markup of the 30(b)(6) notice, and make Mr. Rosner available.\n\nIf the meet-and-confer does not resolve these issues, we intend to file a motion to compel covering all\noutstanding disputes\u2014the three document categories, the 30(b)(6) deposition, and Mr. Rosner\u2019s individual\ndeposition\u2014so the Court can resolve them in a single proceeding. To that end, we propose the following\nbriefing schedule:\n\n 1. Plaintiffs\u2019 opening brief: September 10, 2026\n 2. Defendants\u2019 opposition: September 24, 2026\n\n 2\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889-6 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID\n #: 34738\n 3. Plaintiffs\u2019 reply: October 1, 2026\n\nPlaintiffs reserve all rights and objections and waive none.\n\nThanks,\nLuca\n\n\n\nLuca Marzorati\n+1 212 450 3660 office\n+1 718 304 6950 mobile\nluca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n\n\nDavis Polk & Wardwell LLP\nConfidentiality Note: This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise\nprotected from disclosure. Unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email or the information herein or taking any action in reliance on the contents of\nthis email or the information herein, by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is\nstrictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original message, any attachments thereto and all copies.\nPlease refer to the firm's privacy notice for important information on how we process personal data. Our website is at davispolk.com.\n\n\n\nFrom: Holmes, David \nSent: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 11:56 AM\nTo: Marzorati, Luca \nCc: Andres, Greg D. ; Perez-Marques, Antonio J. ; Block,\nMicah G. ; fb.nso ; Perla, Juan ; Smith,\nTurner P. ; Jerrold Bregman ; derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com; Gilman, Felix\n; Campanini, Kaitlin \nSubject: RE: WhatsApp LLC et. al. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited et. al., No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH (N.D. Cal.)\n\nLuca,\n\nWe understand that, at the August 20 hearing, the court asked about the status of the post-judgment discovery issues\npresented in the parties\u2019 joint letter from July 31, 2026, and subsequent letters. We understand that plaintiffs attempted to\ntake advantage of that opportunity to make arguments about post-judgment discovery, even though that issue was not\ncalendared for the August 20 hearing, plaintiffs knew defendants were unrepresented by counsel as to post-judgment\ndiscovery matters, and the court properly observed that it would be unfair to go into the substance of the issues in the\nabsence of the appropriate counsel.\n\nWe also understand that the court provided guidance and, consistent with the relief sought by defendants in the joint letter,\ndirected the parties to meet and confer once again within two weeks of the hearing on the three pending issues relating to\nthe joint letter \u201calone.\u201d Those three issues are (1) the credit and loan agreements; (2) payments and distributions to\nofficers and equity holders and; (3) valuations and asset identification. The court further directed the parties to submit a\njoint status letter within one week after the meet and confer, in which the parties must provide their positions on whether\nit would be more appropriate to address any unresolved issues through a motion for a protective order or a motion to\ncompel. In light of the court\u2019s guidance and directives, we can be available to discuss the three issues identified by the\ncourt anytime on Thursday, September 3.\n\nRegarding a deposition and our proposed markup of the 30(b)(6) notice, we believe that it would be more appropriate and\nefficient to defer discussion of those items for now. Given plaintiffs\u2019 request for injunction-related discovery at the\nAugust 20 hearing, plaintiffs\u2019 offer to submit a proposal on further contempt proceedings within a week of that hearing,\nand the court\u2019s leave for defendants to respond, we believe that any discussion of a deposition, which would include any\ninjunction-related topics, should take place after the court has ruled on the parties\u2019 positions regarding any further\ncontempt proceedings. Furthermore, to the extent plaintiffs wish to ask questions about topics that are outside the scope of\nthe discovery responses and documents defendants have produced so far, it would also be more appropriate and efficient\n 3\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889-6 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID\n #: 34739\nto wait until after the court rules on any forthcoming motion for protective order or motion to compel as to the proper\nscope of asset discovery.\n\nSincerely,\nDavid Holmes\nAssociate (he/him)\nCurtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP\n101 Park Avenue\nNew York, New York 10178-0061\n\nDirect Dial: +1 212 696 6000\ndholmes@curtis.com\n\n\n\n www.curtis.com\n\n Please consider the\n environment before\n printing this email.\n\n\n\nFrom: Marzorati, Luca \nSent: Friday, August 21, 2026 4:26 PM\nTo: Holmes, David ; Perla, Juan \nCc: Andres, Greg D. ; Perez-Marques, Antonio J. ; Block,\nMicah G. ; fb.nso ; Smith, Turner P. ;\nJerrold Bregman ; derekshaffer@quinnemanuel.com; Gilman, Felix ;\nCampanini, Kaitlin \nSubject: RE: WhatsApp LLC et. al. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited et. al., No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH (N.D. Cal.)\n\n***EXTERNAL EMAIL***\nCounsel,\n\nI write to follow up on the parties\u2019 August 13 meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs\u2019 30(b)(6) deposition notice.\nDuring that call, you said that you would provide a markup of the topics reflecting NSO\u2019s objections early this\nweek. We have not yet received it.\n\nAs you know, Judge Hamilton directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the disputed issues. To that\nend, we would like to schedule a call for next week. Please provide your availability and the promised markup\npromptly.\n\nThanks,\nLuca\n\n\nLuca Marzorati\n+1 212 450 3660 office\n+1 718 304 6950 mobile\nluca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n\n\nDavis Polk & Wardwell LLP\nConfidentiality Note: This email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise\nprotected from disclosure. Unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email or the information herein or taking any action in reliance on the contents of\nthis email or the information herein, by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is\nstrictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy the original message, any attachments thereto and all copies.\nPlease refer to the firm's privacy notice for important information on how we process personal data. Our website is at davispolk.com.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-11-05T20:36:34.033269-08:00","document_number":"889","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872679","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit F","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488479/","id":500488479,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/7/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.563776-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.811917-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":184700,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872680","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit G","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488480/","id":500488480,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/8/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.575946-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.821390-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36223,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":8,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872681","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit H","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488481/","id":500488481,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/9/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.586550-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.831302-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36217,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":9,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872682","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit I","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488482/","id":500488482,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/10/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.599472-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-09T12:59:55.314586-08:00","sha1":"d7a0880904e59fa2fba5edb74504c745a9e27a31","page_count":1,"file_size":36211,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.889.10.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.889.10.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889-10 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 1 PageID\n #: 34744\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT J\n FILED UNDER SEAL\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-11-05T20:35:46.119448-08:00","document_number":"889","attachment_number":10,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872683","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit J","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488483/","id":500488483,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/11/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.613757-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.854774-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36221,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":11,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872684","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit K","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488484/","id":500488484,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/12/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.627647-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.873389-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36217,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":12,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872685","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit L","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488485/","id":500488485,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/13/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.654770-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.888516-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36219,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":13,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872686","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit M","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488486/","id":500488486,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/14/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.667085-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.898633-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36221,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":14,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872687","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit N","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488487/","id":500488487,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/15/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.679481-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.910247-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36221,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":15,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872688","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit O","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488488/","id":500488488,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/16/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.690733-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.920357-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36216,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":16,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872689","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit P","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488489/","id":500488489,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/17/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.702950-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.930135-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36220,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":17,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872690","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Q","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488490/","id":500488490,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/18/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.715568-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.939655-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36219,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":18,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872691","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit R","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488491/","id":500488491,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/19/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.727525-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.949644-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36215,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":19,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872692","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit S","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488492/","id":500488492,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/20/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.740104-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.960420-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36217,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":20,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872693","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit T","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488493/","id":500488493,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/21/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.750937-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.969550-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36221,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":21,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872694","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit U","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488494/","id":500488494,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/22/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.762174-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.979500-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36222,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":22,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872695","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit V","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488495/","id":500488495,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/23/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.773684-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.989540-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36219,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":23,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872696","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit W","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488496/","id":500488496,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/24/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.785653-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:11.998482-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36220,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":24,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872697","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit X","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488497/","id":500488497,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/25/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.796800-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:12.008211-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36221,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":25,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872698","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Y","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488498/","id":500488498,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/26/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.807877-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:12.020643-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36218,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":26,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872699","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Z","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488499/","id":500488499,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/27/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.821657-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:12.029569-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":36226,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":27,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872700","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit AA","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488500/","id":500488500,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/28/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.832723-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:12.059688-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":4,"file_size":263121,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":28,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872701","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit BB","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488501/","id":500488501,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/29/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.843571-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:12.070936-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":4,"file_size":265315,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":29,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872702","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit CC","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488502/","id":500488502,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/30/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.855083-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-05T20:36:12.079640-08:00","sha1":"","page_count":4,"file_size":264681,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"889","attachment_number":30,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872703","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit DD","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/500488503/","id":500488503,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/889/31/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-05T20:31:21.867308-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-09T13:10:20.209301-08:00","sha1":"1a47e167544e4a5b2602cbb4131bd10975493435","page_count":4,"file_size":286207,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.889.31.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.889.31.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889-31 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID\n #: 34774\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT EE\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889-31 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID\n #: 34775\n\n\n 1 Greg D. Andres\n Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n 2 Craig T. Cagney\n Luca Marzorati\n 3\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 4 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 450 Lexington Avenue\n 5 New York, New York 10017\n Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n 6 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n\n 7 Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n 8 craig.cagney@davispolk.com\n luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n 9\n Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n10 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 1600 El Camino Real\n11 Menlo Park, California 94025\n\n12 Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n13 Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n\n14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC and\n Meta Platforms, Inc.\n15\n\n16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n17 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n18 OAKLAND DIVISION\n19 )\n20 WHATSAPP LLC, a Delaware corporation, ) Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n and META PLATFORMS, INC., a Delaware )\n21 corporation, ) PLAINTIFFS\u2019 NOTICE OF\n ) DEPOSITION OF RAMON ESHKAR\n22 Plaintiffs, ) PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30\n )\n23\n v. )\n24 ) Date: August 27, 2024\n NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ) Time: 9:00 AM BST\n25 and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, ) Place: Davis Polk & Wardwell London LLP\n ) 5 Aldermanbury Square,\n26 Defendants. ) London, EC2V 7HR, UK\n )\n27\n )\n28 )\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889-31 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID\n #: 34776\n\n\n 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:\n\n 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.\n\n 3 (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) will take the deposition upon oral examination of Ramon Eshkar pursuant to Rule 30 of\n\n 4 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The deposition will commence on August 27, 2024, at 9:00 AM\n\n 5 BST at the offices of Davis Polk & Wardwell London LLP, 5 Aldermanbury Square, London, EC2V\n\n 6 7HR, United Kingdom, and will continue day-to-day until completed. The deposition will be taken\n\n 7 by a notary public or other authorized officer and will be videotaped and recorded stenographically.\n\n 8\n\n 9 Dated: August 22, 2024 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n10\n By: /s/ Micah G. Block\n11\n Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n12 1600 El Camino Real\n Menlo Park, California 94025\n13 Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n14 Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n15\n Greg D. Andres\n16 Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n Craig T. Cagney\n17 Luca Marzorati\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n18 450 Lexington Avenue\n19 New York, New York 10017\n Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n20 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n21 antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n craig.cagney@davispolk.com\n22 luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n23\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC and\n24 Meta Platforms, Inc.\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 1\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF RAMON ESHKAR PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 889-31 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID\n #: 34777\n\n\n 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n 2 I hereby certify that I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of New\n\n 3 York, New York. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within-entitled action. My\n\n 4 business address is Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York\n\n 5 10017.\n\n 6 On August 22, 2024, I served a true and correct copy of the following document(s) on the\n\n 7 parties in the action addressed as follows:\n\n 8 PLAINTIFFS\u2019 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF RAMON ESHKAR\n 9\n \u2610 (BY OVERNIGHT COURIER) by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed\n10\n envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered by a\n11\n FedEx or UPS agent for delivery.\n12\n \u2612 (BY ELECTRONIC MAIL) by transmitting via electronic mail document(s) in portable\n13\n document format (PDF) to the email addresses set forth below on this date.\n14\n Joseph N. Akrotirianakis\n15 Aaron S. Craig\n KING & SPALDING LLP\n16 633 West Fifth Street, Suite 1600\n Los Angeles, CA 90071\n17\n Telephone: (213) 443-4355\n18 Email: jakro@kslaw.com\n acraig@kslaw.com\n19\n Attorneys for Defendants NSO Group\n20 Technologies Limited and Q Cyber\n21 Technologies Limited\n\n22 I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.\n23 Executed on August 22, 2024 at New York, New York.\n24\n /s/ Quentin J. Ullrich\n25 Quentin J. Ullrich\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 2\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF RAMON ESHKAR PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 30\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-11-05T20:37:37.380747-08:00","document_number":"889","attachment_number":31,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872704","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit EE","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T22:02:08.536907-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T22:02:08.546687-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"21:40:01","entry_number":889,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":2867,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483786840/","id":483786840,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499611789/","id":499611789,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/890/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-10-30T22:02:07.356282-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T22:02:07.368487-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"890","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872724","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Certificate/Proof of Service","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T22:02:07.330543-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T22:02:07.339391-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"21:47:39","entry_number":890,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":2870,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483779844/","id":483779844,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499604760/","id":499604760,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/887/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-10-30T21:31:10.070964-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-03T19:54:39.503909-08:00","sha1":"61e35dece83e4b41e9e426cf9f30ce78f80d86a8","page_count":3,"file_size":375735,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.887.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.887.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 887 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:\n 34318\n\n\n\n 1 Greg D. Andres\n Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n 2 Luca Marzorati\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 3 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 450 Lexington Avenue\n 4 New York, New York 10017\n Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n 5 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n 6 antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n 7\n Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n 8 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200\n 9 Redwood City, California 94063\n Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n10 Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n11\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n12 WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.\n13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n14\n FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n15\n OAKLAND DIVISION\n16\n ) Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n17 WHATSAPP LLC and )\n18 META PLATFORMS, INC., ) ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CON-\n ) SIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY\u2019S\n19 Plaintiffs, ) MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UN-\n ) DER SEAL\n20 v. )\n ) Ctrm: 3\n21 NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ) Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton\n22 and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, )\n ) Action Filed: October 29, 2019\n23 Defendants. )\n )\n24 )\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 887 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:\n 34319\n\n\n\n 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:\n 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rules 7-11\n 3 and 79-5(f), Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc. (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) move the Court to\n 4 consider whether Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion to Compel Post-Judgment Discovery (the \u201cMotion\u201d) and Exhib-\n 5 its H\u2013AA to the Declaration of Luca Marzorati in Support of Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion to Compel (the \u201cMar-\n 6 zorati Declaration\u201d), should be sealed.\n 7 The Motion and Exhibits H\u2013AA to the Marzorati Declaration contain references to documents\n 8 that Defendants NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited have desig-\n 9 nated for confidentiality pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (Dkt. No. 132) in the above-\n10 captioned action and/or sought leave to file under seal. Accordingly, Plaintiffs now move the Court\n11 to consider whether such references in the Motion and Exhibits H\u2013AA to the Marzorati Declaration\n12 should be sealed. See N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 79-5(f). Plaintiffs reserve the right to challenge any con-\n13 fidentiality designations as well as the sealability of the materials at issue.\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 1\n ADMIN. MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY\u2019S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 887 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:\n 34320\n\n\n\n Dated: October 30, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n 1\n\n 2 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n\n 3\n By: /s/ Luca Marzorati\n 4 Greg D. Andres\n Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n 5 Luca Marzorati\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 6 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 7 450 Lexington Avenue\n New York, New York 10017\n 8 Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n 9 Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n10\n luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n11\n Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n12 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200\n13 Redwood City, California 94063\n Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n14\n Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n15 Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n\n16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 2\n ADMIN. MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY\u2019S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-11-02T07:23:28.972028-08:00","document_number":"887","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872628","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Partys Material Should Be Sealed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T21:31:10.027427-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T21:31:10.039489-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"21:29:57","entry_number":887,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":2863,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/483774499/","id":483774499,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499598212/","id":499598212,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/886/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-10-30T18:32:26.206534-07:00","date_modified":"2026-11-09T04:31:32.350787-08:00","sha1":"0dff987f13d6c3d0b95f2787d6676123e5d7890f","page_count":27,"file_size":490293,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.886.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.886.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 27 PageID\n #: 34199\n\n\n\n 1 Juan O. Perla (appearance pro hac vice)\n Turner Smith (appearance pro hac vice)\n 2 David V. Holmes (appearance pro hac vice)\n CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST,\n 3 COLT & MOSLE LLP\n 4 101 Park Avenue\n New York, NY 10178\n 5 Tel: (212) 696-6084\n jperla@curtis.com\n 6 tsmith@curtis.com\n dholmes@curtis.com\n 7\n\n 8\n Jerrold L. Bregman (SBN 149896)\n 9 BG LAW LLP\n 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 500\n10 Woodland Hills, CA 91367\n Tel: (818) 827-9101\n11\n Fax: (818) 827-9099\n12 jbregman@bg.law\n\n13 Attorneys for Defendants\n NSO Group Technologies Limited\n14 and Q Cyber Technologies Limited\n15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n16 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n17 OAKLAND DIVISION\n18\n19 WHATSAPP LLC and Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n META PLATFORMS, INC.,\n20 DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR\n Plaintiffs, ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER\n21\n\n22 v.\n\n23 NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton\n and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Action Filed: October 29, 2019\n24\n Defendants.\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 27 PageID\n #: 34200\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS\n TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i\n 2\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii\n 3\n\n 4 NOTICE OF MOTION ....................................................................................................................1\n\n 5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND RELIEF SOUGHT ............................................................1\n\n 6 STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ........................................................................................2\n\n 7 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Expansive Post-Judgment Discovery Requests Into\n Worldwide Assets of Non-Debtors and Defendants\u2019 Efforts to\n 8 Reach a Negotiated Resolution of those Requests .......................................2\n 9 B. Plaintiffs\u2019 Sudden Refusal to Narrow their Requests and Further\n10 Attempts to Expand Post-Judgment Discovery Beyond the Scope\n of Rule 69 Through Corporate Depositions .................................................4\n11\n C. Plaintiffs Issue a Subpoena to a Non-Debtor Before the Court Has\n12 Resolved the Pending Discovery Issues ......................................................8\n13 LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................................9\n14 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................................10\n15\n I. Plaintiffs\u2019 Requests Must Be Reasonably Limited under Federal Rules 69\n16 and 26 .....................................................................................................................11\n\n17 A. Discovery of Assets and Financial Affairs of Non-debtors Is\n Improper Absent a Heightened Showing of Relevance .............................11\n18\n B. The Requests Lack Any Reasonable Geographic Scope ...........................14\n19\n C. The Requests Lack a Reasonable Threshold Amount ...............................16\n20\n D. The Relevant Time Period Extends Too Far Back ....................................16\n21\n\n22 II. Any Deposition Must Be Similarly Limited Whether Under Rule 30(b)(6)\n or 30(b)(1) ..............................................................................................................17\n23\n A. Plaintiffs May Not Reach a Foreign Deponent\u2019s Knowledge of\n24 Their Personal Affairs or the Affairs of Other Non-Parties Without\n Serving Them Under the Hague Convention .............................................17\n25\n B. Plaintiffs May Not Inquire Into Injunction-Related Topics under\n26 Rule 69 or Based on a Failed Contempt Motion........................................19\n27\n i\n28 DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 27 PageID\n #: 34201\n\n\n\n CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................21\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3\n\n 4\n\n 5\n\n 6\n\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n ii\n28 DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 27 PageID\n #: 34202\n\n\n\n 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n Cases\n 2\n Beautyko LLC v. Amazon Fulfillment Servs.,\n 3\n Case No. C16-355 RSM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64746\n 4 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 16, 2018) ............................................................................................... 12, 13\n\n 5 Blasket Renewable Invs., LLC v. Spain,\n Civil Action No. 20-817 (JDB), 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137920 (D.D.C. June 22, 2026) ...... 10\n 6\n Crews v. Sun Sols. AZ LLC,\n 7 No. CV-23-01589-PHX-DWL, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161328 (D. Ariz. Sep. 9, 2024) ........ 10\n 8 Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.,\n 9 C18-1360 TSZ, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154109 (W. D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021) ...................... 16\n\n10 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc.,\n 286 F.R.D. 288 (E.D. Va. 2012) ............................................................................................... 10\n11\n EM Ltd. v. Argentina,\n12 695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012) ...................................................................................................... 15\n13 GMA Acc. v. Elec. Wonderland, Inc.,\n14 07 Civ. 3219 (PKC) (DF), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72897 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2012) .............. 12\n\n15 Gubarev v. BuzzFeed, Inc.,\n No. 17-cv-60426, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216713 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 15, 2017) .......................... 18\n16\n In re 3M Combat Arms Earplug Prod. Liab. Litig.,\n17 No. 3:19-md-2885, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173730 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2020) ....................... 17\n18 In re Baycol Prods. Litig.,\n 348 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (D. Minn. 2004) ..................................................................................... 18\n19\n\n20 In re Uber Techs., Inc.,\n Case No. 23-md-03084, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123530 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2024) .......... 10, 14\n21\n InfusAID LLC v. InfuSystem Inc.,\n22 Case No. 17-2243-CM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17051 (D. Kan. Feb. 2, 2018) ......................... 5\n23 Insulet Corp. v. Eoflow Co., Ltd.,\n Civil Action No. 23-11780-FDS, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87095\n24 (D. Mass. May 6, 2025)............................................................................................................. 20\n25\n Laker Airways, Ltd. v. Pan Am. World Airways,\n26 103 F.R.D. 42 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ................................................................................................. 10\n\n27\n iii\n28 DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 27 PageID\n #: 34203\n\n\n\n McCarthy v. Johnson,\n 1 Case No. 21-mc-4 (GMH), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139094 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2022) ............ 17\n 2\n Montgomery v. eTreppid Techs., LLC,\n 3 3:06-CV-0056-PMP (VPC), 2009 LX 91811 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2009) ................................ 5, 10\n\n 4 Nichols v. Credit Union 1,\n Case No. 2:17-cv-02337-APG-GWF, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 241626 (. Nev. July 26, 2019) 10\n 5\n NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina,\n 6 No. C 12-80185 JSW (MEJ), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24010\n (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013) .......................................................................................................... 12\n 7\n\n 8 Reebok Int\u2019l v. McLaughlin,\n 49 F.3d 1387 (9th Cir. 1995) ..................................................................................................... 15\n 9\n Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.,\n10 573 U.S. 134 (2014) ............................................................................................................ 10, 15\n11 Trendsettah U.S. v. Swisher Int\u2019l,\n SA CV 14-01664-JVS (DFMx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239951\n12\n (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) ......................................................................................................... 12\n13\n Tulip Computs. Int\u2019l B.V. v. Dell Comput. Corp.,\n14 254 F. Supp. 2d 469 (D. Del. 2003) .......................................................................................... 17\n\n15 Uniden Corp. of Am. v. Duce Trading Co.,\n 89-CV-0878E, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10441 (W.D.N.Y. July 19, 1993) ............................... 12\n16\n Statutes\n17\n 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1963 ........................................................................................................................... 15\n18\n19 Rules\n\n20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .......................................................................................................................... 10\n\n21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)........................................................................................................... 11, 16\n\n22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) ................................................................................................................... 9\n23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1)............................................................................................................. 8, 18\n24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)............................................................................................................. 6, 18\n25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(a) ..................................................................................................................... 16\n26\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 ................................................................................................................... passim\n27\n iv\n28 DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 27 PageID\n #: 34204\n\n\n\n Treaties\n 1\n Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters,\n 2\n opened for signature Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, T.I.A.S. No. 7444 (entered into force Oct.\n 3 7, 1972).................................................................................................................................. 1, 20\n\n 4 Other Authorities\n\n 5 Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law (Isr. 1958) ........................................................................ 15\n 6 Protection of Privacy Law 5741 (Isr. 1981).................................................................................... 5\n 7\n\n 8\n\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n v\n28 DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 27 PageID\n #: 34205\n\n\n\n 1 NOTICE OF MOTION\n 2 TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:\n 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants NSO Group Technologies Limited (\u201cNSO\u201d)\n 4 and Q Cyber Technologies Limited (\u201cQ Cyber\u201d and, collectively with NSO, \u201cDefendants\u201d) hereby\n 5 move for entry of a protective order (the \u201cMotion\u201d) in the form filed concurrently herewith (the\n 6 \u201cProposed Protective Order\u201d). The Motion is based on the below Points and Authorities; the\n 7 Declaration of Juan O. Perla and exhibits; and the records on file in this case.\n 8 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND RELIEF SOUGHT\n 9 Plaintiffs seek to engage in an unjustified and disproportional examination of the\n10 worldwide assets and financial affairs of countless non-debtors going back years before any\n11 judgment was entered, without even attempting to satisfy the requisite heightened showing of\n12 relevance that this information is likely to lead to executable assets of Defendants, the only\n13 judgment debtors in this case, as required under Federal Rules 69 and 26. Even the requests for\n14 information regarding Defendants\u2019 assets lack any appropriate geographic, amount or time period\n15 limitations, reaching further than is reasonably, relevant and proportional for the needs of the case.\n16 Despite Defendants\u2019 good faith efforts to provide more documents and information than is\n17 warranted to meet the needs of the case, Plaintiffs continue to press ahead with more post-judgment\n18 discovery demands including two deposition notices directed to Defendants, seeking to cover\n19 topics that suffer from the same over-breadth, irrelevance and disproportionality. The same\n20 limitations should apply to those depositions. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have issued and served the\n21 notices only on Defendants, naming a specific corporate witness that resides abroad and is not a\n22 party in this action. Accordingly, any deposition of a foreign corporate witness may not properly\n23 reach knowledge of personal affairs or the affairs of other non-parties without first complying with\n24 the compulsory procedures under the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in\n25 Civil or Commercial Matters, opened for signature Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, T.I.A.S. No.\n26 7444 (entered into force Oct. 7, 1972).\n27\n\n28\n\n\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 8 of 27 PageID\n #: 34206\n\n\n\n 1 Given Plaintiffs\u2019 insistence on enforcing their overly broad, disproportional requests as\n\n 2 written, Defendants need this Court to set the proper boundaries of post-judgment discovery.\n\n 3 Accordingly, Defendants ask the Court to enter the Proposed Protective Order.\n\n 4 STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS\n\n 5 On November 12, 2025, this Court entered judgment for Plaintiffs in the amount of\n\n 6 $4,447,190, Dkt. No. 810, as well as a permanent injunction, Dkt No. 809. On January 30, 2026,\n\n 7 the Court awarded Plaintiffs $15,914,095 in attorneys\u2019 fees. Dkt. No. 835. Defendants timely\n\n 8 appealed the judgment, the injunction and award of attorneys\u2019 fees to the U.S. Court of Appeals\n\n 9 for the Ninth Circuit. Those appeals have been fully briefed and are currently being considered\n\n10 for oral arguments as early as February 2027. Plaintiffs have not requested leave for good cause\n\n11 to register and enforce any judgment outside the Northern District of California, as would be\n\n12 required under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1963 pending appeal.\n\n13 A. Plaintiffs\u2019 Expansive Post-Judgment Discovery Requests Into Worldwide Assets\n\n14 of Non-Debtors and Defendants\u2019 Efforts to Reach a Negotiated Resolution of those\n\n15 Requests\n\n16 On March 4, 2026, Plaintiffs served their First Set of Requests for Production of\n\n17 Documents in Aid of Judgment (the \u201cRFPs,\u201d Dkt. No. 870-1) and Plaintiffs\u2019 First Set of\n\n18 Interrogatories in Aid of Judgment (the \u201cInterrogatories,\u201d Dkt. No. 870-2, collectively with the\n\n19 RFPs, the \u201cRequests\u201d). The Requests sought expansive discovery far beyond any executable assets\n\n20 of the judgment debtors, sweeping back three years before entry of judgment and reaching deep\n\n21 into the worldwide assets and finances (above $5,000) of countless entities and individuals\u2014from\n\n22 ultimate beneficial owners down to the clerical staff\u2014none of whom are judgment debtors.1\n\n23 1\n See, e.g., \u201cYou\u201d and \u201cYour,\u201d Dkt. Nos. 870-1\u2014870-2 at 2 (defining \u201cYou,\u201d and \u201cYour\u201d to mean\n24 \u201cNSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited, as well as their affiliates,\n predecessors, parents, subsidiaries, divisions, officers, employees, agents, principals, beneficial\n25 owners, and attorneys, and each Person acting or purporting to act on their behalf or under their\n control\u201d (emphasis added)); \u201cAffiliate,\u201d Dkt. No. 870-1 at 1 (defining \u201cAffiliate\u201d to mean \u201cwith\n26\n respect to any person or entity, any other person that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled\n27 by, or is under common control with such person or entity\u201d and defining \u201ccontrol\u201d as \u201cthe power\n28\n 2\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 9 of 27 PageID\n #: 34207\n\n\n\n 1 After an agreed-upon 30-day extension, on May 4, 2026, Defendants timely served their\n\n 2 responses and objections (\u201cResponses\u201d) to the Requests. Dkt. Nos. 870-3\u2014870-4. Defendants\u2019\n\n 3 Responses set forth general and specific objections, and subject to those objections, also provided\n\n 4 substantive answers with respect to Defendants\u2019 assets in the United States as of December 12,\n\n 5 2025, the date any judgment first became enforceable.\n\n 6 Within days, at Plaintiffs\u2019 request, counsel for the parties met and conferred. From the\n\n 7 start, Plaintiffs stated their desire to go directly to the Court with what they viewed as three\n\n 8 \u201cthreshold issues\u201d: (i) geographic scope; (ii) temporal scope; and (iii) Interrogatory No. 10 and\n\n 9 RFP No. 7. See Dkt. No. 870-8 at 1-2. Although Plaintiffs took the position that nothing less than\n\n10 what they asked for in the Requests would be sufficient without first bringing the supposed\n\n11 \u201cthreshold issues\u201d to the Court, Defendants developed a proposal in an effort to avoid burdening\n\n12 the Court unnecessarily. And their efforts proved fruitful. Based on Defendants\u2019 proposal,\n\n13 Plaintiffs agreed that a response to Interrogatory No. 10 would eliminate the need to respond to\n\n14 RFP No. 7\u2014resolving one of the \u201cthreshold issues.\u201d Specifically, Defendants agreed to identify\n\n15 any person(s) with authority to transfer funds or sign checks on behalf of, or contractually bind,\n\n16 Defendants, excluding anyone with authority to do those things in the ordinary course of business\n\n17 not exceeding $150,000 annually, starting as of May 6, 2025, i.e., the date the jury returned its\n\n18 damages verdict. See Dkt. No. 870-6 at 6. Defendants promptly provided that information.\n\n19 Defendants also proposed to supplement their responses to the Interrogatories and, to the\n\n20 extent applicable, the RFPs with respect to any jurisdictions outside of Israel and Luxembourg\n\n21 where assets owned by defendants\u2014exceeding a total of $150,000\u2014are located, as of May 6,\n\n22 2025. This proposal should have resolved the threshold issues because it was undisputed that\n\n23 execution of a foreign judgment is not permitted in Israel or Luxembourg pending appeal.\n\n24 Plaintiffs initially rejected that proposal, without offering any alternatives, but after further\n\n25\n to direct or cause the direction of the management or policies of such person or entity, directly or\n26 indirectly, whether through the ownership of voting securities, by contract, or otherwise\u201d\n27 (emphasis added)).\n\n28\n 3\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 10 of 27 PageID\n #: 34208\n\n\n\n 1 outreach by Defendants, Plaintiffs finally proposed a narrower set of requests focusing on four\n\n 2 specific categories of production in line with what Defendants had originally suggested. On May\n\n 3 22, the parties conferred again. Dkt No. 853 at 1. In a spirit of cooperation and to avoid burdening\n\n 4 the Court unnecessarily, Defendants agreed to provide the information for Plaintiffs\u2019 four specific\n\n 5 categories. To implement that agreement, the parties entered into a stipulation on June 4 providing\n\n 6 for the production of numerous documents and supplemental responses (Dkt. Nos. 870-5\u2014870-\n\n 7 6), while \u201cnegotiations continue as to the remaining scope of the Post-Judgment Discovery.\u201d Dkt.\n\n 8 No. 853.\n\n 9 Pursuant to that stipulation, Defendants produced significant documents including (i) their\n\n10 audited financial statements for 2023 and 2024, (ii) an organizational chart showing the ownership\n\n11 chain of all subsidiaries and affiliates of Defendants, and (iii) information about financial accounts\n\n12 worldwide, in addition to certified disclosures about (a) outgoing transfers of assets above\n\n13 $100,000 since January 9, 2023, and (b) authorized signatories. Dkt. Nos. 853; 870-5\u2014870-6.\n\n14 Defendants also agreed to produce their audited financial statements for 2025 once finalized on a\n\n15 reasonable schedule. Dkt. No. 853 \u00b6 2. The June 4 Stipulation showed that the parties were\n\n16 capable of narrowing the Requests to achieve a reasonable compromise through the meet and\n\n17 confer process.\n\n18 B. Plaintiffs\u2019 Sudden Refusal to Narrow their Requests and Further Attempts to\n\n19 Expand Post-Judgment Discovery Beyond the Scope of Rule 69 Through\n\n20 Corporate Depositions\n\n21 On June 5, Plaintiffs sent Defendants an \u201cagenda\u201d for a \u201cmeet and confer on the balance\n\n22 of Plaintiffs\u2019 March 4 requests.\u201d Dkt. No. 870-9. On June 8, Plaintiffs filed a motion for contempt\n\n23 for alleged violations of the injunction. Dkt. No. 854.\n\n24 At a meet and confer on June 16, Plaintiffs expressed willingness to consider a written\n\n25 response to their agenda regarding asset discovery on the premise that the parties could reach\n\n26 agreement on eliminating or narrowing specific requests (as had been done with Interrogatory No.\n\n27 10 and RFP No. 7, see, e.g., Dkt. No. 870-8 at 1). Dkt. No. 870-10. Defendants sent a proposal\n\n28\n 4\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 11 of 27 PageID\n #: 34209\n\n\n\n 1 on June 23. The proposal included an offer to produce (i) Defendants\u2019 corporate formation\n\n 2 documents and any shareholder agreements that are or were in effect as of January 9, 2023; (ii)\n\n 3 documents sufficient to show any liens or other security interests on Defendants\u2019 assets; (iii)\n\n 4 Defendants\u2019 corporate income tax returns for 2023 and 2024; (iv) documents sufficient to show\n\n 5 payments, distributions and other compensation to officers and equity holders, such as members,\n\n 6 starting as of May 6, 2025, on an anonymous basis in accordance with Israel\u2019s Protection of Privacy\n\n 7 Law 5741 (1981); and (v) board minutes, or written offers or presentations to third parties,\n\n 8 indicating a valuation of Defendants\u2019 total enterprise value or any of their assets above $150,000\n\n 9 starting as of May 6, 2025, to the extent any exist. Dkt. No. 870-7. In addition to protecting the\n\n10 identity of non-party officers and equity holders through redactions in accordance with the Israeli\n\n11 privacy law, Defendants\u2019 proposal maintained its objection that information about the assets and\n\n12 financial affairs of non-debtors, such as loan and credit agreements, was not relevant and was\n\n13 disproportional to the needs of the case given that Plaintiffs had not even attempted to make the\n\n14 requisite heightened showing of relevance for why they needed that information.\n\n15 Defendants expected to negotiate that proposal during a videoconference on June 26, but\n\n16 Defendants were surprised to learn, however, that Plaintiffs were no longer willing to engage in\n\n17 any discussion about narrowing the scope of their Requests. Dkt. No. 870-10. Plaintiffs, in fact,\n\n18 rejected the very idea of compromise, insisting that Defendants make a series of concessions\n\n19 (steadily eroding their valid objections), while Plaintiffs refused to narrow their existing requests\n\n20 as would be expected of any requesting party in the meet-and-confer process. Dkt. No. 870 at n.3.2\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23 2\n See, e.g., InfusAID LLC v. InfuSystem Inc., Case No. 17-2243-CM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17051,\n at *4-14 (D. Kan. Feb. 2, 2018) (ordering parties \u201cto meaningfully confer to narrow the scope of\n24\n these discovery requests\u201d before documents were produced where \u201cplaintiff did little more than\n25 demand full compliance\u201d); Montgomery v. eTreppid Techs., LLC, 3:06-CV-0056-PMP (VPC),\n 2009 LX 91811, at *5-6, *9 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2009) (narrowing requested discovery at the \u201cinitial\u201d\n26 stage of post-judgment proceedings without prejudice to plaintiffs\u2019 ability to \u201crenew his request\u201d\n27 later if warranted).\n\n28\n 5\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 12 of 27 PageID\n #: 34210\n\n\n\n 1 By June 29, the motion for contempt was fully briefed. Dkt. Nos. 863-64. The Court\n\n 2 ordered that a hearing on the motion for contempt would take place on August 20. Dkt. No. 865.\n\n 3 On July 23, Plaintiffs served Defendants with a notice of deposition under Federal Rule\n\n 4 30(b)(6) (the \u201c30(b)(6) Notice\u201d). Dkt. No. 881-1. The notice included broad topics seeking\n\n 5 information covered by Defendants\u2019 objections to Plaintiffs\u2019 Requests including further intrusive\n\n 6 discovery into the assets and financial affairs of non-debtors, for instance, information regarding\n\n 7 (i) receivables or other debts owed to entities in and outside of Defendants\u2019 corporate group and;\n\n 8 (ii) transactions between other entities that would not necessarily include Defendants.3 Id. The\n\n 9 notice also included topics that fall outside the plain terms of Federal Rule 69, namely topics\n\n10 relating to the injunction and Plaintiffs\u2019 then pending contempt motion.\n\n11 Meanwhile, Defendants continued their good faith efforts to engage with Plaintiffs, and the\n\n12 parties almost executed a second stipulation for a supplemental production based on Plaintiffs\u2019\n\n13 own \u201cagenda\u201d on \u201cthe balance of Plaintiffs\u2019 March 4 requests,\u201d but those efforts were inexplicably\n\n14 scuttled when Plaintiffs forced the filing of a joint letter late on Friday, July 31\u2014Shabbat in\n\n15 Israel\u2014without giving Defendants an opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs\u2019 last-minute demands.\n\n16 Dkt. No. 870-13 at 2-4; see also Dkt. No. 870-12. In that letter, Defendants explained the need for\n\n17 a heightened showing of relevance before Plaintiffs can obtain information regarding non-parties\n\n18 and their assets. Dkt. No. 870 at 4. Plaintiffs argued that \u201c[c]ourts only require a threshold showing\n\n19 of necessity and relevance when post-judgment discovery is sought from a non-party,\u201d not from\n\n20 Defendants. Id. at 2.\n\n21\n\n22 3\n See, e.g., \u201cYou\u201d and \u201cYours,\u201d Dkt. No. 881-1 at 2 (defining \u201cYou\u201d and \u201cYours\u201d to mean \u201cNSO\n23 Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited, as well as their predecessors,\n parents, subsidiaries, divisions, officers, employees, agents, principals, beneficial owners, and\n24\n attorneys, and each Person acting or purporting to act on their behalf or under their control\u201d\n25 (emphasis added)); \u201cDefendants,\u201d Dkt. No. 881-1 at 2 (defining \u201cDefendants\u201d to mean \u201cNSO\n Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited, as well as their current and\n26 former directors, employees, subsidiaries, corporate parents, affiliates, agents, representatives,\n27 and all other persons acting or purporting to act on their behalf\u201d (emphasis added)).\n\n28\n 6\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 13 of 27 PageID\n #: 34211\n\n\n\n 1 Even so, in an effort to narrow the issues before the Court, Defendants voluntarily produced\n\n 2 categories of documents identified in the unexecuted stipulation, including (i) their corporate\n\n 3 formation documents and (ii) existing liens on their assets, in addition to certified disclosures about\n\n 4 (i) shareholder agreements and (ii) board minutes or written offers to third parties indicating a\n\n 5 valuation of Defendants\u2019 total enterprise value starting as of January 9, 2023. Defendants filed a\n\n 6 supplemental letter advising the Court of that development. Dkt. No. 873.4 After Defendants\u2019\n\n 7 production, Plaintiffs filed their own supplemental letter summarizing the remaining issues\n\n 8 without making any efforts to narrow them. Dkt. No. 874.\n\n 9 While that joint letter was pending before the Court, the parties met and conferred on\n\n10 August 13 regarding the 30(b)(6) Notice. Defendants informed Plaintiffs of their objections to the\n\n11 topics, including the fact that any ruling on the issues raised in the July 31 letter would likely\n\n12 resolve most of the objections to the deposition topics. Defendants further objected to any\n\n13 injunction-related topics. Nevertheless, Defendants noted that a witness could be generally\n\n14 available for deposition after October 4 (after summer travel and Jewish holidays), subject to any\n\n15 forthcoming rulings by the Court regarding the scope of post-judgment discovery. Dkt. No. 881\n\n16 at 4 n.3.\n\n17 At the August 20 hearing, which was calendared to address Plaintiffs\u2019 pending contempt\n\n18 motion, the Court raised the issue of Rule 69 discovery and offered guidance on the three remaining\n\n19 document issues: (i) loan and credit agreements, (ii) distributions and payments to officers and\n\n20 equity holders, and (iii) valuation and identification of assets. Consistent with Defendants\u2019 request\n\n21 in the July 31 letter, the Court ordered \u201cone last meet-and-confer on these three issues alone,\u201d and\n\n22 if the issues could not be resolved, a joint statement with the parties\u2019 positions on whether a motion\n\n23\n\n24\n 4\n25 Additionally, Defendants are ready to produce their corporate income tax returns from 2023 and\n 2024, which are in Hebrew, once Plaintiffs follow through with their commitment from months\n26 ago to submit a stipulated protective order governing generative AI use to translate and review\n27 confidential documents. Dkt. No. 873-1.\n\n28\n 7\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 14 of 27 PageID\n #: 34212\n\n\n\n 1 to compel or a motion for protective order would be better to address those issues. August 20,\n\n 2 2026 Hearing Transcript (\u201cTr.\u201d), Dkt. No. 878, 49:2-4; 51:3-13.\n\n 3 At that hearing, Plaintiffs suggested that Defendants \u201cshould be subject to discovery\u201d to\n\n 4 show compliance with the injunction. Tr. 42:20-21. However, despite the Court permitting\n\n 5 additional briefing regarding \u201ca path forward towards additional [contempt] proceedings\u201d (Tr.\n\n 6 52:11-15), Plaintiffs did not request the Court\u2019s authorization to take any discovery in connection\n\n 7 with their contempt motion. Dkt. No. 879. Plaintiffs instead requested an order to show cause\n\n 8 requiring Defendants to detail why \u201c[they] should not be held in contempt.\u201d Id. at 2.\n\n 9 Just three business days after the August 20 hearing, Plaintiffs served Defendants with a\n\n10 notice of deposition under Federal Rule 30(b)(1) naming Akiva Rosner, CEO of NSO, as the\n\n11 corporate witness (the \u201c30(b)(1) Notice\u201d). Dkt. No. 881-2.\n\n12 Pursuant to the Court\u2019s directives at the August 20 hearing, Defendants attended the court-\n\n13 ordered meet and confer on September 3 with a good faith global proposal to resolve the three\n\n14 remaining issues. Perhaps unsurprisingly given Plaintiffs\u2019 expressed position going into the meet\n\n15 and confer, Dkt. No. 881-3 at 1-2, Plaintiffs rejected the very concept of a global resolution before\n\n16 even hearing the full proposal and further rejected each item independently. Plaintiffs offered no\n\n17 counterproposal. Instead, they reverted to their baseline position that nothing less than what they\n\n18 requested in their Requests as written would suffice and were laser focused on discussing the\n\n19 deposition notices\u2014a topic outside the items identified by the Court for that meet and confer. Dkt.\n\n20 No. 881 at 4. On September 10, pursuant to the Court\u2019s directive, the parties submitted a joint\n\n21 status statement with their respective positions on the need for further briefing. Dkt. No. 881.\n\n22 C. Plaintiffs Issue a Subpoena to a Non-Debtor Before the Court Has Resolved the\n\n23 Pending Discovery Issues\n\n24 On September 23, while the parties\u2019 joint statement was still pending before the Court,\n\n25 Plaintiffs issued a subpoena to non-party Hippocrene Ventures LLC, a Delaware entity. See Perla\n\n26 Decl., Exhibit B. The subpoena seeks, among other things, information about Hippocrene\u2019s assets\n\n27 and its relationship and business dealing with other non-debtor non-parties. Upon receiving\n\n28\n 8\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 15 of 27 PageID\n #: 34213\n\n\n\n 1 Plaintiffs\u2019 notice of the subpoena, Defendants informed Plaintiffs of their objections to the\n\n 2 subpoena and requested a meet and confer to discuss a path forward. On October 8, the parties\n\n 3 met and conferred but were unable to achieve any resolution regarding the subpoena at that time.\n\n 4 In an effort to avoid burdening the Court with issues regarding the subpoena, Defendants\n\n 5 continued to engage with Plaintiffs to understand their reason for issuing the subpoena. In response\n\n 6 to Defendants\u2019 inquiry, on October 23, Plaintiffs explained that, based on documents already\n\n 7 produced by Defendants, they understand that Hippocrene acquired certain secured creditor rights\n\n 8 in NSO-related entities and they believe a relationship may exist between Hippocrene and\n\n 9 Defendants. Plaintiffs wish to understand any flows of money between Hippocrene and\n\n10 Defendants. While Defendants do not believe this is a sufficient heightened showing of relevance,\n\n11 in a spirit of cooperation on October 28, Defendants committed to produce documents sufficient\n\n12 to identify any notes issued to Hippocrene by or for the benefit of Defendants pursuant to which\n\n13 any proceeds flow from Hippocrene directly to or for the benefit of Defendants in response to RFP\n\n14 No. 6 in the March 4 Requests. Defendants made a production that same day.\n\n15 Meanwhile, on October 16, the Court issued an order granting Defendants\u2019 request for\n\n16 further briefing on post-judgment discovery and setting a briefing schedule for \u201ccross-motions\u201d to\n\n17 \u201cresolve pending discovery issues.\u201d Dkt. No. 885. The Court simultaneously denied Plaintiffs\u2019\n\n18 motion for contempt. Dkt. No. 884. The Court also denied Plaintiffs\u2019 request for an order to show\n\n19 cause, disposing of all pending proceedings regarding the contempt motion. Id. Pursuant to the\n\n20 Court\u2019s briefing order, Defendants now submit this motion for a protective order.\n\n21 LEGAL STANDARD\n\n22 The Court may issue a protective order under Rule 26(c) \u201cto protect a party or person from\n\n23 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).\n\n24 The Court may do so by, among other things, (1) \u201cforbidding the disclosure or discovery\u201d; (2)\n\n25 \u201cspecifying terms . . . for the disclosure or discovery\u201d; and (3) \u201cforbidding inquiry into certain\n\n26 matters, or limiting the scope of disclosure or discovery to certain matters.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n27 26(c)(1)(A)-(D). The Court may enter a protective order with respect to all forms of discovery,\n\n28\n 9\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 16 of 27 PageID\n #: 34214\n\n\n\n 1 including depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents, and subpoenas. See, e.g., Laker\n\n 2 Airways, Ltd. v. Pan Am. World Airways, 103 F.R.D. 42, 46 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (observing that a party\n\n 3 may challenge overly broad discovery requests through a motion for a protective order); Nichols\n\n 4 v. Credit Union 1, Case No. 2:17-cv-02337-APG-GWF, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 241626 at *6 (D.\n\n 5 Nev. July 26, 2019) (stating that an overly broad discovery request establishes good cause for a\n\n 6 protective order); see also In re Uber Techs., Inc., Case No. 23-md-03084-CRB (LJC), 2024 U.S.\n\n 7 Dist. LEXIS 123530, at *28-30 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2024) (granting defendant Uber\u2019s motion for a\n\n 8 protective order from several subpoenas under Rule 26 on grounds that certain requests sought\n\n 9 confidential information and were overly broad, unnecessary, and disproportionate to the needs of\n\n10 the case).\n\n11 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES\n\n12 Discovery in aid of executing a money judgment under Federal Rule 69 has limitations\n\n13 based on Federal Rule 26 and \u201cother sources of law,\u201d such as comity, that \u201cbear on the propriety\u201d\n\n14 of \u201cthe nature and scope\u201d of discovery requests. Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573\n\n15 U.S. 134, 146 n.6 (2014) (\u201cNML Capital\u201d). \u201c[I]nformation that could not possibly lead to\n\n16 executable assets is simply not \u2018relevant\u2019 to execution in the first place.\u201d Id. at 144-45 (citing Fed.\n\n17 R. Civ. P. 26). Courts thus properly require Rule 69 discovery to \u201cbe tailored to the specific\n\n18 purpose of enabling a judgment creditor to discover assets upon which it can seek to execute. . . .\u201d\n\n19 E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 286 F.R.D. 288, 292 (E.D. Va. 2012); see\n\n20 also Blasket Renewable Invs., LLC v. Spain, Civil Action No. 20-817 (JDB), 2026 U.S. Dist.\n\n21 LEXIS 137920, at *4 (D.D.C. June 22, 2026) (Rule 69 discovery \u201cmust be capable of identifying\n\n22 attachable assets\u201d); Crews v. Sun Sols. AZ LLC, No. CV-23-01589-PHX-DWL, 2024 U.S. Dist.\n\n23 LEXIS 161328, at *7-8 (D. Ariz. Sep. 9, 2024) (Rule 69 discovery may be \u201climit[ed] \u2026 on grounds\n\n24 of relevance ... and proportionality\u201d); Montgomery v. eTreppid Techs., LLC, 3:06-CV-0056-PMP\n\n25 (VPC), 2009 LX 91811, at *5-6 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2009) (\u201cThe court has broad discretion to limit\n\n26 [Rule 69] discovery.\u201d).\n\n27\n\n28\n 10\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 17 of 27 PageID\n #: 34215\n\n\n\n 1 Plaintiffs seek discovery far beyond what is permissible or even contemplated under Rule\n\n 2 69. The Requests target information outside any relevant or reasonable scope based on entities\n\n 3 geography, amount, or time period. Despite Defendants\u2019 good faith efforts in producing more\n\n 4 information than is necessary and accordingly narrowing the Requests based on \u201cthe needs of the\n\n 5 case,\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), Plaintiffs keep returning with endless demands for more\n\n 6 information based on their overly broad, irrelevant and disproportional Requests as written.\n\n 7 Moreover, Plaintiffs have been insistent on obtaining information of non-debtor, non-parties\n\n 8 without even attempting to make the requisite heightened showing of relevance. Defendants thus\n\n 9 need a protective order not only with regards to the three categories of documents that are in\n\n10 dispute, but globally across all of Plaintiffs\u2019 Requests.\n\n11 The protective order should also encompass the depositions noticed by Plaintiffs, which\n\n12 seek equally overbroad and disproportionate information, including injunction-related topics that\n\n13 are now foreclosed by this Court\u2019s denial of Plaintiffs\u2019 contempt motion and that would in any case\n\n14 fall outside the plain terms of Rule 69 itself.\n\n15 I. Plaintiffs\u2019 Requests Must Be Reasonably Limited under Federal Rules 69 and 26\n\n16 A. Discovery of Assets and Financial Affairs of Non-debtors Is Improper Absent a\n\n17 Heightened Showing of Relevance\n\n18 Despite Plaintiffs\u2019 contentions to the contrary, their Requests, and post-judgment discovery\n\n19 efforts generally, clearly show that Plaintiffs are seeking unwarranted and improper discovery into\n\n20 non-party assets. Defendants need a protective order that prevents Plaintiffs from engaging in a\n\n21 broad and unreasonable fishing expedition into the assets of non-debtor non-parties, as this\n\n22 amounts to undue burden and harassment of both Defendants and the non-parties.\n\n23 Information regarding non-debtors\u2019 assets\u2014such as information about payments or\n\n24 distributions to officers or equity holders, or information regarding Defendants\u2019 debts and\n\n25 liabilities\u2014is irrelevant to identifying executable assets of Defendants, the only judgment debtors,\n\n26 absent a heightened showing of \u201crelevance \u2013 i.e., at least some demonstration of concealed or\n\n27 fraudulent transfers or alter ego.\u201d Uniden Corp. of Am. v. Duce Trading Co., 89-CV-0878E, 1993\n\n28\n 11\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 18 of 27 PageID\n #: 34216\n\n\n\n 1 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10441, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 19, 1993); GMA Acc. v. Elec. Wonderland, Inc., 07\n\n 2 Civ. 3219 (PKC) (DF), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72897, at *14-15, *22-25 (S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2012)\n\n 3 (denying non-party discovery where plaintiff provided no reason to diverge from the \u201cusual rule\u201d\n\n 4 that post-judgment discovery against a non-party is only permitted to search for the judgment\n\n 5 debtor\u2019s hidden assets). Courts in the Ninth Circuit including the Northern District of California\n\n 6 have adopted the same standard. See, e.g., Trendsettah U.S. v. Swisher Int\u2019l, SA CV 14-01664-\n\n 7 JVS (DFMx), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 239951, at *6-7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) (\u201c[I]nquiry into\n\n 8 the assets and finances of the [non-party] is not permitted\u201d absent a showing that \u201cthe relationship\n\n 9 between the judgment debtor and the non-party is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about the\n\n10 bona fides of the transfer of assets between them.\u201d); Beautyko LLC v. Amazon Fulfillment Servs.,\n\n11 Case No. C16-355 RSM, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64746, at *6-7 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 16, 2018)\n\n12 (permitting post-judgment discovery of non-party only upon a sufficient showing of commingling\n\n13 of assets); NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, No. C 12-80185 JSW (MEJ), 2013 U.S.\n\n14 Dist. LEXIS 24010, at *4-6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013) (\u201cNML Capital II\u201d) (denying discovery of\n\n15 non-party assets as irrelevant and unnecessary after concluding that plaintiff failed to make\n\n16 requisite showing of alter ego or fraudulent transfer).\n\n17 As the district court in NML Capital II explained, \u201cdisclosure concerning the assets of a\n\n18 non-party is generally not contemplated by Rule 69(a), and such discovery should only be\n\n19 permitted when the relationship between the judgment debtor and the non-party is sufficient to\n\n20 raise a reasonable doubt about the bona fides of the transfer of assets between them.\u201d 2013 U.S.\n\n21 Dist. LEXIS 24010, at *4-5 (internal quotations omitted). There, the plaintiff sought information\n\n22 regarding non-debtor Yacimientos Petroliferos Fiscales S.A. (\u201cYPF\u201d) and argued that an alter ego\n\n23 relationship existed between YPF and the Republic of Argentina. The court held that \u201c[plaintiff\u2019s]\n\n24 allegations regarding YPF\u2019s relationship to the Republic are insufficient as a matter of law to\n\n25 overcome the presumption that YPF is a separate juridical entity for purposes of asset discovery\n\n26 on an alter-ego theory.\u201d Id. at *5. Inversely, in Beautyko, the court granted post-judgment\n\n27\n\n28\n 12\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 19 of 27 PageID\n #: 34217\n\n\n\n 1 discovery of information about nondebtors only after a heightened showing was made, including\n\n 2 evidence suggesting commingling of funds. 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64746, at *6-7.\n\n 3 After multiple meet-and-confers and letters to the Court, Plaintiffs have yet to even attempt\n\n 4 to make such a showing. Instead, they have erroneously argued that a heightened showing is not\n\n 5 necessary when seeking discovery of non-party assets directly from Defendants as opposed to\n\n 6 seeking information directly from the non-party. Dkt. No. 870 at 2. In fact, in the July 31 joint\n\n 7 letter, Plaintiffs conceded that \u201c[c]ourts only require a threshold showing of necessity and\n\n 8 relevance when post-judgment discovery is sought from a non-party.\u201d Id. While Plaintiffs are\n\n 9 correct that a heightened showing is necessary when seeking information from a non-party, that\n\n10 requirement is not limited to discovery from non-parties. In Beautyko, the court required the\n\n11 heightened showing even though that case concerned requests for \u201cthe Judgment Debtors to\n\n12 produce personal financial information of nondebtor[s].\u201d 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64746, at *5; see\n\n13 also NML Capital II, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24010, at *4-6 (denying information about non-\n\n14 parties upon debtor\u2019s motion). The key question is whether the information is about non-party\n\n15 assets, not who possesses that information or objects to its production.\n\n16 Despite making no heightened showing, Plaintiffs have remained focused on obtaining\n\n17 non-party information, even going so far as refusing to accept documents with non-party\n\n18 information redacted in accordance with Israeli privacy protection laws.5 Plaintiffs have insisted\n\n19 that they need the names of non-parties to identify targets for enforcement. That, of course, is why\n\n20 a heightened showing for discovery of non-party assets is critical. Defendants object to exposing\n\n21 their uninvolved counterparties and employees to harassing discovery demands into their own\n\n22 assets and finances, without the requisite showing by Plaintiffs. See In re Uber, 2024 U.S. Dist.\n\n23\n\n24 5\n The Israel Protection of Privacy Law 5741 (1981) prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of\n25 \u201cpersonal data,\u201d such as a name, and \u201cdata of special sensitivity,\u201d including information about \u201ca\n person\u2019s salary and financial activity.\u201d See Exhibit A appended to the Declaration of Juan O. Perla\n26 (\u201cPerla Decl.\u201d) at Sec. 3 (defining personal data and data of special sensitivity, subsection 10-11);\n27 see, also e.g., Ex. A at Sec. 1, 2(7)-(9).\n\n28\n 13\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 20 of 27 PageID\n #: 34218\n\n\n\n 1 LEXIS 123530, at *8-9, *12-13 (granting Defendant Uber\u2019s request for protective order to bar\n\n 2 enforcement of overly broad and irrelevant requests directed towards its\u2019 third-party vendor).\n\n 3 This is not a hypothetical concern. While this Court was considering further briefing on\n\n 4 these issues, Plaintiffs proceeded with exactly this type of non-party discovery by issuing a\n\n 5 subpoena on Hippocrene, a non-debtor non-party. The subpoena calls for, among other things,\n\n 6 information about (i) all of the non-party\u2019s transfers or loan transactions \u201cof any kind\u201d \u201cduring the\n\n 7 relevant period[, dating back to January 1, 2025]\u201d with various other non-parties, (ii) the non-\n\n 8 party\u2019s communications with other non-parties including both specified individuals and \u201cany\n\n 9 Person\u201d relating to Defendants or the judgment in this action, and (iii) the non-party\u2019s sources of\n\n10 funding. Ex. B at 5-10. By Plaintiffs\u2019 own admission, this post-judgment discovery request to\n\n11 Hippocrene is where \u201c[c]ourts [have required] a threshold showing of necessity and relevance.\u201d\n\n12 Dkt. No. 870 at 2. And yet Plaintiffs have made no more showing of any basis under Rule 69 to\n\n13 pursue information about the affairs of those various other non-debtors than it has regarding the\n\n14 affairs of Hippocrene. It is precisely this type of overbroad, irrelevant and harassing non-party\n\n15 discovery\u2014and its potential to expand indefinitely to encompass an increasing number of\n\n16 Defendant\u2019s business relationships\u2014that must be carefully constrained under Rule 69.\n\n17 It is important that this Court draw a line in the sand regarding the requirement to make the\n\n18 requisite showing of relevance to justify seeking information about the assets and financial affairs\n\n19 of non-parties before being permitted to obtain that information from Defendants or others.\n\n20 Otherwise, Plaintiffs will continue to utilize this post-judgment discovery process to unduly harass\n\n21 uninvolved nonparties and embarrass Defendants. Therefore, this Court should limit the Requests\n\n22 to assets of Defendants, not their liabilities or debts to non-parties or other information about non-\n\n23 parties (including information protected under Israel\u2019s Privacy Protection law), unless Plaintiffs\n\n24 have first made the requisite heightened showing to establish the need for that information.\n\n25 B. The Requests Lack Any Reasonable Geographic Scope\n\n26 Information regarding nonexecutable assets whether in or outside the United States is\n\n27 simply irrelevant and disproportional. The Supreme Court in NML Capital made clear that \u201c[i]f,\n\n28\n 14\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 21 of 27 PageID\n #: 34219\n\n\n\n 1 . . ., [Plaintiffs\u2019 Requests] had sought only \u2018information that could not lead to executable assets in\n\n 2 the United States or abroad,\u2019 then [Defendant] likely would be correct to say that the [Requests]\n\n 3 were unenforceable . . . because information that could not possibly lead to executable assets is\n\n 4 simply not \u2018relevant\u2019 to execution in the first place.\u201d 573 U.S. at 144-145; see also EM Ltd. v.\n\n 5 Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 204 (2d Cir. 2012) (noting district court\u2019s finding that\n\n 6 discovery into assets in Argentina would be \u201cuseless information\u201d where \u201cno Argentinian court\u201d\n\n 7 would permit execution). Plaintiffs have yet to request this Court\u2019s leave, let alone establish good\n\n 8 cause, to register and enforce the judgment outside of the Northern District of California pending\n\n 9 appeal. 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1963. Nor could they. In a spirit of cooperation, Defendants voluntarily\n\n10 disclosed that it has no assets in the United States other than two registered trademarks.\n\n11 Plaintiffs now push for irrelevant discovery into jurisdictions where they could not enforce\n\n12 this Court\u2019s judgment pending appeal. It is undisputed that, under the laws of Israel, where\n\n13 Defendants\u2019 substantial assets are located, a foreign judgment is not enforceable until it \u201cis no\n\n14 longer appealable.\u201d Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law, Section 3.2 (Isr. 1958).6 The laws of\n\n15 Luxembourg, where Defendants\u2019 ultimate parent is incorporated, are similar. See Reebok Int\u2019l v.\n\n16 McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1995) (finding that \u201c[u]nless recognized by the\n\n17 Luxembourg government, foreign judgments do not have any force in that country\u201d). The appeals\n\n18 in this case are still pending. The judgment is therefore unenforceable in either Israel or\n\n19 Luxembourg and discovery into assets in those jurisdictions is irrelevant and disproportionate to\n\n20 the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(1) (\u201cParties may obtain discovery\u2026 considering\u2026\n\n21 whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit\u201d). Thus\n\n22 discovery should be limited to assets in the United States, or, at the very least, to assets outside of\n\n23 Israel or Luxembourg.\n\n24 6\n See also Enforcement of Judgments 2026: Israel, Chambers and Partners,\n25 https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/enforcement-of-judgments-2026/israel (last\n visited Oct. 30, 2026) (explaining that one of the conditions specified in the Enforcement of\n26 Foreign Judgments Law for enforcing a foreign judgment in Israel is that \u201cthe judgment is\n27 unappealable\u201d).\n\n28\n 15\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 22 of 27 PageID\n #: 34220\n\n\n\n 1 C. The Requests Lack a Reasonable Threshold Amount\n\n 2 None of Plaintiffs\u2019 Requests, except Interrogatory No. 8, provides a threshold amount. This\n\n 3 is unreasonable. Given that this case involves a total judgment of more than $20 million, such\n\n 4 expansive Requests, which could capture large amounts of irrelevant information, is\n\n 5 disproportionate to the needs of the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (proportionality should be\n\n 6 assessed in light of \u201cthe amount in controversy\u201d). Even Plaintiffs\u2019 Interrogatory No. 8 sets an\n\n 7 absurdly low threshold amount of $5,000 for transfers of assets. Dkt. No. 870-2 at 5. Plaintiffs\n\n 8 already acknowledged that this threshold amount is far too low as they accepted a stipulated\n\n 9 production of information identifying \u201call transfers of assets . . . above $100,000.\u201d See Dkt. No.\n\n10 853 at 1. Plaintiffs also accepted the identification of authorized signatories for Interrogatory No.\n\n11 10, excluding \u201canyone with authority to do those things in the ordinary course of business not\n\n12 exceeding $150,000 annually.\u201d See 870-6 at 6. Those higher threshold amounts are more\n\n13 reasonable. This Court should therefore grant a protective order limiting Plaintiffs\u2019 Requests to a\n\n14 threshold amount of $150,000, or at the very least, any amounts exceeding $100,000.\n\n15 D. The Relevant Time Period Extends Too Far Back\n\n16 In addition to the overly broad geographic, amount, and entity-based scope of the Requests,\n\n17 Plaintiffs also request discovery dating as far back as January 9, 2023, years before a judgment\n\n18 was ever issued in this case. Information before an award of damages becomes enforceable is\n\n19 irrelevant and disproportional. See Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp., C18-1360 TSZ,\n\n20 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154109, at *21 (W. D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021) (setting the \u201cdate of the\n\n21 [Arbitral] Award\u201d as the start date for post-judgment discovery). Plaintiffs did not obtain a money\n\n22 judgment until November 12, 2025, and the judgment was not enforceable until after the automatic\n\n23 30-day stay provided for under Federal Rule 62(a). Therefore, a more reasonable time period for\n\n24 post-judgment discovery should start December 12, 2025, or at the earliest on May 6, 2025, when\n\n25 the jury returned a damages verdict.\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 16\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 23 of 27 PageID\n #: 34221\n\n\n\n 1 II. Any Deposition Must Be Similarly Limited Whether Under Rule 30(b)(6) or 30(b)(1)\n\n 2 Plaintiffs should not be permitted to inquire into deposition topics that are outside the scope\n\n 3 of permissible Rule 69 discovery as set forth above. Any narrowing of the scope of the Requests\n\n 4 should thus apply equally to the scope of any deposition.\n\n 5 Furthermore, given Plaintiffs demonstrated attempts to seek information about the assets\n\n 6 and financial affairs of non-debtors from Defendants or non-parties, the Court should make clear\n\n 7 that Plaintiffs are not permitted to reach a foreign deponent\u2019s knowledge of personal affairs or the\n\n 8 corporate affairs of non-parties without first complying with the compulsory procedures for\n\n 9 obtaining testimony from a non-party under the Hague Convention. And given the Court\u2019s denial\n\n10 of Plaintiffs\u2019 contempt motion, deposition topics related to the injunction should be prohibited.\n\n11 A. Plaintiffs May Not Reach a Foreign Deponent\u2019s Knowledge of Their Personal\n\n12 Affairs or the Affairs of Other Non-Parties Without Serving Them Under the\n\n13 Hague Convention\n\n14 Plaintiffs may only reach a foreign corporate witness\u2019 knowledge of Defendants\u2019 assets,\n\n15 not knowledge of personal affairs or the corporate affairs of other non-parties.\n\n16 When discovery from a foreign non-party is requested, a party \u201cmust resort to the Hague\n\n17 Evidence Convention\u2019s discovery procedures (where available) if,\u201d as in this case, \u201cthe Court does\n\n18 not have personal jurisdiction over the nonparty.\u201d In re 3M Combat Arms Earplug Prod. Liab.\n\n19 Litig., Case No. 3:19-md-2885, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173730, at *7 n.6 (N.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2020).\n\n20 As another district court put it, \u201c\u2018[w]hen discovery is sought from a non-party in a foreign\n\n21 jurisdiction, application of the Hague [Evidence] Convention . . . is virtually compulsory.\u2019\u201d Tulip\n\n22 Computs. Int\u2019l B.V. v. Dell Comput. Corp., 254 F. Supp. 2d 469, 474 (D. Del. 2003) (emphasis\n\n23 added); see also McCarthy v. Johnson, Case No. 21-mc-4 (GMH), 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139094,\n\n24 at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2022) (noting that \u201ca chorus of federal courts have held that where, as\n\n25 here, a party seeks discovery from a nonparty foreign national residing in a foreign country over\n\n26 whom the court lacks jurisdiction, such discovery is governed by the Hague Convention.\u201d);\n\n27 Gubarev v. BuzzFeed, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-60426, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 216713, at *4 (S.D.\n\n28\n 17\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 24 of 27 PageID\n #: 34222\n\n\n\n 1 Fla. Aug. 15, 2017) (\u201cThe court here has no personal jurisdiction over [the foreign, non-party\n\n 2 individual from whom discovery was sought], and thus the Hague [Evidence] Convention is the\n\n 3 only means by which to facilitate discovery.\u201d); In re Baycol Prods. Litig., 348 F. Supp. 2d 1058,\n\n 4 1060 (D. Minn. 2004) (\u201cIt also appears that resort to the [Hague Evidence] Convention is the only\n\n 5 means available to obtain the requested discovery from [the individual from whom discovery was\n\n 6 sought], as he is a foreign person that is not a party to this case, and who is not otherwise subject\n\n 7 to the jurisdiction of this Court.\u201d).\n\n 8 Here, both the 30(b)(6) Notice and the 30(b)(1) Notice were served only on Defendants as\n\n 9 corporate parties to this action, not on any other entity or individual personally. Plaintiffs have\n\n10 requested Mr. Rosner, who resides in Isreal, as the corporate witness under Rule 30(b)(1), and\n\n11 Defendants intend to designate Mr. Rosner as the corporate witness under Rule 30(b)(6). Mr.\n\n12 Rosner is the CEO of NSO, but he is not individually a party to this action. Both the United States\n\n13 and Israel are parties to the Hague Convention, and therefore, the Hague Convention would apply\n\n14 to reach Mr. Rosner\u2019s testimony in his personal capacity.7 Yet, Plaintiffs have chosen not to\n\n15 proceed in that manner. Accordingly, Mr. Rosner\u2019s non-corporate knowledge of his personal\n\n16 affairs or his personal knowledge of the affairs of other non-parties is off limits as a matter of law\n\n17 unless Plaintiffs comply with the Hague Convention. Requiring Mr. Rosner to testify in his\n\n18 personal capacity would allow Plaintiffs impermissibly to circumvent the Hague Convention.\n\n19 Authorizing a deposition that bypasses the Hague Convention would undermine basic\n\n20 principles of comity. The Hague Convention was developed to ensure that global best practices\n\n21 for the taking of evidence were used across jurisdictions in accordance with the local laws and\n\n22 procedures of each jurisdiction. See 6 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore\u2019s Federal Practice \u00a7 28.11\n\n23 [1] (3d ed. 2026) (\u201cThe Hague Evidence Convention represents the international legal\n\n24\n 7\n25 See Status Table Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or\n Commercial Matters, Hague Conference on Private International Law,\n26 https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=82 (last visited Oct. 30,\n27 2026).\n\n28\n 18\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 25 of 27 PageID\n #: 34223\n\n\n\n 1 community\u2019s response to difficulties posed by differences among civil law and common law legal\n\n 2 systems\u2026by providing alternative means of obtaining evidence in member nations, the Hague\n\n 3 Evidence Convention avoids potential intrusion on judicial sovereignty in nations with civil law\n\n 4 systems\u201d). If U.S. courts permit parties to end run these requirements by stretching the Federal\n\n 5 Rules beyond their proper reach, courts in other jurisdictions may similarly disregard the Hague\n\n 6 Convention when taking evidence from Americans in the United States.\n\n 7 Compliance with the Hague Convention is especially important in the post-judgment\n\n 8 context. Unlike in the pre-trial context where procedures exist to exclude a corporate witness\u2019\n\n 9 testimony based on personal knowledge or prevent it from binding the corporation at trial, where\n\n10 the case is ultimately decided, in the post-judgment context, the primary objective of a deposition\n\n11 is not to bind the company but to obtain information about its assets. A foreign witness who is\n\n12 required to testify in their corporate role on behalf of a corporation is vulnerable to intrusive and\n\n13 harassing inquiries into their own financial affairs or those of other non-parties. Since that\n\n14 information cannot then be taken back once disclosed, such an expansive deposition could\n\n15 undermine the effectiveness of Defendants\u2019 entity-based objections. The least that could be\n\n16 required in this context is compliance with the procedural safeguard for foreign deponents under\n\n17 the Hague Convention whether the deposition is issued to Defendants under Rule 30(b)(6) or Rule\n\n18 30(b)(1).\n\n19 B. Plaintiffs May Not Inquire Into Injunction-Related Topics under Rule 69 or Based\n\n20 on a Failed Contempt Motion\n\n21 Given this Court\u2019s October 16, 2026 Order denying Plaintiffs motion for contempt and\n\n22 request for a show-cause order, Plaintiffs are foreclosed from requesting any discovery relating to\n\n23 their failed contempt motion. See Dkt. No. 881-1 at 5 (Topics 17-20). The Court heard oral\n\n24 arguments on Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for contempt and even permitted post-hearing statements\n\n25 regarding any further contempt proceedings. Tr. 51:23-53:21. Plaintiffs failed to request any\n\n26 discovery and rested instead on their insufficient evidence. Plaintiffs should not be permitted to\n\n27 seek discovery now after having failed to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(c)(iii) (the court\n\n28\n 19\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 26 of 27 PageID\n #: 34224\n\n\n\n 1 \u201cmust\u201d limit the frequency and extent of discovery where it determines that \u201cthe party seeking\n\n 2 discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action\u201d).\n\n 3 Moreover, any injunction-related discovery under the guise of post-judgment discovery is\n\n 4 improper as it goes far beyond the terms of Rule 69 itself. The text of Rule 69 makes clear that\n\n 5 any discovery must be in \u201c[i]n aid of the judgment or execution.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2). The\n\n 6 text also makes clear that the \u201cjudgment\u201d that the rule refers to is a \u201cmoney judgment.\u201d Fed. R.\n\n 7 Civ. P. 69(a)(1). An injunction is not a money judgment. As a result, courts have permitted post-\n\n 8 judgment discovery regarding an injunction under Rule 69 only where the requesting party shows\n\n 9 a connection between the requested discovery and enforcement of a money judgment. See, e.g.,\n\n10 Insulet Corp. v. Eoflow Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 23-11780-FDS, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87095,\n\n11 at *9 (D. Mass. May 6, 2025). That is not the case here.\n\n12 Since this Court has denied Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for contempt, and Plaintiffs have not and\n\n13 cannot establish any connection between the injunction-related topics and enforcement of the\n\n14 money judgment, the protective order should prohibit any further attempts to misuse the post-\n\n15 judgment discovery process under Rule 69 to obtain unwarranted discovery regarding the\n\n16 injunction.\n\n17\n\n18\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 20\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886 Filed 10/30/26 Page 27 of 27 PageID\n #: 34225\n\n\n\n 1 CONCLUSION\n\n 2 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter the\n\n 3 Proposed Protective Order.\n\n 4 Respectfully submitted,\n 5\n CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST,\n 6 COLT & MOSLE LLP\n\n 7 /s/ Juan O. Perla\n Juan O. Perla\n 8 Turner Smith\n 9 David V. Holmes\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n10 CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST,\n COLT & MOSLE LLP\n11 101 Park Avenue\n New York, New York 10178\n12\n Telephone: (212)-696-6084\n13 Email: jperla@curtis.com\n tsmith@curtis.com\n14 dholmes@curtis.com\n\n15 Jerrold L. Bregman (SBN 149896)\n BG LAW LLP\n16\n 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 500\n17 Woodland Hills, CA 91367\n Telephone: (818)-827-9101\n18 Facsimile: (818)-827-9099\n Email: jbregman@bg.law\n19\n Attorneys for Defendants NSO Group\n20\n Technologies Ltd. And Q Cyber Technologies\n21 Ltd.\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 21\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-11-03T08:49:42.669146-08:00","document_number":"886","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872209","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499798977/","id":499798977,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/886/1/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-02T07:32:08.929889-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-03T19:47:54.083056-08:00","sha1":"1437e9a0b8e3aa40e34ecadafb86a80479b83236","page_count":2,"file_size":164008,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.886.1_2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.886.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID\n #: 34226\n\n\n\n 1 Juan O. Perla (appearance pro hac vice)\n Turner Smith (appearance pro hac vice)\n 2 David V. Holmes (appearance pro hac vice)\n CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST,\n 3 COLT & MOSLE LLP\n 4 101 Park Avenue\n New York, NY 10178\n 5 Tel: (212) 696-6084\n jperla@curtis.com\n 6 tsmith@curtis.com\n dholmes@curtis.com\n 7\n\n 8\n Jerrold L. Bregman (SBN 149896)\n 9 BG LAW LLP\n 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 500\n10 Woodland Hills, CA 91367\n Tel: (818) 827-9101\n11\n Fax: (818) 827-9099\n12 jbregman@bg.law\n\n13 Attorneys for Defendants\n NSO Group Technologies Limited\n14 and Q Cyber Technologies Limited\n15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n16 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n17 OAKLAND DIVISION\n18\n19 WHATSAPP LLC and Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n META PLATFORMS, INC.,\n20 DECLARATION OF JUAN O. PERLA\n Plaintiffs, IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS\u2019\n21 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF\n22 PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\n23 v.\n\n24 NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton\n and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Action Filed: October 29, 2019\n25\n\n26 Defendants.\n\n27\n\n28 DECLARATION OF JUAN O. PERLA IN SUPPORT OF CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-1 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID\n #: 34227\n\n\n\n 1 I, Juan O. Perla, declare as follows:\n 2 1. I am a partner with the law firm of Curtis, Mallet, Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP\n 3 (\u201cCurtis Mallet\u201d) and I am admitted pro hac vice before this Court. I am counsel for Defendants\n 4 NSO Group Technologies Ltd. and Q Cyber Technologies Ltd. in the above-captioned action. I\n 5 submit this declaration in support of Defendants\u2019 Motion for Entry of Protective Order, filed\n 6 concurrently herewith.\n 7 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an unofficial translation\n 8 of Israel\u2019s Privacy Protection Law (1981) provided by the Israeli government\u2019s services and\n 9 information website at https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/legalinfo/legislation/en/Protection-of-\n10 Privacy-Law57411981unofficialtranslatioup.pdf.\n11 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Non-Party Subpoena\n12 issued on Hippocrene Ventures LLC, dated September 23, 2026, noticed by Plaintiffs to\n13 Defendants on September 23, 2026.\n14 I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n15 Executed this 30th day of October 2026, in New York City, New York.\n16 Respectfully submitted,\n17\n CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST,\n18 COLT & MOSLE LLP\n\n19 /s/ Juan O. Perla\n Juan O. Perla (appearance pro hac vice)\n20\n\n21 Attorneys for Defendants NSO Group\n Technologies Limited and Q Cyber\n22 Technologies Limited\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n DECLARATION OF JUAN O. PERLA IN SUPPORT OF CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-11-03T08:49:43.451880-08:00","document_number":"886","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872210","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Declaration of Juan O. Perla","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499798980/","id":499798980,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/886/2/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-02T07:32:08.988523-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-09T05:05:53.118529-08:00","sha1":"50d7a25e44b67f887fc0237740f5a0c32dab1ee8","page_count":71,"file_size":761147,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.886.2_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.886.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 71 PageID\n #: 34228\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 71 PageID\n #: 34229\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n -Unofficial Translation-\n\n\n Privacy Protection Law, 5741-1981\n\n\n The Privacy Protection Law, 5741-1981\n\n CHAPTER A: Infringement of Privacy\n 1. Prohibition of Infringement of Privacy\n No person shall infringe the privacy of another without his consent.\n\n 2. What is a Privacy Infringement\n Infringement of privacy is any of the following:\n (1) Spying on or trailing a person in a manner likely to harass him, or any other harassment;\n (2) Listening-in prohibited under any Law;\n (3) Photographing a person while he is in the private domain;\n (4) Publishing a person\u2019s photograph under such circumstances that the publication is likely\n to humiliate him or bring him into contempt;\n (4A) Publication of a photograph of an injured person to the public, that was taken at the time\n of the injury or shortly after, in such a way that he can be identified and in circumstances\n that the publication may embarrass him, except for the publication of a photograph without\n delay between the moment of photographing to the actual broadcasting moment, which does\n not exceed what is reasonable under those circumstances; for this purpose, \"injured\" means\n one who suffered physical or mental injury due to a sudden event and that the injury is\n visible;\n (5) Copying or using, without permission from the addressee or writer, the contents of a letter\n or any other writing not intended for publication, unless the writing is of historical value\n or fifteen years have passed since the time of writing. In this Article \"writing\" - including\n electronic message as defined in Electronic Signature Law, 5761 \u2013 2001;\n (6) Using a person\u2019s name, appellation, picture or voice for profit;\n (7) Infringing a duty of secrecy laid down by law in respect of a person\u2019s private affairs;\n (8) Infringing a duty of secrecy laid down by express or implicit agreement in respect of a\n person\u2019s private affairs;\n (9) Using, or passing on to another, information on a person\u2019s private affairs for a purpose\n other than for which it was given;\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 71 PageID\n #: 34230\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (10) Publishing or delivering anything obtained by way of an infringement of privacy\n under subsections (1) to (7) or (9);\n (11) Publishing any matter relating to a person\u2019s intimate life, including his sexual\n history, state of health or conduct in the private domain.\n 2A. Publication of a Photograph of the Deceased\n (a) For the purposes of this law, the publication to the public of a photograph of a\n person's visible corpse in a way that can be identified is considered a privacy\n infringement, unless one of the following applies:\n (1) The person consented during his lifetime to the said infringement;\n (2) 15 years have passed since the person's death;\n (3) Consent to the said infringement was obtained from the first of the\n specified individuals in subsections (a) to (d) who is still alive, provided\n that the deceased did not object to the said infringement during his\n lifetime, and that his child or parent did not inform the publisher or to\n another on the publisher\u2019s behalf, of his objection to the publication:\n (a) His spouse;\n (b) All of his children;\n (c) His parents;\n (d) All of his siblings;\n (4) The deceased had no family members listed in subsection (3) and the court\n has approved the publication.\n (b) A deceased person's spouse, child, parent, or sibling may file a civil lawsuit for a\n publication in accordance with this Article.\n 3. In This Law \u2013\n \u201cdata security\u201d \u2013 the protection of the integrity of the data, or protection of the data from\n being processed, without lawful permission;\n \u201cperson\u201d \u2013 for the purpose of Articles 2, 13, 14, 15A, 17B, 17B1, 17B2, 17F, 23B, 23M(f), and\n 25, and for the purpose of the definitions of \"direct mailing\", \"database\", \"biometric\n identifier\", \"personal data\", and \"data of special sensitivity\" \u2013 excluding a corporation;\n \u201cdatabase controller\u201d - whoever determines, alone or with another, the purposes of\n processing the data that is in the database, or an entity or an officer in that entity authorized\n by law to process data in the database;\n \u201cdirect mailing\u201d \u2013 contacting a person, based on his belonging to a population group that is\n determined by one or more characteristics of individuals whose names are included in a\n database;\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 71 PageID\n #: 34231\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n \"late payment fees\" and \"new shekel interest rate\" \u2013 as defined in the Law on Adjudication\n of Interest and Indexing, 5721-1961;\n \u201cconsent\u201d \u2013 informed consent, explicit or implied;\n \u201cConstitution Committee\u201d \u2013 the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee of the Knesset;\n \u201ccomputer material\u201d, \u201ccomputer\u201d, and \u201coutput\u201d \u2013 as defined in the Computers law;\n \u201cRegulation of Security in Public Bodies Law\u201d \u2013 Regulation of Security in Public Bodies\n Law, 5758-1998;\n \u201cFreedom of Information Law\u201d \u2013 Freedom of Information Law, 5758-1998;\n \"Computers Law\" \u2013 Computers Law, 5765-1995;\n \u201cDetention Law\u201d \u2013 Criminal Procedure (Enforcement Powers \u2013 Detention) Law, 5756-1996;\n \u201cobject\u201d \u2013 as defined in the Arrest and Search Ordinance;\n \u201cdatabase\u201d \u2013 a collection of personal data processed by digital means, except for one of the\n following:\n 1. A collection for personal use that is not for business purposes;\n\n 2. A collection that includes only a name, address, and contact details, regarding\n 100,000 individuals or less, which does not by itself indicate additional personal data\n regarding the individuals whose names are included in it, provided that the owner\n of the collection or a corporation under the owner\u2019s control does not have another\n collection that includes other details about the same individuals;\n \u201cbiometric identifier\u201d \u2013 a biometric data item used to identify a person or to verify that\n person\u2019s identity, or a biometric measure from which the said data item can be derived; for\n the purposes of this definition, \"biometric\" \u2013 unique human, physiological, or behavioral\n characteristic that can be measured through digital measurement;\n \u201cprocessor\u201d, for the purpose of a database \u2013 an external entity outside the database controller\n that is processing data on its behalf;\n \u201cpersonal data\u201d \u2013 data item relating to an identified or identifiable person; for the purposes\n of this definition, \"identifiable person\" \u2013 one who can be identified with reasonable effort,\n directly or indirectly, including by an identifier such as name, identification number,\n biometric identifier, location data, online identifier, or one or more data items relating to his\n physical, health, economic, social, or cultural status;\n \u201cdata of special sensitivity\u201d \u2013 any of the following:\n (1) Personal data about a person's intimate family life, personal intimate affairs\n and sexual orientation;\n (2) Personal data relating to a person's health status, including medical data as\n defined in the Patient Rights Law, 5756-1996;\n\n 3\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 71 PageID\n #: 34232\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (3) Personal data that constitutes genetic data as defined in the Genetic\n Information Law, 5761-2000;\n (4) Personal data that is a biometric identifier used or intended to be used to\n identify a person or verify his identity in a digital manner;\n (5) Personal data about a person's ethnic origin;\n (6) Personal data about a person's criminal record;\n (7) Personal data about a person's political views or religious beliefs or\n worldview;\n (8) Personal data which is a personality assessment conducted by a professional\n that, as part of their occupation, expresses an opinion on a person's\n personality, or conducted by means intended to perform an assessment of\n material personality traits, including character traits, intellectual\n competence, and ability to function at work or in studies;\n (9) Personal data that is location data and transmission data, as defined in the\n Criminal Procedure Law (Enforcement Powers - Communication Data)\n 5768-2007, created by an authorized provider as defined in the said law, about\n a person, and data about a person's location that can give an indication on\n data under subsections (1) to (7) and (11);\n (10) Personal data about a person's salary and financial activity;\n (11) Personal data subject to confidentiality by law;\n (12) Other personal data determined by the Minister of Justice, with the approval\n of the Constitution Committee, in Schedule 2, provided that such personal\n data is in a database in Israel that was transferred to it from outside the\n country's borders, and that in the jurisdiction from which it was transferred,\n special legal provisions apply to such personal data compared to the\n applicable law for other personal data.\n \u201cmanager of a database\u201d \u2013 the database controller, and for a public body as defined in 23 \u2013\n the director general of the body that controls or possesses the database or person whom the\n aforesaid director authorized for this purpose;\n \"document\" including output;\n \u201cinspector\u201d \u2013 a person authorized in accordance with the provisions of Article 23I;\n \"registry\" \u2013 the registry of databases as defined in Article 12;\n \u201csystem data\u201d \u2013 data regarding the possession and management of personal data and of a\n database and their use, provided that they do not include personal data;\n \u201cprocessing\u201d, \u201cuse\u201d \u2013 any action performed on personal data, including its receipt,\n collection, storage, copy, review, disclosure, exposure, transfer, provision, or granting\n access to it;\n \"Arrest and Search Ordinance\" \u2013 Criminal Procedure (Arrest and Search) Ordinance [New\n Version], 5869-1969;\n \u201cpublication\u201d has the same meaning as in Article 2 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law,\n 5725-1965;\n 4\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 71 PageID\n #: 34233\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n \u201cphotography\u201d includes filming;\n \u201cHead of the Authority\u201d \u2013 An individual appointed by the government to lead the Privacy\n Protection Authority and oversee the protection of personal data in databases in accordance\n with the provisions of this law;\n \u201cdirect mailing services\u201d \u2013 providing direct mailing services to others by transferring lists,\n labels, or data by any means;\n \u201cdata integrity\u201d \u2013 the data in the database is identical to the source from which it was drawn,\n not having been changed, delivered or destroyed without lawful permission.\n 4. Privacy infringement \u2013 Civil Wrong\n An infringement of privacy is a civil wrong, and the provisions of the Torts Ordinance (New\n Version) shall apply to it subject to the provisions of this Law.\n 5. Privacy Infringement \u2013 Criminal Offence\n A person who willfully infringes the privacy of another in any of the ways stated in Articles 2(1),\n (3) to (7) and (9) to (11) is liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.\n 6. Trivial Act\n No right to bring a civil or criminal action under this Law shall accrue though an infringement of\n no real significance.\n\n CHAPTER B: Privacy Protection in Databases\n 7. (Revoked)\n Subchapter A: Databases\n 8. Database Management and Lawful Processing of Personal Data\n (a) In this Article, \"processing\" \u2013 except for incidental storage in good faith.\n (b) No person shall process personal data in a database except for the lawfully established\n purpose of the database.\n (c) No person shall process personal data from a database without authorization from the\n database controller or in deviation from such authorization.\n (d)\n (1) A database controller shall not process personal data in a database or permit another\n to process such data on its behalf if the personal data in the database was created,\n received, accumulated, or collected in violation of the provisions of this law or the\n provisions of any other law that regulates data processing;\n (2) If personal data was provided to a database controller by a different entity, and the\n controller did not and could not have known that the entity acted unlawfully, the\n database controller shall not be liable under this subsection for the processing of\n personal data which was conducted before the database controller knew or should have\n known as aforesaid;\n 5\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 71 PageID\n #: 34234\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (3) The provisions of subsection (1) shall not apply to minor violations of the law under\n the circumstances, and regarding personal data provided under subsection (2), even if\n the controller knew or should have known.\n\n\n 8A. Registration or Notification Obligation\n (a) (1) A database must be registered if one of the following is applicable:\n (a) Its main purpose is to collect personal data for providing it to another as\n a business practice or for consideration, including direct mailing\n services, and the database contains personal data about more than 10,000\n individuals;\n (b) The database controller is a public body as defined in subsection (1) of\n the definition \"public body\" in Article 23, unless the database includes\n personal data only about the employees of the public body;\n (2) A database controller shall not process personal data in a database that is\n subject to registration obligation and shall not permit another to process such data\n on its behalf, unless the database is registered in the registry; for this purpose, a\n database shall be deemed as registered if the database controller submitted a\n registration application in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 and the period\n mentioned in Article 10(a)(1) has passed without the Head of the Authority notifying\n the applicant of his refusal to register the database or the suspension of the\n registration of the database;\n (3) The Head of the Authority may exempt a database that is subject to\n registration from the registration obligation under subsection (1) if he was convinced\n that the registration is not necessary for ensuring compliance with this law regarding\n the database; such notification shall be provided to the controller and published on\n the Authority's website.\n (b) (1) If the number of individuals that data of special sensitivity about them exceeds\n 100,000, in a database that is not subject to registration obligation under subsection\n (a)(1), the database controller shall notify the Authority, within 30 days of the\n aforesaid occurrence, of the identity, address and contact details of the controller, of\n the identity and contact details of the data protection officer \u2013 if an appointment\n thereof is required under Article 17B1, and will provide the Authority with a copy of\n the database definitions document that is required under the Regulations\n promulgated under Articles 17(b) and 36;\n (2) The controller mentioned in subsection (1) shall notify the Authority, within 30\n days of the date of the change or the cessation of the activity, as the case may be, of\n any change in the identity of the controller or the identity of the data protection\n officer and their contact details, on any change requiring an update to the database\n definitions document in accordance with the Regulations under Articles 17(b) and\n 36, and the cessation of the database activity;\n\n 6\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 8 of 71 PageID\n #: 34235\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (3) The Minister of Justice may prescribe Regulations regarding the notification\n methods in accordance with this subsection, and may also, with the approval of the\n Constitution Committee, exempt certain types of databases or types of controllers\n from the notification obligation.\n (c) The provisions of this Article shall not apply to a database that only contains data\n that was made public pursuant to lawful Authority or was made available for public\n access pursuant to lawful Authority.\n 9. Application for Registration\n (a) An application for registration of a database shall be submitted to the Head of the\n Authority.\n (b) An application for registration shall state \u2013\n (1) The identity, address in Israel and the contact details of the database controller,\n and the identity and contact details of the data protection officer;\n (1A) The type of service provided by the processor to the controller;\n (2) The purposes for which the database was established and the purposes for which\n the data are intended;\n (3) The kinds of data that will be included in the database;\n (4) Particulars on the transfer of data abroad;\n (5) Particulars on receiving data, on a permanent basis, from a public body as defined\n in Article 23, the name of the public body delivering the data and the nature of\n the data delivered, except for particulars that are delivered with the consent of the\n persons as to whom the information relates.\n (c) The Minister of Justice, with the approval of the Constitution Committee, may make\n regulations prescribing further particulars to be stated in the application for\n registration.\n (d) The controller or possessor of a database shall notify the Head of the Authority of\n every change in any of the particulars specified in subsection (b) or in subsection (c)\n and of the discontinuance of the operation of the database.\n 10. Powers of the Head of the Authority Regarding Database Registration\n (a) Where an application for registration of a database is submitted\u2013\n (1) The Head of the Authority shall register it in the registry, within 60 days from\n the day the application was submitted to him, unless he sees reasonable cause for\n believing that the database serves or is liable to serve illegal activities or as a cover\n for them, or that the personal data included within it was created received,\n accumulated or collected in violation of this Law or in violation of the provisions of\n any law; however, if the Head of the Authority requested additional data and details\n from the applicant, the time period until the submission of the aforesaid data and\n details will not be taken into account;\n 7\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 9 of 71 PageID\n #: 34236\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (2) The Head of the Authority may register a different purpose than the one\n specified in the application, register a number of purposes for the database, or order\n the database to be registered as several separate databases, all of which if the Head\n of the Authority has realized that it suits the actual activity of the database;\n (3) The Head of the Authority shall not refuse to register the database pursuant\n to subsection (1) and shall not exercise his power pursuant to subsection (2), unless\n he has given the applicant an opportunity to be heard.\n (b) (Revoked)\n (b1) (Revoked)\n (b2) Where the Head of the Authority notified the applicant of his refusal to register the\n database or of the suspension of the registration, the applicant shall not be allowed to process\n personal data in the database and shall not permit another to process personal data on its\n behalf, unless the court has determined otherwise.\n (b3) The Head of the Authority shall delete the registration of a database from the registry,\n if the database controller notifies him that the data in the database has been destroyed or\n transferred to another registered database and does not exist anymore or that the database is\n no longer subject to the registration obligation and has verified the notice by affidavit.\n (c) (Revoked) (d) (Revoked) (e) (Revoked)\n (e1) (Revoked)\n (f) Where the database controller or processor infringes any provision of this law or\n regulations thereunder, or fails to comply with a request made to it by the Head of the\n Authority, the Head of the Authority may suspend the registration for a period that he shall\n determine, or cancel the registration of the database in the registry, if he was convinced that\n it is required under the circumstances, provided that prior to the suspension or the\n cancellation, the database controller or the processor was given the opportunity to be heard.\n (g) (Revoked)\n 10A. (Revoked)\n 11. Notice to accompany request for information\n A request from a person to receive personal data for its processing in a database shall be\n accompanied by a notice indicating \u2013\n (1) Whether that person is under a legal obligation to provide that data or\n whether providing the data depends on his volition and consent and the\n consequence of lack of consent;\n (2) The purpose for which the data is requested;\n (2a) The name and contact details of the database controller;\n (3) To whom the personal data is to be delivered and the purposes of such\n delivery.\n\n 8\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 10 of 71\n PageID #: 34237\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (4) The existence of the right of access to the personal data under Article 13 and\n the right to request the rectification of the personal data under Article 14.\n 12. Registry of Databases\n (a) The Head of the Authority shall manage a register of databases, which shall be open\n for review by the public and shall enable to search its particulars.\n (b) The register shall contain the particulars for registering the database under Article 9,\n except for the name of the data protection officer.\n (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b), in a database of a security\n Authority, the particulars stated in Article 9(b)(1A) and (3), (4), and (5) shall not be\n open to review by the public.\n 13. Right of Access to Personal Data\n (a) Every person is entitled to access, either by himself or through a representative\n authorized by him in writing or his guardian, any personal data about him kept in a\n database.\n (b) The database controller shall enable, at the request of a person referred to in\n subsection (a) (hereinafter \u2013 person making the request) access to the personal data,\n in the Hebrew, Arabic or English language.\n (c) The database controller may refuse to provide the person making the request\n personal data relating to his physical or mental health if, in its opinion, it is liable to\n severely harm the physical or mental health of the person making the request or\n endanger his life; in such case, the database controller shall provider the data to a\n physician or psychologist on behalf of the person making the request.\n (c1) The provisions of this Article shall not require the provision of personal data in violation\n of a privilege prescribed by law, unless the person making the request is the person who is\n the beneficiary of the privilege.\n In this subsection, \u201claw\u201d includes case law.\n (d) The mode and conditions of, and the payment for, the exercise of the right of access\n to personal data shall be prescribed by regulations.\n (e) The provisions of this Article and Article 13A shall not apply \u2013\n (1) To a database of a security Authority within the meaning of Article 19(c);\n (1a) To a database of the Israel Prison Service;\n (2) To a database of a tax Authority within the meaning of the Tax Law Amendment\n (Exchange of Information between Tax Authorities) Law, 5727-1967;\n (3) Where the security or foreign relations of the State or the provisions of any\n enactment require that personal data about any person not be disclosed to him;\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 11 of 71\n PageID #: 34238\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (4) To any database, in respect of which the Minister of Justice, in consultation with\n the Minister of Defense or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as the case may be,\n and with the approval of the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee of the\n Knesset, has determined that it contains information as to which the security or\n foreign relations of the State requires or require that it not be disclosed (such\n information hereinafter referred to as \"secret information\"), provided that a\n person wishing to access personal data about himself kept at any such database\n shall be entitled to access information other than secret information;\n (5) To a database about investigations and law enforcement of an Authority\n empowered by law to investigate an offense, which the Minister of Justice\n determined by order, with the approval of the Constitution Committee.\n (6) To a database established under Article 28 of the Prohibition on Money\n Laundering Law, 5760-2000.\n 13A. Access to Personal Data Not Held by the Database Controller\n Without derogating from the provisions of Article 13 \u2013\n (1) The database controller who keeps it with another (in this Article - the processor) shall\n refer the person making the request to the processor, with its address, and order the\n processor, in writing, to enable the person making the request the access;\n (2) Where the person making the request applies to the processor first, the processor shall\n inform him if he possesses personal data about him, and also the name and address of\n the database controller.\n 14. Rectification of Personal Data\n (a) A person who, when accessing personal data about himself finds that it is not correct,\n not complete, not clear or not up to date may request the database controller or, if\n such controller is a non-resident, the processor thereof to rectify or delete the\n personal data.\n (b) Where the database controller agrees to a request under subsection (a), he shall make\n the necessary changes in the personal data and shall notify them to every person who\n received the personal data from it within a period prescribed by regulations.\n (c) Where the database controller refuses to comply with a request under subsection (a),\n he shall give notice to such effect, in the form and manner prescribed by regulations,\n to the person who made the request.\n (d) A Processor is obligated to rectify the personal data if the database controller agreed\n to the requested rectification or if a court ordered that the rectification be made.\n 15. A Court Claim\n A person requesting data may, in the form and manner prescribed by regulations, file an action\n to the Magistrate\u2019s Court against a refusal by the database controller to enable access under\n Article 13 or Article 13A and against a notice of refusal under Article 14(c).\n\n 15A. Exemplary Damages\n\n 10\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 12 of 71\n PageID #: 34239\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (a) If a database controller or a processor violate any of the provisions specified below,\n a court may award, as a result of that violation, damages that do not depend on\n damage (in this Article \u2013 exemplary damages) of up to 10,000 NIS:\n (1) Regarding a database controller \u2013 if the database is subject to the registration\n obligation under Article 8A \u2013 that controller processed personal data in a non-\n registered database, in violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Article, provided\n that the personal data subject demanded the registration of the database, and 90 days\n have passed since the day of his demand;\n (2) Requested from a person to receive personal data for the purpose of\n processing it in a database in accordance with Article 11 or 23D(a) without providing\n a notice as required by that Article, provided that the aforesaid person approached\n the controller, demanded such notification, and 30 days have passed since his\n request;\n (3) Regarding a database controller \u2013 did not allow a person who requested to\n access personal data about him that is held in the database, to access the data, in\n violation of the provisions of Articles 13 or 13A, within the period of time and\n manner prescribed by the regulations under Article 13;\n (4) Granted a request to rectify or delete personal data that is not correct, not\n complete, not clear, or not up to date, but did not make the necessary amendments\n to the personal data in its possession or did not notify of the amendments to everyone\n who received the personal data from it within the period of time prescribed by the\n regulations under Article 14(b), in violation of the provision of that Article;\n (5) Did not notify the person who requested to rectify or delete personal data\n about him, that is not correct, not complete, not clear, or not up to date, of his refusal,\n in the manner and form prescribed by the regulations under Article 14(c), in violation\n of the provision of that Article;\n (6) Regarding a database controller \u2013 did not notify the Head of the Authority\n about the regular reception of personal data, stored in a database in accordance with\n Article 23D(c), provided that the personal data subject demanded such notification\n from the controller, and 30 days have passed since his request.\n (b) In determining the amount of exemplary damages, the court shall consider, inter alia,\n the following specified factors, and shall not consider the extent of damage caused to the\n injured party as a result of the committed violation:\n (1) Encouragement of the plaintiff to exercise his rights;\n (2) The extent and severity of the violation;\n (3) The behavior, personal circumstances, and economic capacity of the violator, as\n well as additional enforcement measures or payments imposed on the violator for\n the same violations.\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 13 of 71\n PageID #: 34240\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (c) Nothing in this Article shall derogate from the possibility to conduct a criminal\n proceeding if the violation also constitutes a criminal offense, derogate from the possibility\n of using the powers under chapter D3, or derogate from the plaintiff\u2019s right to claim any\n other remedy under the Torts Ordinance [New Version], for the same violation; however, a\n person shall not receive exemplary damages in accordance with this Article more than once\n for the same act or omission.\n 16. Confidentiality\n No person shall disclose any personal data obtained by him by virtue of his functions as an\n employee, manager or processor of a database save for the purpose of carrying out his work or\n implementing the Law or under a court order in connection with a legal proceeding; where the\n request is made before a proceeding has been initiated, it shall be heard by the Magistrate\u2019s Court.\n A person who infringes the provisions of this Article shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of\n five years.\n\n 17. Responsibility for Data Security\n (a) The database controller and the processor are each responsible for the security of the\n data in the database.\n (b) (1) The Minister of Justice, with the consent of the Prime Minister and the approval\n of the Constitution Committee, may make regulations regarding the responsibility\n for data security set forth in subsection (a) and Article 17B(b), including its scope and\n the obligations included therein, as well as regarding the methods of securing the\n data, inter alia, on the following matters:\n (a) Physical protection and the protection of logs in the database;\n\n (b) The management procedures and work rules in a database and in relation\n to it, including the determination of restrictions on employee access to the\n data;\n (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may establish different provisions for\n databases with different characteristics;\n (3) Regulations under subsection (1) which will apply to entities listed in items\n 2 and 3 of the first Schedule to the Regulation of Security in Public Bodies Law will\n be enacted also in consultation with the Minister of Defense.\n 17A. (Revoked)\n 17B. Data Security Officer\n (a) The bodies set forth below shall appoint a person with the appropriate qualifications\n to be in charge of the data security officer (hereinafter \u2013 data security officer):\n (1) A controller of five databases subject to the registration or notification obligation\n under Article 8A or a processor of five such databases;\n (2) A public body as defined in Article 23;\n 12\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 14 of 71\n PageID #: 34241\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (3) A bank, an insurance company, a company involved in rating or evaluating\n credit.\n (b) Without derogating from the provisions of Article 17, the data security officer shall\n be responsible for the data security in the databases kept in the possession of the bodies\n referred to in subsection (a).\n (c) A person who has been convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude or an\n offense under this Law shall not be appointed as a data security officer.\n\n\n 17B1. Obligation to Appoint a Data Protection Officer\n (a) The following entities are required to appoint a data protection officer:\n (1) A database controller that is a public body as defined in Article 23 or a processor\n of such a database, except for a security body as defined in Article 23K;\n (2) A database controller whose main purpose is to collect personal data for\n providing it to another as a business practice or for consideration, including direct\n mailing services, and the database contains personal data about more than 10,000\n individuals;\n (3) A database controller or processor whose core activities consist of data\n processing operations or involve such operations, which, given their nature,\n scope, or purpose, require regular and systematic monitoring of individuals,\n including tracking or systematic monitoring of a person's behavior, location, or\n activities on a significant scale, including but not limited to, an authorized\n provider who provides mobile radio telephone services under the\n Telecommunications Law (Telecommunications and Broadcasting) 5742-1982,\n and an online search service provider or anyone whose main occupation involves\n such actions;\n (4) A database controller or processor whose main activity includes processing data\n of special sensitivity on a significant scale, including but not limited to, a banking\n corporation as defined in the Banking Law (Service to Customer), 5741-1981, an\n insurer as defined in the Supervision of Financial Services Law (Insurance), 5741-\n 1981, a general hospital as defined in the Public Health Ordinance, 1940, and a\n health maintenance organization as defined in the National Health Insurance\n Law, 5754-1994.\n (b) For the purpose of subsections (3) and (4) of subsection (a) \u2013 a significant scale of data\n processing will be, inter alia, in consideration of the number of individuals about whom data\n is processed, their proportion in a specific population, the scope of the data, its quantity, the\n array of types of the processed data, the duration and frequency of the processing activities,\n the duration of data retention, and the geographic area of the processing activities.\n 17B2. Roles of the Data Protection Officer\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 15 of 71\n PageID #: 34242\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (a) The data protection officer shall act to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Law\n by the database controller or processor, and to promote the protection of privacy and data\n security in the databases, and inter alia -\n (1) Serve as a professional Authority and central source of knowledge, advise\n the management of the entity in which he performs his role and its employees,\n prepare a training program, and supervise its implementation;\n (2) Prepare a program for continuous monitoring of compliance with the\n provisions of this Law regarding databases, ensure its execution by the database\n controller or processor, report his findings to the management of the entity in which\n he performs his role, and make suggestions for rectifying deficiencies;\n (3) Ensure the existence of a data security procedure and the database definition\n document, which are required to be prepared under the regulations in accordance\n with Articles 17(b) and 36, which will be brought to the approval of the management\n of the entity in which he performs his role;\n (4) Ensure the handling of requests by individuals about whom personal data is\n in the database, regarding the processing of such data or the exercise of their rights\n under this Law, including requests to access personal data or rectify it; the contact\n details of the data protection officer will be published to the public in an accessible\n and simple manner;\n (5) Serve as the point of contact for the entity in which he performs his role, with\n the Authority.\n (b) The database controller or processor, as applicable, shall provide the data protection\n officer with the conditions and resources required to properly perform his duties and shall\n ensure that the data protection officer is properly involved in all matters related to data\n protection law.\n (c) The data protection officer shall report directly to the general manager of the\n database controller or processor, as applicable, or to an employee who reports directly to the\n general manager of the controller or the processor, as applicable.\n 17B3. Qualifications of the Data Protection Officer and Fulfillment of His Role\n (a) The data protection officer shall have the knowledge and skills required to perform\n his duties adequately, including in-depth knowledge of privacy protection law, appropriate\n understanding of technology and data security, and familiarity with the fields of activity of\n the entity in which he performs his role and its objectives, while taking into account the\n nature of the data processing, its circumstances, scope, and purposes.\n (b) The data protection officer can be someone who is not an employee of the entity in\n which he performs his role.\n (c) The data protection officer shall not hold another position and shall not report to a\n person in the entity in which he performs his role or in another entity, if holding such\n position or subordination may place him in a conflict of interest in the performance of his\n duties under this Law.\n 14\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 16 of 71\n PageID #: 34243\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n Subchapter B: Direct Mailing\n 17C. (Revoked)\n 17D. Direct Mailing\n A database controller or processor shall not process personal data in a database used for direct\n mailing services, unless it is registered in the Registry and one of its registered purposes is mailing\n services.\n 17E. Indication of Data Sources\n A database controller or processor shall not process personal data in a database used for direct\n mailing services, unless he has a record indicating the source from which he received every\n collection of data used for the database, and the date it was received, and to whom each said\n collection of data was provided.\n 17F. Deletion of Data from a Database Used for Direct Mailing\n (a) Every contact by direct mailing shall include in a clear and conspicuous manner\u2013\n (1) Mention that the contact is direct mailing, indicating the registration number\n of the database being used for direct-mailing services as stated in the Register of\n databases;\n (2) Notice of the right of the recipient of the contact to be removed from the\n database as referred to in subsection (b); along with the address which he should\n contact for this purpose;\n (3) The identity of the database controller containing the personal data based on\n which the contact was made, and the sources from which the database controller\n received this data.\n (b) Every person is entitled to demand, in writing, of the controller of the database used for\n direct mailing that the personal data relating to him be deleted from the database.\n (c) Every person is entitled to demand, in writing, of the controller of the database used for\n direct-mailing services or of the controller of the database containing the data based on\n which the contact was made, that the personal data relating to him not be delivered to a\n person, to a type of persons or to specific persons, for either a limited period of time or\n permanently.\n (d) Where a person informed the database controller of his demand as specified in\n subsections (b) or (c), the database controller shall act in accordance with the demand and\n notify the person, in writing, that he acted accordingly.\n (e) Where the database controller did not give notice as specified in subsection (d) within 30\n days from the day of 12 receipt of the demand, the person whom the data are about may\n apply to the Magistrate\u2019s Court in the manner prescribed by regulations, to order the\n database controller to act as specified.\n (f) The rights under this Article of a deceased person recorded in a database are also given\n to his spouse, child, parent, or siblings.\n 15\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 17 of 71\n PageID #: 34244\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n 17G. (Revoked)\n 17H. No Applicability to a Public Body\n This part shall not apply to a public body within the meaning of Article 23(1) in carrying out its\n functions under law.\n 17I. Reservation of Laws\n The provisions of this part are in addition to the provisions of any law.\n Subchapter C: The Privacy Protection Authority\n 17I1. The Privacy Protection Authority\n (a) The Head of the Authority shall supervise the compliance with the provisions of this Law\n and its regulations regarding databases.\n (b) Anyone acting on behalf of the Head of the Authority is considered to be a civil servant\n unless otherwise established in this Law.\n (c) The Authority shall publish its procedures regarding the exercise of its powers on its\n website; however, details that constitute data that a public Authority is prohibited from\n disclosing under Article 9(a) of the Freedom of Information Law shall not be published,\n and the Authority may choose not to publish details that constitute data that a public\n Authority is not required to disclose under Article 9(b) of the said law.\n (d) Notice of the appointment of the Head of the Authority shall be published in the Official\n Gazette.\n 17I2. Preliminary Opinion\n (a) At the request of a database controller or processor, or someone who is about to\n become one of these, the Authority shall provide a preliminary opinion regarding the\n compliance of the database with the requirements of this Law or its Regulations regarding\n the processing of data in the database (in this Law - a preliminary opinion).\n (b) A request for a preliminary opinion shall include the purpose of the request and all\n the necessary facts for the issuance of the opinion, along with the relevant documents.\n (c) A preliminary opinion shall be given within 60 days from the date of receipt of the\n request under subsection (b) or from the date on which the relevant documents have been\n provided, whichever is later; the Head of the Authority may defer the date, under special\n circumstances; if the Authority has decided not to issue a preliminary opinion, it will notify\n the requester within 45 days from the said date.\n (d) The Authority may publish a preliminary opinion with the consent of the requester;\n if the requester does not consent to the publication of the preliminary opinion, the Authority\n may publish it without details that may lead to his identification.\n (e) The Head of the Authority shall determine a procedure, which shall be published on\n the Authority\u2019s website, regarding methods to submit a request for a preliminary opinion\n and circumstances in which an opinion shall not be given, pertaining to requests of the\n following types:\n 16\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 18 of 71\n PageID #: 34245\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (1) A request for which the Authority's position has already been published in the\n past or for which there is a clear case law precedent;\n (2) A request whose scope and implications are limited to the requester's matter in\n relation to the considerable allocation of resources that its handling will require;\n (3) A request that is theoretical or academic in nature;\n (4) A request tainted by unclean hands;\n (5) A request relating to pending proceedings, including supervision, inquiry, or\n criminal enforcement, in accordance with this Law;\n (6) A request whose handling will require an unreasonable allocation of resources.\n 17I3. Report on the Activities of the Privacy Protection Authority and Reporting to the Constitution\n Committee\n (a) The Head of the Authority shall prepare by June 1st of each year a report on the\n actions taken by the Authority to implement the provisions of this Law, in the year preceding\n the preparation of the report, including the enforcement and supervision actions (in this\n Article - report on the activities of the Privacy Protection Authority); the Privacy Protection\n Council shall submit the report, along with its comments, no later than July 1st each year, to\n the Constitution Committee.\n (b) The report on the activities of the Privacy Protection Authority shall include, inter\n alia, the following information, categorized by governmental ministries, other public\n bodies, and private entities:\n (1) The number of requests for preliminary opinions submitted to the Authority and\n the number of opinions given;\n (2) The number of requests for database registration submitted under Article 8A(a)\n and the number of requests refused or databases whose registration was\n suspended under Article 10(a), and the reasons for the refusal or suspension;\n (3) The number of databases required to be registered under Article 8A(a) that were\n given exemption from the registration obligation;\n (4) The number of databases whose registration was suspended or canceled under\n Article 10(f);\n (5) The number of notifications about databases submitted to the Privacy Protection\n Authority under Article 8A(b) and the number of database controllers or\n processors of the said databases, that supervision or administrative inquiry in\n their regard, were conducted in the year following the submission of the\n notification;\n (6) The number of complaints submitted to the Authority against database\n controllers or processors of databases, regarding violations under this Law;\n (7) The number of sectoral supervisions conducted under Article 23IZ;\n 17\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 19 of 71\n PageID #: 34246\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (8) The number of administrative inquiry proceedings initiated under Article\n 23JB(a), and in how many of them it was decided to conduct an investigation\n instead of an inquiry proceeding, under Article 23IG(b);\n (9) The number of search and seizure warrants, or computer material access\n warrants requested from the court under Article 23JD(a) and the number of cases\n in which the warrant was granted;\n (10) The number of complaints submitted to the Head of the Authority about an\n external expert under Article 23JH(h), and how many of them were found to be\n justified;\n (11) The number of orders to cease violations issued under Article 23KE, categorized\n by types of violations, how many appeals regarding the orders were filed, and\n how many appeals were fully or partially granted;\n (12) The number of administrative notices issued under Article 23LF, and in regards\n to how many of them a request to cancel was submitted under Article 23LG, and\n what were the outcomes of the requests;\n (13) The number of cases in which a notification on the possibility of submitting a\n letter of undertaking and making a deposit was given, instead of imposing a\n monetary sanction under Article 23LI, and in how many cases the violator\n submitted a letter of undertaking and made a deposit under Article 23M(c);\n (14) The sum of the monetary sanctions imposed under Article 23KF, the average\n amount of a monetary sanction imposed, the highest monetary sanction\n imposed, and the lowest monetary sanction imposed;\n (15) The number of cases in which a violator asked to exercise the right to be heard\n under Article 23KH, and the average time taken to exercise the right to be heard;\n (16) The number of cases in which a notice of intent to impose a monetary sanction\n was issued, and no monetary sanction was imposed, and the reasons for not\n imposing;\n (17) The number of cases in which the monetary sanction was reduced under Article\n 23LA and Schedule 5, in how many cases the sanction was reduced due to\n exceeding the maximum permissible percentage of the entity's turnover, in how\n many cases due to exceeding the cap for a small or micro enterprise under the\n same Schedule, and in how cases due to the appointment of a data protection\n officer in the entities listed in Articles 17B1(a)(3)-(4);\n (18) The number of repeated violations that occurred, how many of them occurred\n after an administrative notice was issued under Article 23LF, and how many of\n them occurred after the submission of a letter of undertaking and making a\n deposit under Article 23M;\n (19) The number of repeated violations that occurred;\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 20 of 71\n PageID #: 34247\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (20) The number of appeals filed against the Head of the Authority's decision to\n impose a monetary sanction, administrative notice, or a letter of undertaking and\n a deposit under chapter D3, in how many of them the execution of the decision\n was stayed, and in how many of them the appeal was granted;\n (21) The number of cases in which a monetary sanction imposed on a corporation\n was not published, and the number of cases in which a monetary sanction\n imposed on an individual or corporation was published under Article 23MF;\n (22) The number of requests submitted for a ban on processing order under Article\n 23MI, and in how many of them the said order was granted;\n (23) Data on the criminal enforcement carried out by the Authority, inter alia, the\n number of investigations initiated by an investigator, the number of indictments\n filed following these investigations, categorized according to the offenses, in\n how many of them the proceedings ended in conviction, and what was the\n punishment in each case;\n (24) The number of requests for the approval of the exercise of powers by the Head\n of the Authority, an inspector, or an investigator submitted to the Chair of the\n Central Election Committee or the Chair of the Regional Election Committee,\n as applicable, under Article 23NI; how many of them were granted, and in how\n many of them conditions were established.\n (c) To the report on the activities of the Privacy Protection Authority under subsection\n (a) the Head of the Authority shall include a report on the number of lawsuits filed in court\n for exemplary damages under Article 15A and the case numbers of these lawsuits, according\n to the information provided to him by the Court Administration.\n\n CHAPTER C: Defenses\n 18. What are Defenses\n In any criminal, civil or administrative proceeding for an infringement of privacy, it shall be a good\n defense if one of the following occurs:\n (1) The infringement was committed by way of a publication protected under Article 13 of\n the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965;\n (2) The defendant or accused committed the infringement in good faith and in one of the\n following circumstances:\n (a) He did not know and need not have known that an infringement of privacy might\n occur;\n (b) The infringement was committed in circumstances in which the infringer was\n under a legal, moral, social or professional obligation to commit it;\n (c) The infringement was committed in defense of a legitimate personal interest of\n the infringer;\n\n 19\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 21 of 71\n PageID #: 34248\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (d) The infringement was committed in the lawful pursuit of the infringer\u2019s\n occupation and in the ordinary course of its work, provided that it was not\n committed by way of publication;\n (e) The infringement was committed by way of taking a photograph, or of publishing\n a photograph taken, in the public domain, and the injured party appears in it\n accidentally;\n (f) The infringement was committed by way of a publication protected under\n subsections (4) to (11) of Article 15 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-\n 1965;\n (3) The infringement involved a public interest justifying it in the circumstances of the case,\n provided that, if the infringement was committed by way of publication, the publication\n was not untruthful.\n 19. Exemption\n (a) No person shall bear responsibility under this Law for an act which he is empowered to\n do by law.\n (b) A security authority or a person employed by it or acting on its behalf shall bear no\n responsibility under this Law for an infringement reasonably committed within the scope\n of their functions and for the purpose of carrying them out.\n (c) For the purposes of this Article, \u201csecurity authority\u201d means any of the following:\n (1) The Israel Police;\n (2) The Intelligence Branch of the General Staff, and the Military Police,\n of the Israel Defense Forces;\n (3) The Israeli Security Agency;\n (4) The Intelligence and Special Duties Agency;\n (5) The Witness Protection Authority.\n 20. Burden of Proof\n (a) Where the accused or defendant proves that he committed the infringement of\n privacy under any of the circumstances referred to in Article 18(2) and that it did not exceed\n the limits reasonable under those circumstances, he shall be presumed to have committed it\n in good faith.\n (b) The accused or defendant shall be presumed not to have committed the infringement\n of privacy in good faith if in committing it he knowingly went further than was reasonably\n necessary for the purposes of the matters protected by Article 18(2).\n (c) An accused person or defendant who claims to have a defense provided by Article\n 18(2)(b) or (d) shall be presumed not to have infringed privacy in good faith if he infringed it\n in violation of the rules or principles of professional ethics applying to him by law or\n accepted by members of the profession to which he belongs; however, this presumption will\n\n 20\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 22 of 71\n PageID #: 34249\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n\n not apply if the infringement was caused in circumstances that the accused person or\n defendant acted according to a legal duty that was imposed on him.\n 21. Rebuttal of Defense Claims\n Where the accused or defendant produces evidence or himself testifies to prove one of the defense\n pleas provided by this Law, the prosecutor or plaintiff may produce rebutting evidence. This\n provision shall not derogate from the power of the court under any law to permit the production of\n evidence by the parties.\n 22. Mitigating Factors\n In passing sentence or awarding compensation, the court may also take the following into account\n in favor of the accused or defendant:\n (1) The privacy infringement was merely a repetition of what had already been said, and he\n cited the source on which he relied;\n (2) That he did not intend to commit an infringement;\n (3) If the infringement was committed by way of publication \u2013 that he has apologized and\n has taken steps for the discontinuance of the sale or distribution of copies of the publication\n containing the infringement, provided that the apology was published in the same place and\n in the same dimensions and manner in which the infringing matter had been published and\n was unqualified.\n\n\n CHAPTER D: Providing Information or Data by Public Bodies\n 23. In this chapter\n \"Public Body\" means:\n (1) A Government Department and any other State institution, a local authority\n and any other body carrying out public functions under any law;\n (2) A body designated by the Minister of Justice, by order, with the approval of\n the Constitution Committee, provided that the order shall prescribe the categories of\n data and data items which the body may provide and receive.\n 23A (revoked)\n 23B. Prohibition on Providing Data\n (a) The provision of personal data by a public body is prohibited unless it has been\n published by lawful authority, or the person to whom it relates has consented to it being\n provided.\n (b) The provisions of this Article shall not prevent a security authority, within the\n meaning of Article 19, from receiving or providing personal data for the purpose of carrying\n out its functions, provided that its provision or receipt is not prohibited by any enactment.\n 23C. Exception to the Prohibition\n Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 23B, the provision of personal data, unless prohibited by\n any enactment or by the principles of professional ethics, is permitted \u2013\n 21\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 23 of 71\n PageID #: 34250\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (1) Between public bodies, if:\n (a) The provision of the personal data takes place within the framework of the\n powers or functions of the data provider and is required for the purpose of\n implementing any enactment or for any purpose within the framework of the\n powers or functions of the data receiver, or\n (b) The personal data is provided to a public body permitted by law to demand it from\n any other source;\n (2) From a public body to a Government Department or other State institution, or between\n such Departments or institutions as aforesaid, if the provision of the personal data is\n required for the purpose of implementing any enactment or for any purpose within the\n framework of the powers or functions of the data receiver; provided that no personal data\n shall be provided as aforesaid if it had been given on condition that it not be provided to\n another.\n\n\n 23D. Obligations of a Public Body\n (a) A public body which regularly provides personal data under Article 23C shall\n indicate such fact in every request for data made in accordance with the Law.\n (b) A public body which provides Personal data under Article 23C shall keep a record\n of the personal data provided.\n (c) Where a public body receives personal data under Article 23C on a regular basis and\n such personal data is stored in a database, it shall notify the Head of the Authority of such\n fact, and such fact shall be included in the particulars of the registry under Article 12.\n (d) A public body which receives personal data under Article 23C shall only make use\n of it within the framework of its powers or functions.\n (e) For the purposes of the duty of confidentiality under any law, any personal data\n provided to a public body by virtue of this Law shall be treated like personal data obtained\n by that body from any other sources and, in addition, all the provisions applying to the\n providing body shall apply to the receiving body\n 23E. Excessive Personal Data\n (a) Where any personal data permitted to be provided under Article 23B or 23C is stored\n in a file with any other personal data (hereinafter referred to as \"excess personal data\"), the\n providing body may provide the requested personal data to the receiving body together with\n the excess personal data.\n (b) Excess personal data may be provided under subsection (a) only upon establishing\n procedures preventing any use being made thereof. Such procedures shall be prescribed by\n regulations. As long as they have not been so prescribed, the requesting body shall establish\n procedures in writing and shall submit a copy thereof to the providing body upon request.\n 23F. Permitted Provision Does Not Infringe Privacy\n\n 22\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 24 of 71\n PageID #: 34251\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n The provision of personal data permitted under this Law shall not constitute an infringement of\n privacy and the provisions of Articles 2 and 8 shall not apply thereto.\n\n 23G. Regulations on The Provision of Personal Data\n The Minister of Justice may, with the approval of the Constitution Committee, make regulations as\n to procedure for the provision of personal data by public bodies.\n 23H. (Revoked)\n CHAPTER D1: Supervisory and Administrative Inquiry Powers Subchapter A:\n Appointment of Inspectors\n 23I. Appointment of Inspectors\n (a) The Head of the Authority may authorize an inspector from civil servants, who will\n hold all or some of the powers under this Law, if all the following apply to him:\n (1) The Israeli Police has notified, within three months of the Head of the\n Authority's request, that it does not object to his authorization for reasons of public\n safety, including due to his criminal record;\n (2) He received appropriate training regarding the powers he will hold under this\n Law and has met additional qualification conditions if prescribed, as determined by\n the Minister of Justice, with the agreement of the Minister of National Security, and\n regarding the exercise of the powers to access computer material or copy thereof\n under Article 23JD \u2013 his position qualifies him to perform such activities;\n (3) He received appropriate training on privacy protection, as determined by the\n Minister of Justice.\n (b) The inspector's authorization under this Article shall be by a certificate signed by\n the Head of the Authority, certifying his role as an inspector and his powers under this Law\n (hereinafter \u2013 inspector's certificate).\n (c) Notice of authorization under subsection (b) shall be published in the Official\n Gazette and on the Privacy Protection Authority's website.\n Subchapter B: Supervisory Powers\n 23J. Inspector's Powers\n (a) For the supervision of carrying out of provisions under chapters B, D, and E, and for\n the supervision of carrying out of provisions that the Head of the Authority is authorized to\n order the cessation of their violation under Article 23KH, an inspector authorized under the\n provisions of subchapter A (hereinafter \u2013 inspector) may:\n (1) Require any person he believes to be a concerned party to provide his name and\n address and present an identity card or other official document that identifies\n him;\n (2) Require any person concerned to provide any information or document;\n 23\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 25 of 71\n PageID #: 34252\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (3) Require any person concerned to present him or provide him with a copy of\n computer material containing system data or sample data; sample data under this\n Article will not be collected in excess to what is necessary to achieve the\n supervisory purposes;\n (4) Enter a place where he has reasonable grounds to believe a database exists or is\n being used, provided that he does not enter a place used as a residence except by\n court order.\n (b) Prior to exercising his powers under this Article, the inspector shall notify the person\n that he is under a supervision proceeding; once notified, the person must answer the\n questions asked, but the answers given shall not be used as evidence in a criminal\n proceeding against him, if he had no obligation to answer them if he was asked under Article\n 2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Testimony).\n (c) The Head of the Authority shall delete system data or sample data provided or\n collected under subsection (a)(3) when they are no longer reasonably required for the\n continuation of the supervisory proceedings, and no later than three years from the date of\n the provision or collection of the data, and regarding system data \u2013 within seven years unless\n the data is required for proceedings under subchapter B or C of this chapter, under chapter\n D3, or under chapter D4.\n 23JA. Inspector Identification\n An inspector shall not exercise the powers granted to him under this chapter, except while\n performing his role and if both of the following apply:\n (1) He openly wears a badge identifying him and his role;\n (2) He holds an inspector's certificate, which he will present upon request.\n\n Subchapter C: Administrative Inquiry\n 23JB. Administrative Inquiry\n (a) If an inspector has reasonable grounds to assume that a violation of a provision that\n the Head of the Authority is authorized to order the cessation of under Article 23KE, or a\n provision under this Law mentioned in Article 23KF, he may initiate an administrative\n inquiry proceeding regarding the violation and exercise the powers under Article 23J for that\n matter.\n (b) In an administrative inquiry proceeding under subsection (a), the identification\n requirement under Article 23JA will not apply if its fulfillment may cause one of the\n following:\n (1) Thwart the exercise of power by the inspector;\n\n (2) Endanger the inspector\u2019s or another person\u2019s safety.\n (c) If the reason for which the inspector did not fulfill the identification requirement as\n mentioned in subsection (b) has passed, the inspector shall fulfill said obligation as soon as\n possible.\n 24\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 26 of 71\n PageID #: 34253\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n 23JC. Notice of Administrative Inquiry Proceeding and Response to Inspector's Questions\n Before exercising his powers under this subchapter, the inspector shall notify the person that an\n administrative inquiry proceeding concerning the database is being conducted and the nature of the\n inquiry; once notified, the person must answer the questions asked, but the answers given will not\n be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding against him if he had no obligation to answer them if\n he was asked under Article 2(2) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Testimony).\n 23JD. Search and Seizure Order and Warrant for Access to Computer Material\n (a) If an inspector that the Head of the Authority has authorized to do so, has reasonable\n grounds to assume that a violation of a provision under this Law mentioned in Article\n 23JB(a) has been committed, he may request a search and seizure order or an order for access\n to computer material under Articles 23(1), 23A, and 24 of the Arrest and Search Ordinance,\n and carry them out himself or through another inspector; notice of an authorization under\n this subsection will be published in the Official Gazette.\n (b) Data collected through access to computer material during an administrative inquiry\n proceeding shall be used solely for the purpose for which it was collected, and shall not be\n used as evidence in a criminal proceeding.\n 23IF. Manner of Conducting a Search, Seizure of an Object, and Access to Computer Material and\n its Copying\n The provisions of Articles 23A, 24(a)(1) and (b), 26 to 28, 31, 32A to 42, and 45 of the Arrest and\n Search Ordinance will apply when conducting a search, seizure of an object, and access to computer\n material or copying thereof under this subchapter, with the necessary modifications, and the\n following changes: the powers granted to a police officer will apply to an inspector, and the powers\n granted to an Officer will apply to the Head of the Authority or an inspector authorized by the Head\n of the Authority.\n 23IG. Decision on Administrative Inquiry Proceeding in Case of Reasonable Suspicion of a\n Criminal Offense\n (a) If the Head of the Authority has reasonable grounds to suspect that an act or\n omission (in this chapter \u2013 act) that can lead to a criminal investigation under subchapter A\n of chapter D4 or an administrative inquiry under this subchapter, the Head of the Authority\n shall decide on the conducting of an investigation or an administrative inquiry; the Head of\n the Authority's decision will be based solely on these considerations and according to an\n enforcement procedure determined by the Head of the Authority:\n (1) The severity of the act and its circumstances;\n (2) The assessment of the nature and strength of the evidence related to the act;\n (3) The enforcement policy of the Authority.\n (b) If the Head of the Authority decides to conduct an administrative inquiry proceeding\n under subsection (a) and new facts are discovered that were unknown to the Authority and\n if known would have influenced the decision, the Head of the Authority may order the\n conducting of an investigation instead of the inquiry proceeding.\n\n 25\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 27 of 71\n PageID #: 34254\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (c) The Head of the Authority may delegate his power under subsection (a), to decide to\n conduct a criminal investigation or administrative inquiry to a senior employee who reports\n directly to him; notice of such delegation will be published in the Official Gazette.\n Subchapter D: Sectoral Supervision and External Experts\n 23JG. A Plan for Sectoral Supervision and Assistance from Non-civil Servants for Sectoral\n Supervision\n (a) The Head of the Authority shall determine a plan for sectoral supervision of the\n implementation of provisions under this Law and a list of supervised entities to which the\n sectoral supervision plan shall apply; for the implementation of the plan, the Head of the\n Authority may be assisted by a non-civil servant in carrying out these activities (in this\n Article \u2013 assisting party):\n (1) Distributing the sectoral supervision questionnaires to the supervised entities,\n provided that it is clarified that the request to the supervised entity is on behalf of\n the Authority, while the response and communication will be conducted with a\n non-civil servant and that the supervised entity will be entitled to contact a civil\n servant whose name and contact details will be specified in the request;\n (2) Receiving the response to the questionnaire from the supervised entity, including\n the requested accompanying documents and any additional documents attached\n by the supervised entity;\n (3) Examination of the response to the questionnaire and the documents received in\n accordance with subsection (2), according to criteria determined by the Head of\n the Authority in a procedure;\n (4) Contacting the supervised entity for supplementary information or update on the\n need for clarifications regarding the answers to the Authority;\n (5) Preparation of a report to the Authority regarding the supervised entity's response\n to the questionnaire for a specific supervised entity or type of supervised entities;\n (6) Granting an extension request submitted by a supervised entity in regards to a\n response to the questionnaire or the submission of documents, in accordance with\n the Authority's guidelines;\n (7) Providing answers to the supervised entity on technical issues.\n (b) In performing the actions, the assisting party shall act in accordance with the\n guidelines and instructions of the Head of the Authority and under his supervision;\n however\u2013\n (1) Any action requiring the exercise of discretion granted to the Authority or its\n employees by law shall only be performed by a civil servant;\n (2) An assisting party shall not perform an action requiring entry to a place under\n Article 23J(a)(4).\n (c) The provisions of Article 23JH(c)(2) to (e), (g), (j) and (ja) shall apply to an assisting\n agent, with the necessary modifications.\n\n 26\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 28 of 71\n PageID #: 34255\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n 23JH. Assistance from an External Expert\n (a) For the supervision of fulfillment of the provisions under chapters B, D, and E and\n for the exercise of his powers under subchapters B and C, and chapter D3, the Head\n of the Authority may be assisted by a person who is not a civil servant, and who has\n been granted authorization according to subsection (c) (in this Law \u2014 an external\n expert), in matters for which experience, knowledge or unique means are required.\n (b) An external expert shall act on behalf of the Head of the Authority, in accordance\n with his guidance and instructions and under his supervision; an external expert\n shall not exercise a power involving the exercise of discretion granted to the Head\n of the Authority or to employees of the Authority by law.\n (c) The Head of the Authority may appoint a person who meets all the following as an\n external expert:\n (1) He has the experience, knowledge and expertise appropriate to his position;\n (2) He has not been convicted of an offense which, due to its nature, severity or\n circumstances, makes him unfit to be appointed as an external expert.\n (d) The Head of the Authority may refuse to appoint as an external expert a person\n against whom criminal proceedings are pending for an offense which, due to its\n nature, severity or circumstances, makes him unfit to be appointed as an external\n expert.\n (e) (1) No one shall be appointed as an external expert or serve as an external expert if\n his position shall frequently place him in a conflict of interest;\n (2) An external expert shall not handle a matter that shall place him in a conflict of\n interest;\n (3) If an external expert becomes aware that he may be in a conflict of interest as\n mentioned in subsections (1) or (2), he shall notify the Head of the Authority as\n soon as possible.\n (f) An external expert may require any person concerned to provide him with any\n information or document, provided that any such requirement is approved in\n advance by an inspector, and he may accompany an inspector entering a premise in\n accordance with Article 23J(a)(4).\n (g) An external expert who receives data in accordance with this Article in the course of\n his duty or work must keep it confidential, not disclose it to another, and not use it\n except in accordance with this Law or any other statute or by a court order.\n (h) Anyone who sees himself injured by the action of an external expert may file a\n detailed written complaint to the Head of the Authority; the Head of the Authority\n shall examine the complaint and respond to the applicant within 45 days; if the Head\n of the Authority finds the complaint to be justified, he shall notify so to the applicant\n and the external expert, along with his decision; if the Head of the Authority finds\n the complaint to be unjustified, he shall inform the applicant and the external expert\n in writing.\n\n 27\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 29 of 71\n PageID #: 34256\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (i) (1) The external expert is subject to the same legal provisions as civil servants\n regarding the provisions applicable to public servant laws in the Penal Law, 5737-\n 1977, and the Public Service (Gifts) Law, 5749-1979;\n (2) Restrictions on the external expert's occupation after the end of the engagement\n with him shall be determined in the employment contract, including provisions\n regarding the period in which the external expert shall not work for a competitor\n of the entity whose matter he handled as an external expert, nor provide services\n or receive benefits from such an entity.\n (j) A notice of appointment as an external expert and an updated list of external experts\n shall be published on the Authority's website.\n (k) In this Article\u2014\n \u201cfamily member\u201d \u2013 spouse, parent, grandparent, son or daughter and their spouses,\n siblings and their children, father-in-law, mother-in-law, grandson or\n granddaughter, including a relative as mentioned that is intertwined (step);\n \u201cinterested party\u201d \u2013 as defined in the Securities Law, 5728-1968;\n \u201chandling\u201d \u2013 including making decisions, raising a subject for discussion, presence\n in a discussion, participation in a discussion or a vote, or dealing with the subject\n outside a discussion;\n \u201cconflict of interest\u201d of an external expert \u2013 a conflict of interest between the\n fulfillment of his duties and a personal interest or another position, his own or that\n of his relative;\n \u201crelative\u201d \u2013 any of the following:\n (1) A family member of an external expert;\n (2) A person in whom an external expert has an interest in his financial\n situation;\n (3) A corporation in which an external expert, his family member or a person\n referred to in subsection (2) are an interested party in;\n (4) An entity in which an external expert, his family member or a person\n referred to in subsection (2) are managers or responsible employees.\n Subchapter E: Supervision and Administrative Inquiry in Bodies Under the Regulation of\n Security in Public Bodies Law\n 23JI. Supervision and Administrative Inquiry in Bodies Listed in the fifth Schedule of the\n Regulation of Security in Public Bodies Law.\n The manner of exercising the powers in accordance with subsections B and C regarding the bodies\n listed in the fifth Schedule of the Regulation of Security in Public Bodies Law, shall be determined\n in a procedure established by agreement between the National Cyber Directorate as defined in the\n aforementioned law (in this Law \u2013 the National Cyber Directorate) and the Authority, considering\n the sensitivity of the data and the computerized systems used by these bodies.\n\n\n\n 28\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 30 of 71\n PageID #: 34257\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n CHAPTER D2: Supervision and Administrative Inquiry in Security Agencies\n 23K. Applicability to Security Agencies\n (a) In this chapter\u2014\n \u201csecurity agency\u201d \u2013 one of the following:\n (1) Israel Police;\n (2) Israel Defense Forces;\n (3) Israeli Security Agency;\n (4) Intelligence and Special Duties Agency;\n (5) National Cyber Directorate;\n (6) Witness Protection Authority;\n (7) Israel Prison Service;\n (8) Ministry of Defense and its auxiliary units and the Director of Security in the\n Defense Establishment;\n (9) Units and auxiliary units of the Prime Minister's Office, whose main activity is\n in the domain of national security;\n (10) Enterprises included in an order issued by the Minister of Defense pursuant\n to item (3) of the first Schedule of the Regulation of Security in Public Bodies\n Law, and that the Minister of Defense notified the Minister of Justice about them;\n (11) Other body determined by the Minister of Defense, by order, with the\n consent of the Minister of Justice and with the approval of a joint committee of\n the Knesset's Constitution Committee and the Foreign Affairs and Defense\n Committee;\n \u201cHead of a Security Body\u201d, for the purposes of Israel Defense Forces \u2013 the Chief of the\n General Staff or an officer with the rank of Major General authorized by the Chief of the\n General Staff for this purpose.\n (b)\n (1) The provisions of subchapters B and C of chapter D1 shall not apply to security\n agencies, and the supervision and administrative inquiry of security agencies shall\n be carried out in accordance with the provisions of this chapter;\n (c) The Minister of Defense, with the consent of the Minister of Justice, may exclude\n from the publication in the Official Gazette of an order under in subsection (11) of\n the definition \u201csecurity agency\u201d in subsection (a), the name of an agency in respect\n of which the order was issued, for reasons of protecting national security; however,\n the full text of the order, that includes the name of said agency, shall be deposited\n with the Minister of Justice.\n\n\n 23KA. Appointment of a Privacy Inspector in a Security Agency\n\n 29\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 31 of 71\n PageID #: 34258\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (a) The Head of a security agency, in consultation with the Head of the Authority, shall\n appoint a person to the position of a privacy inspector in the security agency (in this chapter\n \u2013 the internal inspector), in accordance with the qualification and training requirements\n determined by the Head of the Authority, in consultation with the Head of the security\n agency.\n (b) The internal inspector shall be appointed for one term, and the Head of the security\n agency may appoint him for additional terms, in consultation with the Head of the\n Authority; the internal inspector's term shall be for no less than three years.\n (c) The tenure of the internal inspector shall not be terminated and he shall not be\n removed from his position without consultation with the Head of the Authority.\n (d) The internal inspector shall be an employee of the security agency and report\n directly to the Head of the security agency, or to a senior employee of the security agency\n who reports directly to the Head of the security agency and shall receive professional\n instructions from the Head of the Authority.\n (e) The internal inspector shall not hold any additional position or engage in any additional\n occupation that may place him in potential of a conflict of interest in the performance of his\n duties under this chapter.\n (f) The security agency shall make available to the internal inspector appropriate means\n necessary to fulfill his duties under this chapter.\n 23KB. Duties of the Internal Inspector\n The internal inspector shall supervise the implementation of the provisions of this Law in the\n security agency and shall monitor their exercise, and inter alia:\n (1) Prepare an annual work plan to be submitted for approval by the Head of the security\n agency and by the Head of the Authority, to supervise compliance with the provisions of\n this Law and to examine violations of provisions that the Head of the Authority is\n authorized to order their cessation under Article 23KE and violation of any of the\n provisions under this Law listed in Article 23KF (in this Article \u2013 work plan);\n (2) Examine the procedures of the security agency and its policy on privacy protection and\n its compliance with the provisions of the law and the security agency\u2019s policy on privacy\n protection and its compliance with the provisions under this Law;\n (3) Examine the existence of violations of provisions which the Head of the Authority is\n authorized to order their cessation under Article 23KE and violations of the provisions\n under this Law listed in Article23KF, in accordance with the instructions of the Head of\n the Authority;\n (4) Report to the Head of the Authority without delay, subject to the security clearance\n provisions, as set out in Article 15 of the Israel Security Agency Law, 5762-2002, and the\n Compartmentalization rules applicable to the security agency, on the findings of the\n supervision and examination activities he has conducted;\n (5) Supervise the manner in which deficiencies discovered in the findings of the supervision\n and examination are corrected;\n\n 30\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 32 of 71\n PageID #: 34259\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (6) Conduct training and instruction to the employees of the security agency on privacy\n issues;\n (7) Submit to the Head of the security agency and to the Head of the Authority an annual\n report on the manner in which the work plan was implemented and on compliance with\n the provisions of the law that pertain to privacy protection in the security agency.\n 23KC. Powers of the Internal Inspector\n In order to fulfill his duties, the internal inspector shall have the powers vested in an inspector under\n subchapter B of chapter D1, and shall also be obligated to delete sample data as provided in Article\n 23J(c), with the necessary modifications.\n 23KD. Powers of the Head of the Authority regarding Security Agencies\n (a) The Head of the Authority may order the internal inspector to take actions, including\n complementary or additional actions to those conducted by the internal inspector, or to\n correct deficiencies.\n (b) The Head of the Authority may exercise the powers vested in him under chapter D3\n if he finds that any of the violations that the Head of the Authority is authorized to order\n their cessation under Article 23KE, or of a provision listed in Article 23KF has been violated,\n on the basis of a report by the internal inspector, or if he finds that there is a concern that any\n of the aforementioned violations has occurred, and has instructed the internal inspector to\n ascertain whether a violation has been committed, and the internal inspector did not\n investigate the violation within a reasonable time as determined by the Head of the\n Authority after consulting with the internal inspector, and the conditions of Article 23KG\n have been met.\n (c) If the Head of the Authority deems that the findings under subsection (a) or (b) raise\n suspicion that an offense has been committed under this Law, or that he has otherwise\n become aware of such an offense, an investigator shall have the enforcement powers under\n Article 23NA, unless there was another investigative authority authorized by law to\n investigate offenses in that security agency; for the purposes of this Article, \u201cother\n investigative authority\u201d \u2013 other than the Israel Police.\n (d) An investigator or the Head of the Authority shall not use their powers under this\n chapter with regard to a security agency unless he has undergone security clearance as set\n out in Article 15 of the Israel Security Agency Law, 5762-2002.\n\n CHAPTER D3: Administrative Enforcement Measures and Judicial Order\n Subchapter A: The Power of the Head of the Authority to order the Cessation of a Violation\n 23KE. Power to order the Cessation of a Violation\n (a) If the Head of the Authority finds that a database controller or a processor has used\n information about a person's private affairs in a database for a purpose other than for\n the purpose for which it was provided, contrary to the provisions of Article 2(9), or\n processed personal data in a database for a purpose that constitutes an infringement\n of privacy under Article 2, he may, after giving it an opportunity to present its\n\n 31\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 33 of 71\n PageID #: 34260\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n arguments, notify it that its actions constitute a violation and order it to cease it in\n the manner and within a time period instructed by him.\n (b) If the Head of the Authority finds that a database controller or a processor has\n processed personal data in a database that was created, received, accumulated or\n collected, contrary to the provisions of this Law or contrary to the provisions of any\n other law that regulates data processing, or has permitted another to process such\n personal data for him, contrary to Article 8(d), he may, after giving it an opportunity\n to present its arguments, notify it that its actions constitute a violation and order it to\n cease it in the manner and within a time period instructed by him.\n (c) If the Head of the Authority finds that a database controller or a processor has\n processed data contrary to the provisions of the Regulations listed in part B of the\n fourth Schedule, he may, after giving it an opportunity to present its arguments,\n notify it that its actions constitute a violation and order it to cease such actions in the\n manner and within a period as instructed.\n (d) If the Head of the Authority finds that one of the instances in subsections (1) to (4)\n below has occurred, he may, after giving the database controller or the processor\n who is required to appoint a data protection officer in accordance with Article\n 17B1(a), an opportunity to present its arguments, notify it that its actions constitute a\n violation, and order it to cease the violation and the manner in which it should be\n rectified; if the Minister of Justice has issued, with the approval of the Constitution\n Committee, an order under Article 23KF(d)(1)(g), the Head of the Authority may also\n issue such an order for the violation listed in subsection (5) below:\n (1) The data protection officer has not been provided with the conditions and\n resources required to properly perform his duties, or he was not properly involved\n in all matters related to data protection laws, contrary to Article 17B2(b);\n (2) The data protection officer does not report directly to the officials listed in Article\n 17B2(c);\n (3) The data protection officer does not possess the required knowledge and skills\n under Article 17B3(a);\n (4) The data protection officer holds another position or reports to a person in the\n entity in which he performs his role or in another entity, in a manner that may\n place him in a conflict of interest in the performance of his duties, contrary to\n Article 17B3(c);\n (5) The database controller or the processor did not appoint a data protection officer,\n contrary to Article 17B1(a)(3) or (4).\n (e) In an order to cease a violation under subsections (a) to (d), the Head of the Authority\n shall specify the following:\n (1) Details of the act or omission (in this chapter \u2013 the act) that constitutes the\n violation, the circumstances of its commission and the date of its commission,\n the requirement to rectify the violation and the deadline for its rectification;\n\n\n 32\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 34 of 71\n PageID #: 34261\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (2) The possibility of imposing a monetary sanction on the violator if he does not\n cease the violation;\n (3) The violator\u2019s right to appeal within 45 days according to subsection (f).\n (f) (1) An order by the Head of the Authority to cease a violation can be appealed to the\n magistrate's court where the president of the magistrate's court presides, within 45\n days from the delivery of the order of cessation of the aforesaid violation;\n (2) The court hearing the appeal may approve the decision of the Head of the\n Authority, change it, cancel it, or make another decision in its place, and may return\n the matter with instructions to the Head of the Authority;\n (3) If an appeal is lodged, the violation of the Head of the Authority\u2019s order\n under this Article shall not be considered a violation until the court issues another\n decision.\n (g) The Head of the Authority may delegate his powers under subsections (a) to (c) to a\n senior employee directly reporting to him; a notice of such delegation shall be\n published in the official gazette.\n Subchapter B: Imposition of Monetary Sanctions\n 23KF. Monetary Sanctions\n (a) If a database controller or a processor violated provisions under this Law, as specified\n below, the Head of the Authority may impose a monetary sanction on it in the amount of\n 150,000 new shekels, and if the database contained personal data about 1,000,000 individuals\n or more, the Head of the Authority may impose it with double the amount:\n (1) Committed one of the following:\n (a) Processed personal data in a database subject to the registration\n obligation without it being registered, contrary to the provisions of Article\n 8A(a);\n (b) Included incorrect details in an application for registration of a\n database submitted under Article 9, contrary to the provisions of that Article;\n (c) Did not notify the Head of the Authority of a change in the particulars\n specified in Article 9(b) or in the particulars determined in Article 9(c),\n contrary to the provisions of Article 9(d), except for a change in the address\n of the database controller;\n (2) Did not notify the Head of the Authority of a database that is subject to the\n notification obligation under Article 8A(b) or failed to notify the Head of the\n Authority of a change in any of the details specified in that Article, contrary to the\n provisions of that Article;\n (3) Processed personal data in a database used for direct mailing services,\n without the database being registered in the registry or without having direct mailing\n services as one of its registered purposes, contrary to the provisions of Article 17D;\n\n\n 33\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 35 of 71\n PageID #: 34262\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (4) Failed to inform the Head of the Authority that he receives personal data on\n a regular basis in accordance with the provisions of Article 23C and the data is stored\n in a database, contrary to the provisions of Article 23D(c).\n (b) If a database controller or a processor violated provisions of this Law, as specified\n below, the Head of the Authority may impose a monetary sanction on it under the\n provisions of this chapter, in the amount of 15,000 new shekels:\n (1) Refused to allow a person about whom personal data is held in the database\n to access the personal data about him, contrary to the provisions of Article 13;\n (2) Made a change to the personal data in its possession without notifying\n everyone who received the data, contrary to the provisions of Article 14(b);\n (3) Failed to notify the person who made the request of a refusal to rectify\n personal data held in a database in its possession or to delete it, contrary to the\n provisions of Article 14(c);\n (4) Did not rectify personal data held in a database in its possession, contrary to\n the provisions of Article 14(d);\n (5) Did not comply with a person's demand pursuant to Article 17F(b) that\n personal data relating to him be deleted from a database used for direct mailing,\n contrary to the provisions of Article 17F(d);\n (6) Failed to comply with a person's demand pursuant to Article 17F(c) that\n personal data relating to him not be disclosed to a person, to a type of people or to\n specific people, contrary to the provisions of Article 17F(d).\n (c) (1) If a database controller or a processor violated provisions of this Law, as specified\n below, the Head of the Authority may impose a monetary sanction on it under the\n provisions of this chapter, in the amount of 50 new shekels multiplied by the number\n of individuals to whom the request or demand was made, as specified below, and if\n the request or demand was in relation to data of special sensitivity \u2013 in the amount\n of 100 new shekels multiplied by the number of individuals to whom it was made:\n\n (a) Made a request to a person to receive personal data for its processing in a\n database, without providing him notice as required under Article 11;\n (b) Contacted a person by direct mailing, contrary to the provisions of Article\n 17F(a);\n (c) A database controller that has not indicated in a request for personal data,\n that he provides data on a regular basis in accordance with Article 23C,\n contrary the provisions of Article 23D(a);\n (2) If the amount of the monetary sanction under subsection (1) is less than 30,000\n new shekels, the Head of the Authority may impose on a database controller or\n processor a monetary sanction in the amount of 30,000 new shekels.\n (d) (1) If a database controller or a processor violated the provisions of this law, as\n specified below, the Head of the Authority may impose a monetary sanction on it\n under the provisions of this chapter in the amount of 2 new shekels for each person\n 34\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 36 of 71\n PageID #: 34263\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n about whom personal data is held in the database, and if the personal data in the\n database was data of special sensitivity \u2013 in the amount of 4 new shekels per person:\n (a) Made a request to a person to receive personal data for its processing\n in a database, and the request was made to an unspecified group of\n individuals, without providing him notice as required under Article 11,\n contrary the provisions of that Article;\n (b) Did not appoint a data security officer, contrary to the provisions of\n Article 17B(a);\n (c) Did not appoint a data protection officer, contrary to the provisions\n of Article 17B1(a)(1) or (2);\n (d) Processed personal data in a database used for direct mailing\n services, without maintaining a record indicating the source from which it\n received every collection of data used for the database, the date it was\n received and to whom each collection of data was provided, contrary to the\n provisions of Article 17E;\n (e) A database controller that did not keep a record of the personal data\n it provided in accordance with Article 23C, contrary to the provisions of\n Article 23D(b);\n (f) With regard to a database controller listed in Article 17B1(a)(1) or (2)\n \u2013 did not comply with the Head of the Authority's order to cease or rectify a\n violation, contrary to the provisions of Article 23KE(d);\n (g) The Minister of Justice, with the approval of the Constitution\n Committee, may determine, by order, that the provisions of subsection (f)\n shall also apply to a database controller or processor listed in Article\n 17B1(a)(3) and (4);\n (2) In a monetary sanction under subsections (d) and (e), the amount of the\n monetary sanction shall be calculated based on the number of individuals about\n whom there is no record as stated in those subsections;\n (3) If the amount of the monetary sanction under subsection (1) is less than 20,000\n new shekels, and if the personal data in the database was data of special sensitivity\n \u2013 less than 40,000 new shekels, the Head of the Authority may impose a monetary\n sanction on a database controller or processor in the amount of 20,000 new shekels\n or 40,000 new shekels, as applicable.\n (e) (1) If a database controller or a processor violated the provisions under this Law, as\n specified below, the Head of the Authority may impose a monetary sanction on it\n under the provisions of this chapter in the amount of 4 new shekels for each person\n about whom personal data is held in the database, and if the personal data in the\n database was data of special sensitivity \u2013 in the amount of 8 new shekels per person:\n (a) Failed to comply with the Head of the Authority's order under Article\n 23KE(a) to cease the use of information on a person's private affairs in a\n database for a purpose other than for which it was given, contrary to the\n provisions of Article 2(9), or to cease the processing of personal data in a\n 35\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 37 of 71\n PageID #: 34264\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n database for a purpose that constitutes an infringement of privacy under\n Article 2;\n (b) Processed personal data in a database for an unlawful purpose,\n contrary to the provisions of Article 8(b), unless the processing was only\n contrary to the provisions of Article 2;\n (c) Failed to comply with the Head of the Authority's order under Article\n 23KE(b) to cease the processing of personal data in a database that was\n created, received, accumulated or collected, contrary to the provisions of this\n Law or contrary to the provisions of any law that regulates data processing,\n or to cease allowing another to process such personal data for him;\n (d) Processed personal data without authorization from the database\n controller, or in deviation from such authorization, contrary to the provisions\n of Article 8(c);\n (e) A database controller that provided data from a public body, contrary\n to the provisions of Article 23B, without meeting the conditions of Article\n 23C;\n (2) If the amount of the monetary sanction under subsection (1) is less than\n 200,000 new shekels, the Head of the Authority may impose a monetary sanction in\n the amount of 200,000 new shekels on a database controller or processor.\n (f) If a database controller or a processor processed personal data in a database not for\n the purpose that was established for it, contrary to the provisions of Article 8(b), in\n circumstances where such a purpose could have been lawfully established, the Head\n of the Authority may impose a monetary sanction on it under this chapter in the\n amount specified in detail (1) of the third Schedule.\n (g) If a database controller or a processor failed to provide an inspector with a document\n or a copy of computer material, contrary to the provisions of Article 23J(a)(2) or (3),\n the Head of the Authority may impose a monetary sanction on it under this chapter\n in the amount of 300,000 new shekels.\n (h) If a database controller or a processor violated any of the provisions of the\n Regulations established pursuant to Article 36, as specified in column A of the third\n Schedule, which are applicable to it, the Head of the Authority may impose a\n monetary sanction on it under this chapter in the amount specified in column B,\n column C, column D, or column E alongside that provision, as applicable, and if the\n database is a database to which the high level of security applies under the third\n Schedule, and that contains data about 1,000,000 individuals or more, the Head of the\n Authority may impose double the amount set forth in column E alongside that\n provision.\n (i) (1) If a database controller or a processor violated any of the provisions of the\n Regulations established under Article 36, in the fourth Schedule, under column A of\n part A of that Schedule, the Head of the Authority may impose a monetary sanction\n on it under this chapter in the amount specified in column B alongside that\n provision;\n\n 36\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 38 of 71\n PageID #: 34265\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (2) If a database controller or a processor did not comply with the Head of the\n Authority's order under Article 23KE(c) to cease the violation of the provisions of\n the Regulations listed in part B of the fourth Schedule, the Head of the Authority\n may impose a monetary sanction on it under this chapter, in the amount specified in\n column B alongside that provision in the fourth Schedule.\n (j) (1) If the processor was issued a demand for payment due to a violation of a provision\n under subsection (h), the Head of the Authority shall notify the database controller\n of that database along with a copy of the demand for payment issued to the processor,\n and shall order the database controller to take actions to cease the violation by the\n processor, all within a time period as determined by the Head of the Authority;\n (2) If the violation under subsection (1) was not ceased, and the database controller\n did not comply with the Head of the Authority's order regarding the cessation of the\n violation, the Head of the Authority may issue it a notice of intent to charge under\n Article 23KG due to that violation, and the provisions of this subchapter shall apply\n to the database controller regarding that violation, with the necessary modifications,\n as if it were the violator; the amount of the monetary sanction imposed on the\n database controller due to such a violation shall be the amount that can be imposed\n on the processor for that violation.\n\n\n\n\n 23KG. Notice of Intent to Charge\n (a) If the Head of the Authority has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has\n violated any of the provisions under this Law, as listed in Article 23KF (in this chapter \u2013 the\n violator), and he intends to impose a monetary sanction on it under that Article, he shall\n provide the violator with written notice of the intent to impose a monetary sanction on it (in\n this Law \u2013 notice of intent to charge).\n (b) In the notice of intent to charge, the Head of the Authority shall indicate, inter alia,\n the following:\n (1) Details of the act constituting the violation, the circumstances of its commission\n and the date of its commission;\n (2) The amount of the monetary sanction and the time period for its payment;\n (3) The right of the violator to present its arguments before the Head of the Authority\n under Article 23KH, and that the notice of intent to charge shall be deemed as a\n demand for payment if the violator does not exercise the said right, pursuant to\n Article 23KI(d);\n (4) The power to increase the amount of the monetary sanction due to a continuous\n or repeated violation under Article 23L, and the rate of the increase.\n 23KH. Right to Argue\n A violator to whom a notice of intent to charge has been provided under Article 23KG may present\n its arguments before the Head of the Authority, in writing or orally, as decided by the Head of the\n 37\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 39 of 71\n PageID #: 34266\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n Authority, regarding the intent to impose a monetary sanction on it and regarding its amount, within\n 45 days from the date of delivery of the notice; the Head of the Authority may extend the period,\n for special reasons to be recorded.\n 23KI. Decision of the Head of the Authority and Demand for Payment\n (a) The Head of the Authority shall decide, after considering the arguments made under\n Article 23KH, whether to impose a monetary sanction on the violator, and he may reduce\n the amount of the monetary sanction under Article 23LA.\n (b) (b) If the Head of the Authority decides under subsection (a)\u2013\n (1) To impose a monetary sanction on the violator \u2013 he shall provide it with a\n demand, in writing, to pay the monetary sanction (in this chapter \u2013 a demand for\n payment), in which he specifies, inter alia, the amount of the updated monetary\n sanction and the time period for its payment, as well as the right of the violator to\n lodge an appeal within 45 days under Article 23ME;\n (2) Not to impose a monetary sanction on the violator \u2013 he shall notify it of this, in\n writing.\n (c) In the demand for payment or in a notice, pursuant to subsection (b), the Head of the\n Authority shall specify the reasons for his decision.\n (d) If the violator did not present its arguments under Article 23KH within the time period\n mentioned in that Article, the notice of intent to charge, at the end of that period, shall be\n deemed as a demand for payment delivered to the violator on the aforesaid date.\n\n\n 23L. Continuous Violation and Repeated Violation\n (a) (1) In a continuous violation, the monetary sanction specified for that violation will be\n increased by one percent of the amount for each day of which the violation\n continues; for that matter, \u201ccontinuous violation\u201d means a violation of any of the\n provisions of this Law, as stated in Article 23KF, after the violator has been given a\n demand for payment due to a violation of that provision;\n (2) If an appeal was lodged against the demand for payment decision, the time period until\n the court decides on the matter shall not be taken into account for the purposes of\n subsection (1), unless the court has determined otherwise.\n (b) In a repeated violation, an amount equal to the monetary sanction specified for such\n violation shall be added to the monetary sanction; in this regard, \u201crepeated violation\u201d means\n a violation of any of the provisions of this Law, as stated in Article 23KF, committed after\n the date of payment of the monetary sanction, within two years of a previous violation of\n the same provision for which the violator was imposed a monetary sanction or for which he\n was convicted.\n 23LA. Reduced Amounts\n The Head of the Authority may not impose a monetary sanction in an amount lower than the\n amounts specified under this subchapter, except in the cases, circumstances, and in accordance with\n the considerations specified in the fifth Schedule and at the rates specified therein.\n 38\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 40 of 71\n PageID #: 34267\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n 23LB. Updated Amount of the Monetary Sanction\n (a) The monetary sanction shall be according to its updated amount on the date of\n delivery of the payment demand, and in respect of a violator who has not presented its\n arguments before the Head of the Authority under Article 23KI(d) \u2013 on the date of delivery\n of the notice of intent to charge; if an appeal is filed to the court and the payment of the\n monetary sanction is stayed by the Head of the Authority or by the court \u2013 the monetary\n sanction shall be according to its updated amount on the date of the decision on the appeal,\n as applicable.\n (b) The amounts determined in Article 23KF and the amounts set forth in the third,\n fourth and fifth Schedule shall be updated on January 1 of each year (in this subsection \u2013 the\n date of update), in accordance with the known rate of change in the index on the date of\n update compared with the known index on January 1 of the previous year; the aforesaid\n amount shall be rounded up to the nearest amount, which is a multiple of 10 new shekels;\n the first update under this subsection shall be in 2026; for this purpose, \u201cindex\u201d means the\n consumer price index published by the Central Bureau of Statistics.\n (c) The Head of the Authority shall publish in the Official Gazette and on the\n Authority\u2019s website a notice of the updated monetary sanction amounts pursuant to\n subsection (b).\n 23LC. The Payment Date of the Monetary Sanction\n The violator must pay the monetary sanction within 45 days from the date of the delivery of the\n payment demand under Article 23KI.\n 23LD. New Shekel Interest Rate and Late Payment Fees\n If the monetary sanction is not paid on time, new shekel interest rate and late payment fees shall be\n added to it for the period of arrears, until it is paid, and the provisions of the Law on Adjudication\n of Interest and Indexing, 5721-1961, shall apply with the necessary modifications.\n 23LE. Collection\n A monetary sanction shall be collected to the State Treasury, and its collection shall be subject to\n the Center for Collection of Fines, Fees and Costs Law, 5755-1995.\n Subchapter C: Administrative Notice\n 23LF. Administrative Notice\n (a) If the Head of the Authority has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has violated any\n of the provisions of this Law, under Article 23KF, and circumstances determined by the\n Minister of justice have occurred, the Head of the Authority may, instead of imposing a\n monetary sanction on it under subchapter B, issue an administrative notice in accordance with\n the provisions of this subchapter.\n (b) In an administrative notice, the Head of the Authority shall indicate the act constituting the\n violation, the circumstances of its commission, and the date of its commission, inform the\n violator that he must cease the violation and that if he continues or repeats the violation, he will\n be liable to a monetary sanction for a continuous or repeated violation, as applicable, and the\n\n 39\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 41 of 71\n PageID #: 34268\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n method of calculating the amount of the monetary sanction, under Article 23LH, and shall also\n indicate the right of the violator to request the cancellation of the notice under Article 23LG.\n 23LG. Request to Cancel an Administrative Notice\n (a) If an administrative notice is issued to the violator under Article 23LF, the violator\n may submit a written request to the Head of the Authority, within 45 days, to cancel the\n administrative notice for any of the following reasons:\n (1) The violator did not commit the violation;\n (2) The act committed by the violator, as specified in the administrative notice, does\n not constitute a violation.\n (b) The Head of the Authority may extend the period mentioned in subsection (a), for\n special reasons to be recorded.\n (c) If the Head of the Authority receives a request to cancel an administrative notice,\n under subsection (a), he may cancel the administrative notice or reject the request and leave\n the administrative notice as it is; The Head of the Authority\u2019s decision shall be given in\n writing and shall be issued to the violator with reasoning.\n 23LH. Continuous Violation and Repeated Violation After a Notice\n (a) If an administrative notice is issued to the violator under this subchapter and the\n violator continues to violate the provision for which the notice was issued, the violation\n shall be deemed as a continuous violation, the provisions of Article 23L(a) shall apply, and\n the Head of the Authority shall provide the violator with a notice of intent to charge for the\n continuous violation under Article 23KG, with the necessary modifications.\n (b) If an administrative notice is issued to the violator under this subchapter and the\n violator repeats the violation of the provision for which the notice was issued, within two\n years from the date of delivery of the notice, the additional violation shall be deemed as a\n repeated violation under Article 23L(b), and the Head of the Authority shall provide the\n violator with a notice of intent to charge for the repeated violation, under Article 23KG, with\n the necessary modifications.\n Subchapter D: Obligation to Refrain from Violation\n 23LI. Notice of The Possibility of Submitting a letter of undertaking and a deposit\n If the Head of the Authority has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has violated any of the\n provisions of this Law, as provided in Article 23KF, and circumstances determined by the Minister\n of justice have occurred , the Head of the Authority may give the violator written notice of its\n possibility of submitting to the Head of the Authority a letter of undertaking and making a deposit\n in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, instead of a monetary sanction that may be\n imposed on it under subchapter B.\n 23M. Terms of letter of undertaking and a deposit\n (a) In the letter of undertaking, the violator shall commit to cease the violation of the\n provision as provided under Article 23LI and to refrain from further violation of that\n provision, for a time period determined by the Head of the Authority and beginning on the\n 40\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 42 of 71\n PageID #: 34269\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n date of the submission of the letter of undertaking, provided that the said period does not\n exceed two years (in this subchapter \u2013 the commitment period).\n (b) The Head of the Authority may determine in the letter of undertaking additional\n conditions that the violator must commit to and comply with during the undertaking period,\n in order to reduce the damage caused by the violation or prevent its recurrence.\n (c) In addition to the letter of undertaking, the violator shall make a deposit to the\n Authority in the amount of the monetary sanction that the Head of the Authority was\n authorized to impose on the violator due to that violation, taking into account circumstances\n and considerations under the fifth Schedule.\n (d) The Head of the Authority may, at the request of the violator and for reasons to be\n recorded, exempt the violator from making a deposit under subsection (c) or reduce the\n amount of the deposit that the violator makes under that subsection.\n 23MA. Results of Submitting a Letter of letter of undertaking and making a deposit or non-\n Submission\n (a) If the violator submits a letter of undertaking to the Head of the Authority and makes\n a deposit under this subchapter, within 45 days from the date of delivery of the notice under\n Article 23LI, no monetary sanction shall be imposed for that violation; if the violator does\n not submit a letter of undertaking to the Head of the Authority or does not make a deposit\n within the said period, the Head of the Authority shall provide it with a notice of intent to\n charge for that violation, under Article 23KG.\n (b) The Head of the Authority may extend the time period under subsection (a), for\n special reasons to be recorded.\n 23MB. Violation of undertaking\n (a) If the violator submits a letter of undertaking and makes a deposit in accordance with\n this subchapter and violates any of the terms of the undertaking, as specified in the following\n subsections, the provisions specified in those subsections shall apply, as applicable:\n (1) If the violator continues, during the undertaking period, to violate the\n provision for which he submitted the letter of undertaking, or repeats the violation\n of the said provision during that period, such violation shall be deemed as a\n continuous violation under Article 23L(a) or as a repeated violation under Article\n 23L(b) and the following provisions shall apply:\n (a) The Head of the Authority shall provide the violator with a notice of\n intent to charge for the continuous or repeated violation, as applicable, in\n accordance with the provisions of Article 23KG, with the necessary\n modifications;\n (b) If the Head of the Authority provides the violator with a demand for\n payment due to the continuous or repeated violation, as applicable, in\n accordance with the provisions of Article 23KI(b)(1) or the violator has not\n argued its claims before the Head of the Authority regarding that violation\n under Article 23KI(d), the Head of the Authority shall forfeit the deposit in\n addition to the imposition of the monetary sanction due to the continuous\n 41\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 43 of 71\n PageID #: 34270\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n violation or repeated violation; if the Head of the Authority decided, under\n Article 23M(d), to exempt the violator from making a deposit or to reduce\n the amount of the deposit, he shall provide the violator with a payment\n demand under Article 23KI, which also includes the amount of the deposit\n for which the exemption was granted or the part reduced from the amount of\n the deposit, as applicable, with the addition of the interest rate, from the date\n of the decision of the Head of the Authority on such exemption or reduction\n until the date of delivery of the payment demand;\n (2) If the violator violates any of the additional conditions determined in the\n letter of undertaking under Article 23M(b), the Head of the Authority shall forfeit\n the deposit, and if he decided, under Article 23M(d), to exempt the violator from\n making a deposit or to reduce the amount of the deposit, he shall provide the violator\n with a demand for payment under Article 23KI regarding the amount of the deposit\n for which the exemption was granted or with respect to the part that was reduced\n from the amount of the deposit, as applicable, with the addition of the interest rate\n from the date of the decision of the Head of the Authority on such exemption or\n reduction until the date of delivery of the payment demand; the Head of the\n Authority shall not forfeit the deposit or send a demand for payment under this\n subsection unless he has given the violator an opportunity to argue its claims, in\n writing, regarding the violation of such conditions.\n (b) Regarding this chapter, the forfeiture of the deposit under this Article shall be\n deemed as the imposition of a monetary sanction on the violator due to the violation for\n which the deposit was made.\n (c) If a condition of the terms of the undertaking under this Article is violated, and the\n violator repeats the violation of the provision for which he gave the letter of undertaking,\n the Head of the Authority shall not allow it to submit another letter of undertaking under\n this subchapter, for that same violation.\n 23MC. Return of deposit\n If the violator complies with the terms of the letter of undertaking submitted under this subchapter,\n he will be refunded, at the end of the undertaking period, the deposit with the addition of the interest\n rate from the date of its submission until the day of its return.\n Subchapter E: Miscellaneous Provisions Regarding Monetary Sanctions\n 23MD. Monetary Sanction for Violation of Several Provisions Under This Law and Under Other\n Law\n For one act that constitutes a violation of several provisions under this Law, as well as for an act\n that constitutes a violation of any of the provisions under Article 23KF and of a violation under\n another law, no more than one monetary sanction shall be imposed.\n 23ME. Appeal, Stay of Execution, and Refund\n (a) The imposition of an administrative enforcement measure under subchapters B to E\n can be appealed to the Magistrate's Court where the President of the Magistrate's Court\n resides, within 45 days from the date the notice of the measure.\n 42\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 44 of 71\n PageID #: 34271\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (b) The lodging of an appeal against a decision of the Head of the Authority under\n subchapters B to E shall not stay the execution of the decision unless the Head of the\n Authority agrees to it or the court orders it.\n (c) The court hearing the appeal may approve the decision of the Head of the Authority,\n alter it, cancel it or make another decision in its place, and may return the matter with\n instructions to the Head of the Authority.\n (d) If the court decides, after the monetary sanction has been paid or the deposit has\n been made, to grant an appeal under subsection (a), and has ordered the return of the amount\n of the monetary sanction paid or the reduction of the monetary sanction or the return of the\n deposit, the amount paid or any part thereof that has been reduced or returned will be\n refunded, as applicable, with the addition of the interest rate from the date of its payment or\n making until the day of its return.\n 23MF. Publication\n (a) If the Head of the Authority imposes a monetary sanction under this chapter, he shall\n publish the following details on the Privacy Protection Authority's website, in a manner\n that will ensure transparency regarding the exercise of his discretion in making the\n decision to impose a monetary sanction:\n (1) The imposition of the monetary sanction;\n (2) The nature of the violation for which the monetary sanction was imposed, the\n date of the violation and the circumstances of the violation;\n (3) The amount of the monetary sanction imposed;\n (4) If the monetary sanction was reduced\u2014the circumstances for which the amount\n of the monetary sanction was reduced and the rates of reduction;\n (5) Details about the violator, relevant to the matter;\n (6) The name of the violator \u2013 if the violator is a corporation, unless it is a corporation\n managed by an individual and the name of the corporation is the name of its sole\n owner.\n (b) Publication under this Article shall not take place until the violator has been given an\n opportunity to argue its claims; the opportunity to argue claims under this subsection\n may be given to the violator as part of the right to argue under Article 23KH, provided\n that the Head of the Authority has notified the violator of its intention to publish its name,\n in the notice of intent to charge under Article 23KG.\n (c) If an appeal is lodged against the decision of the Head of the Authority to impose a\n monetary sanction, the Head of the Authority shall, in the same manner published under\n subsection (a), publish the lodging of the appeal and its results.\n (d) Despite the provisions of subsection (a)(6), the Head of the Authority -\n (1) Shall not publish the name of a violator that is a corporation, if the Head of\n Authority was convinced that the violation is a minor violation under the\n circumstances, unless the publication is necessary to warn the individuals whose\n details are in the database;\n 43\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 45 of 71\n PageID #: 34272\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (2) Shall Publish the name of an individual violator or of a corporation whose name\n is the name of its sole owner, if he deems it necessary to warn the public.\n (e) Despite the provisions of this Article, the Head of the Authority shall not publish details\n that constitute data that a public authority is prohibited from disclosing under Article 9(a)\n of the Freedom of Information Law, and he may also refrain from publishing details\n under this Article, which are information that a public authority is not obligated to\n provide under Article 9(b) of the said law.\n (f) Publication under this Article regarding a monetary sanction imposed on a corporation\n shall be for a period of four years, and regarding a monetary sanction imposed on an\n individual - for a period of two years.\n (g) The Minister of Justice, with the approval of the Constitution Committee, may determine\n additional ways of publishing the details under this Article.\n\n 23MG. Maintaining Criminal Liability\n (a) The payment of a monetary sanction, the provision of an administrative notice or the\n submission of a letter of undertaking and the making of a deposit under this chapter shall\n not detract from the criminal liability of a person for violating any of the provisions under\n this Law which constitute a criminal offense.\n (b) Despite the provisions of subsection (a), if the violator has been provided with a\n notice of intent to charge, an administrative notice or a notice of the possibility of submitting\n a letter of undertaking and making a deposit, due to a violation that also constitutes an\n offense, he shall not be indicted for that violation, unless new facts have been discovered\n that justify it, under Article 23IG; If such new facts have been discovered and an indictment\n has been filed against the violator after the violator has paid a monetary sanction or made a\n deposit, the violator will be refunded the amount paid or the deposit, as applicable, with the\n addition of the interest rate and late payment fees from the date of payment of the amount\n or from the date of the making of the deposit, until the day of its return.\n (c) If an indictment is filed against a person for an offense that constitutes a violation,\n the Head of the Authority shall not take action against him under subchapters B to E for the\n violation.\n 23MH. Delegation of Powers\n The Head of the Authority may delegate his powers under subchapters B to E to a senior employee\n who reports directly to him and is responsible of monetary sanctions; notice of such delegation\n shall be published in the Official Gazette.\n Subchapter F: Judicial Ban Order\n 23MI. A Judicial Ban on Processing Order or an Order to Delete Personal Data\n (a) If the Head of the Authority has reasonable grounds to believe that a violation of\n provisions under Article 2(9), 8(b), (c) or (d), 17 or 23B is being committed in a\n database, he may request an administrative court (in this Article \u2013 the court) to issue\n an order to the database controller or database processor, to stop processing activities\n that cause a violation or that there is a concern they will cause a violation (in this\n 44\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 46 of 71\n PageID #: 34273\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n Article \u2013 a ban order), and the court may also order the deletion of the personal data\n in the database in its entirety (in this Article \u2013 a deletion order).\n (b) The court may issue an order under subsection (a), as requested or with\n modifications, if it was convinced that all of the following have occurred:\n (1) There is reasonable ground to believe that a violation as provided in that\n subsection is or is about to be committed in the database;\n (2) There is no other less infringing mean of preventing the commission of the\n violation;\n (3) The damage that may be caused as a result of the violation exceeds the damage\n that may be caused by the issuance of the order relating to it, including the\n violation of freedom of expression that may be caused by the issuance of the\n order;\n (4) The severity of the violation justifies the issuance of the order.\n (c) (1) An order under this Article shall be issued after the database controller has been\n given an opportunity to argue its claims before the court, and if the order is directed\n at the processor \u2013 the processor has been given the opportunity as well, to the extent\n possible, and in the appropriate manner under the circumstances;\n (2) A ban order issued without the presence of a party as provided in subsection\n (1) shall be issued for a period not exceeding 48 hours; during such period, no\n deletion order shall be issued;\n (3) The court may extend the time period of the order after the database\n controller or the processor, as applicable, has been given an opportunity to argue its\n claims.\n (d) The court may reconsider an order under this Article if it considers it justified due to\n changed circumstances or new facts discovered after the order was issued.\n (e) A proceeding under this Article shall be subject to the provisions of the\n Administrative Courts Law, 5760-2000, with the necessary modifications; the\n Minister of Justice, with the approval of the Constitution Committee, may prescribe\n regulations regarding the procedures of a proceeding under this Article; until such\n regulations are prescribed, the provisions of the Citizenship Regulations (procedures\n for an application to revoke citizenship), 5777-2017, shall apply with the necessary\n modifications.\n CHAPTER D4: Enforcement and Penal Powers Subchapter A: Enforcement Powers\n 23N. Appointment of Investigators\n (a) The Head of the Authority may authorize an investigator from among civil servants,\n who will hold all or some of the powers under this Law, (hereinafter: an investigator), if all\n of the following apply to him:\n (1) The Israeli Police announced, within three months of the Head of the\n Authority's request, that it does not object to his authorization for reasons of public\n safety, including due to his criminal record;\n 45\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 47 of 71\n PageID #: 34274\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (2) He received appropriate training regarding the powers that he will hold\n under this law, and has met additional qualification conditions, if prescribed, as\n determined by the Minister of Justice with the agreement of the Minister of National\n Security, and regarding the exercise of powers to access computer material or copy\n thereof under 23NA(a)(3) \u2013 his position qualifies him to perform such activities;\n (3) He has received appropriate training on privacy protection, as determined by\n the Minister of Justice.\n (b) The investigator's authorization under this Article shall be by a certificate signed by\n the Head of the Authority, certifying his role as an investigator and his powers under this\n Law (hereinafter: an investigator's certificate).\n (c) Notice of authorization under subsection (b) shall be published in the Official\n Gazette and on the Privacy Protection Authority's website.\n 23NA. Enforcement Powers\n (a) If an investigator has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offense has been\n committed under Article 5, in the circumstances detailed in Article 2(9), and the\n suspicion is that the offense was committed regarding information about a person's\n private affairs in a database, or the investigator had reasonable grounds to suspect\n that an offense has been committed under chapter B or under this chapter, he may-\n (1) Investigate any person connected with such an offense or who may have\n information relating to such an offense; an investigation under this subsection shall\n be subject to the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law\n (Testimony) and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law (Interrogation of\n Suspects), 5762-2002, with the necessary modifications;\n (2) Seize any object of which he has reasonable grounds to believe that is an\n object connected with such an offense;\n (3) Request from the court a search and seizure order or an order for access to\n computer material under Articles 23 to 24 of the Arrest and Search Ordinance and\n execute it.\n (b) For searching, seizing an object and accessing computer material or copying it under\n this Article, the provisions of Articles 23A, 24(a)(1) and (b), 26 to 28, 31 to 42 and 45\n of the Arrest and Search Ordinance shall apply, with the following changes: the\n powers given to a police officer shall be given to an investigator and the powers\n given to an officer shall be given to the Head of the Authority or an investigator\n authorized by him for that matter; notice of authorization under this subsection shall\n be published in the Official Gazette and on the Authority's website.\n (c) (1) If an investigator has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed\n an offense as provided for in subsection (a), the investigator may detain the person\n in order to ascertain the person's identity and address or to interrogate him at his\n location; if the identification is insufficient or the person cannot be interrogated at\n his location, the investigator may require that person to accompany him to the offices\n of the Authority or to summon the person to the offices of the Authority for another\n\n\n 46\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 48 of 71\n PageID #: 34275\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n date to be determined; a person summoned to the offices of the Authority shall\n appear at the time he was summoned;\n (2) For a delay under subsection (1), the provisions of Articles 66, 67 and 72 to 74 of\n the Detention Law shall apply, with the necessary modifications, and with the\n following changes: The powers given to the police officer shall be given to an\n investigator and the powers given to an officer shall be given to the Head of the\n Authority or to an investigator authorized by him for that matter, and the offices of\n the Authority declared by the Head of the Authority by a notice in the official gazette\n shall be deemed as a police station for the purposes of the Detention Law.\n 23NB. Investigator Identification\n (a) An investigator shall not use the powers granted to him under this subchapter except\n in the performance of his duties and if the following are met:\n (1) The provisions under Article 23JA regarding the identification of an\n inspector apply to him, with the necessary modifications;\n (2) He wears an investigator's uniform, in the color and form as determined by\n the Head of the Authority for this purpose, provided that such uniform does not\n appear to be a police uniform.\n (b) The provisions of Article 23JB(b) and (c) shall apply, with the necessary\n modifications to the obligations under subsection (a).\n Subchapter B: Offenses\n 23NC. Obstructing the Head of The Authority, Investigator or Inspector in the Performance of\n Duties\n Obstructing the Head of the Authority, investigator or inspector in the performance of duties under\n this Law is subject to six months imprisonment.\n 23ND. Misleading the Head of The Authority, an Inspector or an External Expert\n Conducting any of the following with the intention of misleading the Head of the Authority, an\n inspector, or an external expert, is subject to two years imprisonment:\n (1) Providing incorrect details in an application for registration of a database submitted\n under Article 9 or in a notice of change in the details listed in Article 9(b) or in a notice under\n Article 8A(b);\n (2) Providing incorrect information in response to a requirement of an inspector under\n Article 23J(a)(1)-(3) or of an external expert under Article 23JH(f).\n 23NE. Processing Data from a Database Without Authorization\n Processing personal data from a database without authorization from the database controller,\n contrary to the provisions of Article 8(c), is subject to three years imprisonment.\n 23NF. Providing Incorrect Information When Requesting Data\n\n\n\n 47\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 49 of 71\n PageID #: 34276\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n Requesting from a person to receive personal data for its processing in a database while providing\n him with incorrect details, contrary to Article 11, with the intention of misleading him regarding the\n provision of the personal data, is subject to three years imprisonment.\n 23NG. Unlawful Data Transfer from a Public Body\n A public body as defined in Article 23 that is a corporation, an employee of such a public body or\n who acts on behalf of such a public body, who provides personal data the transfer of which is\n prohibited under Article 23B, in order for an unauthorized party to process the data, is subject to\n three years imprisonment.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER D5: Provisions Regarding Election\n 23NH. Definitions\n In this chapter \u2013\n \u201cgeneral election for local authorities\u201d \u2013 general election within the meaning of Article 4 of\n the Local Authorities Law (elections);\n \u201clocal Authority election\u201d \u2013 election as defined in the Local Authorities Law (Election) or\n the Regional Councils Law (Date of General Election), 5754-1994, excluding election to the\n local committee of a locality in a regional council;\n \u201cCentral Election Committee\u201d \u2013 within the meaning of the Knesset Elections Law\n [Consolidated Version], 5729-1969;\n \u201cThe Elections Law (Propaganda Methods)\u201d \u2013 Elections Law (Propaganda Methods), 5719-\n 1959;\n \u201cThe Regional Councils Law\u201d \u2013 The Regional Councils Law (Election of the Head of the\n Council), 5748-1988;\n \u201cThe Local Authorities Law (Elections)\u201d \u2013 The Local Authorities Law (Elections), 5725 -\n 1965;\n \u201cChairman of the District Election Committee\u201d - the chairman of a regional election\n committee determined under Article 17D of the Elections Law (Propaganda Methods),\n regarding an election for a local Authority within the jurisdiction of the district court in\n which he serves;\n \u201cCandidate in municipal election\u201d \u2013 any of the following:\n (1) From the beginning of the period of the general election for local authorities\n until the day the lists are submitted-\n (a) A party as defined in the Local Authorities Law (Elections) and a\n faction of the Knesset;\n (b) A faction of an outgoing council, within the meaning of Article 25 of\n the Local Authorities Law (Elections);\n\n 48\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 50 of 71\n PageID #: 34277\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (c) A person who is entitled, under Article 16(b)(1) of the Local\n Authorities Law (Elections), to receive data from the registry, and the\n information is provided to him under Article 16(c) of the said law;\n (d) A person who is entitled, under Article 5B(a)(1) of the Regional\n Councils Law, to receive data from the registry, and the information is\n provided to him in accordance with the said Article;\n (2) As of the date of submission of lists of candidates \u2013 a list of candidates in the\n election to the council of a local Authority and a candidate for the Head of a local\n Authority, as well as a person who submitted the list of candidates or the candidate's\n proposal, excluding a group of voters;\n \u201cParty\u201d \u2013 as defined in the Parties Law, 5752-1992, and regarding the part of the election\n period for the Knesset that starts on the day following the deadline for submitting a list of\n candidates for the Knesset to the Central Elections Committee \u2013 such party that has\n submitted a list of candidates participating in the Knesset elections;\n \u201cElection periods\u201d \u2013 the election period to the Knesset or the election period of general\n election to the local authorities;\n \u201cGeneral election period for authorities\u201d - a period beginning on the 101st day before the day\n of the general election for the local authorities, and ending on the 14th day after said election\n day;\n \u201celection period for the Knesset\u201d \u2013 a period that begins on the determining day, as defined\n in the Political Parties (Financing) Law, 5733-1973, and ends on the day of publication of the\n election results pursuant to Article 11 of The Knesset Basic Law;\n \"Authority election period\" \u2013 a period that begins on the day of submission of lists of\n candidates or candidate proposals and ends on the 14th day after Election Day.\n\n 23NI. Exercising Powers Under Chapters D1 and D3 During Election Periods\n (a) The Head of the Authority, inspector or investigator shall not, during election periods,\n exercise his powers under the following Articles due to a violation of any of the\n provisions under this Law, relating to a database in which a party or a candidate in an\n election for a local Authority is the database controller, which they or a processor on their\n behalf carried out, unless he has received approval under subsection (b):\n (1) Entering a place under Article 23J(a)(4);\n (2) Submitting an application for a search and seizure order or an order for access to\n computer material within an administrative inquiry, pursuant to Article 23JD;\n (3) Filing an application for a ban on processing order under Article 23MI;\n (4) Power to seize any object, pursuant to Article 23NA(a)(2);\n (5) Submitting an application for a search and seizure order or an order for access to\n computer material, pursuant to Article 23NA(a)(3);\n (6) Notice of intent to charge under Article 23KG;\n (7) The provision of an administrative notice, under Article 23LF;\n 49\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 51 of 71\n PageID #: 34278\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (8) Providing a notice of the possibility of submitting a letter of undertaking and making a\n deposit, under Article 23LI.\n (b) Powers under subsection (a) may be exercised\u2014\n (1) During the election period for the Knesset, regarding a database of which a party is\n the database controller \u2013 with the approval of the Chairman of the Central Election\n Committee;\n (2) During the general election period for the authorities, with regard to a database in\n which a party as defined in the Local Authorities Law (Elections) or a faction of the\n Knesset is the controller \u2013 with the approval of the chairman of the Central Elections\n Committee, and with regard to a database in which another candidate in the local\n authorities election is the controller \u2013 with the approval of the chairman of the Regional\n Elections Committee.\n (c) Before granting approval under this Article, the chairman of the Central Elections\n Committee or the chairman of the Regional Election Committee, as applicable, shall\n give an opportunity to the party or candidate in the election of the local Authority\n concerned to argue their claims; however, with respect to the power under subsections\n (a)(1) to (5), the chairman of such an election committee may grant approval for the\n exercise of the Authority's power without asking for the position of the party or the\n candidate in the local Authorities elections, for reasons of urgency or if this would\n thwart the purpose of exercising the requested Authority's power; the circumstances of\n the case and the reasons for urgency will be included in the chairman's decision.\n (d) The chairman of the Central Elections Committee or the chairman of a Regional\n Election Committee shall not give approval for the exercise of the Authority's powers\n under this Article, if he finds that doing so will materially impair the ability of the party\n or the candidate in the local Authorities elections, as applicable, to run in the elections\n or to manage the contact with the electorate, and that the severity of such expected harm\n exceeds the risk to infringement of privacy and the risk of harm to the public interest\n underlying the exercise of the Authority's power; such approval may be conditional.\n (e) The chairman of the Central Elections Committee and the chairman of the Regional\n Elections Committee hearing a particular application may, on their own initiative, or\n upon a request of a party involved in the legal proceeding that was submitted before or\n during the commencement of the hearing, order that the hearing be held before the\n chairman of the Central Elections Committee, if they consider it justified under the\n circumstances.\n (f) If the Head of the Authority, an inspector or an investigator decide to exercise powers\n under this Article during an election period for a local authority held on a day other than\n the day of the general elections for the authorities, regarding a database in which the\n candidate in the elections for the local authority is the controller, the candidate in the\n elections for the local authorities may request the chairman of a Regional Election\n Committee, and if he is a party as defined in the local authorities law (elections) or a\n faction of the Knesset \u2013 request the chairman of the Central Elections Committee, to\n determine that the requested power shall not be exercised during the election period for\n that local authority, if the provisions of subsection (d) apply, or to determine conditions\n 50\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 52 of 71\n PageID #: 34279\n Updated After Amendment 13\n\n for the exercise of such powers; the provisions of subsections (c) and (e) shall apply to\n such request and decision, with the necessary modifications.\n (g) Proceedings under this Article will be subject to the provisions of Articles 17D and 17E\n of the Elections Law (Propaganda Methods), with the necessary modifications.\n (h) The provisions of this Article shall apply, with the necessary modifications, to elections\n for other local authorities or to other regional councils that receive budget from the state\n budget, except for local committees.\n Chapter E: Miscellaneous\n 24. State Applicability\n This Law applies to the state.\n 25. Death of the Injured Party\n (a) Where a person whose privacy has been infringed dies within six months after the\n infringement without having filed an action or complaint in respect thereof, his spouse,\n child or parent or, if he leaves no spouse, child or parent, his brother or sister may file an\n action or complaint in respect of that infringement within six months after his death.\n (b) Where a person who has filed an action or complaint in respect of an infringement of\n privacy dies before the termination of the proceeding, his spouse, child or parent or, if he\n leaves no spouse, child or parent, his brother or sister may, within six months after his\n death, notify the court that he or she wishes to proceed with the action or complaint, and\n upon so notifying, he or she shall take the place of the plaintiff or complainant.\n 26. (Revoked)\n27. Applicability of certain provisions of the Prohibition of Defamation Law\n The provisions of Articles 21, 23 and 24 of the Prohibition of Defamation Law, 5725-1965, shall\n apply with the necessary modifications, as applicable, to legal proceedings for infringement of\n privacy.\n 28. Evidence as to a Person\u2019s Bad Reputation, Character, or Past\n In a criminal or civil proceeding for infringement of privacy, no evidence shall be produced, and no\n witness shall be examined, as to the bad reputation or as to the character, past, activities or opinions\n of the injured party.\n 29. Additional Orders\n (a) In addition to any penalty and other relief, the court may, in a criminal or civil proceeding\n for infringement due to a violation of a provision of this law, order \u2013\n (1) The prohibition of the distribution of copies, or the confiscation of the infringing\n matter; a confiscation order under this subsection is effective against any person\n who has such material in his possession for sale, distribution or storage, also if he\n is not a party to the proceeding; where the court orders confiscation, it shall direct\n how the confiscated copies shall be disposed of;\n\n\n 51\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 53 of 71\n PageID #: 34280\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (2) The publication of the whole or part of the judgment; the publication shall be\n made at the expense of the accused or defendant, in the place and in the\n dimensions and manner prescribed by the court.\n (3) The surrender of the infringing matter to the injured party;\n (4) The destruction of data unlawfully received, or the prohibition of use of the\n aforesaid data or of excess data as defined in section 23E, or any other order in\n respect of the data.\n (b) The provisions of this section shall not prevent the keeping of a copy of a publication in\n public libraries, archives and the like unless the court, by a confiscation order under\n subsection (a)(1), imposes a restriction also on such keeping, and they shall not prevent\n the keeping of a copy of a publication by an individual.\n 29A. Statutory damages\n (a) The court may order a person who has been convicted under Article 5 to pay the\n injured person statutory damages, that will not exceed 50,000 new shekels; an order\n for damages under this subsection shall be regarded as a ruling of the same court in\n a civil proceeding of the entitled against the person obliged.\n (b) (1) In a civil proceeding under Article 4, the court may order that the defendant pay\n the plaintiff statutory damages that will not exceed 50,000 new shekels.\n (2) In a proceeding under subsection (1) in which it was proven that the infringement\n of privacy was made with intent to cause harm, the court may order that the\n defendant pay the plaintiff statutory damages that will not exceed double the amount\n in that subsection.\n (c) A person shall not be awarded statutory damages under this section, for the same\n infringement of privacy, more than once.\n (d) The amounts in this section shall be updated on the 16th of each month, in accordance\n with the rate of change in the new index compared with the base index; in this regard-\n \u201cIndex\u201d \u2013 the Consumer Price Index published by the Central Bureau of Statistics;\n \u201cNew Index\u201d \u2013 the index of the month preceding the month of updating;\n \u201cBase Index\u201d \u2013 the index of the month of May 2007.\n 30. Responsibility for publication in newspaper\n (a) Where an infringement of privacy is published in a newspaper, within the meaning of the\n Press Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as \"a newspaper\"), criminal and civil\n responsibility for the infringement shall be borne by the person who brought the material\n to the newspaper and thereby caused its publication, the editor of the newspaper and the\n person who actually decided upon the publication of the infringement in the newspaper,\n and civil responsibility shall be borne also by the publisher of the newspaper.\n (b) In a criminal case under this Article, it shall be a good defense for the editor of the\n newspaper that he took reasonable steps to prevent the publication of the infringement\n or that he did not know of the publication.\n 52\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 54 of 71\n PageID #: 34281\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (c) In this Article, \u201ceditor\u201d of a newspaper includes the acting editor.\n 31. Liability of Printer and Distributor\n Where an infringement of privacy is published in print, except in a newspaper published at intervals\n of not less than forty days, criminal and civil responsibility for the infringement shall be borne also\n by the possessor of the printing press, within the meaning of the Press Ordinance, in which the\n infringement was printed and by a person who sells or otherwise distributes the publication,\n provided that they shall not bear responsibility unless they knew or ought to have known that the\n publication contained an infringement of privacy.\n 31A. (Revoked)\n 31B. Civil Wrong\n An act or omission in violation of the provisions of chapters B or D, or in violation of Regulations\n enacted under this Law, shall be a civil wrong under the Torts Ordinance [New Version].\n 32. Material Inadmissible as Evidence\n Material obtained through infringement of privacy shall not be used as evidence in court without\n the consent of the injured party, unless the court, for reasons that shall be recorded, permits it to be\n used or if the infringer, being a party to the proceeding, has a defense or enjoys exemption under\n this Law.\n 33. Amendment of the Torts Ordinance\n Article 34A of the Torts Ordinance [New Version] is hereby repealed.\n 34. Amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law\n In the Schedule to the Criminal Procedure Law, 5725\u2013 1965, the following subsection shall be added\n after subsection (12): \u201c(13) offenses under the Privacy Protection Law, 57411981.\u201d\n 35. Preservation of Laws\n The provisions of this Law shall not derogate from the provisions of any other law.\n 36. Implementation of Regulations\n The Minister of Justice is in charge of the implementation of this Law and may, with the approval\n of the Constitution Committee, make regulations as to any matter relating to its implementation,\n and inter alia:\n (1) Conditions for retaining and storing of data in databases;\n (2) Conditions for the transfer of data to, or from, databases abroad;\n (3) Rules of conduct and ethics for database controllers or processors and their employees;\n (4) Provisions regarding data deletion upon the termination of a database\u2019s operation.\n 36A. Fees\n (a) The Minister of Justice, with the approval of the Constitution Committee, may establish\n fees for accessing a database under this Law.\n (b) (Revoked)\n 53\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 55 of 71\n PageID #: 34282\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (c) (Revoked)\n 36B. Amendment of Schedules\n The Minister of Justice may, by order, with the approval of the Constitution Committee, amend the\n third Schedule, the fourth Schedule, and the fifth Schedule.\n 37. Chapter B shall come into force six months from the date of publication of this Law.\n\n\n Schedule 1\n (The definition of \"the Authority\" - \"the Privacy Protection Authority\" in Article 3)\n Government Resolution No. 1890\n Resolution:\n Further to Government Resolution No. 4660 dated 19 January 2006, Government\n Resolution No. 4820 dated 28 June 2012, and Government Resolution No. 3019\n dated 7 September 2017, as follows:\n\n 1.\n (a) The Privacy Protection Authority (hereinafter: the Authority) is a unit in\n the Ministry of Justice, headed by the Head of the Authority.\n (b) The Authority shall be independent in exercising the powers vested in\n the Head of the Authority for performing its duties, through the\n Authority\u2019s employees, and in accordance with the provisions of any\n law, and the Authority\u2019s operational budget shall be managed separately\n within the Ministry of Justice\u2019s budget. Respecting the Authority's\n independence, the Authority shall act autonomously when exercising the\n powers vested in the Head of the Authority.\n 2. The Authority\u2019s duties are, inter alia, as follows:\n (a) Monitor compliance with the provisions of the Privacy Protection Law,\n 5741-1981 and the Regulations promulgated thereunder with regard to\n databases.\n (b) Investigate suspicions of an offense being committed under the Privacy\n Protection Law, 5741-1981 with regard to databases, in accordance with\n its powers under law.\n (c) Raise public awareness of the right to privacy in databases, the value of\n privacy protection and its importance in the information age, through\n education, training and public campaign.\n (d) Handle public inquiries where there are grounds for harming data\n subjects under the Privacy Protection Law, 5741-1981.\n (e) Develop and implement professional programs and training in its fields\n of activity.\n (f) Promote and maintain contacts with corresponding entities worldwide\n and within international forums in which corresponding entities take\n part.\n\n\n 54\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 56 of 71\n PageID #: 34283\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n\n (g) Exercise the powers of the Registrar of Certification Authorities under\n the Electronic Signature Law, 5761-2001.\n 3.\n (a) Further to Government Resolution No. 4660 dated 19 January 2006\n and Government Resolution No. 3543 dated 11 February 2018,\n determine that the job qualifications for appointment as Head of the\n Authority will be as follows:\n (1) A person qualified to be appointed as a District Court\n Judge.\n (2) No person who has been convicted of a criminal offense\n or a disciplinary offense which due to its essence, severity or\n circumstances, is not fit for serving as Head of the Authority,\n or has been indicted or served with a private complaint for\n such an offense, and a final court ruling regarding him has\n yet to be given, will be appointed as Head of the Authority.\n (b) It should be clarified that in accordance with Government Resolution\n No. 4470 dated 8 February 2009, the Head of the Authority shall be\n appointed for one six-year term.\n 4. Amend Government Resolution No. 4660 dated 19 January 2006, and\n determine that:\n (a) The Government shall appoint the Head of the Authority, by\n publication in the official gazette, as Registrar according to Article 7\n of the Privacy Protection Law, 5741-1981\n (b) The Minister of Justice shall appoint the Head of the Authority as\n Registrar according to Article 9 of the Electronic Signature Law,\n 5761-2001.\n\n\n Schedule 2\n (Subsection (12) of the definition \"data of special sensitivity\", in Article 3)\n (1) Data about membership in a trade union as defined in Article 7 of the Privacy Protection\n Regulations (Instructions regarding data transferred to Israel from the European Economic\n Area), 5783-2023.\n\n\n\n\n 55\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 57 of 71\n PageID #: 34284\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n Schedule 3\n (Article 23KF(h))\n Monetary Sanction for Violating the Data Security Regulations\n In this Schedule \u2013\n \"external service provider\" \u2013 as defined in Article 15(a) of the Regulations;\n \"individual\" \u2013 a person and his relative, a person and his legal representative; for this\n purpose, \"relative\" \u2013 spouse, sibling, parent, grandparent, offspring, offspring of a spouse,\n and the spouse of any of these, as well as the offspring of a sibling, and the sibling of a\n parent;\n \"database managed by an individual\" \u2013 database of which the controller is an individual, or a\n corporation owned by an individual or a cooperation owned by two individuals, in which only the\n individual and at most two more are authorized users for its use, and are able to use the database,\n not including the following databases:\n\n (1) A database whose main purpose is to collect personal data for providing it to\n another as a business practice or for consideration, including direct mailing\n services;\n (2) A database containing personal data about 10,000 or more individuals;\n (3) A database which contains personal data in respect of which the database\n controller is subject to a professional duty of confidentiality under law or\n professional ethical principles;\n \"database subject to the basic security level\" \u2013 a database that is not a database managed by an\n individual and that meets all of the following:\n (1) Its main purpose is not to collect personal data for the providing it to another as a\n business practice or for consideration, including direct mailing services;\n (2) The database controller is not a public body as defined in Article 23;\n (3) If the database contains data of special sensitivity, one of the following also\n applies:\n (a) The number of authorized users to the database at the database controller\n does not exceed ten;\n (b) The database includes data of special sensitivity only about the database\n controller's employees or suppliers, that is used for the sole purpose of the\n database controller's business management, and is only of one of the\n following types:\n (1) Data under subsections (2), (6), and (8) to (10) of the definition of\n \"data of special sensitivity\";\n\n\n 56\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 58 of 71\n PageID #: 34285\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (2) Personal data about employees\u2019 or their spouse\u2019s sexual\n orientation, deriving from data provided by the employee;\n (3) Personal data about their religious beliefs;\n (4) Personal data that is a biometric identifier under subsection (4) of\n the definition of \"data of special sensitivity\" that is only a facial\n image;\n \"database subject to the medium security level\" \u2013 a database that is not a database managed by an\n individual, is not a database subject to the high security level, and that meets one of the following:\n (1) Its main purpose is to collect personal data for providing it to another as a\n business practice or for consideration, including direct mailing services;\n (2) The database controller is a public body as defined in Article 23;\n (3) The database includes data of special sensitivity, except for data of special\n sensitivity excluded in subsection (3)(b) of the definition of a \"database subject to\n the basic security level\";\n \"Database subject to the high security level\" \u2013 a database that meets one of the following:\n (1) A database as defined in section (1) of the definition of a \"database subject to the\n medium security level\" or a database containing data of special sensitivity and\n the number of authorized users at the database controller exceeds 100 or that\n contains personal data about 100,000 or more individuals;\n (2) A database containing biometric identifiers of 100,000 or more individuals;\n \"Data Security Regulations\" \u2013 Privacy Protection Regulations (Data Security) 5777-2017.\n\n\n\n\n 57\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 59 of 71\n PageID #: 34286\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n Violation Monetary sanction amount (in NIS)\n Column Column Column D Column\n B\u2013 C\u2013 \u2013database E\u2013\n database database subject to database\n managed subject the subject to\n Column A\n by an to the medium the high\n individual basic security security\n security level level\n level\n (1) Preparation of the database definitions 2,000 2,000 40,000 160,000\n document: A database controller that has not\n defined in the database definitions document\n all the matters referred to in Article 2(a) of the\n Data Security Regulations, contrary to the\n provisions of that Article, including the\n different types of data held in the database\n pursuant to subsection (3), taking into account\n the list of types of data that constitute data of\n special sensitivity under Article 3 of the Law.\n (2) Updating the database definitions 2,000 2,000 40,000 160,000\n document: A database controller that has not\n updated the database definitions document,\n contrary to Article 2(b) of the Data Security\n Regulations.\n (3) Excess data review: A database controller 2,000 2,000 40,000 160,000\n that has not reviewed or documented the\n review of whether the data it holds in the\n database exceeds what is required for the\n purposes of the database, contrary to Article\n 2(c) or 19(b) of the Data Security Regulations.\n (4) Preparation of a data security procedure: A \u2013 2,000 40,000 160,000\n database controller or processor that has not\n prescribed a written data security procedure\n in accordance with the database definitions\n document and the Data Security Regulations\n (hereinafter \u2013 security procedure), contrary to\n the provisions of Article 4(a) of the Data\n Security Regulations or its provisions as\n applied in Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as\n applicable.\n\n\n\n\n 58\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 60 of 71\n PageID #: 34287\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (5) Security procedure \u2013 preparation, securement, \u2013 2,000 40,000 160,000\n and instruction setting: A database controller or\n processor that has not done one of the following:\n (a) Secured the security procedure so that\n details from it are provided to authorized\n users only to the extent necessary for the\n performance of their duties, contrary to\n Article 4(b) of the Data Security\n Regulations or its provisions as applied in\n Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as\n applicable;\n (b) Included in the security procedure the\n details listed in Article 4(c) of the Data\n Security Regulations; and regarding a\n database to which the medium or high\n security level applies \u2013 included in it a\n reference to the details listed in Article\n 4(d) of the Data Security Regulations or to\n the provisions listed in Article 9(b)(2) of\n the Data Security Regulations or its\n provisions as applied in Article 19(a) of\n the Regulations, as applicable;\n (c) prescribed in the security procedure\n instructions regarding the handling of\n data security incidents or regarding\n reporting to the database controller,\n contrary to Article 11(b) of the Data\n Security Regulations or its provisions as\n applied in Article 19(a) of the\n Regulations, as applicable;\n (d) Included in the security procedure the\n matters listed in Article 15(a)(2)(a) to (e) of\n the Data Security Regulations, contrary\n to the provisions of Article 15(a)(3) of the\n Regulations.\n (6) Database structure and systems: A database \u2013 1,000 20,000 80,000\n controller or processor that has not maintained an\n up-to-date document of the database\u2019s structure\n or an up-to-date inventory list of the database\u2019s\n systems, under Article 5(a) of the Data Security\n Regulations or its provisions as applied in Article\n 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n\n\n\n\n 59\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 61 of 71\n PageID #: 34288\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (7) Provision of details on the database\u2019s structure \u2013 1,000 20,000 80,000\n and inventory list: A database controller or\n processor who has not kept the up-to-date\n database structure document or the inventory list\n in accordance to the access authorizations\n determined under Article 5(b) of the Data\n Security Regulations or its provisions as applied\n in Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n\n (8) Protection of systems: A database controller 1,000 1,000 20,000 80,000\n or processor that has not ensured that the systems\n specified in Article 5(a)(1) of the Data Security\n Regulations are maintained in a secure place that\n prevents unauthorized penetration and entry,\n which is suitable to the nature of the database's\n activity and the sensitivity of the data therein, in\n accordance with Article 6(a) of the Data Security\n Regulations or its provisions as applied in Article\n 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n\n\n (9) Risk assessment: A database controller or \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 320,000\n processor that has not ensured that a risk\n assessment to identify data security risks is\n conducted at least once every 18 months\n (hereinafter \u2013 risk assessment), or that has not\n conducted a discussion on the findings of the risk\n assessment that were provided and has not\n examined the need to update the database\n definitions document or the security procedure as\n a result, or has not acted to rectify deficiencies\n found in the course of the risk assessment,\n contrary to Article 5(c) of the Data Security\n Regulations or its provisions as applied in Article\n 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n (10) Penetration tests: A database controller or \u2013 \u2013 \u2013 320,000\n processor that has not ensured that penetration\n tests are conducted on the database\u2019s systems at\n least once every 18 months, or has not conducted\n a discussion on the results of the penetration tests\n or has not acted to rectify deficiencies identified,\n contrary to Article 5(d) of the Data Security\n Regulations or its provisions as applied in Article\n 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n\n\n 60\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 62 of 71\n PageID #: 34289\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (11) Monitoring and documentation of site \u2013 \u2013 20,000 80,000\n access: a database controller or processor that has\n not taken measures to monitor and document in\n accordance with Article 6(b) of the Data Security\n Regulations or its provisions as applied in Article\n 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n\n (12) Manpower management: a database \u2013 1,000 20,000 80,000\n controller or processor that has granted access to\n data held in the database or changed the scope of\n the authorization granted, without taking any\n reasonable measures under Article 7(a) of the\n Data Security Regulations, contrary to the\n provisions of that Article or its provisions as\n applied in Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as\n applicable.\n (13) Manpower training: A database controller or \u2013 1,000 20,000 80,000\n processor that has granted access to data held in\n the database or changed the scope of the\n authorization granted, without first providing\n training or providing the required information to\n the authorized users, contrary to the provisions of\n Article 7(b) of the Data Security Regulations or\n its provisions as applied in Article 19(a) of the\n Regulations, as applicable.\n (14) Periodic training: A database controller or \u2013 \u2013 20,000 80,000\n processor that has not conducted periodic\n training for its authorized users, contrary to\n Article 7(c) of the Data Security Regulations or its\n provisions as applied in Article 19(a) of the\n Regulations, as applicable.\n\n (15) Determining and management of access \u2013 2,000 40,000 160,000\n permissions: a database controller or processor\n that has not determined access permissions for\n authorized users to the database and the\n database\u2019s systems, contrary to Article 8(a) of the\n Data Security Regulations or its provisions as\n applied in Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as\n applicable, or has not kept an up-to-date record of\n valid permissions, contrary to the provisions of\n Article 8(b) of the Data Security Regulations or\n its provisions as applied in Article 19(a) of the\n Regulations, as applicable (hereinafter - list of\n valid permissions).\n 61\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 63 of 71\n PageID #: 34290\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n\n\n\n (16) Implementation of access permission 2,000 2,000 40,000 160,000\n procedure: A database controller or processor\n that has not taken appropriate measures under the\n circumstances and according to the nature and\n kind of database, in order to ensure that access to\n the database and database\u2019s systems is made only\n by authorized users according to the list of valid\n permissions, contrary to Article 9(a) of the Data\n Security Regulations or its provisions as applied\n in Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n\n\n (17) Implementation of access permission \u2013 2,000 40,000 160,000\n procedure with respect to an authorized user who\n has finished his role: a database controller or\n processor that has not ensured the revoking of\n authorizations granted to an authorized person\n who no longer in his role, contrary to Article 9(c)\n of the Data Security Regulations or its provisions\n as applied in Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as\n applicable.\n (18) Access monitoring and documentation \u2013 \u2013 40,000 160,000\n mechanism: A database controller or processor\n that has not done one of the following:\n (a) Ensured that a monitoring\n mechanism is in place, contrary to Article\n 10(a) and (b) of the Data Security\n Regulations (hereinafter \u2013 monitoring\n mechanism) or its provisions as applied in\n Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as\n applicable;\n (b) Prescribed a routine procedure to\n examine the records of the monitoring\n mechanism and prepared a report of the\n issues found and the measures taken as a\n result, contrary to Article 10(c of the Data\n Security Regulations or its provisions as\n applied in Article 19(a) of the\n Regulations, as applicable;\n (c) Ensured that the records of the\n monitoring mechanism are retained for at\n least 12 months, contrary to Article 10(d)\n of the Data Security Regulations or its\n\n 62\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 64 of 71\n PageID #: 34291\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n provisions as applied in Article 19(a) of\n the Regulations, as applicable;\n Informed the authorized database users of the\n existence of the monitoring mechanism, contrary\n to Article 10(e) of the Data Security Regulations\n or its provisions as applied in Article 19(a) of the\n Regulations, as applicable.\n\n (19) Data security incident documentation: a 2,000 2,000 40,000 160,000\n database controller or processor that has not\n ensured the documentation of any event in which\n an incident was discovered that raises concern\n regarding a breach of data integrity, unauthorized\n use, or deviation from authorization (hereinafter\n \u2013 data security incidents), contrary to Article 11(a)\n of the Data Security Regulations or its provisions\n as applied in Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as\n applicable.\n (20) Periodic discussion on data security \u2013 \u2013 40,000 160,000\n incidents: A database controller or processor that\n has not held a discussion regarding data security\n incidents or has not assessed the need to update\n the security procedure and documented such\n discussion and assessment, contrary to Article\n 11(c) and Article 19(b) of the Data Security\n Regulations or its provisions as applied in Article\n 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n (21) Reporting to the Privacy Protection \u2013 \u2013 80,000 320,000\n Authority regarding a severe security incident: A\n database controller or processor that has not\n immediately notified the Head of the Authority of\n a severe security incident, or has not reported to\n the Head of the Authority about the measures\n taken following the incident, contrary to Article\n 11(d)(1) of the Data Security Regulations or its\n provisions as applied in Article 19(a) of the\n Regulations, as applicable.\n (22) Updating the database\u2019s systems: a database 2,000 2,000 40,000 160,000\n controller or processor that has not ensured that\n updates to the database's systems are conducted\n on a regular basis, including the computer\n material required for their operation, or that no\n use is made of systems where the security aspects\n are not supported by the manufacturer without a\n security solution, contrary to Article 13(c) of the\n Data Security Regulations or its provisions as\n 63\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 65 of 71\n PageID #: 34292\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n applied in Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as\n applicable.\n\n (23) Network security: a database controller or 2,000 2,000 40,000 160,000\n processor that has connected the database\u2019s\n systems to the internet or to another public\n network without installing any safeguard,\n contrary to Article 14(a) of the Data Security\n Regulations or its provisions as applied in Article\n 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n (24) Control and supervision of an external party \u2013 4,000 80,000 320,000\n (outsourcing): A database controller that has\n entered into an agreement with an external\n service provider to receive services, and has not\n explicitly determined in the agreement with that\n provider the matters listed in Article 15(a)(2) of\n the Data Security Regulations or has not taken\n any monitoring and supervision measures over\n the external service provider's compliance with\n the provisions set forth in the agreement\n regarding the matters detailed in subsections (d)\n and (f) to (h) in that Article, contrary to the\n Article 15(a)(4) of the Data Security Regulations.\n (25) Documentation: a database controller or \u2013 1,000 20,000 80,000\n processor that has not retained in a secure\n manner, for at least one year, the data collected\n when implementing Articles 6(b), 8-11, 14, 15(a)(4)\n and 16 of the Data Security Regulations, that\n apply to it, contrary to Article 17(a) of the Data\n Security Regulations or its provisions as applied\n in Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n 26) Backup of documentation data: a database \u2013 \u2013 20,000 80,000\n controller or processor that has not done one of\n the following:\n (a) Backed up retained data in a manner\n ensuring that the data can be restored to\n its original form at all times, contrary to\n Article 17(b) of the Data Security\n Regulations or its provisions as applied in\n Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as\n applicable;\n (b) Prescribed in a document the matters\n listed in Article 18(a)(1) and (3) of the Data\n Security Regulations and has also\n established procedures to ensure data\n\n 64\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 66 of 71\n PageID #: 34293\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n restoring, under Article 17(b) to the\n Regulations;\n (c) Ensured that a backup copy of the data\n and the procedures provided for in Article\n 18(a) of the Data Security Regulations are\n retained in a manner that ensures the\n integrity of the data and the ability of\n restoring the data, contrary to Article\n 18(b) of the Data Security Regulations or\n its provisions as applied in Article 19(a) of\n the Regulations, as applicable.\n\n (27) Violation of documentation obligation: A \u2013 1,000 20,000 80,000\n database controller or processor that has not\n documented the manner in which it performed an\n action it is obligated or responsible to perform\n under the Regulations, and that action is not the\n creation of a document, contrary to Article 19(b)\n of the aforementioned Regulations.\n (28) Separation of the database\u2019s systems \u2013 \u2013 20,000 80,000\n (compartmentalization): a database controller or\n processor that has not separated between the\n database\u2019s systems that enable access to personal\n data, and other computer systems used by it,\n contrary to Article 13(b) of the Data Security\n Regulations or its provisions as applied in Article\n 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n (29) Periodical audit: a database controller or \u2013 \u2013 40,000 160,000\n processor that has not ensured that an internal or\n external audit is conducted at least once every 24\n months, contrary to Article 16(a) of the Data\n Security Regulations or its provisions as applied\n in Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable\n or has not conducted a discussion on the audit\n reports that were provided to it, or has not\n assessed the need to update the database\n definitions document or the security procedure\n accordingly, contrary to Article 16(c) of the Data\n Security Regulations or its provisions as applied\n in Article 19(a) of the Regulations, as applicable.\n\n\n\n\n 65\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 67 of 71\n PageID #: 34294\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n Schedule 4\n (Article 23KF(i))\n Monetary Sanction for Violating Regulations Regarding the Transfer of Data From\n the EEA\n In this Schedule, \"Regulations on the Transfer of Data from the European Economic Area\" \u2013 the\n Privacy Protection Regulations (Instructions for Data that was Transferred to Israel from the\n European Economic Area), 5789-2023.\n\n\n\n\n Part A\n Column A Column B\n The Violation Monetary sanction\n Amount\n (1) A database controller that has not notified the data subject, in 15,000\n writing, of its decision in the application under Article 3(a) of\n the Regulations on the Transfer of Data from the European\n Economic Area, contrary to Article 3(d) of the Regulations.\n\n (2) A database controller that has not implemented any An amount of 2 new shekels\n organizational, technological, or other mechanism, the purpose for each person about whom\n of which is to ensure that the database does not include data that personal data are held in the\n are no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was database, and if the personal\n collected or retained or for any other purpose for which it may data in the database are data of\n be retained in accordance with any law (hereinafter \u2013 special sensitivity \u2013 an amount\n unnecessary data), contrary to Article 4(a) of the Regulations on of 4 new shekels for each\n the Transfer of Data from the European Economic Area. person; if the amount of the\n (3) A database controller that has not implemented any monetary sanction was less\n organizational, technological, or other mechanism, the purpose than 20,000 new shekels, and if\n of which is to ensure that the data in the database are correct, the data are data of special\n complete, clear, and updated, contrary to Article 5(a) of the sensitivity \u2013 less than 40,000\n Regulations on the transfer of information from the European new shekels, the Head of the\n Economic Area. Authority may impose a\n (4) A database controller that has found that the database monetary sanction on a\n contains data that are not correct, complete, clear, or updated, database controller or\n and that has not taken any measures to rectify or delete the data, processor in the amount of\n contrary to Article 5(b) of the Regulations on the transfer of 20,000 new shekels or 40,000\n information from the European Economic Area. new shekels, as applicable.\n\n\n\n\n 66\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 68 of 71\n PageID #: 34295\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n\n\n\n Part B\n (1) A database controller that received a written request for the An amount of 4 new shekels\n deletion of personal data under Article 3(a) of the Regulations for each person about whom\n on the Transfer of Data from the European Economic Area, and personal data are held in the\n the exclusions under Article 3(b) of the Regulations do not database, and if the personal\n apply, and did not delete the data or took actions to ensure that data in the database are data of\n it will be impossible, by applying reasonable measures, to special sensitivity \u2013 an amount\n identify the data subject, contrary to Article 3(c) of the of 8 new shekels for each\n Regulations, and after receiving a notice from the Head of the person; If the amount of the\n Authority under Article 23KE(c), according to which its actions monetary sanction is less than\n constitute a violation, did not cease the violation within the time 200,000 new shekels, the Head\n period instructed by him. of the Authority may impose\n on the database controller or\n (2) A database controller that has found that the database processor of the database a\n contains personal data that is unnecessary according to Article monetary sanction in the\n 4(b) of the Regulations on the transfer of data from the European amount of 200,000 new\n Economic Area and has not taken actions that ensure that it will shekels; Regarding items (1),\n be impossible to identify the data subject as set forth in Article (3) and (4) \u2013 the monetary\n 4(c), and the circumstances set forth in that Article did not apply, sanction will be calculated\n and has not deleted the aforementioned data at the earliest based on the number of\n opportunity under the circumstances, contrary to Article 4(b) to individuals about whom the\n the Regulations, and after receiving a notice from the Head of database controller did not\n the Authority under Article 23KE(c) according to which its delete personal data as\n actions constitute a violation, did not cease the violation within required or did not provide\n the time period instructed by him. them with a notice as required\n (3) A database controller that received personal data about a under Articles 3(c) or 6(a) or\n person and did not notify him as required under Article 6(a) of 6(b) of the Regulations on the\n the Regulations on the Transfer of Data from the European Transfer of Data from the\n Economic Area, and none of the circumstances set forth in European Economic Area, as\n Article 6(c) of the Regulations apply, contrary to Article 6(a), applicable.\n and after receiving a notice from the Head of the Authority\n under Article 23KE(c) according to which its actions constitute\n a violation, did not cease the violation within the time period\n instructed by him.\n (4) A database controller who intended to transfer the personal\n data it received to a third party and did not provide notice to the\n data subject as required under Article 6(b) of the Regulations on\n the Transfer of Data from the European Economic Area, and\n none of the circumstances set forth in Article 6(c) of the\n Regulations apply, contrary to Article 6(b), and after receiving\n a notice from the Head of the Authority under Article 23KE(c)\n according to which its actions constitute a violation, did not\n cease the violation within the time period instructed by him.\n\n 67\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 69 of 71\n PageID #: 34296\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n Schedule 5\n (Section 23LA)\n Reduced Amounts Regarding a Monetary Sanction\n 1. Definitions\n In this Schedule \u2013\n \"Certificate Regarding Turnover\" \u2013 as specified below, as applicable:\n (1) Regarding a violator who is required by law to appoint an auditor under the\n Companies Law, 5759-1999 \u2013 a certificate issued by the auditor;\n (2) Regarding a violator who is a cooperative association \u2013 a certificate issued by a\n person who audited the accounts of the cooperative association under Article 20 of the\n Cooperative Associations Ordinance;\n (3) Regarding any other violator \u2013 a certificate issued by a certified public accountant\n or a tax advisor representing the violator, confirming that the turnover amount presented\n by the violator corresponds with the amount stated in a document submitted to the Israel\n Tax Authority or to the National Insurance Institute under the law; for this purpose, \"tax\n advisor representing\" \u2013 as defined in the Representative work by Tax advisors Law\n 5765-2005;\n \"Turnover\" \u2013 the turnover of a dealer as defined in the Value Added Tax Law, 5736-1975;\n Regarding a non-profit organization as defined in that Law \u2013 turnover as defined in the second\n Schedule of the Associations Law, 5740-1980, and with respect to a public body that is not one\n of the aforementioned \u2013 the annual budget of that public body;\n \"Micro-enterprise\" \u2013 a violator whose turnover in the year preceding the date of the violation\n did not exceed 4 million new shekels;\n \"Small enterprise\" \u2013 a violator, other than a micro-enterprise, whose turnover in the year\n preceding the date of the violation exceeded 4 million new shekels and did not exceed 10 million\n new shekels.\n 2. Reduction due to the Violator's Conduct\n The Head of the Authority shall reduce the amount of the monetary sanction for a violator by the\n percentages specified below, if one or more of the following circumstances exist:\n (1) In the five years preceding the violation of the provision for which a monetary\n sanction is imposed on the violator, no monetary sanction or administrative enforcement\n measure under Chapters B to E of Chapter D\u20193 was imposed on it for a violation of the same\n provision \u2013 by 20%; if no monetary sanction or administrative enforcement measure as\n aforesaid was imposed on the violator in the three years preceding the violation \u2013 by 10%;\n (2) The violator ceased the violation on its own initiative and reported it to the Head of\n the Authority \u2013 by 30%;\n\n\n 68\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 70 of 71\n PageID #: 34297\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n (3) The violator took measures to prevent recurrence of the violation and to reduce the\n damage, to the satisfaction of the Head of the Authority \u2013 by 20%;\n (4) The violator is obligated to appoint a data protection officer only under Articles\n 17B1(a)(3) and (4), and appointed such an officer before the notice of intent to charge was\n delivered \u2013 by 10%; this reduction shall apply as long as the Minister of Justice has not, with\n the approval of the Constitution Committee, made an order under Article 23KO(d)(1)(g).\n 3. Reduction due to Payment or Other Compensation Paid\n The Head of the Authority may reduce the amount of the monetary sanction for a violator due\n to compensation that was paid or ordered to be paid by the violator for the same violations \u2013 by\n a percentage not exceeding 30%.\n 4. Reduction due to Personal Circumstances\n If the Head of the Authority considers, with respect to a violator who is an individual, that the\n violation was caused as a result of personal circumstances justifying a reduction of the monetary\n sanction or that severe personal circumstances exist that justify leniency with the violator, he may\n reduce the amount of the monetary sanction imposed on the violator by 20%.\n 5. Reduction due to Several Circumstances\n If several circumstances under Articles 2, 3 and 4 exist with respect to a violator, the Head of the\n Authority may reduce the amount of the monetary sanction imposed on it by the percentages\n provided for these circumstances, cumulatively, provided that the cumulative reduction percentage\n does not exceed 70% of the amount of the monetary sanction.\n 6. Reduction for a Micro or Small Enterprise\n If the Head of the Authority finds, at the request of the violator, that the violator is a micro-enterprise\n or small enterprise, as applicable, he shall reduce the amount of the monetary sanction imposed on\n it, whether or not they were reduced under Article 2, 3 or 4, so that the amount of the sanction for\n violations under each of the subsections listed below shall not exceed the amount specified for\n them:\n (1) Regarding violations listed in Article 23KF(a) and (b), in subsections (6) to (8), (11) to\n (14) and (25) to (28) of the third Schedule, and subsection (1) in Part A of the fourth Schedule\n \u2013 for a micro-enterprise \u2013 20,000 new shekels, and for a small enterprise \u2013 40,000 new\n shekels.\n (2) Regarding violations listed in Article 23KF(c) to (f), in subsections (1) to (5), (9) and\n (10), (15) to (24) and (29) of the third Schedule, in subsections (2) to (4) of Part A of the fourth\n Schedule and in Part B of that Schedule \u2013 for a micro-enterprise \u2013 50,000 new shekels, and\n for a small enterprise \u2013 100,000 new shekels.\n (3) Regarding violations listed in Article 23KF(g) \u2013 for a micro-enterprise \u2013 70,000 new\n shekels, and for a small enterprise \u2013 140,000 new shekels\n If a violator that is a micro-enterprise or a small enterprise violates several provisions under\n subsections (1) to (3), the violator shall not be liable for an amount exceeding the highest\n monetary sanction.\n 69\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-2 Filed 10/30/26 Page 71 of 71\n PageID #: 34298\nUpdated After Amendment 13\n\n 7. Reduction due to Consideration of Turnover\n (a) If the Head of the Authority finds, at the request of the violator, that the amount of\n the monetary sanction imposed on the violator, whether reduced under Article 2, 3, 4, or 6\n or not reduced as aforesaid, exceeds 5% of the violator's turnover, the Head of the Authority\n shall reduce the amount of the monetary sanction to 5% of the violator's turnover; however,\n for a dealer with no turnover, the Head of the Authority shall not reduce the amount of the\n sanction under this Article to an amount less than the maximum amount that may be\n imposed under Article 6 regarding a micro-enterprise.\n (b) A violator requesting a reduction of the amount of the monetary sanction under\n Article 6 or under this Article shall submit to the Head of the Authority a certificate\n regarding turnover within 30 days from the date of delivery of the notice of intent to charge.\n\n\n\n\n 70\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-11-03T08:49:44.057412-08:00","document_number":"886","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872211","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499798982/","id":499798982,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/886/3/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-02T07:32:09.009379-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-09T05:05:59.471806-08:00","sha1":"89f8bd1a6d09e80faefa451c73847c028cf8c4fb","page_count":16,"file_size":994709,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.886.3_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.886.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 16 PageID\n #: 34299\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 16 PageID\n #: 34300\n\n\n\n 1 Greg D. Andres\n Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n 2 Luca Marzorati\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 3 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 450 Lexington Avenue\n 4 New York, New York 10017\n Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n 5 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n 6 antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n 7\n Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n 8 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200\n 9 Redwood City, California 94063\n Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n10 Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n11\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC and Meta\n12 Platforms, Inc.\n\n13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n14 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n15 OAKLAND DIVISION\n\n16 WHATSAPP LLC and META PLATFORMS, )\n INC. ) Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n17 )\n Plaintiffs, )\n18 ) NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA\n v. ) TO HIPPOCRENE VENTURES LLC\n19 )\n NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED )\n20 and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, )\n )\n21 Defendants. )\n )\n22 )\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n27\n\n28\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 16 PageID\n #: 34301\n\n\n\n 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:\n\n 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,\n\n 3 Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc. have issued the subpoena attached hereto to:\n\n 4 Hippocrene Ventures LLC\n c/o The Corporation Trust Company\n 5 1209 Orange Street\n Wilmington, Delaware 19801\n 6\n The subpoena commands the production of documents and electronically stored information\n 7\n specified in Exhibit A to the subpoena. Pursuant to Rule 45(a)(4), a copy of the subpoena is being\n 8\n served on all parties before it is served on Hippocrene Ventures LLC.\n 9\n\n10 Dated: September 23, 2026 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n11\n\n12 By: /s/ Micah G. Block\n Greg D. Andres\n13 Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n Luca Marzorati\n14 (admitted pro hac vice)\n DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n15 450 Lexington Avenue\n16 New York, New York 10017\n Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n17 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n18 antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n19\n\n20 Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n21 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200\n Redwood City, California 94063\n22 Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n23\n Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n24\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n25 WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.\n26\n27\n\n28\n 1\n NOTICE OF ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA TO HIPPOCRENE VENTURES LLC\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 16 PageID\n #: 34302\nAO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n for the\n Northern District\n __________ DistrictofofCalifornia\n __________\n\n )\n Plaintiff )\n v. ) Civil Action No.\n )\n )\n Defendant )\n\n SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, OR OBJECTS\n OR TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF PREMISES IN A CIVIL ACTION\n\nTo:\n\n (Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)\n\n Production: YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce at the time, date, and place set forth below the following\ndocuments, electronically stored information, or objects, and to permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the\nmaterial:\n\n\n\n Place: Date and Time:\n\n\n\n Inspection of Premises: YOU ARE COMMANDED to permit entry onto the designated premises, land, or\nother property possessed or controlled by you at the time, date, and location set forth below, so that the requesting party\nmay inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it.\n\n Place: Date and Time:\n\n\n\n The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached \u2013 Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;\nRule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to\nrespond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.\n\nDate:\n\n CLERK OF COURT\n OR\n /s/\n Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney\u2019s signature\n\n\nThe name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)\n , who issues or requests this subpoena, are:\n\n\n\n\n Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena\nIf this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things or the\ninspection of premises before trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before\nit is served on the person to whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 16 PageID\n #: 34303\nAO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action (Page 2)\n\nCivil Action No.\n\n PROOF OF SERVICE\n (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)\n\n I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)\non (date) .\n\n I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:\n\n\n on (date) ; or\n\n I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:\n .\n\n Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also\n tendered to the witness the fees for one day\u2019s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of\n $ .\n\nMy fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .\n\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.\n\n\nDate:\n Server\u2019s signature\n\n\n\n Printed name and title\n\n\n\n\n Server\u2019s address\n\nAdditional information regarding attempted service, etc.:\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 16 PageID\n #: 34304\nAO 88B (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action(Page 3)\n\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)\n(c) Place of Compliance. (ii) disclosing an unretained expert\u2019s opinion or information that does\n not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert\u2019s\n (1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a study that was not requested by a party.\nperson to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows: (C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances\n (A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or\nregularly transacts business in person; or modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified\n (B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly conditions if the serving party:\ntransacts business in person, if the person (i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be\n (i) is a party or a party\u2019s officer; or otherwise met without undue hardship; and\n (ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial (ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.\nexpense.\n (e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.\n (2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:\n (A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or (1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These\ntangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored\nemployed, or regularly transacts business in person; and information:\n (B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected. (A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents\n must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or\n(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement. must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.\n (B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.\n (1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored\nresponsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in\nto avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.\nsubpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must (C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The\nenforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction\u2014which may include person responding need not produce the same electronically stored\nlost earnings and reasonable attorney\u2019s fees\u2014on a party or attorney who information in more than one form.\nfails to comply. (D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person\n responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information\n (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection. from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because\n (A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective\ndocuments, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to order, the person responding must show that the information is not\npermit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is\nproduction or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition, made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the\nhearing, or trial. requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule\n (B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.\nthings or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated\nin the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or (2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.\nsampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises\u2014or to (A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information\nproducing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested. under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation\nThe objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for material must:\ncompliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made, (i) expressly make the claim; and\nthe following rules apply: (ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or\n (i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself\nmay move the court for the district where compliance is required for an privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.\norder compelling production or inspection. (B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a\n (ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as\norder must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party\u2019s officer from trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party\nsignificant expense resulting from compliance. that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being\n notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified\n (3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena. information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information\n (A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the\ncompliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that: information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly\n (i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply; present the information under seal to the court for the district where\n (ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who\nspecified in Rule 45(c); produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is\n (iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no resolved.\nexception or waiver applies; or\n (iv) subjects a person to undue burden. (g) Contempt.\n (B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a The court for the district where compliance is required\u2014and also, after a\nsubpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on motion is transferred, the issuing court\u2014may hold in contempt a person\nmotion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires: who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the\n (i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, subpoena or an order related to it.\ndevelopment, or commercial information; or\n\n\n\n For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 16 PageID\n #: 34305\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 8 of 16 PageID\n #: 34306\n\n\n\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUBPOENA FOR DOCUMENTS TO HIPPOCRENE VENTURES\n LLC\n\n YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, to produce\n\n the Documents and things designated herein for inspection at the offices of Davis Polk &\n\n Wardwell LLP, 450 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, within 14 days of service\n\n (or such later date on which both parties agree), as provided under the Federal Rules of\n\n Civil Procedure. This Subpoena for Documents, including each individual Request for\n\n Documents (collectively, the \u201cRequests\u201d), shall be read and interpreted in accordance with\n\n the definitions and instructions identified below.\n\n DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS\n\n Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the instructions, definitions, and rules\n\n contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and for purposes of this Subpoena, the\n\n following instructions and definitions shall apply:\n\n 1. \u201cCommunication\u201d means the transmittal of information (in the form of facts,\n\n ideas, inquiries or otherwise).\n\n 2. \u201cComplaint\u201d means the complaint filed by WhatsApp LLC (f/k/a\n\n WhatsApp Inc.) and Meta Platforms, Inc. (f/k/a Facebook, Inc.) against Defendants in the\n\n United States District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 4:19-cv-07123-\n\n PJH on October 29, 2019.\n\n 3. \u201cDefendants\u201d refers to NSO and Q Cyber.\n\n 4. \u201cDocument\u201d or \u201cDocuments\u201d is defined to be synonymous in meaning and\n\n equal in scope to the usage of the term \u201cdocuments or electronically stored information\u201d in\n\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A).\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 9 of 16 PageID\n #: 34307\n\n\n\n 5. \u201cHippocrene Ventures\u201d means Hippocrene Ventures LLC, as well as its\n\n subsidiaries, affiliates, branches, divisions, partnerships, properties, groups, special\n\n purpose entities, joint ventures, predecessors, successors, or any other entity in which they\n\n have or had a controlling interest, and any current or former employee, officer, director,\n\n shareholder, partner, member, consultant, manager, associate, staff employee, independent\n\n contractor, agent, attorney or other representative of any of those entities.\n\n 6. \u201cJudgment Debtors\u201d means NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber\n\n Technologies Limited.\n\n 7. \u201cMeta Platforms\u201d means the requesting party Meta Platforms, Inc. (f/k/a\n\n Facebook, Inc.).\n\n 8. \u201cNorthPole NewCo\u201d means NorthPole NewCo S.\u00e0 r.l., a soci\u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e0\n\n responsabilit\u00e9 limit\u00e9e organized under the laws of Luxembourg.\n\n 9. \u201cNSO\u201d means NSO Group Technologies Limited, as well as its directors,\n\n employees, subsidiaries, corporate parents, affiliates, and representatives.\n\n 10. \u201cPerson\u201d means any natural person or any legal entity, including, without\n\n limitation, any business or governmental entity or association.\n\n 11. \u201cQ Cyber\u201d means Q Cyber Technologies Limited, as well as its directors,\n\n employees, subsidiaries, corporate parents, affiliates, and representatives.\n\n 12. \u201cRelating to\u201d means concerning, referring to, describing, evidencing, or\n\n constituting.\n\n 13. The \u201cRelevant Period\u201d is from January 1, 2025 through present.\n\n 14. \u201cTransaction\u201d means the acquisition by Hippocrene Ventures LLC of\n\n secured creditor rights against NorthPole NewCo and/or Defendants in or about October\n\n 3\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 10 of 16\n PageID #: 34308\n\n\n\n2025, and the related transfer of shares of NorthPole NewCo, including all negotiations,\n\ndue diligence, agreements, and closing steps in connection therewith.\n\n 15. \u201cWhatsApp\u201d means the requesting party WhatsApp LLC (f/k/a WhatsApp\n\nInc.).\n\n 16. \u201cYou,\u201d \u201cYour,\u201d and \u201cYours\u201d shall mean Hippocrene Ventures, and any\n\nother person acting on Your behalf, including but not limited to directors, employees,\n\nsubsidiaries, corporate parents, and representatives.\n\n 17. In producing Documents, You are requested to produce the original of each\n\nDocument requested together with all copies and drafts of that Document. In any\n\ncircumstance in which an agreement is reached to allow the production of copies of\n\nDocuments rather than originals, you shall retain all of the original Documents for\n\ninspection or copying throughout the pendency of this case, any appeal(s), and any related\n\nproceedings.\n\n 18. Any alteration of a responsive Document, including any marginal notes,\n\nhandwritten notes, underlining, date stamps, received stamps, endorsed or filed stamps,\n\ndrafts, revisions, modifications, and other versions of a Document, is a responsive\n\nDocument on its own and must be produced.\n\n 19. Documents and Communications shall be produced in a manner that\n\nidentifies all metadata, including but not limited to the sender, recipient, date, time, and\n\nlocation, when available.\n\n 20. Documents shall be produced in the file folder, envelope, or other container\n\nin which the documents are kept or maintained. If, for any reason, the container cannot be\n\nproduced, produce copies of all labels or other identifying marks.\n\n 4\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 11 of 16\n PageID #: 34309\n\n\n\n 21. If identical copies of a Document are in the possession, custody, or control\n\nof more than one natural Person or other Document custodian, a copy of that Document\n\nshall be produced from each such natural Person or other Document custodian.\n\n 22. Produce all responsive Documents in Your possession, custody, or control,\n\nregardless of whether such Documents are possessed directly by You or Persons under\n\nYour control, including Your agents, employees, representatives, or attorneys, or their\n\nagents, employees, or representatives.\n\n 23. If You object to part of a request, you must produce all Documents called\n\nfor which are not subject to that objection.\n\n DOCUMENTS TO BE PRODUCED\n\nDocument Request No. 1:\n\n All Documents Relating to the formation, organization, and governance of\n\nHippocrene Ventures LLC, including but not limited to: certificate of formation, operating\n\nagreement(s), and all amendments thereto.\n\nDocument Request No. 2:\n\n Documents and Communications sufficient to identify all current and former\n\nmembers, managers, officers, directors, beneficial owners, equity holders, and any other\n\nPersons with authority to act on behalf of or direct the activities of Hippocrene Ventures\n\nLLC during the Relevant Period.\n\nDocument Request No. 3:\n\n All Documents and Communications concerning the Transaction, including but not\n\nlimited to: purchase agreements, assignment agreements, credit bid documentation, loan\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 12 of 16\n PageID #: 34310\n\n\n\ntransfer documents, participation agreements, closing documents, consideration paid, and\n\nall negotiations, correspondence, due diligence materials, and drafts Relating thereto.\n\nDocument Request No. 4:\n\n All Documents and Communications concerning the transfer of shares of NorthPole\n\nNewCo to or by Hippocrene Ventures LLC, including but not limited to: share purchase\n\nagreements, share transfer forms, notarial deeds, Luxembourg trade registry filings,\n\nshareholder registers, consents, waivers, and any documents reflecting the consideration\n\npaid or received for such transfers.\n\nDocument Request No. 5:\n\n All Documents and Communications concerning any loans, financing\n\narrangements, credit facilities, promissory notes, or security interests involving Hippocrene\n\nVentures LLC, on the one hand, and Defendants, NorthPole NewCo, or OSY Technologies\n\nS.\u00e0 r.l., on the other hand.\n\nDocument Request No. 6:\n\n Documents sufficient to identify all Financial Accounts of Hippocrene Ventures\n\nLLC through which funds were received from or transmitted to Defendants, NorthPole\n\nNewCo, or OSY Technologies S.\u00e0 r.l. during the Relevant Period, including the name and\n\naddress of the financial institution, account number, account holder(s), authorized\n\nsignatory(ies), and current and historical balances during the Relevant Period.\n\nDocument Request No. 7:\n\n For each Financial Account identified in response to Document Request No. 6, all\n\naccount statements, transaction records, wire transfer confirmations, and deposit and\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 13 of 16\n PageID #: 34311\n\n\n\nwithdrawal records reflecting transfers of funds to or from Defendants, NorthPole NewCo,\n\nor OSY Technologies S.\u00e0 r.l. during the Relevant Period.\n\nDocument Request No. 8:\n\n All Documents reflecting transfers of funds, property, securities, or other assets of\n\nany kind between Hippocrene Ventures LLC, on the one hand, and Defendants, NorthPole\n\nNewCo, or OSY Technologies S.\u00e0 r.l., on the other hand, during the Relevant Period.\n\nDocument Request No. 9:\n\n All Documents and Communications concerning the role of Hippocrene Ventures\n\nLLC (or any of its members, managers, officers, or agents) in the management, governance,\n\ndirection, or control of Defendants or NorthPole NewCo, including but not limited to:\n\nboard seats, management rights, observer rights, veto rights, consent rights, or other\n\ngovernance authority.\n\nDocument Request No. 10:\n\n All Communications between Hippocrene Ventures LLC (including its members,\n\nmanagers, officers, agents, attorneys, and representatives) and Defendants or NorthPole\n\nNewCo during the Relevant Period Relating to any of the Judgment Debtors\u2019 assets,\n\nliabilities, financial condition, corporate structure, or the Transaction.\n\nDocument Request No. 11:\n\n All Communications between Hippocrene Ventures LLC (including its members,\n\nmanagers, officers, agents, and representatives) and Robert Simonds (or any entity owned\n\nor controlled by Robert Simonds) concerning Defendants, NorthPole NewCo, or the\n\njudgments entered in this action.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 14 of 16\n PageID #: 34312\n\n\n\nDocument Request No. 12:\n\n All Documents concerning any assets of Defendants held by, pledged to, assigned\n\nto, or maintained for the benefit of Hippocrene Ventures LLC, including but not limited to:\n\nintellectual property, technology licenses, software, customer contracts, real property\n\ninterests, equipment, and intangible assets.\n\nDocument Request No. 13:\n\n All Documents concerning any distributions, dividends, payments, interest, fees,\n\nreimbursements, or other compensation of any kind received by Hippocrene Ventures LLC\n\nfrom or on behalf of Defendants, NorthPole NewCo, or OSY Technologies S.\u00e0 r.l. during\n\nthe Relevant Period.\n\nDocument Request No. 14:\n\n All Documents and Communications concerning any restructuring, reorganization,\n\nrecapitalization, merger, consolidation, or change of control of Defendants or NorthPole\n\nNewCo during the Relevant Period in which Hippocrene Ventures LLC participated,\n\nconsented to, or of which it had knowledge.\n\nDocument Request No. 15:\n\n All Documents concerning any valuations, appraisals, or assessments of\n\nDefendants, NorthPole NewCo, or any of their assets, equity, or business operations\n\nperformed by or for Hippocrene Ventures LLC during the Relevant Period.\n\nDocument Request No. 16:\n\n All engagement letters, fee agreements, advisory mandates, or retainer agreements\n\nbetween Hippocrene Ventures LLC and any financial advisor, investment bank, valuation\n\nfirm, management consultant, or other professional advisor concerning Defendants or\n\nNorthPole NewCo.\n 8\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 15 of 16\n PageID #: 34313\n\n\n\nDocument Request No. 17:\n\n All Documents concerning any current or planned disposition, sale, assignment,\n\ntransfer, pledge, or encumbrance of Hippocrene Ventures LLC\u2019s secured creditor rights,\n\nequity interests, or any other rights against or Relating to Defendants or NorthPole NewCo.\n\nDocument Request No. 18:\n\n All Documents and Communications concerning any legal proceedings,\n\narbitrations, mediations, or disputes between Hippocrene Ventures LLC and Defendants or\n\nNorthPole NewCo, including but not limited to pleadings, demand letters, settlement\n\nagreements, and correspondence with counsel.\n\nDocument Request No. 19:\n\n Documents sufficient to show all sources of funding used by Hippocrene Ventures\n\nLLC to acquire the secured creditor rights against NorthPole NewCo and/or Defendants,\n\nincluding but not limited to: capital contributions by members, loan agreements, credit\n\nfacilities, investor subscription agreements, and bank records reflecting the flow of funds.\n\nDocument Request No. 20:\n\n All Documents and Communications concerning any agreement, arrangement,\n\nunderstanding, or Communication between Hippocrene Ventures LLC and any Person\n\nregarding the satisfaction, enforcement, collection, or frustration of the judgments entered\n\nagainst Defendants in WhatsApp LLC, et al. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited, et al.,\n\nNo. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH (N.D. Cal.).\n\nDocument Request No. 21:\n\n All Documents concerning any indemnification, hold-harmless, or contribution\n\narrangements between Hippocrene Ventures LLC and Defendants or NorthPole NewCo,\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-3 Filed 10/30/26 Page 16 of 16\n PageID #: 34314\n\n\n\nincluding but not limited to indemnification provisions in any agreement, side letter, or\n\ngovernance document.\n\nDocument Request No. 22:\n\n All minutes of meetings, written resolutions, or member and manager consents of\n\nHippocrene Ventures LLC that reference or concern Defendants, NorthPole NewCo, the\n\njudgments entered in this action, or any matter Relating to the post-judgment proceedings\n\nin this action.\n\nDocument Request No. 23:\n\n Documents sufficient to show whether Hippocrene Ventures LLC and any entity\n\nnamed \u201cHippocrene, LLC\u201d (including any Delaware-registered entity by that name) share\n\ncommon ownership, management, control, members, or officers.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-11-03T08:49:44.557550-08:00","document_number":"886","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872212","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/499798983/","id":499798983,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/886/4/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-11-02T07:32:09.030321-08:00","date_modified":"2026-11-09T05:05:37.836247-08:00","sha1":"af73389402baee4e22de3a9ab427cf352f9bf4ff","page_count":3,"file_size":170844,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.886.4_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.886.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-4 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID\n #: 34315\n\n\n\n 1 Juan O. Perla (appearance pro hac vice)\n Turner Smith (appearance pro hac vice)\n 2 David V. Holmes (appearance pro hac vice)\n CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST,\n 3\n COLT & MOSLE LLP\n 4 101 Park Avenue\n New York, New York 10178\n 5 Tel: (212)-696-6084\n jperla@curtis.com\n 6 tsmith@curtis.com\n 7\n Jerrold L. Bregman (SBN 149896)\n 8 BG Law LLP\n 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 500\n 9 Woodland Hills, CA 91367\n Tel: (818)-827-9101\n10 Fax: (818) 827-9099\n jbregman@bg.law\n11\n\n12 Attorneys for Defendants\n NSO Group Technologies Limited\n13 and Q Cyber Technologies Limited\n14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n15 O\n FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n16\n OAKLAND DIVISION\n17\n\n18 Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n WHATSAPP LLC and\n19 META PLATFORMS, INC., [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 MOTION FOR\n20 Plaintiffs, PROTECTIVE ORDER\n v.\n21\n NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED\n22 and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Ctrm: 3\n Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton\n23 Defendants.\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-4 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID\n #: 34316\n\n\n\n 1 NSO Group Technologies Limited (\u201cNSO\u201d) and Q Cyber Technologies Limited\n 2 (\u201cQ Cyber\u201d and, collectively with NSO, \u201cDefendants\u201d) have brought before this Court their\n 3 Motion for Protective Order (the \u201cMotion\u201d), seeking protections against Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC\n 4 and Meta Platforms, Inc.\u2019s post-judgment discovery requests under Federal Rule of Civil\n 5 Procedure 69, including, but not limited to, the First Set of Interrogatories in Aid of Judgment (the\n 6 \u201cInterrogatories\u201d) and the First Set of Requests for Production of Documents in Aid of Judgment\n 7 (the \u201cRFPs\u201d) dated March 4, 2026 (the \u201cRequests\u201d), as well as the Deposition Notices dated July\n 8 23, 2026 and August 25, 2026.\n 9 Having considered the Motion, all supporting and opposition papers,\n10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion, is GRANTED as follows:\n11 1. Only post-judgment discovery of assets directly owned by Defendants, the only\n12 named judgment debtors, in this action is permitted. No discovery of assets or other information\n13 of any person or entity other than Defendants is permitted.\n14 2. Any post-judgment discovery will be limited to discovery of Defendants\u2019 assets in\n15 Othe United States.\n\n16 3. Any post-judgment discovery will be limited to assets, transfers or transactions\n17 valued in excess of USD $150,000.\n18 4. The relevant time period for any post-judgment discovery will start from\n19 December 12, 2025, to the present.\n20 5. Any deposition conducted as part of post-judgment discovery will be limited in\n21 the same manner as described in Paragraphs 1-4 of this Order.\n22 6. All corporate depositions involving a foreign deponent will be limited to that\n23 deponent\u2019s corporate knowledge of the Defendants\u2019 assets and shall not extend to the deponent\u2019s\n24 knowledge of personal affairs or the affairs of other non-parties absent compliance with the\n25 relevant procedures under the Hague Convention for the Taking of Evidence.\n26 7. No post-judgment discovery regarding the injunction is permitted.\n27 -2-\n [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS\u2019\n28 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 886-4 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID\n #: 34317\n\n\n\n 1 IT IS SO ORDERED, this ____ day of __________________ 2026.\n 2\n\n 3 _____________________________________\n 4 HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON\n United States District Judge\n 5\n\n 6\n\n 7\n\n 8\n 9\n\n10\n\n11\n\n12\n\n13\n\n14\n\n15 O\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27 -3-\n [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS\u2019\n28 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-11-03T08:49:45.015051-08:00","document_number":"886","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"035027872213","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-30T18:32:26.146453-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-30T18:32:26.161422-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-30","time_filed":"18:17:23","entry_number":886,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":2861,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481854429/","id":481854429,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497613122/","id":497613122,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/884/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-10-16T13:37:52.511532-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T08:00:52.273825-07:00","sha1":"522da85ab153b80c965ef2b811c2a210937a9c26","page_count":11,"file_size":130985,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.884.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.884.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/497613122.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 884 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n 4\n\n 5\n WHATSAPP INC., et al.,\n 6 Case No. 19-cv-07123-PJH\n Plaintiffs,\n 7\n v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR\n 8 CONTEMPT\n NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES\n 9 LIMITED, et al., Re: Dkt. 854, 879, 880\n\n 10 Defendants.\n\n 11\n\n 12\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for contempt came on for hearing on August 20, 2026. Plaintiffs\n 14 appeared through their counsel, Micah Block, Luca Marzorati, Antonio Perez-Marques,\n 15 and Greg Andres. Defendants appeared through their counsel, Kellen Dwyer. Having\n 16 read the papers filed by the parties and carefully considered their arguments and relevant\n 17 authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as follows.\n 18 A. Legal standard\n 19 \u201cCivil contempt ... consists of a party\u2019s disobedience to a specific and definite order\n 20 by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party's power to comply.\u201d Epic Games,\n 21 Inc. v. Apple Inc., 161 F.4th 1162, 1176 (9th Cir. 2025) (citing In re Dual-Deck Video\n 22 Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993)).\n 23 In a civil contempt action, \u201c[t]he moving party has the burden of showing by clear\n 24 and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the\n 25 court. The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they were unable to\n 26 comply.\u201d FTC v. Enforma Natural Products, 362 F.3d 1204, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing\n 27 FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir.1999); Stone v. City and\n 28 County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n. 9 (9th Cir.1992)).\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 884 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 1 The contempt \u201cneed not be willful,\u201d however, a person should not be held in\n\n 2 contempt if his action \u201cappears to be based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation\n\n 3 of the court's order.\u201d Reno Air Racing Ass\u2019n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th\n\n 4 Cir. 2006) (citing In re Crystal Palace Gambling Hall, Inc., 817 F.2d 1361, 1365 (9th\n\n 5 Cir.1987); but see also Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder, 10 F.3d at 695 (\u201cthere is no\n\n 6 good faith exception to the requirement of obedience to a court order.\u201d).\n\n 7 \u201cIn contempt proceedings[,] ... a decree will not be expanded by implication or\n\n 8 intendment beyond the meaning of its terms,\u201d but those terms must be \u201cread in the light\n\n 9 of the issues and the purpose for which the suit was brought.\u201d Epic Games v. Apple, 161\n\n 10 F.4th at 1176 (citing Terminal R.R. Ass'n of St. Louis v. United States, 266 U.S. 17, 29\n\n 11 (1924)).\n\n 12 B. Analysis\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 After plaintiffs prevailed at trial on their CFAA, CDAFA, and breach of contract\n 14 claims, plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against defendants. For purposes of this\n 15 motion, the relevant provisions of the injunction are those prohibiting or requiring the\n 16 following conduct:\n 17\n Paragraph 3(a): Developing, using, selling, offering for sale, distributing,\n 18 transferring, or licensing, whether directly or through a third party,\n intermediary, or proxy, any technology that interacts with or emulates any\n 19 aspect of the WhatsApp Platform in any way, including as a method or\n approach used to install and deploy the technology (an \u201cinstallation vector\u201d),\n 20\n without first requesting and obtaining Plaintiffs\u2019 express written permission;\n 21\n\n 22 Paragraph 3(d): Creating accounts, whether directly or through a third party,\n intermediary, or proxy, on the WhatsApp Platform, without first requesting\n 23 and obtaining Plaintiffs\u2019 express written permission.\n 24\n Paragraph 4: The Prohibited Parties are required to delete and destroy any\n 25 and all computer code or technologies that use, access, or depend on the\n WhatsApp Platform, including the WhatsApp Installation Server (\u201cWIS\u201d), to\n 26\n delete all data obtained or derived from use of or access to the WhatsApp\n 27 Platform in the Prohibited Parties\u2019 possession, and to disable customer\n access to any and all computer code or technologies maintained by the\n 28 Prohibited Parties that use, access, or depend on the WhatsApp Platform.\n 2\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 884 Filed 10/16/26 Page 3 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 1 See Dkt. 809.\n\n 2 Plaintiffs now seek an order holding defendants in civil contempt for violating the\n\n 3 above provisions of the permanent injunction. Plaintiffs\u2019 opening motion argued that\n\n 4 defendants had violated the injunction in two ways: (1) creating and operating Whatsapp\n\n 5 accounts, and (2) deploying one-click malicious URLs through the Whatsapp platform.\n\n 6 See Dkt. 854 at 9-10. However, in their opposition brief, defendants drew a distinction\n\n 7 between the alleged creation of new accounts and the alleged operation of pre-existing\n\n 8 Whatsapp accounts, the latter of which was not barred by the injunction, defendants\n\n 9 argued. See Dkt. 863 at 18-20. In their reply, Whatapp divides category (1) into two\n\n 10 subcategories \u2013 one for \u2018creating\u2019 Whatsapp accounts and one for \u2018operating\u2019 Whatsapp\n\n 11 accounts. See Dkt. 864 at 6-12.\n\n 12 Before reaching the merits of plaintiffs\u2019 arguments regarding contempt, the court\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 must address and clarify the applicable legal standard, about which plaintiffs argue\n\n 14 several different positions. The court will also discuss the proper procedure for resolving\n\n 15 a contempt motion, including the parties\u2019 arguments on whether an evidentiary hearing is\n\n 16 necessary.\n\n 17 When plaintiffs first filed their contempt motion, they did not discuss any need to\n\n 18 hold an evidentiary hearing. Instead, plaintiffs submitted the declaration of Andrew\n\n 19 Blaich, and only in their reply did plaintiffs offer that \u201cMr. Blaich is available to testify at\n\n 20 any evidentiary hearing the court may wish to hold.\u201d See Dkt. 854-3; Dkt. 864 at 7.\n\n 21 In their reply, plaintiffs also expressly made the argument, for the first time, that a\n\n 22 court may grant a contempt motion on the papers, without any evidentiary hearing at all.\n\n 23 See Dkt. 864 at 7-8. Specifically, plaintiffs argued that the Ninth Circuit\u2019s decisions in\n\n 24 Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc. and Hoffman ex rel. NLRB v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen\u2019s\n\n 25 Loc. Union No. 888 held that a court may \u201ctreat as true the facts set forth in\n\n 26 uncontroverted affidavits,\u201d and may, in turn, grant contempt motions on the basis of those\n\n 27 facts. See Peterson, 140 F.3d 1313, 1324 (9th Cir. 1998); Hoffman, 536 F.2d 1268, 1277\n\n 28 (9th Cir. 1977).\n 3\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 884 Filed 10/16/26 Page 4 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 1 In arguing that no hearing was necessary, plaintiffs also argued that their evidence\n\n 2 (i.e., the Blaich declaration) fully satisfied the \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard\n\n 3 that is applicable to a contempt motion.\n\n 4 Plaintiffs maintained their position at the motion hearing, arguing that the Peterson\n\n 5 case \u201cstands for the very clear proposition at the Ninth Circuit that you do not need an\n\n 6 evidentiary hearing.\u201d See Dkt. 878 at 44.\n\n 7 Later in the motion hearing, plaintiffs explained that, if the court was not convinced\n\n 8 that they had already satisfied the \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard, that the\n\n 9 \u201ccorrect next step is an order to show cause\u201d issued to defendants, directing them to\n\n 10 present evidence to rebut plaintiffs\u2019 evidentiary showing. See Dkt. 878 at 42.\n\n 11 In contrast, defendants argued that there was no need to issue an order to show\n\n 12 cause or hold an evidentiary hearing, because plaintiffs\u2019 evidence was not sufficient to\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 meet the \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard. See Dkt. 878 at 20-22. Defendants\n\n 14 argued that plaintiffs were misstating the relevant standard by claiming that the Blaich\n\n 15 declaration was enough to shift the evidentiary burden from plaintiffs to defendants.\n\n 16 Defendants argued that the proper application of the standard was to first require\n\n 17 plaintiffs\u2019 evidence to meet the \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard, and only if that\n\n 18 occurred, then the burden would shift to the defendants to rebut the plaintiffs\u2019 showing.\n\n 19 See id.\n\n 20 At the end of the hearing, the court noted that the parties\u2019 briefing did not discuss\n\n 21 these procedural issues, and thus directed the parties to file supplemental briefs with\n\n 22 their competing procedural proposals to resolve the contempt motion. See Dkt. 878 at\n\n 23 53.\n\n 24 Plaintiffs\u2019 supplemental brief again argued that \u201cthe court should find NSO in\n\n 25 contempt on the papers.\u201d See Dkt. 879 at 2. Plaintiffs argued that their evidence already\n\n 26 satisfied the \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard, and that Peterson and Hoffman\n\n 27 were clear in holding that an evidentiary hearing was not required in order to issue a\n\n 28 contempt order. See id. at 2-3. Plaintiffs argued only \u201cin the alternative\u201d that the court\n 4\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 884 Filed 10/16/26 Page 5 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 1 could issue an order to show cause and require defendants to come forth with evidence\n\n 2 to rebut plaintiffs\u2019 showing. Importantly, plaintiffs also articulated a new standard for\n\n 3 determining whether to issue an order to show cause \u2013 plaintiffs argued that \u201cthe court\n\n 4 need only find that there has been a \u2018sufficient preliminary showing\u2019 of contempt to\n\n 5 require the alleged contemnor to come forward with evidence.\u201d See id. at 3.\n\n 6 Plaintiffs\u2019 supplemental brief contained the first mention of this new \u201csufficient\n\n 7 preliminary showing\u201d standard. For support, plaintiffs cited to Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple\n\n 8 Inc., No. 20-cv-5640, Dkt. 925 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2024). However, in that order, the\n\n 9 court did not purport to set out a new legal standard; in fact, the Epic court specifically\n\n 10 noted that \u201c[t]o succeed on such a motion, Epic Games must show, by clear and\n\n 11 convincing evidence, that (1) Apple violated the injunction, (2) its violation was \u2018beyond\n\n 12 substantial compliance,\u2019 and (3) its conduct was \u2018not based on any good faith and\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 reasonable interpretation of the injunction.\u2019\u201d Id. (emphasis added). When the Epic court\n\n 14 ultimately concluded that \u201cEpic Games has made a sufficient preliminary showing that,\n\n 15 viewed holistically, Apple\u2019s practice changes undermine the spirit of the injunction by\n\n 16 limiting competition, impeding the free flow of information, and constraining user choice,\u201d\n\n 17 it was implicitly applying the \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard and determining\n\n 18 that the plaintiff had indeed made a sufficient preliminary showing under that \u201cclear and\n\n 19 convincing evidence\u201d standard.\n\n 20 Plaintiffs also cite three other cases from this district. See Hernandez v. City of\n\n 21 Monterey, No. 13-cv-2354, Dkt. 900 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2024); Vasquez v. Libre, 2023 WL\n\n 22 360242 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2023); Facebook v. Power Ventures, 2017 WL 3394754 (N.D.\n\n 23 Cal. Aug. 8, 2017). While plaintiffs are correct that those cases involved proceedings\n\n 24 where the court held some type of evidentiary hearing and/or directed the alleged\n\n 25 contemnors to certify compliance, all of them also involved only the \u2018clear and convincing\u2019\n\n 26 evidentiary standard, rather than any sort of lower \u2018preliminary\u2019 standard. In each of\n\n 27 those cases, the court applied the \u2018clear and convincing\u2019 standard and found that it was\n\n 28 met, and ordered further proceedings/submissions only after finding that the standard\n 5\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 884 Filed 10/16/26 Page 6 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 1 was met. That is consistent with the \u2018burden-shifting\u2019 framework identified back in\n\n 2 plaintiffs\u2019 opening motion \u2013 the initial burden is indeed the \u2018clear and convincing\u2019 burden,\n\n 3 and only if plaintiffs meet that standard does the burden shift to the contemnors to show\n\n 4 compliance. See Dkt. 854 at 9; see also Dkt. 880 at 3 (citing FTC v. Affordable Media).\n\n 5 Defendants\u2019 supplemental brief makes the same argument that they made in their\n\n 6 opposition brief \u2013 that plaintiffs have misstated the burden-shifting framework, and that\n\n 7 plaintiffs must first meet the \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard before the burden\n\n 8 shifts to defendants to rebut the evidentiary showing. See Dkt. 880 at 3-4.\n\n 9 Having reviewed all of the authority cited by the parties, the court concludes that\n\n 10 defendants are correct that plaintiffs\u2019 evidence must meet the \u201cclear and convincing\n\n 11 evidence\u201d standard before the burden shifts to defendants to rebut the evidentiary\n\n 12 showing. The court has found no lower, preliminary standard that applies to the decision\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 to issue an order to show cause. Thus, the first proper inquiry for the court is to\n\n 14 determine whether the evidence submitted in support of plaintiffs\u2019 contempt motion is\n\n 15 sufficient to constitute \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d of contempt. If it does, the court\n\n 16 can then determine whether it is preferable to issue an order to show cause, or to simply\n\n 17 grant the contempt motion on the same basis as in Peterson and Hoffman.\n\n 18 As mentioned above, plaintiffs\u2019 evidentiary showing consists entirely of the\n\n 19 declaration of Andrew Blaich, a security engineer investigator on the \u2018threat intelligence\u2019\n\n 20 team at Meta. See Dkt. 854-3. And as also mentioned above, plaintiffs set forth three\n\n 21 categories1 of defendants\u2019 conduct that they allege violate the injunction: (1) creating\n\n 22 Whatsapp accounts, (2) operating Whatsapp accounts, and (3) deploying one-click\n\n 23 malicious URLs through the Whatsapp platform. See Dkt. 864 at 6-12.\n\n 24 1. Creating Whatsapp accounts\n\n 25 Plaintiffs argue that defendants violated paragraph 3(d) of the injunction by\n\n 26\n\n 27 1\n At the motion hearing, plaintiffs attempted to add a fourth alleged category of injunction-\n 28 violating conduct, but the court rejected that attempt, because the defendants had no\n opportunity to meaningfully respond to a newly-raised argument. See Dkt. 878 at 14.\n 6\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 884 Filed 10/16/26 Page 7 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 1 creating new Whatsapp accounts. Plaintiffs rely on the testimony of Blaich, who\n\n 2 submitted a declaration attesting that NSO created at least 23 new accounts after the\n\n 3 injunction took effect. See Dkt. 854-3, \u00b6 7.\n\n 4 Specifically, Blaich states that 23 new Whatsapp accounts were created, bearing\n\n 5 \u201ctechnical and behavioral signatures that Meta has previously associated with NSO\n\n 6 testing, including account registration patterns, device and other related information, and\n\n 7 connections to known NSO-controlled infrastructure.\u201d Blaich decl. (Dkt. 854-3), \u00b6 7, 9.\n\n 8 Defendants respond by arguing that plaintiffs have not provided the account\n\n 9 names, phone numbers, or any other identifying information for the 23 accounts in\n\n 10 question. See Dkt. 863 at 16-18. Defendants argue that, without such identifying\n\n 11 information, plaintiffs\u2019 evidence cannot meet the \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d\n\n 12 standard.\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 At the motion hearing, plaintiffs acknowledged that they were \u201cvery concerned\n\n 14 about disclosing to NSO the precise tools\u201d used to \u201ctrack their activity,\u201d and that it \u201cwould\n\n 15 be problematic\u201d to \u201cforce us [i.e., plaintiffs] to give up the specific markers by which we\n\n 16 were able to identify these particular accounts.\u201d See Dkt. 878 at 10-11. Instead, plaintiffs\n\n 17 described their approach as follows: \u201cwhat we\u2019ve done here is say, \u2018Here is an affidavit. If\n\n 18 you can controvert it, please go ahead.\u2019\u201d Id. at 11.\n\n 19 In the court\u2019s view, plaintiffs took a calculated risk in choosing to limit the level of\n\n 20 detail in their supporting evidence. The upside was described in the previous paragraph\n\n 21 \u2013 plaintiffs were able to limit the information about their tracking activity that was made\n\n 22 available to defendants. However, the downside is that the lack of specificity in the\n\n 23 Blaich declaration prevents the court from being able to conclude that they have met the\n\n 24 \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard. The court agrees with the argument, made by\n\n 25 defendants, that plaintiffs are asking the court to \u201csimply accept Mr. Blaich\u2019s assurance\n\n 26 that he has looked at Whatsapp\u2019s undisclosed internal evidence and concluded, \u2018with\n\n 27 high confidence,\u2019 that NSO created new Whatsapp accounts.\u201d See Dkt. 863 at 18.\n\n 28 Similarly, the Blaich declaration asserts that the 23 new accounts \u201cshare technical\n 7\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 884 Filed 10/16/26 Page 8 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 1 and behavioral signatures that Meta has previously associated with NSO testing,\u201d but\n\n 2 provides little detail about what those \u201ctechnical and behavioral signatures\u201d actually are,\n\n 3 stating only in general terms that they include \u201caccount registration patterns, device and\n\n 4 other related information, and connections to known NSO-controlled infrastructure.\u201d See\n\n 5 Blaich decl. (Dkt. 854-3), \u00b6 7, 9.\n\n 6 Overall, the court concludes that plaintiffs\u2019 evidence that defendants have created\n\n 7 new Whatsapp accounts, in violation of the permanent injunction, fails to meet the\n\n 8 applicable \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard. Accordingly, the court will not enter\n\n 9 an order to show cause. The court also concludes that the failure to meet the applicable\n\n 10 legal standard distinguishes this case from Peterson and Hoffman. Thus, plaintiffs\u2019\n\n 11 motion for contempt on the basis that defendants have created new Whastapp accounts\n\n 12 is DENIED.\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 2. Operating Whatsapp accounts\n\n 14 As discussed above, plaintiffs\u2019 opening contempt motion grouped \u201ccreating\u201d and\n\n 15 \u201coperating\u201d Whatsapp accounts into a single category of conduct. See Dkt. 854 at 9-10.\n\n 16 However, defendants\u2019 opposition brief argued that the injunction \u201cdoes not bar NSO\n\n 17 employees from using pre-existing Whatsapp accounts,\u201d and plaintiffs\u2019 reply separated\n\n 18 their arguments about \u201ccreating\u201d new accounts from their arguments about \u201coperating\u201d\n\n 19 pre-existing accounts. Thus, the threshold question for the court is whether the language\n\n 20 of the injunction actually does prohibit defendants from using pre-existing Whatsapp\n\n 21 accounts.\n\n 22 While plaintiffs initially relied on paragraph 3(d) of the injunction, which barred\n\n 23 \u201c[c]reating accounts, whether directly or through a third party, intermediary, or proxy, on\n\n 24 the WhatsApp Platform,\u201d plaintiffs now argue that the operation of already-existing\n\n 25 Whatsapp accounts violates paragraph 3(a) of the injunction, which prohibits \u201cusing . . .\n\n 26 any technology that interacts with or emulates any aspect of the WhatsApp Platform in\n\n 27 any way.\u201d Plaintiffs also argue that, to the extent that the Whatsapp app itself cannot\n\n 28 constitute \u201ctechnology that interacts with\u201d Whatsapp, that the cellphones used to interact\n 8\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 884 Filed 10/16/26 Page 9 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 1 with Whatsapp are themselves the applicable \u201ctechnology.\u201d Dkt. 864 at 11.\n\n 2 Defendants argue that the injunction\u2019s language could have barred them from\n\n 3 using Whatsapp \u201cfor any purpose\u201d if plaintiffs had so chosen, and argue that any\n\n 4 ambiguities should be resolved against the party who drafted the language. See Dkt. 863\n\n 5 at 20.\n\n 6 Though a close call, the court agrees that the language of the injunction is\n\n 7 ambiguous at best in prohibiting all uses of pre-existing Whatsapp accounts, and that the\n\n 8 ambiguity should be resolved against plaintiffs, who, at the court\u2019s request, due to the\n\n 9 complexity of and the secrecy surrounding the technology, drafted the injunction\u2019s\n\n 10 language. Plaintiffs\u2019 interpretation of paragraph 3(a) to cover any and all uses of pre-\n\n 11 existing accounts is a tortured one, and not what the court had in mind by issuing an\n\n 12 order that prohibited using \u201cany technology that interacts with or emulates any aspect of\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 the WhatsApp Platform in any way.\u201d Accordingly, plaintiffs\u2019 motion for contempt is\n\n 14 DENIED to the extent that it is premised on defendants\u2019 alleged use of pre-existing\n\n 15 Whatsapp accounts.\n\n 16 3. Deploying one-click malicious URLs through the Whatsapp platform\n\n 17 Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated paragraph 3(a) of the injunction by \u201cusing .\n\n 18 . . developing . . . distributing, transferring, or licensing . . . technology that interacts with\n\n 19 or emulates any aspect of the Whatsapp platform,\u201d and paragraph 4 of the injunction by\n\n 20 failing to \u201cdisable customer access to any and all computer code or technologies\u201d that\n\n 21 depend on the Whatsapp platform.\n\n 22 As before, plaintiffs rely on the Blaich declaration, which states that, in February\n\n 23 and April 2026, a NSO-affiliated Whatsapp account sent malicious URLs to targets over\n\n 24 Whatsapp. Blaich decl., \u00b6\u00b6 16-17. Blaich states that the attribution to NSO was based\n\n 25 on five factors: (1) URL infrastructure (i.e., the format of the URLs), (2) URL redirect\n\n 26 behavior, (3) lure design (i.e., the message templates were similar to those used by NSO\n\n 27 in the past), (4) targeting profile (i.e., the locations of the targets match areas in which\n\n 28 Pegasus has been used), and (5) continuity with prior NSO conduct. Blaich decl., \u00b6 18.\n 9\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 884 Filed 10/16/26 Page 10 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 1 Defendants make two arguments in response: (1) plaintiffs\u2019 evidence does not\n\n 2 meet the \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard, and (2) the injunction does not\n\n 3 prohibit sovereign governments from using Whatsapp to send URLs to targets of their\n\n 4 operations. See Dkt. 863 at 22-28.\n\n 5 The court will start with the second argument, because it presents a threshold\n\n 6 question. Defendants seek a blanket ruling that an \u201cindependent decision by an NSO\n\n 7 customer to text a malicious URL to a target via Whatsapp\u201d does not violate the\n\n 8 injunction, without any further information needed. See Dkt. 880 at 8-9. But the court\n\n 9 cannot go that far. Simply put, there are not enough details before the court about the\n\n 10 division of labor between defendants and their sovereign customers. In other words,\n\n 11 when one of those customers chooses to \u201ctext a malicious URL to a target,\u201d to what\n\n 12 extent are defendants involved in the technical operations that occur after the URL is\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13 clicked? To what extent do defendants operate and maintain the software that is\n\n 14 downloaded onto the target\u2019s device? The answers to these questions are relevant to\n\n 15 whether the challenged conduct is indeed solely an act of the customers (and thus\n\n 16 outside the injunction\u2019s scope), or whether defendants participate in the conduct, which\n\n 17 would bring the conduct within the scope of behavior prohibited by the injunction.\n\n 18 That leaves the question of whether plaintiffs\u2019 evidence is sufficient to constitute\n\n 19 \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d that defendants were indeed involved in the deploying of\n\n 20 malicious URLs through the Whatsapp platform. As mentioned above, plaintiffs rely on\n\n 21 the Blaich declaration to tie defendants to the deployments, and he stated that the\n\n 22 attribution to NSO was based on the five factors set forth above. Blaich decl., \u00b6 18.\n\n 23 Overall, as with the evidence regarding the creation of new Whatsapp accounts,\n\n 24 the court concludes that the details provided in the Blaich declaration are simply not\n\n 25 enough to meet the demanding \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard. As before, it\n\n 26 appears that plaintiffs\u2019 approach was to err on the side of under-disclosing details at first,\n\n 27 hoping that the court would allow them a second bite at the apple by supplementing their\n\n 28 evidence later, including through the order to show cause procedure. But as discussed\n 10\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 884 Filed 10/16/26 Page 11 of 11\n\n\n\n\n 1 above, the Ninth Circuit has not provided for a procedure where a plaintiff may make a\n\n 2 \u2018placeholder\u2019 evidentiary showing at first, and then supplement it later if the evidence falls\n\n 3 short of the \u201cclear and convincing\u201d standard. Instead, the plaintiff\u2019s initial showing must\n\n 4 meet the \u201cclear and convincing evidence\u201d standard. For that reason, plaintiffs\u2019 motion for\n\n 5 contempt must be DENIED to the extent it is based on the alleged deployment of\n\n 6 malicious URLs through the Whatsapp platform.\n\n 7 C. Conclusion\n\n 8 For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs\u2019 motion for contempt (Dkt. 854) is DENIED.\n\n 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n 10 Dated: October 16, 2026\n\n 11 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton\n PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON\n 12 United States District Judge\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\n 14\n\n 15\n\n 16\n\n 17\n\n 18\n\n 19\n\n 20\n\n 21\n\n 22\n\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n 11\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-16T17:28:04.669438-07:00","document_number":"884","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027805540","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-16T13:37:52.484199-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T08:00:52.188699-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-16","time_filed":"13:17:09","entry_number":884,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-16.003","pacer_sequence_number":2855,"description":"ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 854 motion for contempt. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481854417/","id":481854417,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497613110/","id":497613110,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/885/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-10-16T13:37:51.751349-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T08:00:58.373756-07:00","sha1":"6efa4d186b94edc00763c29676634d0ce655047a","page_count":2,"file_size":93271,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.885.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.885.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 885 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2\n\n 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n 5\n\n 6\n WHATSAPP INC., et al.,\n 7 Case No. 19-cv-07123-PJH\n Plaintiffs,\n 8\n v. ORDER RE POST-JUDGMENT\n 9 DISCOVERY DISPUTES\n NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES\n 10 LIMITED, et al., Re: Dkt. 870, 873, 874, 881\n\n 11 Defendants.\n\n 12\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\n 14 The parties in the above-captioned case have multiple disputes regarding post-\n 15 judgment discovery. See Dkt. 870, 873, 874, 881. The parties first filed a joint letter brief\n 16 (Dkt. 870), which was followed by a unilateral letter filed by defendants (Dkt. 873), then a\n 17 unilateral letter filed by plaintiffs (Dkt. 874). The court then directed the parties to file an\n 18 updated joint letter. See Dkt. 881.\n 19 To summarize the disputes, plaintiffs argue that defendants have refused to\n 20 produce responsive discovery regarding its financing, tax returns, distributions and\n 21 compensation, and valuations, which are relevant to plaintiffs\u2019 efforts to collect more than\n 22 $20 million of unpaid judgments. See Dkt. 870. Defendants argue that plaintiffs seek\n 23 overly-expansive discovery far beyond defendants\u2019 executable assets. See id. The\n 24 parties also dispute plaintiffs\u2019 right to take deposition testimony. See Dkt. 881.\n 25 Both parties seek to file a motion to obtain their requested relief. Specifically,\n 26 plaintiffs seek to file a motion to compel discovery, while defendants seek to file a motion\n 27 for protective order. See Dkt. 881. Both proposed motions appear to seek an answer on\n 28 the same discovery issues. Thus, it would be duplicative to have two motions, two\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 885 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n 1 opposition briefs, and two reply briefs, all concerning the same discovery issues.\n\n 2 Accordingly, the court sets the following briefing schedule to resolve pending discovery\n\n 3 issues: the parties shall file cross-motions on October 30, 2026, with plaintiffs filing a\n\n 4 motion to compel and defendants filing a motion for protective order. On November 14,\n\n 5 2026, each side shall file a single responsive brief, addressing the arguments made in\n\n 6 the opposing party\u2019s motion. No further briefing will be accepted, and the motions will\n\n 7 thereafter be decided on the papers. Each brief is limited to twenty (20) pages.\n\n 8\n\n 9 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n 10 Dated: October 16, 2026\n\n 11 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton\n PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON\n 12 United States District Judge\nNorthern District of California\n United States District Court\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\n 14\n\n 15\n\n 16\n\n 17\n\n 18\n\n 19\n\n 20\n\n 21\n\n 22\n\n 23\n\n 24\n\n 25\n\n 26\n\n 27\n\n 28\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-16T17:28:26.144389-07:00","document_number":"885","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027805560","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":true,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-16T13:37:51.725802-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-23T08:00:58.322590-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-16","time_filed":"13:18:16","entry_number":885,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-16.004","pacer_sequence_number":2857,"description":"ORDER re post-judgment discovery disputes. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 10/16/2026. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481819063/","id":481819063,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497577049/","id":497577049,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/883/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-10-16T11:05:32.798507-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T11:05:32.808522-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"883","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027804104","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-16T11:05:32.774096-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:27:20.050903-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-16","time_filed":"10:53:37","entry_number":883,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-16.002","pacer_sequence_number":2853,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481771788/","id":481771788,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497528776/","id":497528776,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/882/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-10-16T07:04:21.027251-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:27:19.949924-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"882","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027802276","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion for Pro Hac Vice","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-16T07:04:20.994099-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-16T07:04:21.001150-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-16","time_filed":"06:44:47","entry_number":882,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":2849,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477605972/","id":477605972,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493205607/","id":493205607,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/881/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-09-10T18:35:39.462279-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T16:26:02.503957-07:00","sha1":"a746c97f30a67423aa325ae287d65e1b6e99f808","page_count":6,"file_size":551318,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.881.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.881.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 881 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n\nSeptember 10, 2026\n\nRe: WhatsApp LLC v. NSO Group Technologies Ltd., No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH (N.D. Cal.)\n\nThe Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton\nUnited States District Court, Northern District of California\nOakland Courthouse, Courtroom 3 \u2013 3rd Floor\n1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612\n\nDear Judge Hamilton:\n\nPlaintiffs WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc. and Defendants NSO Group Technologies\nLimited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited submit this joint status statement pursuant to the\nCourt\u2019s order at the August 20, 2026 hearing. See Dkt. No. 877.\n\nI. Plaintiffs\u2019 Position\n\n A. Document Dispute\n\nPursuant to the Court\u2019s order at the August 20, 2026 hearing, the parties met and conferred on\nSeptember 3, 2026 regarding the three categories of discovery identified in the parties\u2019 post-judg-\nment discovery dispute letters. See Dkt. Nos. 870, 873, 874. The parties met and conferred for\napproximately one hour on September 3, 2026. A substantial portion of the discussion addressed\nthe three categories of document discovery identified by the Court at the August 20, 2026 hearing.\nThe parties discussed at length the scope of the requests that remain in dispute but were unable to\nreach agreement. Notwithstanding the Court\u2019s guidance at the August 20 hearing, NSO maintained\nits objections across the board, including its objection to producing its relevant agreements with\nthird parties.\n\nThe three categories of disputed discovery are: (1) loan and credit agreements; (2) valuations of\nNSO\u2019s business and assets; and (3) insider distributions and compensation. On loan and credit\nagreements, NSO proposed, on condition of global agreement, an interrogatory response summa-\nrizing the economic terms or production of agreements with counterparty identities redacted/with-\nheld. That proposal is inconsistent with the Court\u2019s guidance at the August 20 hearing. The Court\ncontemplated redaction only where \u201cthe other party [to the agreement] was one of their govern-\nment customers . . . whose identity has not been ordered.\u201d Hearing Tr. (Aug. 20, 2026) at 49:23\u2013\n50:13. Nothing suggests any sovereign interest is implicated here, and NSO has made no indication\nto the contrary. To the extent NSO invokes ordinary third-party confidentiality, the Court\u2019s pro-\ntective order more than adequately addresses that concern. Moreover, Plaintiffs are entitled to\nknow with whom NSO is transacting, including to guard against related-party dealings designed\nto frustrate collection. On valuations and assets, NSO continues to refuse to disclose assets in\nLuxembourg and Israel, which is where its material assets are believed to be. With respect to pay-\nments and distributions, NSO merely reiterated its prior offer to produce only anonymized in-\nformation and only as part of a global resolution.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 881 Filed 09/10/26 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\n\nNSO\u2019s proposals are substantially unchanged and remain insufficient for the reasons already fully\nbriefed in the parties\u2019 July 31 letter (Dkt. No. 870) and August 17 supplemental letter (Dkt. No.\n874). Contrary to NSO\u2019s accusations that Plaintiffs have not worked to resolve disputes, Plaintiffs\nhave met each of NSO\u2019s objections and the documents that Plaintiffs are seeking in this joint letter\nare narrower than the original requests, which themselves were already carefully streamlined.\n\n B. Deposition Dispute\n\nThe parties have also reached impasse with respect to post-judgment deposition discovery. Plain-\ntiffs served NSO with a Rule 30(b)(6) notice on July 23, 2026 (Exhibit A) and with a Rule 30(b)(1)\ndeposition notice for NSO\u2019s CEO, Akiva Rosner, on August 25, 2026 (Exhibit B). NSO has taken\nthe position that it will not proceed with deposition scheduling (or even provide any objection or\ncounterproposal regarding the Rule 30(b)(6) topics) unless and until the document issues are re-\nsolved.\n\n C. Requested Relief\n\nPlaintiffs are mindful of the Court\u2019s direction at the August 20 hearing and offer two proposals\nbelow. First, if the Court wishes to receive further briefing on the document disputes, Plaintiffs\nrequest that the Court set a single, consolidated briefing schedule for a motion to compel address-\ning all outstanding disputes: the three document categories, the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, and Mr.\nRosner\u2019s individual deposition. Plaintiffs propose: (1) Plaintiffs\u2019 opening brief in support of their\nmotion to compel due 7 days from the date the Court enters its order setting a briefing schedule;\n(2) Defendants\u2019 opposition due 14 days after Plaintiffs\u2019 opening brief; and (3) Plaintiffs\u2019 reply due\n7 days after Defendants\u2019 opposition. This schedule would allow the Court to resolve all outstand-\ning disputes in a single proceeding. In the alternative, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the docu-\nment discovery disputes are ripe for resolution without further briefing and propose that the Court\n(1) order NSO to produce the remaining categories and (2) order the parties to present the deposi-\ntion disputes via joint letter within 5 business days after such order.\n\nII. Defendants\u2019 Position\n\nThe Court should order production on the basis set out below as a means of resolving the three\npending document issues without further briefing at this time. Alternatively, the Court should\npermit a motion for a protective order regardless of whether it also grants leave to file a motion to\ncompel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see, e.g., West v. Int\u2019l House of Pancakes, LLC, No. 09-00542\nACK-KSC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70811, at *14 (D. Haw. June 30, 2011) (motion for protective\norder is proper to challenge \u201coverbroad or irrelevant\u201d discovery requests); Laker Airways, Ltd. v.\nPan Am. World Airways, 103 F.R.D. 42, 46 (1984) (similar for \u201cotherwise improper\u201d requests).\n\nAs explained in the July 31, 2026 joint letter, Dkt. No. 870, Plaintiffs\u2019 discovery requests extend\nfar beyond the proper scope of Rule 69, i.e., discovery of executable assets of the judgment debtors.\nStill, in a spirit of good faith to avoid burdening the Court unnecessarily, Defendants already pro-\nduced many categories of documents including their audited financial statements for 2023 and\n2024, their corporate formation documents, and existing liens on their assets, in addition to certi-\nfied disclosures about their assets in the United States, shareholder agreements, outgoing transfers,\nand authorized signatories, among others. Dkt. Nos 870-4\u2014870-6. Additionally, Defendants are\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 881 Filed 09/10/26 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\n\nready to produce their corporate income tax returns from 2023 and 2024, which are in Hebrew,\nonce Plaintiffs follow through with their commitment from months ago to submit a stipulated pro-\ntective order governing generative AI use to translate and review confidential documents. Dkt.\nNo. 873-1. Defendants have also already agreed to produce their audited financial statements for\n2025 once finalized. Dkt. No. 853 \u00b6 2.\n\nDefendants\u2019 consistent efforts have been met with Plaintiffs\u2019 repeated refusals to make any recip-\nrocal movements toward compromise. Dkt. No. 870 at 5; Dkt. Nos 870-8\u2014870-13, Exs H-M.\nPlaintiffs, in fact, have rejected the very idea of compromise, insisting that Defendants make a\nseries of concessions, steadily eroding their valid objections, while refusing on principle to narrow\ntheir existing requests as is expected in the ordinary meet and confer process. Dkt. No. 870 at n.3. 1\n\nThis dynamic has continued up to and since the filing of the July 31 joint letter. Before that letter,\nthe parties almost executed a second stipulation for a supplemental production based on Plaintiffs\u2019\nown \u201cagenda\u201d on \u201cthe balance of Plaintiffs\u2019 March 4 requests,\u201d but those efforts were inexplicably\ncut short when Plaintiffs forced the filing of a joint letter late on a Friday\u2014Shabbat\u2014in Israel,\nwithout giving Defendants an opportunity to respond to Plaintiffs\u2019 last-minute decision to raise the\nbar for an agreement. Id. at 5; Dkt. No. 870-13, Ex. M. Even so, in an effort to narrow the issues\nfor the Court, Defendants made a voluntary, unilateral supplemental production of categories of\ndocuments identified in the unexecuted stipulation, as explained in Defendants\u2019 August 7 supple-\nmental letter. Dkt. No. 873. That letter would have been unnecessary, and this entire \u201cdispute\u201d\ncould have been averted, had Plaintiffs acted reasonably and waited until after Shabbat. Plaintiffs\u2019\nsubsequent letter summarized the remaining issues without narrowing them.\n\nAt the August 20 hearing, which was calendared to address the pending contempt motion, the\nCourt raised the issue of Rule 69 discovery and offered guidance on the three remaining document\nissues: (i) loan and credit agreements, (ii) distributions and payments to officers and equity holders,\nand (iii) valuation and identification of assets.2 Consistent with Defendants\u2019 request in the July 31\nletter, the Court ordered \u201cone last meet-and-confer on these three issues alone,\u201d and if the issues\ncould not be resolved, a joint statement with the parties\u2019 positions on whether a motion to compel\nor a motion for protective order would be better to address those issues. Tr. 49:2-4; 51:3-13.\n\nPursuant to the Court\u2019s directives, Defendants came to that meet and confer with a good faith\nglobal proposal to resolve those issues, as follows: (i) produce the economic terms of the loan and\ncredit agreements in the form of a certified answer, or the agreements themselves, without third-\nparty identifying information\u2014consistent with the Court\u2019s suggestion that \u201c[i]f NSO\u2019s party to a\nparticular loan agreement or credit agreement, they can provide the information without the third\nparty,\u201d and that redactions could be used, Tr. 49-50; (ii) produce information about assets owned\n\n1\n Defendants have explained to Plaintiffs, before and after the July 31 letter, that all Defendants\nseek is an agreement on the scope of existing requests, leaving Plaintiffs free to seek supplemen-\ntation as warranted. Dkt. No. 870 at 5.\n2\n At the hearing, Plaintiffs mischaracterized Defendants\u2019 arguments as objecting to \u201cnonparty dis-\ncovery.\u201d Tr. 49:14-22. Defendants\u2019 objection is not that documents are in possession of third\nparties. It\u2019s that documents concerning third-party assets are irrelevant absent the requisite show-\ning, regardless of who has them. Dkt. No. 870 at 3-4.\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 881 Filed 09/10/26 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\n\nby Defendants in any jurisdiction where it holds assets valued above a de minimis amount of\n$150,000 in the aggregate, other than Israel and Luxembourg, and produce any valuations of assets\nin such jurisdictions to the extent they exist; and (iii) produce information on payments or distri-\nbutions to officers or equity holders, starting as of January 9, 2023, subject to PII redactions re-\nquired by Israeli privacy laws. Given that Plaintiffs have yet to show good cause to enforce the\njudgment outside the Northern District of California, or any right to enforce it in Israel or Luxem-\nbourg, pending appeal, Dkt. No. 870 at 4, those productions and disclosures are more than suffi-\ncient to meet \u201cthe needs of the case.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).\n\nPerhaps unsurprisingly given Plaintiffs\u2019 expressed position going into the meet and confer, Exhibit\nC at 1-2, Plaintiffs rejected those items out of hand before even hearing the full proposal. Plaintiffs\noffered no counterproposal. Instead, they were laser focused on discussing deposition notices\u2014a\ntopic not ordered for this meet and confer but Plaintiffs now wish to submit to the Court. 3\n\nPlaintiffs\u2019 categorical rejection of Defendants\u2019 proposal with respect to the loan and credit agree-\nments is not only par for the course but also particularly telling. In their July 31 letter, Plaintiffs\nargued that those agreements are relevant \u201cto determine what remains available to satisfy the judg-\nment.\u201d Dkt. No. 870 at 2. When faced with Defendants\u2019 offer to provide the economic terms of\nany such agreements after having already disclosed existing liens on assets\u2014information that is\nsufficient to show \u201cwhat remains available\u201d\u2014Plaintiffs once again raised the bar, indicating that\nthey needed the names of third parties to identify targets for enforcement. That, of course, is why\na heightened showing for discovery of third-party assets is critical. Although Defendants\u2019 position\nis that the agreements are irrelevant, they are willing in the interests of compromise to produce\ntheir terms. What Defendants object to is exposing their uninvolved counterparties to harassing\ndiscovery demands from Plaintiffs into their finances, without the requisite showing on Plaintiffs\u2019\npart that those agreements are not ordinary arms\u2019 length transactions\u2014indeed without Plaintiffs\neven first looking at the terms of the agreements Defendants offered to produce. See NML Capital,\nLtd. v. Republic of Arg., No. C 12-80185 JSW (MEJ), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24010, at *4-6 (N.D.\nCal. Feb. 21, 2013) (denying discovery of non-party assets as irrelevant and unnecessary upon\ndebtor\u2019s motion that plaintiff failed to make requisite showing of alter ego or fraudulent transfer).\n\nFor these reasons, and in the interest of avoiding unnecessary briefing, Defendants request that the\nCourt order production on the basis of Defendants\u2019 proposal above as satisfying the remaining\nrequests, without prejudice to Defendants\u2019 objections. Alternatively, the Court should order\n3\n Briefing on deposition notices is premature as no clear dispute has arisen and a Court ruling on\npending issues could offer guidance for the parties to resolve or narrow any issues. Contrary to\nPlaintiffs\u2019 contention, Defendants have cooperatively worked to schedule a deposition and have\ntwice informed Plaintiffs that, due to travel and upcoming Jewish holidays, Defendants could be\ngenerally available after October 4, subject to any further rulings by this Court. A ruling on the\ndocument issues would aid the parties in identifying the proper scope of a deposition. So would a\nruling on the pending statements for any further contempt proceedings considering that Plaintiffs\nintend to misuse Rule 69 discovery, which is limited to executing a \u201cmoney judgment,\u201d to pursue\ndiscovery for its contempt motion without Court authorization. See, e.g., Ex. A (topics 17-20). In\nany case, the request to brief deposition issues now only further demonstrates the need for a motion\nfor a protective order.\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 881 Filed 09/10/26 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\n\nbriefing on a protective order on one of two proposed schedules set forth below to allow Defend-\nants to fully and fairly litigate their objections to the remaining document issues, which cut across\nmany of Plaintiffs\u2019 other requests, and protect against the annoyance, oppression, and undue bur-\nden of Plaintiffs\u2019 intractable demands for further irrelevant, unduly intrusive discovery.\n\n\n\n Only motion for protective order (MPO) Both motion to compel (MC) and cross-MPO\n MPO - within 14 days from order authorizing MC - within 14 days from order authorizing\n briefing briefing (plaintiffs may self-expedite)\n Opposition \u2013 within 14 days of MPO Opposition/Cross-MPO - within 14 days of MC\n Reply\u2013 within 7 days of Opposition Opposition to MPO / Reply for MC - within 14\n days of Opposition to MC\n Reply \u2013 within 7 days of Opposition to MPO\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 881 Filed 09/10/26 Page 6 of 6\n\n\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT &\n MOSLE LLP\n\nBy: /s/ Micah G. Block By: /s/ Juan O. Perla\n Greg D. Andres Juan O. Perla\n Antonio J. Perez-Marques Turner Smith\n Luca Marzorati (admitted pro hac vice)\n (admitted pro hac vice) CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT &\n DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP MOSLE LLP\n 450 Lexington Avenue 101 Park Avenue\n New York, New York 10017 New York, New York 10178\n Telephone: (212) 450-4000 Telephone: (212)-696-6084\n Facsimile: (212) 701-5800 Email: jperla@curtis.com\n Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com tsmith@curtis.com\n antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n luca.marzorati@davispolk.com Jerrold L. Bregman (SBN 149896)\n BG LAW LLP\n Micah G. Block (SBN 270712) 21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 500\n DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP Woodland Hills, CA 91367\n 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200 Telephone: (818)-827-9101\n Redwood City, California 94063 Facsimile: (818)-827-9099\n Telephone: (650) 752-2000 Email: jbregman@bg.law\n Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n Email: micah.block@davispolk.com Attorneys for Defendants NSO Group\n Technologies Ltd. and Q Cyber Technol-\n Attorneys for Plaintiffs ogies Ltd.\n WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms,\n Inc.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-11T02:39:42.271809-07:00","document_number":"881","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027632663","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Statement","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493233635/","id":493233635,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/881/1/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-09-11T02:38:57.114122-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T02:38:57.114133-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":8,"file_size":230698,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"881","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027632664","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493233636/","id":493233636,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/881/2/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-09-11T02:38:57.153641-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T02:38:57.153652-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":4,"file_size":176642,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"881","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"035027632665","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493233637/","id":493233637,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/881/3/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-09-11T02:38:57.168472-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T02:38:57.168482-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":5,"file_size":301312,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"881","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"035027632666","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-10T18:35:39.422103-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T02:38:37.402029-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-10","time_filed":"18:24:06","entry_number":881,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":2847,"description":"Statement Joint Status Statement re Post-Judgment Discovery by Meta Platforms, Inc., WhatsApp Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Block, Micah) (Filed on 9/10/2026) (Entered: 09/10/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476852518/","id":476852518,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492427273/","id":492427273,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/880/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-09-03T11:33:34.909055-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T08:11:18.544806-07:00","sha1":"1621efce48da32486cd6346b3f6f34c6ef9561c7","page_count":10,"file_size":259725,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.880.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.880.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":1,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/492427273.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 880 Filed 09/03/26 Page 1 of 10\n\n\n\n 1 Kellen S. Dwyer\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 2 HOLTZMAN VOGEL BARAN\n TORCHINSKY & JOSEFIAK PLLC\n 3\n 2300 N Street, NW, Suite 643A\n 4 Washington, DC 20037\n kdwyer@holtzmanvogel.com\n 5 Phone: (202) 737-8808\n 6 Bradley A. Benbrook\n (CA Bar # 177786)\n 7\n Stephen M. Duvernay\n 8 (CA Bar # 250957)\n Benbrook Law Group, PC\n 9 701 University Ave., Suite 106\n Sacramento, CA 95825\n10 brad@benbrooklawgroup.com\n11 steve@benbrooklawgroup.com\n Phone: (916) 447-4900\n12 Attorneys for Defendants\n\n13\n\n14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n16 OAKLAND DIVISION\n\n17\n WHATSAPP INC., a Delaware Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n18 Corporation, and FACEBOOK, INC., a\n Delaware corporation,\n19 DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019\n Plaintiffs, SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION REGARDING\n20\n MOTION FOR CONTEMPT\n v.\n21\n Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton\n NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES\n22 LIMITED and Q CYBER\n23 TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,\n\n24 Defendants.\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 880 Filed 09/03/26 Page 2 of 10\n\n\n\n 1 Introduction\n\n 2 WhatsApp invites this Court to commit clear error by holding NSO in contempt, without\n\n 3 having heard any testimony, based on a burden-shifting framework that WhatsApp invented.\n 4\n WhatsApp accused NSO of creating 23 new WhatsApp accounts yet has refused to identify those\n 5\n accounts or the \u201ctechnical and behavior signatures\u201d that allegedly tie those accounts to unnamed\n 6\n NSO employees. And WhatsApp claims an \u201cNSO customer\u201d sent \u201cmalicious URLs\u201d over\n 7\n WhatsApp, but refused to identify the customer, the URLs, or the supporting evidence.\n 8\n\n 9 WhatsApp claims it did not disclose its evidence because \u201cNSO could use [it] to evade\n\n10 detection going forward.\u201d Dkt. 864, at 1. WhatsApp did not want \u201cto give up the specific markers\n11 by which we were able to identify these particular accounts,\u201d so, it explained, \u201cwhat we\u2019ve done\n12\n here is say \u2018here is an affidavit, if you can controvert it, please go ahead.\u2019\u201d Tr. of Aug. 20 Hr\u2019g at\n13\n 11. WhatsApp then refused to present any testimony at the contempt hearing, even after NSO\n14\n asserted its right to cross-examine witnesses, id. at 22, 52, so that it could continue to keep its\n15\n\n16 evidence secret. But the Ninth Circuit requires the moving party to offer clear and convincing\n\n17 evidence supported by live testimony, even if it would prefer to keep its evidence secret (as most\n\n18 parties would). There is no special privilege that protects Meta\u2019s investigative methods.\n19\n In the guise of a proposed order, WhatsApp now makes a new motion for a show cause\n20\n order, followed by a second contempt hearing. But WhatsApp could have moved for a show cause\n21\n order initially; instead, it \u201cmove[d] for an order holding [NSO] in civil contempt,\u201d Dkt. 854, at 1,\n22\n and set a \u201chearing on plaintiff\u2019s motion for contempt,\u201d Dkt. 866. Even today, WhatsApp continues\n23\n\n24 to ask the Court to hold NSO in contempt based on the August 20 hearing. WhatsApp cannot ask\n\n25 the Court to find that it proved contempt at the August 20 hearing and, simultaneously, ask to re-\n\n26 do the process and hold a second contempt hearing if the Court finds it failed to prove contempt at\n27\n the first hearing. That is the definition of getting two bites at the apple. It should not be allowed.\n28\n 1 Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION REGARDING\n MOTION FOR CONTEMPT\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 880 Filed 09/03/26 Page 3 of 10\n\n\n\n 1 Argument\n\n 2 I. WhatsApp\u2019s Contempt Motion Should Be Denied Because It Has Failed To Meet\n Its Burden of Proof and Offered No Testimony at the Contempt Hearing.\n 3 \u201cThe standard for finding a party in civil contempt is well settled: The moving party has\n 4\n the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnors violated a specific\n 5\n and definite order of the court. The burden then shifts to the contemnors to demonstrate why they\n 6\n were unable to comply.\u201d FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999)\n 7\n\n 8 (emphasis added) (quoting Stone v. City and County of San Francisco, 968 F.2d 850, 856 n.9 (9th\n\n 9 Cir. 1992)). And \u201ca civil contempt proceeding, which may lead to the assessment of a fine, is a\n\n10 trial within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(a), rather than a hearing on a motion within the\n11\n meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(e) and that the issues may not be tried on the basis of affidavits.\u201d\n12\n Hoffman ex rel NLRB v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen's Local Union, 536 F.2d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir.\n13\n 1976); accord Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 708 F.2d 492, 495 (9th Cir.1983).\n14\n Because a \u201ccivil contempt proceeding is considered a \u2018trial\u2019 within the meaning of Rule 43(a), \u2026\n15\n\n16 witness testimony must be taken in open court.\u2019\u201d BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Cent. Coast\n\n17 Agric., Inc., No. 21-mc-80189-DMR, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219078, at *9 (N.D. Cal. June 6,\n18 2022) (quoting Salamon v. Creditors Specialty Serv. Inc., No. C 11-172 CW, 2012 U.S. Dist.\n19\n LEXIS 146808, 2012 WL 4857810, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2012)). 1\n20\n Instead of offering detailed evidence or live testimony, WhatsApp gambled on convincing\n21\n the Court to adopt its burden-shifting framework. WhatsApp claims that a party moving for\n22\n\n23 contempt can essentially win by default if \u201cthe movant\u2019s evidence stands unrebutted\u201d by \u201ccontrary\n\n24\n 1\n25 See also Johnson v. Castagnola, No. 18-cv-00583-SVK, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147764, at *5-\n 6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2019) (\u201cA civil contempt proceeding is considered a \u2018trial\u2019 within the\n26 meaning of Rule 43(a), which means that oral testimony is required.\u201d); Nikko Materials USA, Inc.\n v. R.E. Serv. Co., No. C 03-2549 SBA, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45236, at *11 (N.D. Cal. June 22,\n27\n 2006) (\u201c[C]ivil contempt may not be tried on the basis of affidavits alone.\u201d).\n28\n 2 Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION REGARDING\n MOTION FOR CONTEMPT\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 880 Filed 09/03/26 Page 4 of 10\n\n\n\n 1 evidence.\u201d Pls.\u2019 Reply Br. at 3. But it is only after the moving party meets its \u201cburden of showing\n\n 2 [a violation] by clear and convincing evidence\u201d that \u201c[t]he burden then shifts to the contemnors.\u201d\n 3\n Affordable Media, 179 F.3d at 1239. The Court applied this settled framework just three days\n 4\n before the contempt hearing in this case. See Operating Engineers\u2019 Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v.\n 5\n Capurro AG, No. 4:22-cv-03004 HSG, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183438, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Aug.\n 6\n 17, 2026) (\u201cThe moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that\n 7\n\n 8 the contemnors violated a specific and definite order of the court. Once the moving party does so,\n\n 9 the burden then shifts\u2026.\u201d (cleaned up)) (emphasis added)); accord POP Top Corp. v. Rakuten\n10 Kobo Inc., No. 20-cv-04482-YGR, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46011, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2026).\n11\n Indeed, the party without the burden of proof quite literally does not have the burden of presenting\n12\n proof; it may simply argue that the opposing party has not met its burden. See, e.g., Soremekun v.\n13\n Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps\n14\n\n15 Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1542 (9th Cir. 1989).\n\n16 In the two cases WhatsApp cites for its novel burden-shifting framework, the defendants\n\n17 either admitted to violating a court order or failed to submit affidavits after being ordered to do so.\n18\n In Peterson v. Highland Music, \u201cDefendants d[id] not even attempt to dispute\u201d that they violated\n19\n the court\u2019s order; they \u201coffe[red] various excuses as to why their repeated refusals to comply with\n20\n the judgment were not their fault and should be excused.\u201d 140 F.3d 1313, 1323 (9th Cir. 1998).\n21\n And Vasquez v. Libre found that \u201c[b]ecause [defendants] have not filed any evidence to contradict\n22\n\n23 the declaration of [plaintiff], despite the Court\u2019s order to show cause ordering them to do so, the\n\n24 Court may treat as true the facts set forth in that declaration.\u201d 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11334, at\n\n25 *31 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2023) (emphasis added).\n26\n Finally, Peterson reaffirmed that \u201ca district court ordinarily should not impose contempt\n27\n sanctions solely on the basis of affidavits\u201d and simply allowed \u201c[a] trial court may in a contempt\n28\n 3 Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION REGARDING\n MOTION FOR CONTEMPT\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 880 Filed 09/03/26 Page 5 of 10\n\n\n\n 1 proceeding narrow the issues by requiring that affidavits on file be controverted by counter-\n\n 2 affidavits and may thereafter treat as true the facts set forth in uncontroverted affidavits.\u201d 140\n 3\n F.3d at 1324 (emphasis added). WhatsApp chose not to call witnesses at the contempt hearing,\n 4\n betting that it could convince this Court to extend Peterson to cases where there was no order\n 5\n \u201crequiring that affidavits on file be controverted.\u201d Id. That gambit should fail, the motion should\n 6\n be denied outright, and the Court should issue NSO\u2019s original proposed order. See Dkt. 863-1.\n 7\n\n 8 II. WhatsApp Should Not Get a Second Bite at the Apple.\n A. WhatsApp Should Not Get a Second Contempt Hearing\n 9\n WhatsApp wants to turn back the clock and move for a show cause order. But WhatsApp\n10\n could have done so initially. See Stewart v. O\u2019Neill, 225 F. Supp. 2d 6, 10 (D.D.C. 2002) (\u201cthe\n11\n\n12 ultimate question of contempt is not before the Court; plaintiffs seek only an Order that defendant\n\n13 show cause why he should not be held in contempt\u201d). Instead, WhatsApp chose to move for an\n14 order of contempt, set a contempt hearing, and ask the Court to hold NSO in contempt at that\n15\n hearing (and again in supplemental briefing), thereby placing \u201cthe ultimate question of contempt\n16\n \u2026 before the Court.\u201d Id. Having failed to meet its burden, WhatsApp cannot get a redo.\n17\n B. WhatsApp Has Not Made a Sufficient Showing Even for a Show Cause Order.\n18\n Courts \u201cshould be cautious when authorizing contempt proceedings\u201d and \u201c[o]rders to show\n19\n cause should not issue merely because someone requests one.\u201d In re Costa, 172 B.R. 954, 963\n20\n (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1994). Rather, the moving party must \u201cdemonstrat[e] [ ] facts that, if not\n21\n\n22 rebutted,\u201d constitute clear and convincing evidence. Id. (emphasis added). But WhatsApp has\n\n23 intentionally not disclosed its evidence or even identified accounts it claims NSO created.\n24 WhatsApp vague and conclusory affidavit does not \u201cdemonstrate\u201d any \u201cfacts.\u201d Id.\n25\n III. NSO Cannot Meaningfully Respond To WhatsApp\u2019s Intentionally Vague\n26 Allegations Without More Information.\n It would be extremely difficult to respond to WhatsApp\u2019s allegation that NSO employees\n27\n\n28\n 4 Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION REGARDING\n MOTION FOR CONTEMPT\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 880 Filed 09/03/26 Page 6 of 10\n\n\n\n 1 created 23 new WhatsApp accounts if WhatsApp continues to refuse to identify those accounts or\n\n 2 the technical and behavioral signatures\u201d that allegedly tie them to NSO employees. Without this\n 3\n information, NSO would be forced to indiscriminately question hundreds of employees (and\n 4\n former employees?) about whether and how any might have used WhatsApp for any purpose on\n 5\n any device. Similarly, NSO cannot effectively investigate whether an \u201cNSO customer\u201d sent\n 6\n \u201cmalicious URLs\u201d to their targets if WhatsApp refuses to identify the customer or the malicious\n 7\n\n 8 URLs. Without that information, NSO would have to go to all of its customers\u2014each of whom is\n\n 9 a law enforcement or intelligence agency of a sovereign nation\u2014and ask broad questions about\n10 whether any of their agents have ever texted any \u201cmalicious URLs\u201d over WhatsApp. And, after\n11\n all of this, it may be that the alleged \u201cNSO customer\u201d that WhatsApp believes it identified, is no\n12\n longer (or perhaps never was) an NSO customer. This inefficient process that would be unlikely\n13\n to yield helpful information, definitely not within the requested 14 days.\n14\n\n15 Accordingly, NSO\u2019s alternative Proposed Order (see Exhibit A) requires WhatsApp to\n\n16 provide the information necessary for NSO to respond to WhatsApp\u2019s proposed order. NSO does\n\n17 not seek information about WhatsApp\u2019s sources and methods; it simply asks WhatsApp to identify\n18\n the facts and evidence referenced in the Blaich declaration, such as the \u201caccounts,\u201d the \u201ctesting\n19\n groups,\u201d the \u201cNSO customer,\u201d the \u201cmalicious URLs,\u201d and the \u201ctechnical and behavioral\n20\n signatures.\u201d\n21\n IV. If the Court Does Order NSO To File a Responsive Declaration, It Should Be\n22\n Limited to the Factual Issues Raised by Plaintiff\u2019s Contempt Motion\n23\n WhatsApp seeks to use its proposed order to get discovery on a number of issues that are\n24\n not related to the violations alleged in its contempt motion. WhatsApp requests a complete\n25\n accounting of \u201call the steps NSO has taken to comply with each provision of the Permanent\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 5 Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION REGARDING\n MOTION FOR CONTEMPT\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 880 Filed 09/03/26 Page 7 of 10\n\n\n\n 1 Injunction since its effective date,\u201d even those it has never even been accused of violating. 2 Dkt.\n\n 2 870-1 \u00b6 2. WhatsApp also wants NSO to explain whether it has \u201ccollected data from the WhatsApp\n 3\n application on target devices.\u201d Id. \u00b6 2(d). But the allegation that NSO collected data from\n 4\n WhatsApp applications was not raised until the hearing and, even then, WhatsApp admitted it was\n 5\n based on nothing more than the fact that NSO is still in business. Tr. of Aug 20 Hr.\u2019g at 13.\n 6\n Accordingly, any show cause order should be limited to confirming or denying the\n 7\n\n 8 allegations made in WhatsApp\u2019s affidavit to the extent those allegations, if true, would actually\n\n 9 violate the injunction. See infra Part V.\n10 V. Before Ordering Additional Affidavits, the Court Should Clarify Two Threshold\n11 Disputes About the Scope of the Permanent Injunction.\n\n12 The Court should clarify two disagreements about the scope of the injunction in order to\n\n13 (1) help NSO ensure ongoing compliance with the Court\u2019s order; (2) narrow the factual questions\n14 to be litigated; and (3) allow the Parties to accurately portray the injunction in the Ninth Circuit.\n15\n A. The Court Should Clarify Whether NSO Employees Are Barred From Using Their\n16 Pre-Existing WhatsApp Accounts for Any Purpose.\n\n17 As the Court itself acknowledged, the Injunction was not originally intended to cover the\n\n18 use of pre-existing WhatsApp accounts. See Tr. of Aug. 20, 2026, Hr\u2019g at 14 (\u201c[T]here clearly is\n19 no explicit prohibition in the injunction against using preexisting accounts. It's not something that\n20\n even occurred to me specifically as a category.\u201d). This intent appears evident from Section 3(d) of\n21\n the Injunction, which bars NSO from \u201ccreating\u201d WhatsApp account, but not from \u201cusing\u201d them.\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n 2\n This certification of compliance is exactly what WhatsApp requested and the Court denied when\n26 drafting the permanent injunction. See Dkt. 802 at 18 (ordering WhatsApp to remove certification\n provision from any revised proposed injunction). Thus, WhatsApp is attempting to use its proposed\n27\n order to show cause to get what the court already said wasn\u2019t warranted.\n28\n 6 Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION REGARDING\n MOTION FOR CONTEMPT\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 880 Filed 09/03/26 Page 8 of 10\n\n\n\n 1 PI \u00b6 3(d). 3 But if the Court did mean to ban all NSO employees from using pre-existing WhatsApp\n\n 2 accounts for any purpose, clarification would be helpful. In a country where WhatsApp is the\n 3\n primary means of text-based communication, it will be difficult to ensure that employees do not\n 4\n use WhatsApp on their personal devices to communicate with their family, friends, and\n 5\n dependents. Implementing such a broad injunction would certainly be a human resources\n 6\n challenge, and individual employees will need time to adjust. Many employees, for instance, likely\n 7\n\n 8 use WhatsApp to communicate with healthcare providers, caretakers for their parents or children,\n\n 9 teachers, and other parents with whom they share responsibilities. This greater clarity would\n10 reduce unintended consequences and increase compliance. It could also reduce the time and\n11\n expense of continuing to litigate WhatsApp\u2019s contempt motion. If the injunction includes pre-\n12\n existing WhatsApp accounts, NSO may have to investigate the personal communications every\n13\n employee. By contrast, if the injunction is limited to \u201ccreating new WhatsApp accounts,\u201d PI \u00b6\n14\n\n15 3(d), the Parties can focus their dispute on the 23 alleged newly-created WhatsApp accounts.\n\n16 B. The Court Should Clarify Whether the Permanent Injunction Is Violated By the\n Independent Decision Of Foreign Sovereigns To Use WhatsApp To Text \u201cMalicious\n17 URLs\u201d To Their Targets.\n18 WhatsApp admits that the entity that allegedly texted these \u201cmalicious URLs\u201d via\n19\n WhatsApp was \u201can NSO customer,\u201d not NSO. See Blaich Decl. \u00b6 13 (\u201cThe Threat Intelligence\n20\n team assesses with high confidence that this activity was carried out by an NSO customer.\u201d\n21\n (emphasis added)); Mot. 4 (\u201c[A]n NSO customer using NSO spyware and NSO-Operated delivery\n22\n\n23\n\n24 3\n While NSO did characterize the Permanent Injunction as broadly as it could be read on appeal,\n25 it was required to challenge all possible applications of the injunction in order to avoid a waiver.\n See Daily v. City of Phx., 765 F. App\u2019x 325, 327 (9th Cir. 2019) (appellants waive \u201cany challenge\n26 to [an] aspect of the district court\u2019s ruling by failing to make any arguments about [them] in their\n opening brief\u201d). Nonetheless, NSO continues to believe that the injunction should not be read so\n27\n broadly as to bar NSO employees from using pre-existing WhatsApp accounts for any purpose.\n28\n 7 Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION REGARDING\n MOTION FOR CONTEMPT\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 880 Filed 09/03/26 Page 9 of 10\n\n\n\n 1 infrastructure sent one-click malicious URLs using WhatsApp to a WhatsApp User.\u201d). Moreover,\n\n 2 WhatsApp does not allege that customers sent NSO-created spyware through WhatsApp servers\n 3\n or to WhatsApp client applications. Rather, WhatsApp alleges that an NSO customer used\n 4\n WhatsApp to text \u201ca malicious URL link for a non-Meta, third-party website\u201d which, if clicked,\n 5\n would \u201cattempt to cause malware to download\u201d from that \u201cnon-Meta, third-party website.\u201d Blaich\n 6\n Decl. \u00b6 14. Thus, the only alleged nexus to WhatsApp is the independent decision by an (alleged)\n 7\n\n 8 NSO customer to text a \u201cmalicious URL\u201d to their target via WhatsApp.\n\n 9 This presents a straightforward legal question: does an independent decision by an NSO\n10 customer to text a malicious URL to a target via WhatsApp violate the injunction? How the Court\n11\n answers this question will greatly affect the time and resources needed to litigate WhatsApp\u2019s\n12\n contempt motion. If the injunction is not violated by an independent decision by NSO\u2019s sovereign\n13\n customers, NSO\u2019s defense will be straightforward. It will demonstrate that it does not and could\n14\n\n15 not control how customers send \u201cmalicious URLs\u201d to clients and that the technology that NSO\n\n16 does provide to its customers\u2014what WhatsApp confusingly labels \u201cNSO-controlled delivery\n\n17 infrastructure\u201d\u2014has nothing to do with WhatsApp. If, however, an independent decision by an\n18\n NSO customer does violate the injunction, NSO will have to investigate whether or not one of its\n19\n customers did, in fact, text a \u201cmalicious URL\u201d to one of its targets, which will take a significant\n20\n amount of time. Moreover, the question of whether, and to what extent, the injunction purports to\n21\n govern the conduct of NSO\u2019s customers is currently before the Ninth Circuit. Greater clarity on\n22\n\n23 this point will ensure that NSO can portray the injunction accurately in its ongoing appeal, and\n\n24 would give NSO the chance to challenge any broadening of the injunction in its current appeal.\n\n25 CONCLUSION\n26 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny Plaintiffs\u2019 contempt motion or, in the\n27 alternative, issue NSO\u2019s Proposed Order.\n28\n 8 Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION REGARDING\n MOTION FOR CONTEMPT\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 880 Filed 09/03/26 Page 10 of 10\n\n\n\n 1\n\n 2 Dated: September 3, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n 3 HOLTZMAN VOGEL BARAN\n TORCHINSKY & JOSEFIAK PLLC\n 4\n\n 5 By: _/s/ Kellen S. Dwyer ____\n 6 Kellen S. Dwyer\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 7\n HOLTZMAN VOGEL BARAN\n 8 TORCHINSKY & JOSEFIAK PLLC\n 2300 N Street, NW, Suite 643A\n 9 Washington, DC 20037\n kdwyer@holtzmanvogel.com\n10 Phone: (202) 737-8808\n11\n Bradley A. Benbrook\n12 Stephen M. Duvernay\n Benbrook Law Group, PC\n13 701 University Ave., Suite 106\n Sacramento, CA 95825\n14 brad@benbrooklawgroup.com\n15 steve@benbrooklawgroup.com\n Phone: (916) 447-4900\n16\n Attorneys for Defendants\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 9 Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n DEFENDANTS\u2019 RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION REGARDING\n MOTION FOR CONTEMPT\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-03T11:38:16.650580-07:00","document_number":"880","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027597040","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Statement","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492428107/","id":492428107,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/880/1/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-09-03T11:38:08.875984-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-03T11:38:08.875997-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":136167,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"880","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027597041","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-03T11:33:34.884261-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T02:38:37.353177-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-03","time_filed":"11:24:34","entry_number":880,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":2841,"description":"Statement re 854 MOTION for Contempt Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Contempt, 863 Opposition/Response to Motion, 879 Statement, 864 Reply to Opposition/Response, by NSO Group Technologies Limited, Q Cyber Technologies Limited. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Dwyer, Kellen) (Filed on 9/3/2026) (Entered: 09/03/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476106627/","id":476106627,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491659674/","id":491659674,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/879/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-08-27T19:33:25.176106-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T16:00:55.969472-07:00","sha1":"7352bc626af7a0f12c6ea914f920a693f5ecf2d0","page_count":5,"file_size":438314,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.879.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.879.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 879 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\n Greg D. Andres\n 1\n Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n 2 Luca Marzorati\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 3 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 450 Lexington Avenue\n 4 New York, New York 10017\n Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n 5\n Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n 6 Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n 7 luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n 8 Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 9\n 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200\n10 Redwood City, California 94063\n Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n11 Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n12\n\n13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.\n14\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n15\n FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n16\n\n17 OAKLAND DIVISION\n\n18 ) Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n WHATSAPP LLC and )\n19 META PLATFORMS, INC. ) PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUBMISSION\n ) REGARDING MOTION FOR\n20 Plaintiffs, ) CONTEMPT\n21 )\n v. )\n22 )\n NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED )\n23 and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, )\n )\n24\n Defendants. )\n25 )\n )\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 879 Filed 08/27/26 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\n 1 Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc. (\u201cPlaintiffs\u201d) respectfully provide this\n 2 supplemental submission and the attached proposed order pursuant to the Court\u2019s direction at the\n\n 3 August 20, 2026 hearing. For the reasons below, Plaintiffs respectfully submit that the record sup-\n\n 4 ports a finding of contempt on the papers. In the alternative, if the Court is not prepared to make that\n\n 5 finding at this time, the Court should issue an order to show cause why NSO should not be held in\n\n 6 contempt, thereby formally initiating contempt proceedings. A copy of the proposed order to show\n\n 7 cause is attached as Exhibit A hereto.\n\n 8 I. The Court Should Find NSO in Contempt on the Papers\n 9 Plaintiffs have established by clear and convincing evidence that NSO violated the Permanent\n10 Injunction in at least three separate ways, by: (1) creating at least 23 new WhatsApp accounts (Para-\n\n11 graph 3(d)); (2) operating WhatsApp accounts and testing groups (Paragraph 3(a)); and (3) deploying\n\n12 one-click malicious URLs through WhatsApp-interacting infrastructure (Paragraphs 3(a) and 4). See\n\n13 Dkt. Nos. 854, 864. These facts rest on the sworn declaration of Andrew Blaich, which NSO has not\n\n14 controverted with any evidence. Indeed, NSO has not even denied the relevant conduct.\n\n15 At the August 20 hearing, the Court identified the interplay between Peterson v. Highland\n16 Music, Inc. and Hoffman ex rel. NLRB v. Beer Drivers & Salesmen\u2019s Local Union No. 888 as war-\n\n17 ranting further review. Both cases support the same result. In Hoffman, the Ninth Circuit held that\n\n18 a court may \u201cnarrow the issues by requiring that affidavits on file be controverted by counter-affida-\n\n19 vits and may thereafter treat as true the facts set forth in uncontroverted affidavits.\u201d 536 F.2d 1268,\n\n20 1277 (9th Cir. 1976). NSO reads Hoffman\u2019s separate reference to Rule 43(a) as categorically requir-\n\n21 ing live testimony, but Peterson forecloses that reading: the Ninth Circuit in Peterson analyzed its\n\n22 own holding in Hoffman more than twenty years earlier and affirmed a contempt finding based on\n\n23 uncontroverted affidavits without requiring live testimony. 140 F.3d 1313, 1324 (9th Cir. 1998).\n\n24 Like the alleged contemnors in Peterson, NSO in this case has \u201chad ample notice and an opportunity\n\n25 to respond,\u201d yet \u201cpresented no admissible evidence,\u201d and has \u201cnot described any new evidence that\n\n26 they could present at a hearing, nor any existing evidence that they would challenge.\u201d Id. A court in\n\n27 this district applied the same rule in Vasquez v. Libre by Nexus, Inc., treating the facts in uncontro-\n\n28 verted declaration as true and shifting the burden to the contemnor to demonstrate compliance where\n\n 1\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUBMISSION REGARDING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 879 Filed 08/27/26 Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\n 1 the contemnor \u201cha[d] not filed any evidence to contradict the declaration.\u201d 2023 WL 360242, at *10\n\n 2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2023).\n\n 3 The Court need not hold an evidentiary hearing to find NSO in contempt. Here, NSO sub-\n 4 mitted no declaration, no denial, and no compliance certification. It does not deny creating accounts\n\n 5 or using WhatsApp for business operations. Hoffman\u2019s reference to live testimony addressed situa-\n\n 6 tions with disputed facts requiring cross-examination. Where no factual dispute exists because the\n\n 7 alleged contemnor did not raise one, there is nothing for live testimony to resolve. The Court should\n\n 8 grant Plaintiffs\u2019 motion and enter the proposed order. See Dkt. No. 854-5.\n\n 9 II. In the Alternative, the Court Should Issue an Order to Show Cause\n10 If the Court is not prepared to find contempt on the current record, the appropriate next step\n11 is an order directing NSO to show cause why it should not be held in contempt. The \u201cproper practice\u201d\n\n12 when contempt is alleged \u201cis to require the offender to appear and show cause why he should not be\n\n13 punished.\u201d Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 535 (1925); see also Craters & Freighters v.\n\n14 Daisychain Enters., 2014 WL 2153924, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2014) (the Court \u201chas the inherent\n\n15 authority to enforce compliance with its orders through a civil contempt proceeding\u201d (citing Int\u2019l\n\n16 Union, UMWA v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827\u201328 (1994))).\n\n17 To issue an order to show cause, the Court need only find that there has been a \u201csufficient\n18 preliminary showing\u201d of contempt to require the alleged contemnor to come forward with evidence.\n\n19 See Order at 2, Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 20-cv-05640-YGR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2024),\n\n20 Dkt. No. 925 (issuing order to show cause and setting evidentiary hearing upon finding that movant\u2019s\n\n21 motion for contempt \u201cmade a sufficient preliminary showing\u201d of noncompliance); see also Young v.\n\n22 City of Chicago, 2017 WL 25170, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2017) (\u201cThe factual determination that sets\n\n23 the [contempt] proceedings in motion is perhaps best described as a preliminary assessment that the\n\n24 facts presented implicate defendants in violation of the court\u2019s order.\u201d). The uncontroverted facts in\n\n25 the Blaich Declaration are far more than sufficient to clear this threshold\u2014particularly in light of the\n\n26 confirmation in NSO\u2019s own opposition that WhatsApp\u2019s attribution of accounts to NSO has been\n\n27 accurate. See Dkt. No. 863 at 6 (admitting that Plaintiffs identified and disabled WhatsApp groups\n\n28 populated with NSO employee accounts while the permanent injunction was in place).\n\n 2\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUBMISSION REGARDING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 879 Filed 08/27/26 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\n 1 To ensure meaningful proceedings and efficient resolution, the order to show cause should\n 2 establish the following parameters, consistent with those courts in this district and circuit have\n\n 3 adopted in comparable contempt proceedings. See, e.g., Order, Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No.\n\n 4 20-cv-05640-YGR (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2024), Dkt. No. 925 (setting enumerated hearing topics, re-\n\n 5 quiring specific witnesses, and ordering witness lists and exhibit exchanges in advance); Order, Her-\n\n 6 nandez v. Cnty. of Monterey, No. 13-cv-02354-BLF (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2024), Dkt. No. 900 (setting\n\n 7 show-cause response deadline, expedited discovery plan, and two-day evidentiary hearing on con-\n\n 8 tempt sanctions); Vasquez, 2023 WL 360242, at *6 (ordering alleged contemnors to file a response\n\n 9 \u201csupported by admissible evidence\u201d by a date certain); Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 2017\n\n10 WL 3394754, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2017) (ordering defendant to file a certification \u201cunder pen-\n\n11 alty of perjury\u201d addressing compliance with each provision of the injunction within five days).\n\n12 Specifically, the order should require NSO to file, within 14 days of entry of the order to show\n13 cause, a sworn declaration by an officer with personal knowledge addressing the steps NSO has taken\n\n14 to comply with each provision of the Permanent Injunction\u2014including, but not limited to, whether\n\n15 NSO has created any WhatsApp accounts since January 28, 2026, whether it or its employees cur-\n\n16 rently use WhatsApp, whether it continues to operate installation-vector infrastructure that interacts\n\n17 with the WhatsApp Platform, and whether Pegasus or any successor product continues to collect\n\n18 WhatsApp data from target devices. Plaintiffs would then have 7 days to reply. If disputed factual\n\n19 issues remain after the exchange of declarations, the Court should set an evidentiary hearing, with\n\n20 witness lists and exhibit exchanges in advance.\n\n21 A proposed order to show cause is attached hereto as Exhibit A.\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n 3\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUBMISSION REGARDING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 879 Filed 08/27/26 Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\n 1\n Dated: August 27, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n 2\n\n 3 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n\n 4\n By: /s/ Greg D. Andres\n 5 Greg D. Andres\n Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n 6 Luca Marzorati\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 7 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 450 Lexington Avenue\n 8\n New York, New York 10017\n 9 Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n10 Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n11 luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n12\n Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n13 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200\n14 Redwood City, California 94063\n Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n15 Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n16 Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n\n17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs\n WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\n 4\n PLAINTIFFS\u2019 SUBMISSION REGARDING MOTION FOR CONTEMPT - CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-28T01:26:25.296723-07:00","document_number":"879","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027569262","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Statement","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491681802/","id":491681802,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/879/1/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-08-28T01:25:32.986612-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T15:23:55.756038-07:00","sha1":"289133badef73707a00bcc1cc78e56c3d58599ee","page_count":4,"file_size":478474,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.879.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.879.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 879-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 879-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 1 Greg D. Andres\n Antonio J. Perez-Marques\n 2 Luca Marzorati\n (admitted pro hac vice)\n 3 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 4 450 Lexington Avenue\n New York, New York 10017\n 5 Telephone: (212) 450-4000\n Facsimile: (212) 701-5800\n 6 Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com\n antonio.perez@davispolk.com\n 7 luca.marzorati@davispolk.com\n 8 Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)\n 9 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP\n 900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200\n10 Redwood City, California 94063\n Telephone: (650) 752-2000\n11 Facsimile: (650) 752-2111\n Email: micah.block@davispolk.com\n12\n\n13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC and\n Meta Platforms, Inc.\n14\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n15\n FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n16\n OAKLAND DIVISION\n17\n )\n18 WHATSAPP LLC and ) Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n META PLATFORMS, INC., )\n19 )\n Plaintiffs, ) [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SHOW\n20 ) CAUSE REGARDING DEFENDANTS\u2019\n v. ) CONTEMPT OF PERMANENT\n21 ) INJUNCTION\n NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED )\n22 and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, )\n ) Ctrm: 3\n23 Defendants. ) Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton\n )\n24 )\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 879-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 1 Having considered Plaintiffs\u2019 Motion for Contempt (Dkt. No. 854), Defendants\u2019 Opposition\n\n 2 (Dkt. No. 863), Plaintiffs\u2019 Reply in Support of Motion for Contempt (Dkt. No. 864), the declarations\n\n 3 and exhibits submitted in connection therewith, and the arguments of counsel presented at the hearing\n\n 4 held on August 20, 2026, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have made a sufficient preliminary showing\n\n 5 to warrant an order requiring Defendants to show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt\n\n 6 of the Permanent Injunction entered November 12, 2025 (Dkt. No. 809).\n\n 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:\n\n 8 1. NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber Technologies Limited (together,\n\n 9 \u201cNSO\u201d) are ORDERED to show cause why they should not be held in civil contempt for violating\n\n10 the Permanent Injunction in this case (Dkt. No. 809).\n\n11 2. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, NSO shall file a sworn declaration,\n\n12 executed by an officer with personal knowledge of NSO\u2019s operations and compliance efforts, de-\n\n13 scribing all steps NSO has taken to comply with each provision of the Permanent Injunction since its\n\n14 effective date. Without limiting the foregoing, the declaration must address the following specific\n\n15 topics:\n\n16 a. Whether NSO or its employees have created any accounts on the WhatsApp\n\n17 Platform since January 28, 2026, and, if so, the number of accounts created, the dates of creation, the\n\n18 purposes for which they were created, and the identity of the person or persons who created each\n\n19 such account;\n\n20 b. Whether NSO or its employees currently operate or use WhatsApp accounts,\n\n21 including but not limited to accounts used for internal communications, testing groups, or any other\n\n22 purpose, and, if so, the nature and extent of such use;\n\n23 c. Whether NSO has, from the effective date of this Court\u2019s Permanent Injunc-\n\n24 tion to the present, developed, maintained, or operated installation-vector infrastructure that interacts\n\n25 with the WhatsApp Platform, including one-click installation vectors and any successor delivery\n\n26 mechanisms; and\n\n27\n\n28\n 1\n [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DEFENDANTS\u2019 CONTEMPT OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 879-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 1 d. Whether NSO or Pegasus, or any successor product, has, from the effective\n\n 2 date of this Court\u2019s Permanent Injunction to the present, collected data from the WhatsApp applica-\n\n 3 tion on target devices.\n\n 4 3. Plaintiffs may file a reply within seven (7) days after NSO\u2019s response to this Order.\n\n 5 4. After reviewing NSO\u2019s sworn declaration and Plaintiffs\u2019 reply, the Court will deter-\n\n 6 mine whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary or whether the matter can be resolved on the papers.\n\n 7 5. If an evidentiary hearing is set, the parties shall each file a witness list with a short\n\n 8 description of anticipated testimony and an exhibit list fourteen (14) days before the hearing. Elec-\n\n 9 tronic copies of any exhibits to be offered into evidence shall be exchanged seven (7) days before the\n\n10 hearing.\n\n11 6. The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Permanent Injunction and to\n\n12 address other matters arising out of or regarding the Permanent Injunction, including any allegations\n\n13 that Defendants have failed to comply with their obligations as set forth therein.\n\n14\n\n15 IT IS SO ORDERED.\n\n16\n\n17\n Dated:\n18 Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton\n United States District Judge\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n26\n\n27\n\n28\n 2\n [PROPOSED] ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DEFENDANTS\u2019 CONTEMPT OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION\n CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-28T01:26:22.323361-07:00","document_number":"879","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"035027569263","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T19:33:25.153663-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T01:24:57.443117-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-27","time_filed":"19:03:58","entry_number":879,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":2839,"description":"Statement Plaintiffs' Submission Regarding Motion for Contempt by Meta Platforms, Inc., WhatsApp Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Andres, Greg) (Filed on 8/27/2026) (Entered: 08/27/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475851028/","id":475851028,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491396909/","id":491396909,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/878/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-08-26T09:34:07.039447-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-26T09:34:07.081337-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"878","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027558436","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-26T09:34:06.979151-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T01:24:57.491432-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-26","time_filed":"09:02:38","entry_number":878,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":2833,"description":"Transcript of Proceedings held on 8/20/2026, before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. Court Reporter/Transcriber: James C. Pence-Aviles, Telephone number (619) 587-0173, email: james_penceaviles@casd.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 875 Transcript Order) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/24/2026. (Related documents(s) 875 ) (Pence-Aviles, James) (Filed on 8/26/2026) (Entered: 08/26/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475408555/","id":475408555,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490938914/","id":490938914,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/877/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-08-21T14:03:36.246958-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:27:20.189395-07:00","sha1":"a62e20aa2a5b3fa877425c12f7a56acaab345dba","page_count":1,"file_size":91618,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.877.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.877.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 877 Filed 08/20/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA\n\n\n CIVIL MINUTES\n\nDate: August 20, 2026 (Time:1 Hour, 15 minutes) JUDGE: Phyllis J. Hamilton\n\nCase No: 19-cv-07123-PJH\nCase Name: WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited\n\nAttorney(s) for Plaintiff: Micah Block, Luca Marzarati, Antonio Perez-Marques, and\nGreg Andres\nAttorney(s) for Defendants: Kellen Dwyer\n\n\nDeputy Clerk: Court Reporter:\n\nNicole Hall James Pence-Aviles through Zoom.\n\n\n\n PROCEEDINGS\n\n Motion for Contempt Hearing \u2013 HELD.\n\nMotion for Contempt: Matter is argued and submitted. Written order to follow. Plaintiffs\nmust file within one week a proposal for the procedure they wish the court to follow.\nDefendants may respond within one week thereafter.\n\nDiscovery Dispute Letters: The Court instructs the parties regarding the proper\nprocedure for submitting discovery dispute letters. Separate discovery letters will not be\nconsidered. Instead, the parties shall meet and confer and file a joint discovery dispute\nletter outlining each party\u2019s respective position.\n\nThe Court orders the parties to meet and confer within the next two weeks regarding the\nthree categories identified in the discovery dispute letters as remaining to be resolved. A\njoint status statement shall be filed within three weeks indicating whether the dispute\nhas been resolved or whether a motion for protective order or motion to compel\ndiscovery should be filed.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-24T07:52:55.651977-07:00","document_number":"877","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027543347","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-21T14:03:36.220898-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:27:20.115303-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":877,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-20.002","pacer_sequence_number":2830,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton: Motion Hearing held on 8/20/2026. Total Time in Court: 1:15. Court Reporter: James Pence-Aviles appearing by Zoom. Plaintiff Attorney: Micah Block, Luca Marzarati, Antonio Perez-Marques, and Greg Andres. Defendant Attorney: Kellen Dwyer. Joint Status Report due by 9/10/2026. (nmh, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/20/2026) (Entered: 08/21/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475327969/","id":475327969,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490856755/","id":490856755,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/876/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-08-21T07:06:31.250190-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-21T07:06:31.262889-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"876","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027540663","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-21T07:06:31.228827-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T07:51:49.780434-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-21","time_filed":"06:54:13","entry_number":876,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":2828,"description":"TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 08/20/2026 before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton by NSO Group Technologies Limited, for Court Reporter James Pence. (Dwyer, Kellen) (Filed on 8/21/2026) (Entered: 08/21/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475264169/","id":475264169,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490791209/","id":490791209,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/875/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-08-20T15:05:27.509363-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-20T15:05:27.534566-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"875","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027537872","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-20T15:05:27.465218-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T07:51:49.747525-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-20","time_filed":"14:55:37","entry_number":875,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":2826,"description":"TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 8/20/2026 before Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton by Meta Platforms, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., for Court Reporter James Pence. (Block, Micah) (Filed on 8/20/2026) (Entered: 08/20/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474787272/","id":474787272,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490298468/","id":490298468,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/874/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-08-17T14:31:51.994336-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-21T19:43:37.065006-07:00","sha1":"065c0406a09f3cdfd484e781d009ffaeeeb29ed0","page_count":2,"file_size":333021,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.874.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/gov.uscourts.cand.350613.874.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cand.350613/490298468.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 874 Filed 08/17/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n Micah G. Block Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP\n +1 650 752 2023 900 Middlefield Road\n micah.block@davispolk.com Redwood City, CA 94063\n davispolk.com\n\n\n\n\nAugust 17, 2026\n\nRe: WhatsApp LLC et al. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited et al., No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH\n\nHonorable Phyllis J. Hamilton\nU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California\nRonald V. Dellums Federal Building and United States Courthouse\n1301 Clay Street\nOakland, CA 94612\n\nDear Judge Hamilton:\n\nPlaintiffs write in response to Defendants\u2019 August 7, 2026 letter, Dkt. No. 873, concerning the post-\njudgment discovery disputes presented to the Court on July 31, 2026, Dkt. No. 870. Plaintiffs disagree with\nDefendants\u2019 characterization of the parties\u2019 negotiations. These requests have been pending since March 4,\n2026, and the parties have conferred multiple times over the past five months without resolving the\ndisputes. Defendants\u2019 August 7 letter confirms that ripe disputes remain for resolution.\n\nCredit and Loan Agreements. The credit and loan agreements were neither produced nor addressed in\nDefendants\u2019 August 7 letter. Instead, Defendants expressly \u201cstand on their objections including with respect\nto third party non-debtors\u2019 assets,\u201d Dkt. No. 873-1 at 3\u2014the same rationale Defendants invoked to withhold\nthese documents, see Dkt. No. 870 at 4.\n\nPayments and Distributions. Defendants likewise \u201cstand on their objections\u201d to producing documents\nidentifying payments, distributions, or compensation to their officers and equity holders. Dkt. No. 873-1 at 3.\nAs Plaintiffs explained in their portion of the July 31 letter, that information falls squarely within the scope of\nRule 69 discovery into a judgment debtor\u2019s finances. Dkt. No. 870 at 3.\n\nValuations and Asset Identification. Defendants state that no \u201cboard minutes, or written offers or\npresentations to third parties, indicating a valuation of Defendants\u2019 total enterprise value\u201d exist from January\n9, 2023 forward. Dkt. No. 873-1 at 2. But that does not answer RFP No. 13, which seeks \u201cany valuation of\n[Defendants\u2019] business or assets,\u201d including formal and informal appraisals, estimates, offers, proposals,\nand other indications of value. Dkt. No. 870-1 at 8. Plaintiffs previously made clear that limiting production\nto final third-party appraisals would be insufficient. See Dkt. No. 870-9 at 2. Defendants\u2019 narrower\nformulation therefore does not resolve the dispute.\n\nDefendants\u2019 August 7 letter helpfully agrees to produce certain documents that Defendants previously\nwould not agree to produce unless Plaintiffs abandoned their requests for other proper discovery.\nHowever, neither the letter nor Defendants\u2019 partial production (of seven documents) moots the disputes\nsubmitted on July 31. Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court rule on these issues and are prepared to\naddress them at the August 20 hearing.\n\f Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 874 Filed 08/17/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\nVery truly yours,\n\n\n/s/ Micah G. Block\nMicah G. Block\n\n\ncc: All counsel of record\n\nElectronic Filing\n\n\n\n\nAugust 17, 2026 2\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-17T14:41:53.298271-07:00","document_number":"874","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"035027519200","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T14:31:51.967039-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-24T07:51:49.713933-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-17","time_filed":"14:24:58","entry_number":874,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":2823,"description":"Letter from Plaintiffs in Response to Defendants August 7, 2026 Letter, Dkt. No. 873, Regarding Post-Judgment Discovery Disputes. (Block, Micah) (Filed on 8/17/2026) (Entered: 08/17/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474591940/","id":474591940,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/16395340/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490097717/","id":490097717,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/16395340/872/whatsapp-inc-v-nso-group-technologies-limited/","date_created":"2026-08-15T08:14:29.745096-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-20T04:27:20.262220-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"872","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appearance/Substitution/Withdrawal of Attorney","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-15T08:14:29.720245-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-15T08:14:29.727488-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":872,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Withdrawal filed by Jonathan Weinberg, no longer appearing on behalf of NSO Group Technologies Limited in this case (Weinberg, Jonathan) (Filed on 8/4/2026) (Entered: 08/04/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=16395340&page_size=40"}