WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited — Entry #888
Case: WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited cand · 4:19-cv-07123
filed October 29, 2019
What this document is
Docket entry #888 · filed October 30, 2026
Who is involved
- Bill Marczak
- Francisco Partners LP
- Josh Shaner
- King & Spalding LLP
- Meta Platforms, Inc.
- NSO Group Technologies Limited
- Q Cyber Technologies Limited
- Terry Divittorio
- The Citizen Lab
- United States Department of Justice
- Westbridge Technologies, Inc.
- WhatsApp Inc.
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Nebius: its former name “Yandex N.V.” appears in a filing in this case.
….8 11 Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V., No. C 12-1521-WHA,…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved November 11, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
28 page(s), 79,699 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 1 of 28 PageID
#: 34575
1 Greg D. Andres
Antonio J. Perez-Marques
2 Luca Marzorati
(admitted pro hac vice)
3 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
4 New York, New York 10017
Telephone: (212) 450-4000
5 Facsimile: (212) 701-5800
Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com
6 antonio.perez@davispolk.com
luca.marzorati@davispolk.com
7
Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)
8 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200
9 Redwood City, California 94063
Telephone: (650) 752-2000
10 Facsimile: (650) 752-2111
Email: micah.block@davispolk.com
11
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12 WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15 OAKLAND DIVISION
16
WHATSAPP LLC and ) Case No. 4:19-cv-07123-PJH
17 META PLATFORMS, INC., )
)
18 Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION
) AND MOTION TO COMPEL POST-
19 v. ) JUDGMENT DISCOVERY; MEMO-
) RANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORI-
20 NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ) TIES IN SUPPORT
and Q CYBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, )
21 ) DISCOVERY MATTER
Defendants. )
22 ) Date: December 17, 2026
) Time: 1:30 p.m.
23 ) Ctrm: 3
)
) Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
24
)
25 )
) Action Filed: October 29, 2019
26 )
)
27
[PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION]
28
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 2 of 28 PageID
#: 34576
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 17, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon after that as
3 the matter may be heard, Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC (“WhatsApp”) and Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta,”
4 and together with WhatsApp, “Plaintiffs”), will move before the Honorable Phyllis J. Hamilton, in
5 Courtroom 3 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1301 Clay
6 Street, Oakland, California, for an order compelling Defendants NSO Group Technologies Limited
7 and Q Cyber Technologies Limited (together, “NSO”) to produce documents, respond to interroga-
8 tories, and produce a witness for deposition.
9 The Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the following Memorandum of
10 Points and Authorities, the Declaration of Luca Marzorati (“Marzorati Decl.”) filed with it, the plead-
11 ings and papers in this action, the arguments of counsel, and any other matter that the Court may
12 properly consider.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 3 of 28 PageID
#: 34577
Dated: October 30, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,
1
2 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
3
By: /s/ Micah G. Block
4 Greg D. Andres
Antonio J. Perez-Marques
5 Luca Marzorati
(admitted pro hac vice)
6 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
7 450 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
8 Telephone: (212) 450-4000
Facsimile: (212) 701-5800
9 Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com
antonio.perez@davispolk.com
10 luca.marzorati@davispolk.com
11
Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)
12 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200
13 Redwood City, California 94063
Telephone: (650) 752-2000
14
Facsimile: (650) 752-2111
15 Email: micah.block@davispolk.com
16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 4 of 28 PageID
#: 34578
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 PAGE
3
4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .........................................................................................................1
5 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................2
6 A. The Judgment and NSO’s Refusal to Pay ........................................................2
7 B. Plaintiffs’ Requests and NSO’s Objections .....................................................3
8 C. NSO’s Partial Production and the Court’s Guidance .......................................3
9 LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................................6
10 ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................................7
11 I. NSO’S THRESHOLD OBJECTIONS DO NOT LIMIT RULE 69 DISCOVERY ....7
12 A. NSO’s Pending Appeal Does Not Suspend Discovery ....................................7
13 B. Discovery Extends to NSO’s Assets Abroad, Whether or Not They Can
Be Executed Upon Here..................................................................................8
14
C. Discovery Reaches Back to January 2023 .....................................................11
15
D. NSO’s Own Financial Records Are Not “Nonparty” Discovery ...................12
16
II. EACH DISPUTED CATEGORY GOES TO THE CORE OF RULE 69 .................12
17
A. Credit and Loan Agreements (RFP No. 1).....................................................13
18
B. Distributions and Compensation (RFP No. 4 and Interrogatory No. 9) ........15
19
C. Valuations (RFP No. 13 and Interrogatory Nos. 5–7) ...................................16
20
D. NSO May Not Condition Production on Plaintiffs’ Waiver of Their
21 Requests .........................................................................................................18
22 III. NSO MUST PROVIDE RULE 30(b)(6) TESTIMONY AND PRODUCE ITS
CEO FOR DEPOSITION ..........................................................................................18
23
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................20
24
25
26
27
28
i
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 5 of 28 PageID
#: 34579
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2 CASES
3 PAGE(S)
4
Al-Sadhan v. Twitter Inc.,
5 2024 WL 3012491 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2024) ............................................................................ 19
6 Am. Zurich Ins. Co. v. ESG Republic, Inc.,
2026 WL 242045 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026) ............................................................................... 13
7
Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina,
8 589 F. App'x 16 (2d Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 9
9 Averbuch v. Otkritie Int’l Inv. Mgmt. Ltd.,
10 CivA 9474/16 (Isr. Feb. 18, 2018) ................................................................................................ 8
11 Beautyko LLC v. Amazon Fulfillment Servs.,
2018 WL 1792183 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 16, 2018) ....................................................................... 12
12
Blankenship v. Hearst Corp.,
13 519 F.2d 418 (9th Cir. 1975) ........................................................................................................ 7
14 Blasket Renewable Investments, LLC v. Kingdom of Spain,
2026 WL 1785188 (D.D.C. June 22, 2026) ................................................................................ 10
15
Brae Asset Funding, L.P. v. Applied Fin., LLC,
16 2006 WL 3497876 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2006) .......................................................................... 8, 18
17 Caisson Corp. v. Cnty. W. Bldg. Corp.,
62 F.R.D. 331 (E.D. Pa. 1974) .............................................................................................. 15, 18
18
Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Int’l, Inc.,
19 160 F.3d 428 (8th Cir. 1998) ...................................................................................................... 18
20 Crews v. Sun Sols. AZ LLC,
21 2024 WL 4120273 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2024) ......................................................................... 10, 16
CSPC Dophen Corp. v. Hu,
22
2020 WL 4059521 (E.D. Cal. July 20, 2020) ............................................................................. 19
23
Devas Multimedia Priv. Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.,
24 2021 WL 3616787 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021) ................................................................. 10, 11
25 Directv, Inc. v. Trone,
209 F.R.D. 455 (C.D. Cal. 2002) .................................................................................................. 7
26
E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus.,
27 286 F.R.D. 288 (E.D. Va. 2012) ................................................................................................. 10
28 EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina,
ii
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 6 of 28 PageID
#: 34580
695 F.3d 201 (2d Cir. 2012), aff’d, 573 U.S. 134 (2014) ............................................................. 9
1
Erickson Prods., Inc. v. Kast,
2 2025 WL 2577886 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025) ............................................................................. 13
3 JW Gaming Dev., LLC v. James,
4 2021 WL 2322265 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2021) ............................................................ 10, 11, 13, 17
5 King & Ballow v. Thompson,
2018 WL 2350082 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 11, 2018) ......................................................................... 17
6
Nat’l Serv. Indus., Inc. v. Vafla Corp.,
7 694 F.2d 246 (11th Cir. 1982) ...................................................................................................... 8
8 Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Bonert's, Inc.,
2019 WL 1123165 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019) ................................................................ 13, 14, 16
9
Patriot Rail Corp. v. Sierra R.R. Co.,
10 2016 WL 492702 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016) ..................................................................... 11, 12, 15
11 Reebok Int’l v. McLaughlin,
49 F.3d 1387 (9th Cir. 1995) ........................................................................................................ 8
12
Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.,
13 573 U.S. 134 (2014) ............................................................................................................ 7, 9, 10
14 Richmond Techs., Inc. v. Aumtech Bus. Sols.,
15 2011 WL 2607158 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2011) .............................................................................. 19
16 Ryan Inv. Corp. v. Pedregal De Cabo San Lucas,
2009 WL 5114077 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009) .................................................................... Passim
17
Solid Income Ltd. v. EnergyInvest LLC,
18 2025 WL 2417181 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025) ..................................................................... 13, 17
19 Sys. Div., Inc. v. Teknek Elecs., Ltd.,
2005 WL 8260387 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2005) ............................................................................ 18
20
Textron Fin. Corp. v. Gallegos,
21 2016 WL 4077505 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016) .............................................................................. 15
22 Tradewinds Ltd. v. Discovery,
2024 WL 3086665 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2024) ............................................................................ 13
23
Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher Int'l, Inc.,
24 2021 WL 5863937 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021) ........................................................................... 12
25 Uniden Corp. v. Duce Trading Co.,
1993 WL 286102 (W.D.N.Y. July 19, 1993) ............................................................................. 12
26
Warner Bros. Int’l Television Distrib. v. Golden Channels & Co.,
27
2005 WL 8162980 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2005) ............................................................................ 15
28
iii
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 7 of 28 PageID
#: 34581
1 STATUTES & RULES
2
28 U.S.C. § 1963 ............................................................................................................................ 3, 7
3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 ....................................................................................................................... 18, 19
4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(1) .................................................................................................................... 19
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2) .................................................................................................................... 18
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 ............................................................................................................................... 7
6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 69 ......................................................................................................................... 6, 18
7
OTHER AUTHORITIES
8
9 Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law, § 3.2 (Isr. 1958) .............................................................. 8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iv
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 8 of 28 PageID
#: 34582
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 Plaintiffs WhatsApp LLC (“WhatsApp”) and Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta,” and together with
3 WhatsApp, “Plaintiffs”) move to compel Defendants NSO Group Technologies Limited and Q Cyber
4 Technologies Limited (together, “NSO”) to respond fully to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Pro-
5 duction of Documents in Aid of Judgment (the “RFPs”) and First Set of Interrogatories in Aid of
6 Judgment (the “Interrogatories”), and to produce a witness for deposition.
7 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
8 NSO owes Plaintiffs more than $20 million. It has paid nothing, posted no bond, and sought
9 no stay. Nearly eight months after Plaintiffs served basic post-judgment discovery, NSO still has not
10 said what it owns, whom it owes, or where its money has gone. This motion asks for two things that
11 would answer those questions: the remaining documents in the three narrow categories the Court
12 itself identified at the August 20 hearing—loan and credit agreements, payments and distributions to
13 insiders, and valuation and identification of assets—and related deposition testimony.
14 Plaintiffs served their RFPs and Interrogatories on March 4, 2026. Plaintiffs met and con-
15 ferred with NSO on May 8, May 22, June 16, and June 26, presented the disputes by joint letter, and
16 returned to the table for the final conference the Court ordered, held on September 3. In the nearly
17 eight months since Plaintiffs served their requests, NSO has produced only approximately 181 pages
18 and refuses to produce its loan and credit agreements. It has said that it will produce more responsive
19 documents, but only if Plaintiffs first agree that the production “satisf[ies]” or “eliminate[s]” their
20 requests. On September 3, NSO offered summaries, redacted counterparty identities, and anony-
21 mized payment data—all conditioned on a global resolution of both the RFPs and Interrogatories,
22 and none of which would show whom NSO owes, who owes NSO, or whom NSO has paid. Plaintiffs
23 declined those deficient substitutes. NSO will not schedule any deposition until the document dis-
24 putes are resolved, and it insists that its CEO and presumptive corporate representative, Akiva Ros-
25 ner—the one person NSO says controls every significant transfer of its funds— may be deposed only
26 through the Hague Convention. Each position has the same effect: it further delays Plaintiffs’ ability
27 to identify NSO’s assets and collect on the judgment.
28
1
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 9 of 28 PageID
#: 34583
1 What remains in dispute is narrow: the three categories the Court identified, each correspond-
2 ing to a specific gap in NSO’s own production. NSO’s 2024 financial statements report $219.5 mil-
3 lion in total assets, $161.5 million of them receivables owed mostly by other group companies. But
4 NSO has not identified those obligors, the agreements underlying the charges registered against its
5 assets, or the payments it has made to insiders. NSO’s offered substitutes are insufficient: summaries
6 cannot replace the agreements themselves, and anonymized payments cannot replace the identities
7 of the payees, because neither would show where NSO’s value actually is. Testimony is the ordinary
8 next step; a corporate designee’s testimony is how a creditor tests a corporate debtor’s account of its
9 assets. And Mr. Rosner—whom NSO identified as the only person authorized to approve any trans-
10 fer, check, or contract above $25,000—is the witness best positioned to explain where NSO’s money
11 has gone. If NSO designates him as its Rule 30(b)(6) witness, his individual and corporate testimony
12 can be taken in one sitting.
13 NSO’s threshold objections do not change that analysis. Rule 69 discovery exists to find a
14 debtor’s assets; it does not require the creditor first to prove those assets can be executed upon. Part
15 I of this motion shows that NSO’s pending appeal, the foreign location of its assets, the timing of
16 pre-judgment transfers, and its position that its own records are “nonparty” documents do not limit
17 discovery. Part II shows that each of the three categories of discovery Plaintiffs seek to compel goes
18 to the core of Rule 69 and that NSO’s partial offers fall short. Part III shows that NSO has no legit-
19 imate basis to withhold Rule 30(b)(6) testimony or Mr. Rosner. The Court should order complete
20 production and that testimony now, so that this process moves forward rather than repeats.
21 BACKGROUND
22 A. The Judgment and NSO’s Refusal to Pay
23 On December 20, 2024, the Court granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs on liability. Dkt.
24 No. 494. On May 6, 2025, a jury returned a verdict on damages. Dkt. No. 736. The Court entered
25 final judgment of $4,447,190 on November 12, 2025, Dkt. No. 810, and awarded $15,914,095 in
26 attorneys’ fees on January 30, 2026, Dkt. No. 835—a total of $20,361,285, exclusive of post-judg-
27 ment interest. NSO has appealed both awards but has neither posted a bond nor obtained a stay of
28
2
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 10 of 28 PageID
#: 34584
1 execution or of post-judgment discovery. Nearly a year after judgment, it has paid nothing. Mar-
2 zorati Decl. ¶ 5.
3 B. Plaintiffs’ Requests and NSO’s Objections
4 On March 4, 2026, Plaintiffs served RFPs and Interrogatories covering standard categories
5 for enforcing a money judgment, beginning January 9, 2023, when NSO’s immunity defenses had
6 been finally rejected and the case returned to this Court to proceed on the merits. Plaintiffs’ RFPs
7 and Interrogatories requested corporate governance and financing (RFP No. 1), payments and distri-
8 butions to insiders (RFP No. 4; Interrogatory No. 9), tax returns (RFP No. 11), valuations and asset
9 identification (RFP No. 13; Interrogatory Nos. 5–7), and persons with authority over NSO’s assets
10 (Interrogatory No. 10). Marzorati Decl. Exs. A–B; Dkt. No. 840.1 NSO served its responses and
11 objections on May 4, 2026. Marzorati Decl. Exs. C–D; Dkt. No. 852. It refused any information
12 about assets outside the United States or predating December 12, 2025, when the Rule 62(a) auto-
13 matic stay expired, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1963, the asserted lack of U.S. jurisdiction to attach foreign
14 assets, and the asserted unenforceability of a U.S. judgment in Israel pending appeal. Marzorati Decl.
15 Ex C, at 4–5; id. Ex. D, at 4–5; see, e.g., id. Ex. C, at 8–9 (Resp. to RFP No. 1); id. Ex. D, at 10
16 (Resp. to Interrogatory No. 3). Subject to those objections, NSO identified two U.S. trademarks and
17 stated that it owned nothing else in the United States. id. Ex. D, at 12 (Resp. to Interrogatory No. 6).
18 C. NSO’s Partial Production and the Court’s Guidance
19 The parties met and conferred on May 8, May 22, June 16, and June 26, 2026. Dkt. No. 870
20 at 1; Marzorati Decl. ¶ 6. NSO has made three document productions, totaling approximately 181
21 pages.2 The first, on July 13, 2026, consisted of NSO’s
22 (Marzorati Decl. Ex. H (PJ-NSO-000001–024), id. Ex. I (PJ-NSO-000025–042), id.
23
24
25 1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 37-2, Plaintiffs’ RFPs and Interrogatories, and NSO's responses and
objections to them, are attached as Exhibits A-D to the Marzorati Declaration; NSO’s supple-
26 mental responses are filed at Dkt. No. 870-6.
2
NSO has designated its post-judgment productions as confidential under the Stipulated Protective
27 Order, Dkt. No. 132. Plaintiffs have therefore provisionally filed under seal the portions of this
motion and the accompanying exhibits that describe those materials, pursuant to Civil Local Rule
28 79-5(f), and take no position on whether they warrant sealing.
3
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 11 of 28 PageID
#: 34585
1 Ex. J (PJ-NSO-000043–63), id. Ex. K (PJ-NSO-000064–081)); documents
2 ( id. Ex.
3 L (PJ-NSO-000082), id. Ex. M (PJ-NSO-000083), id. Ex. Q (PJ-NSO-000095), id. Ex. R (PJ-NSO-
4 000096));
5 (id. Ex. N (PJ-NSO-000084)); and printouts of the
6 public USPTO records for two U.S. trademark registrations (id. Ex. O (PJ-NSO-000085–089), id. Ex.
7 P (PJ-NSO-000090–094)). With that production, NSO served supplemental responses stating that it
8 had made no transfers above $100,000 since January 9, 2023 other than those “identified in the final,
9 audited financial statements” or “carried out in the ordinary course of business,” and that, since Oc-
10 tober 9, 2025, its CEO, Akiva Rosner, has been the only person with authority to approve any transfer,
11 check, or contract above $25,000. Dkt. No. 870-6 at 6–7 (Supp. Resp. to Interrogatory Nos. 8, 10).
12 NSO made its second production on August 7, 2026—only after Plaintiffs had presented the
13 disputes to the Court by joint letter. Dkt. No. 873-1 at 2–3. It consists of
14 ( Mar-
15 zorati Decl. Ex. S (PJ-NSO-000097–107), id. Ex. T (PJ-NSO-0000108–114), id. Ex. Z (PJ-NSO-
16 0000162–164)); NSO Group’s amended articles of association (id. Ex. U (PJ-NSO-000115–52));
17 NSO Group’s certificate of incorporation (id. Ex. V (PJ-NSO-000153); and Q Cyber’s name-change
18 certificate and the early articles and certificate of incorporation of Q Cyber’s predecessor ( id. Ex. W
19 (PJ-NSO-000154), id. Ex. X (PJ-NSO-000153–160), id. Ex. Y (PJ-NSO-000161)). NSO’s cover
20 letter stated that no shareholder agreements exist and that no board minutes or written offers or
21 presentations “indicating a valuation of Defendants’ total enterprise value” exist from January 9,
22 2023 forward, and it stood on NSO’s objections to producing payment and distribution information.
23 Dkt. No. 873-1 at 2–3. NSO is withholding its 2023 and 2024 tax returns pending an order governing
24 translation and has deferred its 2025 financial statements until they are completed. Id. at 3; Dkt. No.
25 853 ¶ 2.
26 NSO’s third production came on October 28, 2026, after Plaintiffs subpoenaed Hippocrene
27 Ventures LLC, the Delaware entity that acquired the rights of NSO’s secured lenders in 2025. Mar-
28 zorati Decl. ¶ 15 & Ex. G. It is a single document:
4
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 12 of 28 PageID
#: 34586
1
2 Marzorati Decl. Ex. AA (PJ-NSO-000165–181), at -000165, 000178–180. According to the
3 document,
4 . Id. at -000169, 000178–179.
5
6
7
8 Id. at -000165, 000169.
9 Id. at -000176–177.
10 These productions do not identify NSO’s specific assets in Israel or Luxembourg or their
11 value, the obligors on the ,
12 the terms of or counterparties to the agreements underlying the registered charges, or the individual
13 payments NSO has made to insiders. Id. Ex. H (PJ-NSO-000001–024), id. Ex. I (PJ-NSO-000025–
14 042), id. Ex. J (PJ-NSO-000043–63), id. Ex. K (PJ-NSO-000064–081).
15 Id. On June 23, 2026, NSO offered to
16 produce additional documents on the condition that the corresponding requests “would be deemed
17 satisfied and eliminated.” Dkt. No. 870-7 at 1; Marzorati Decl. ¶ 6. On July 15, 2026, NSO proposed
18 a revised stipulation that deferred negotiation of the loan and credit agreements. Dkt. No. 870-12;
19 Marzorati Decl. ¶ 6. NSO has declined to produce its loan and credit agreements. Dkt. No. 870 at 1.
20 On July 31, 2026, the parties presented the disputes over RFP Nos. 1, 4, 11, and 13 and In-
21 terrogatory Nos. 5–7 and 9 by joint letter. Dkt. No. 870. NSO then filed a unilateral letter describing
22 a seven-document production while expressly “stand[ing] on [its] objections including with respect
23 to third party non-debtors’ assets.” Dkt. No. 873-1 at 3. Plaintiffs responded that the production
24 mooted none of the disputes. Dkt. No. 874. At the August 20, 2026 hearing, the Court ordered a
25 final meet and confer on three categories: (i) loan and credit agreements, (ii) payments and distribu-
26 tions to officers and equity holders, and (iii) valuation and identification of assets. Marzorati Decl.
27 Ex. E, at 49:2–4, 51:3–13
28
5
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 13 of 28 PageID
#: 34587
1 That September 3, 2026 conference did not resolve the disputes. Dkt. No. 881 at 1. NSO
2 offered—only as part of a global resolution—a summary of the economic terms of its loan and credit
3 agreements or the agreements with counterparty identities withheld; information about assets above
4 $150,000 outside Israel and Luxembourg, where NSO and its parent entities are headquartered; and
5 payment and distribution information with personally identifying information redacted. Id. at 3–4;
6 Marzorati Decl. ¶ 12.
7 Separately, Plaintiffs noticed a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on July 23, 2026, and a Rule 30(b)(1)
8 deposition of NSO’s CEO, Akiva Rosner, on August 25, 2026. Dkt. Nos. 881-1, 881-2. Plaintiffs
9 have no objection to NSO designating Mr. Rosner as its Rule 30(b)(6) witness, in which case both
10 could proceed in a single sitting. At an August 13, 2026 meet and confer, NSO told Plaintiffs it
11 would send a markup of the Rule 30(b)(6) topics reflecting its objections. Marzorati Decl. ¶ 8. It
12 never did. It instead proposed to wait until the Court rules on “the proper scope of asset discovery,”
13 Dkt. No. 881-3 at 4, and at the September 3 conference refused to provide any markup, Marzorati
14 Decl. ¶ 13. NSO now refuses to schedule any deposition until the document disputes are resolved,
15 and contends that Mr. Rosner may be deposed only through the Hague Convention. Dkt. No. 881 at
16 2; Marzorati Decl. ¶ 13. On October 16, 2026, the Court directed the parties to present all outstanding
17 disputes, including the deposition disputes, by cross-motion. Dkt. No. 885.
18 LEGAL STANDARD
19 Rule 69(a)(2) provides that “[i]n aid of the judgment or execution, the judgment creditor . . .
20 may obtain discovery from any person—including the judgment debtor—as provided in these rules
21 or by the procedure of the state where the court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2). Every discovery
22 procedure in the Federal Rules, including the motion to compel, is therefore available. See Fed. R.
23 Civ. P. 69 advisory committee’s note to 1970 amendment (“The amendment assures that, in aid of
24 execution on a judgment, all discovery procedures provided in the rules are available[.]”). A party
25 may move to compel when the responding party “fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under
26 Rule 33,” “fails to produce documents . . . as requested under Rule 34,” or, for a corporation, “fails
27 to make a designation under Rule 30(b)(6).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(ii)–(iv). “[A]n evasive or
28
6
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 14 of 28 PageID
#: 34588
1 incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or re-
2 spond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). For post-judgment discovery, relevance is measured against Rule
3 69’s purposes: “to identify assets that can be used to satisfy a judgment” and “to discover concealed
4 or fraudulently transferred assets.” Ryan Inv. Corp. v. Pedregal de Cabo San Lucas, 2009 WL
5 5114077, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009); see also Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573
6 U.S. 134, 138 (2014) (“The rules governing discovery in postjudgment execution proceedings are
7 quite permissive.”). “The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should
8 not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” DI-
9 RECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Blankenship v. Hearst Corp.,
10 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975)).
11 ARGUMENT
12 I. NSO’S THRESHOLD OBJECTIONS DO NOT LIMIT RULE 69 DISCOVERY
13 NSO raises four categorical objections that cut across every request: (1) its pending appeal,
14 (2) the foreign location of its assets, (3) the timing of pre-judgment transfers, and (4) its characteri-
15 zation of its own records as “nonparty” discovery. Each confuses collecting on a judgment with
16 finding assets. Rule 69(a)(1) governs how a creditor collects; Rule 69(a)(2) governs how it finds
17 what there is to collect. None of the four objections limits Plaintiffs’ ability to discover assets.
18 A. NSO’s Pending Appeal Does Not Suspend Discovery
19 A pending appeal does not automatically suspend discovery. NSO argues that because its
20 appeal is pending and the judgment has not been registered elsewhere under 28 U.S.C. § 1963, Plain-
21 tiffs have “no right to enforce the judgment outside this District” and may discover only NSO’s assets
22 in the United States as of December 12, 2025. Dkt. No. 870 at 4; see Marzorati Decl. Ex. C, at 4–5;
23 Marzorati Decl. Ex. D, at 4–5. But Section 1963 says nothing about discovery. It allows a creditor
24 to register a judgment in another district so it can be enforced there—ordinarily once the judgment is
25 final on appeal, or earlier for good cause. 28 U.S.C. § 1963. And there is “settled authority indicating
26 that discovery in aid of execution is not precluded by the filing of an appeal.” Ryan, 2009 WL
27 5114077, at *2. Brae Asset Funding, L.P. v. Applied Financial, LLC illustrates the point. 2006 WL
28 3497876 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2006). With an appeal pending, the court there addressed registration
7
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 15 of 28 PageID
#: 34589
1 under Section 1963 and discovery under Rule 69 in separate parts of its order, and it resolved the
2 discovery request under Rule 69 alone, without relying on registration. Id. at *3. It permitted the
3 creditor to depose the debtors’ former CEO and former president because “[i]f a judgment may be
4 executed upon after an appeal has been filed, certainly discovery in aid of its execution is not pre-
5 cluded by the filing of an appeal.” Id. at *1, *3 (quoting Nat’l Serv. Indus., Inc. v. Vafla Corp., 694
6 F.2d 246 (11th Cir. 1982)). The same is true here: NSO has posted no bond and obtained no stay, so
7 the judgment remains enforceable and discovery in aid of it may proceed.
8 NSO’s foreign-law argument fails for the same reason. NSO says a foreign judgment is not
9 enforceable in Israel until it “is no longer appealable,” and that the law of Luxembourg, where NSO’s
10 ultimate parent is incorporated, is “similar.” Dkt. No. 870 at 4 (citing Foreign Judgments Enforce-
11 ment Law, § 3.2 (Isr. 1958), and Reebok Int’l, Ltd. v. McLaughlin, 49 F.3d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir.
12 1995)). Ryan rejected the exact argument that NSO now makes. The foreign debtors there argued
13 that because Mexican law barred execution on their Mexican property pending appeal, “if their prop-
14 erty cannot yet be subject to execution, it is premature to supply [the judgment creditor] with infor-
15 mation about such property.” 2009 WL 5114077, at *2. The court held that in federal court the
16 Federal Rules govern discovery, even where foreign law restricts execution. Id. Similarly, here,
17 NSO cannot invoke a foreign-law restriction on execution to resist Rule 69 discovery pending appeal.
18 Nor does NSO identify any bar to discovery in this Court. Its one Israeli decision holds only
19 that Israeli enforcement mechanisms, including asset discovery in Israeli proceedings, are unavaila-
20 ble pending appeal. Dkt. No. 870 at 4 n.5 (citing Averbuch v. Otkritie Int’l Inv. Mgmt. Ltd., CivA
21 9474/16 (Isr. Feb. 18, 2018)). That concerns what Israeli courts will do, and NSO does not contend
22 that any Israeli or Luxembourg law bars it from producing information in this case. Having neither
23 sought nor obtained a stay of post-judgment discovery, NSO must comply now.
24 B. Discovery Extends to NSO’s Assets Abroad, Whether or Not They Can Be
25 Executed Upon Here
26 NSO next objects that “U.S. courts generally lack jurisdiction to attach and execute on assets
27 located outside the United States.” Marzorati Decl. Ex. C, at 5; id. Ex. D, at 5. But whether or not a
28 court can execute on foreign assets, the Supreme Court has rejected the premise that discovery is
8
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 16 of 28 PageID
#: 34590
1 limited to assets the court can execute on.
2 In NML, the Court rejected the argument that “if a judgment creditor could not ultimately
3 execute a judgment against certain property, then it has no business pursuing discovery of infor-
4 mation pertaining to that property,” because a creditor seeking discovery “does not yet know what
5 property [the debtor] has and where it is, let alone whether it is executable under the relevant juris-
6 diction’s law.” 573 U.S. at 144; see also EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 208 (2d
7 Cir. 2012) (“[T]he district court’s power to order discovery to enforce its judgment does not derive
8 from its ultimate ability to attach the property in question.”), aff’d, 573 U.S. 134 (2014). The Second
9 Circuit later applied NML to affirm worldwide asset discovery, holding that potential immunity from
10 attachment “does not preclude discovery of that property,” and that a debtor’s “self-serving legal
11 assertion” that its property is beyond reach “does not entitle it to withhold otherwise discoverable
12 information.” Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 589 F. App’x 16, 17–18 (2d
13 Cir. 2014).
14 NSO’s principal authority, a single sentence from NML, does not support it. In addressing
15 Argentina’s argument that discovery should be limited to property that could ultimately be attached,
16 the Court observed that “information that could not possibly lead to executable assets is simply not
17 ‘relevant’ to execution in the first place.” 573 U.S. at 144. NSO reads that sentence incorrectly as
18 confining Rule 69 discovery to assets that can be executed upon. Dkt. No. 870 at 3. To the contrary,
19 read in context, it confirms that Plaintiffs’ requests here are proper. The Court made that observation
20 about a hypothetical subpoena that “bizarrely” sought only information that could not possibly lead
21 to executable assets, and immediately added: “[b]ut of course that is not what the subpoenas seek.”
22 NML, 573 U.S. at 144–45. The subpoenas in NML instead asked for information about the debtor’s
23 “worldwide assets generally,” and the Court approved them so that the creditor could “identify where
24 Argentina may be holding property that is subject to execution.” Id. at 145. Plaintiffs’ requests are
25 of the same kind: they seek the information needed to determine what can be reached. And even on
26 NSO’s reading, Plaintiffs’ requests qualify, because the information they seek can plainly lead to
27 executable assets.
28 NSO’s receivables illustrate the point. Other companies in NSO’s corporate group owe NSO
9
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 17 of 28 PageID
#: 34591
1 $161.5 million. If any of them has money or does business in the United States, Plaintiffs may be
2 able to collect that debt here. But Plaintiffs cannot know until NSO says who those companies are.
3 Nor are NSO’s assets in Israel and Luxembourg permanently beyond reach. By NSO’s own account,
4 the restriction it invokes lifts once the appeal is resolved, and those assets will be reachable thereafter.
5 NSO’s objection would invert NML: it would require Plaintiffs to establish executability before they
6 may learn what NSO owns, when the purpose of the discovery is to make that determination possi-
7 ble.3 That is also contrary to the aims of Rule 69, which are “to determine what assets the judgment
8 debtor has and how they be collected on” because “a judgment creditor is entitled to fish for assets
9 of the judgment debtor.” JW Gaming Dev., LLC v. James, 2021 WL 2322265, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June
10 7, 2021) (citing Ryan, 2009 WL 5114077, at *4).
11 NSO’s other authorities limited discovery only where it reached beyond the judgment debtor
12 or lacked any connection to the debtor’s assets. Neither is true here. Blasket Renewable Investments,
13 LLC v. Kingdom of Spain quashed subpoenas to nonparty U.S. businesses “two steps removed” from
14 the debtor, while recognizing that a creditor “cannot know whether such payments exist without
15 postjudgment discovery.” 2026 WL 1785188, at *4 (D.D.C. June 22, 2026). Crews v. Sun Solutions
16 AZ LLC limited discovery because the person whose finances were sought “is not a ‘judgment debtor’
17 in this action.” 2024 WL 4120273, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2024). NSO is. By contrast, E.I. DuPont
18 de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc. compelled a foreign judgment debtor to identify each
19 customer from which it “holds a receivable” or that “otherwise holds [its] assets,” along with the
20 asset’s location and value. 286 F.R.D. 288, 290, 293 (E.D. Va. 2012). That is precisely what Plain-
21 tiffs seek for NSO’s receivables. Nor can NSO distinguish Devas Multimedia Priv. Ltd. v. Antrix
22 Corp., 2021 WL 3616787 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 16, 2021), on the ground that Plaintiffs already “know”
23 the judgment cannot be enforced in Israel or Luxembourg. Dkt. No. 870 at 4 n.6. Devas held that
24 “[r]egardless of whether this Court lacks authority to permit execution against assets located in other
25
3
NSO also contends that NML “held only” that the FSIA does not immunize foreign states from
26 Rule 69 discovery. Dkt. No. 870 at 3 n.2. If so, NML’s relevance passage cannot narrow Rule
69 either. Nor does NML’s footnote 6 assist NSO. It notes only that “other sources of law,” such
27 as “settled doctrines of privilege” and a court’s discretion to “consider comity interests and the
burden that the discovery might cause,” may bear on such requests. 573 U.S. at 146 n.6 . NSO
28 asserts no privilege and identifies no conflict with any foreign sovereign’s law or policy.
10
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 18 of 28 PageID
#: 34592
1 countries,” the creditors “are entitled to obtain discovery of Respondent’s assets both within and
2 outside of the United States.” Devas, 2021 WL 3616787, at *6.
3 C. Discovery Reaches Back to January 2023
4 NSO maintains that anything predating December 12, 2025, when the judgment became en-
5 forceable, is irrelevant, and has offered at most a May 6, 2025 start date—the date of the jury ver-
6 dict—for certain categories. Dkt. No. 870 at 4–5; Dkt. No. 870-7 at 2–3. That limit would shut off
7 discovery into the very period when NSO had the greatest incentive to move assets: between this
8 Court’s December 2024 liability ruling and the May 2025 verdict, when NSO knew it would owe
9 damages but not how much. What NSO owned and transferred then is directly relevant to “dis-
10 cover[ing] concealed or fraudulently transferred assets.” Ryan, 2009 WL 5114077, at *1.
11 NSO’s limit is also contrary to the practice of courts in this Circuit, which routinely permit
12 Rule 69 discovery reaching back to the start of the underlying litigation. See id. at *2–3 (rejecting
13 overbreadth objection and finding reasonable requests reaching back to 2006, when the action began,
14 roughly three years before judgment); Patriot Rail Corp. v. Sierra R.R. Co., 2016 WL 492702, at *6
15 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016) (overruling objection to discovery reaching back to the start of the litigation,
16 because both cases discussed by the parties “allowed discovery all the way back to the date litigation
17 commenced”); JW Gaming, 2021 WL 2322265, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2021) (rejecting temporal-
18 scope objection to five and a half years of records where the debtor cited “no authority that tethers
19 permissible post-judgment discovery to the date on which the judgment was entered”). Plaintiffs ask
20 for a period that covers far less: this action was filed in October 2019, more than three years before
21 the January 2023 start date. Despite the fact that this litigation put Defendants on notice of a potential
22 monetary judgment, Plaintiffs request discovery covering only the period after which this Court lifted
23 its stay pending Defendants’ appeal of this Court’s denial of NSO’s motion to dismiss. Devas is not
24 to the contrary. The court there began discovery at the arbitral award only because the intervenors
25 “ha[d] already agreed to this timeframe.” 2021 WL 3616787, at *8. It never decided how far back
26 Rule 69 discovery may reach.
27
28
11
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 19 of 28 PageID
#: 34593
1 D. NSO’s Own Financial Records Are Not “Nonparty” Discovery
2 Finally, NSO argues that payments to its officers and equity holders, and its loan and credit
3 agreements, concern “non-debtors’ assets” because “[a] payment or debt is not an attachable asset of
4 Defendants.” Dkt. No. 870 at 4. That argument misreads Rule 69, contradicts the Court’s guidance
5 at the August 20 hearing, and rests on authorities that address discovery into the finances of someone
6 other than the judgment debtor. Money NSO has paid out to insiders is exactly what a creditor must
7 trace to “discover concealed or fraudulently transferred assets,” Ryan, 2009 WL 5114077, at *1, and
8 NSO’s debts show which of its own assets are encumbered and which remain available. The Court
9 has already said as much: “in my view, this is not third-party discovery.” Marzorati Decl. Ex. E, at
10 49:5–6. In this motion, Plaintiffs seek no discovery from any nonparty and none into any nonparty’s
11 own finances—only documents in NSO’s possession, custody, or control about NSO’s own assets,
12 liabilities, and transfers.
13 NSO’s authorities do not change that. They require a threshold showing of fraudulent transfer
14 or alter ego before a creditor may examine the finances of someone other than the judgment debtor.
15 See Dkt. No. 870 at 4 (citing, e.g., Uniden Corp. of Am. v. Duce Trading Co., 1993 WL 286102, at
16 *1 (W.D.N.Y. July 19, 1993); Trendsettah USA, Inc. v. Swisher Int'l, Inc., 2021 WL 5863937, at *3
17 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2021)). NSO says the showing applies even to requests directed to the debtor,
18 pointing to Beautyko, which involved a request that the judgment debtors produce “personal financial
19 information of nondebtor[s].” Dkt. No. 870 at 4 n.4 (citing Beautyko LLC v. Amazon Fulfillment
20 Servs., 2018 WL 1792183, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 16, 2018)). But Plaintiffs seek no insider’s per-
21 sonal finances—only NSO’s records of what NSO itself paid and owes. Courts reject the threshold-
22 showing argument in exactly that setting. See Patriot Rail, 2016 WL 492702, at *5–6 (overruling
23 judgment debtor’s objection that a showing of “fraudulent conveyance or alter ego” was required,
24 because the cases it cited “involve discovery or enforcement efforts directed to non-parties, which is
25 not what is sought here”).
26 II. EACH DISPUTED CATEGORY GOES TO THE CORE OF RULE 69
27 With those objections cleared away, each disputed category—credit and loan agreements,
28 payments to insiders, and valuations—goes to the core of Rule 69: what NSO owns, what it owes,
12
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 20 of 28 PageID
#: 34594
1 and where its money has gone. A judgment creditor is entitled to “a very thorough examination of a
2 judgment debtor with respect to its assets, including discovery of the identity and location of any of
3 the judgment debtor’s assets, wherever located,” Ryan, 2009 WL 5114077, at *1, and “[t]he pre-
4 sumption should be in favor of discovery,” Solid Income Ltd. v. EnergyInvest LLC, 2025 WL
5 2417181, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2025). The three categories fill the gaps in NSO’s production:
6 valuations and asset identification show what NSO owns and where; the loan and credit agreements
7 show which of those assets are already encumbered, and to whom; and the insider-payment records
8 show what has left the company. NSO cannot carry its burden of showing that these core financial
9 records fall outside Rule 69.
10 A. Credit and Loan Agreements (RFP No. 1)
11 NSO must produce its loan and credit agreements. They will show what NSO owes, to whom,
12 and which of its assets secure those debts—precisely the information that allows a judgment creditor
13 to “identify sources of income and assets that may be used to satisfy the judgment.” Erickson Prods.,
14 Inc. v. Kast, 2025 WL 2577886, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2025) (granting motion to compel judgment
15 debtor to produce “documents relating to any debts owed to or by [the judgment debtor] to third
16 parties”). NSO has produced some documents responsive to RFP No. 1 but refuses to produce the
17 agreements themselves.
18 Courts routinely order production of these agreements. See, e.g., Packaging Corp. of Am. v.
19 Bonert’s, Inc., 2019 WL 1123165, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2019) (ordering production of “infor-
20 mation regarding loans to [Defendant’s] shareholders,” as well as “loan agreements, promissory
21 notes, and other agreements evidencing ‘all loans ever made to [Defendant]’”); Am. Zurich Ins. Co.
22 v. ESG Republic, Inc., 2026 WL 242045, at *2–3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026) (directing judgment debtor
23 to produce “[l]oan/mortgage documents,” “[l]ines of credit and/or loans,” and “[d]ocuments regard-
24 ing other outstanding debts, judgments, attachments, or liens”); JW Gaming, 2021 WL 2322265, at
25 *4 (rejecting objection that subpoena for judgment debtor’s bank records was overbroad because it
26 “inquire[d] about debts, loans, and credit lines in addition to tangible assets,” since the debtor “con-
27 flate[d]” post-judgment information-gathering “with the actual execution of a judgment”);
28 Tradewinds Ltd. v. Grupo Dolphin Discovery, 2024 WL 3086665, at *4–5 (C.D. Cal. May 17, 2024)
13
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 21 of 28 PageID
#: 34595
1 (ordering judgment debtor to produce documents relating to a $30 million loan). NSO’s attempts to
2 distinguish these cases fail. NSO says Packaging required a threshold showing of suspected fraudu-
3 lent transfer and that American Zurich was unopposed. Dkt. No. 870 at 4 n.4. But the Packaging
4 showing applied only because the subpoenas were directed to nonparties. See 2019 WL 1123165, at
5 *1 (“To obtain discovery from a nonparty, a judgment creditor must make a threshold showing.”).
6 And opposed or not, American Zurich reflects the ordinary scope of discovery from a judgment
7 debtor. Plaintiffs seek NSO’s own agreements from NSO.
8 Neither the registry extracts NSO has produced nor its latest offer—a summary of economic
9 terms, or the agreements with counterparty identities withheld—fills that gap.
10
11 Marzorati Decl. Ex.
12 S (PJ-NSO-000097–107), id. Ex. T (PJ-NSO-000108–114). But they do not show how much each
13 lender is owed, which lender gets paid first, or what lets a lender seize the pledged assets. Plaintiffs
14 need to know that to tell which NSO assets are already spoken for. They also need to know who the
15 lenders are. If a lender is tied to NSO’s insiders or parent companies, a pledge to that lender could
16 be a way to keep NSO’s assets away from Plaintiffs—a real concern given that lenders changed after
17 judgment. The one agreement NSO has produced confirms the point.
18
19 Id.
20 Ex. AA (PJ-NSO-000165–181) at 000169–171.
21 Id. at -000176–177. NSO has produced neither the Credit Agreement
22 nor the amendment. The Court contemplated redaction only where “the other party [to the agree-
23 ment] was one of their government customers . . . whose identity has not been ordered.” Id. Ex. E,
24 at 49:23–50:13. No sovereign interest is implicated here, and the protective order addresses any
25 ordinary confidentiality concern. Without the agreements, Plaintiffs would hold a list of charges they
26 cannot evaluate, with no way to tell whether any NSO asset is actually available to satisfy the judg-
27 ment.
28
14
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 22 of 28 PageID
#: 34596
1 The Court should order NSO to produce its loan and credit agreements responsive to RFP No.
2 1 from January 9, 2023 forward, without redaction of counterparty identities, subject to the existing
3 protective order.
4 B. Distributions and Compensation (RFP No. 4 and Interrogatory No. 9)
5 NSO must produce transaction-level records of its payments to insiders. RFP No. 4 and In-
6 terrogatory No. 9 seek payments, distributions, and compensation to NSO’s officers, managers, mem-
7 bers, and equity holders since January 9, 2023. Id. Ex. A, at 5; Id. Ex. B, at 5. RFP No. 4 also seeks
8 capital contributions to NSO during the same period. Id. Ex. A, at 5. This information shows where
9 NSO’s money has gone, and “the judgment creditor must be given the freedom to make a broad
10 inquiry to discover hidden or concealed assets of the judgment debtor.” Textron Fin. Corp. v.
11 Gallegos, 2016 WL 4077505, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016) (quoting Caisson Corp. v. Cnty. W.
12 Bldg. Corp., 62 F.R.D. 331, 334 (E.D. Pa. 1974)); see Patriot Rail, 2016 WL 492702, at *9 (granting
13 motion to compel discovery of “information about the executive compensation paid out to [the
14 debtor’s] executives,” whose “relevance . . . is apparent from [its] face” because it “seeks to learn
15 what happened [to] the assets of [the judgment debtor]”); Warner Bros. Int’l Television Distrib. v.
16 Golden Channels & Co., 2005 WL 8162980, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2005) (“[T]he scope of post-
17 judgment discovery is broad, enabling judgment creditors to seek discovery of both current assets
18 and past financial transactions that could lead to the existence of fraudulently concealed or fraudu-
19 lently conveyed assets.” (cleaned up)).
20 Nothing NSO has produced or offered shows where NSO’s assets went. Its financial state-
21 ments report only aggregates—a $14 million intercompany set-off at year-end 2024, for example,
22 without saying who received what. Marzorati Decl. Ex. H (PJ-NSO-000001–024), id. Ex. I (PJ-
23 NSO-000025–042), id. Ex. J (PJ-NSO-000043–63), id. Ex. K (PJ-NSO-000064–081). Its transfer
24 disclosure excludes anything in those statements or made “in the ordinary course of business” (ac-
25 cording to NSO) and so omits at least salary, bonuses, equity awards, and distributions, as well as
26 whatever else NSO may be using that caveat to withhold. Dkt. No. 870-6 at 6–7. And its offers fall
27 short: each would withhold payees’ identities, none includes capital contributions, and its June 23
28 proposal started only on May 6, 2025—leaving out both the months after the December 2024 liability
15
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 23 of 28 PageID
#: 34597
1 ruling, when NSO had the strongest incentive to move assets, and the names needed to trace pay-
2 ments. Dkt. No. 870-7 at 2–3; Dkt. No. 881 at 4. NSO invokes Israel’s Protection of Privacy Law,
3 5741-1981, Dkt. No. 870-7 at 2; Marzorati Decl. ¶ 12, but it has not identified any provision of that
4 statute that bars producing payees’ identities in a U.S. proceeding under a protective order. And after
5 judgment “the desire for confidentiality must necessarily yield,” with “any legitimate confidentiality
6 concerns . . . remedied with a protective order.” Crews, 2024 WL 4120273, at *2 (citation omitted).
7 The existing order does that: NSO may designate the records Attorneys’ Eyes Only and file any
8 names under seal, Dkt. No. 132, as it has done with material Israel permitted it to share only on those
9 terms. See Dkt. No. 798-1 ¶¶ 3–12. A debtor that has paid nothing on more than $20 million in
10 judgments while continuing to operate is spending its money somewhere.
11
12 Marzorati
13 Decl. Ex. AA (PJ-NSO-000165–181), at -000169, 000178–179. These records are the only way to
14 find out where that money went.
15 The Court should order NSO to produce documents sufficient to show payments, distribu-
16 tions, and other compensation to officers, managers, members, and equity holders from January 9,
17 2023 forward, identifying for each payment the amount, date, recipient’s role or category, and pur-
18 pose.
19 C. Valuations (RFP No. 13 and Interrogatory Nos. 5–7)
20 NSO must produce its valuations and identify its assets. RFP No. 13 and Interrogatory Nos.
21 5–7 seek any valuation of NSO’s business or assets—including formal or informal appraisals, esti-
22 mates of value, offers, proposals, and pro forma indications of value—and identification of NSO’s
23 real property, intellectual property, and other assets. Valuations reveal a debtor’s net worth and the
24 assets that drive it, and courts routinely permit discovery into them. See Packaging, 2019 WL
25 1123165, at *2 (granting in part and denying in part motion to quash third-party subpoenas seeking
26 “any requests for financing by [Defendant], including . . . appraisals” and “documents concerning
27 ‘efforts by [Defendant] to sell or transfer its business,’” including “valuations”); see also King &
28 Ballow v. Thompson, 2018 WL 2350082, at *7 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 11, 2018) (finding requests for
16
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 24 of 28 PageID
#: 34598
1 “business valuations” and financial statements “clearly within the broad scope of permissible post-
2 judgment discovery”), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 2336593 (M.D. Tenn. May
3 23, 2018). Breadth is no objection: “[t]he scope of discovery under Rule 69 encompasses the ability
4 to find actual assets, uncover hidden assets, and trace assets,” and is therefore “very broad.” Solid
5 Income Ltd., 2025 WL 2417181, at *3 (citing JW Gaming, 2021 WL 2322265, at *4).
6 NSO’s response falls short. On valuations, it states only that no “board minutes, or written
7 offers or presentations to third parties, indicating a valuation of Defendants’ total enterprise value”
8 exist from January 9, 2023 forward. Dkt. No. 873-1 at 2–3. But RFP No. 13 seeks “any valuation
9 of [Defendants’] business or assets,” formal or informal, and whether or not addressed to “total en-
10 terprise value.” Marzorati Decl. Ex. A, at 6; see Dkt. No. 870-9 at 1. And NSO’s own production
11 shows that
12
13 Marzorati Decl. Ex. AA (PJ-NSO-000165–181) at -000171. Whatever analysis
14 supports that figure is responsive and has not been produced. On asset identification, NSO proposes
15 to disclose only assets above an arbitrary $150,000 threshold and to exclude Israel and Luxem-
16 bourg—where NSO and its parents are headquartered and its bank accounts are held—without iden-
17 tifying any basis for either limit. Those limits would block the first step of enforcement. NSO’s
18 financial statements report asset classes only in the aggregate; they do not identify the affiliates that
19 owe NSO its receivables. Id. Ex. H (PJ-NSO-000001–024), id. Ex. I (PJ-NSO-000025–042), id. Ex.
20 J (PJ-NSO-000043–63), id. Ex. K (PJ-NSO-000064–081). Valuations and asset identification supply
21 that information and will tell Plaintiffs where to register or domesticate the judgment once the appeal
22 is resolved. Without them, Plaintiffs would know of two U.S. trademarks and no other specific,
23 identifiable asset—and would have to start over after the appeal, at risk of NSO secretly moving or
24 encumbering the very assets Plaintiffs seek to identify.
25 The Court should order NSO to produce all valuations responsive to RFP No. 13 from January
26 9, 2023 forward, including informal appraisals, estimates, offers, proposals, and other indications of
27 value, and to answer Interrogatory Nos. 5–7 fully, without a monetary threshold or the exclusion of
28 Israel and Luxembourg.
17
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 25 of 28 PageID
#: 34599
1 D. NSO May Not Condition Production on Plaintiffs’ Waiver of Their Requests
2 NSO also may not condition production on Plaintiffs’ advance agreement that a partial pro-
3 duction “satisfie[s]” or “eliminate[s]” the underlying requests. Dkt. No. 870 at 1. NSO calls this
4 ordinary negotiation over scope. Id. at 5. But narrowing by agreement is one thing; requiring the
5 requesting party to give up, before seeing the production, its right to review it and seek warranted
6 supplementation is another. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e), 34(b)(2).
7 III. NSO MUST PROVIDE RULE 30(b)(6) TESTIMONY AND PRODUCE ITS CEO
8 FOR DEPOSITION
9 NSO refuses to produce any deposition witness. It says the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition must
10 wait until the document disputes are resolved, and that its CEO may be deposed only through the
11 Hague Convention. Rule 69 permits discovery from “any person” “as provided in these rules,” Fed.
12 R. Civ. P. 69(a)(2), and depositions are a core tool of that discovery. See, e.g., Brae, 2006 WL
13 3497876, at *3 (permitting, while appeal was pending, depositions of judgment debtors’ former CEO
14 and former president, who held the same offices at the successor entity added as a judgment debtor).
15 That right reaches a corporate debtor’s officers: a creditor “is entitled to a very thorough examination
16 of the judgment debtor,” and a corporate debtor’s officer “may be deposed in that capacity.” Caisson,
17 62 F.R.D. at 335; see also Credit Lyonnais, S.A. v. SGC Int’l, Inc., 160 F.3d 428, 430–31 (8th Cir.
18 1998) (district court abused its discretion by refusing to compel depositions of corporate judgment
19 debtor and its sole officer, because “the presumption should be in favor of full discovery of any
20 matters arguably related to [the creditor’s] efforts to trace [the debtor’s] assets”). Foreign debtors
21 are no exception. In Systems Division, Inc. v. Teknek Electronics, Ltd., the court compelled a Scottish
22 judgment debtor and its U.S. affiliate to designate Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses, ordered the depositions
23 to proceed “within the jurisdiction of this Court” rather than in Scotland and Chicago as the debtors
24 requested, and awarded Rule 37 expenses. 2005 WL 8260387, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2005).
25 Neither of NSO’s objections justifies its refusal to appear.
26 NSO’s first objection—that the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition must wait until the document dis-
27 putes are resolved—would hold that deposition hostage. Plaintiffs served the notice on July 23, 2026.
28 Dkt. No. 881-1. On August 13, NSO agreed to mark up the topics to reflect its view of the proper
18
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 26 of 28 PageID
#: 34600
1 scope of post-judgment discovery, Marzorati Decl. ¶ 8, then reversed course and proposed to wait
2 until the Court rules on “the proper scope of asset discovery.” Dkt. No. 881-3 at 3. That has it
3 backwards: the markup was NSO’s vehicle for pressing its scope objections. More than two months
4 later, NSO has provided neither the markup nor a witness. Marzorati Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10–13 & Ex. F. A
5 party that objects to deposition topics must seek a protective order; it may not simply decline to
6 appear. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), 30(b)(1).
7 NSO’s second objection, to deposing Mr. Rosner, fares no better. NSO identified him in its
8 answer to Interrogatory No. 10 as the only person with general authority to approve any transfer,
9 check, or contract above $25,000, Dkt. No. 870-6 at 6–7, and that authority is undisputed. No one is
10 better placed to testify about where NSO’s money has gone. The choice of Rule 30(b)(6) designee
11 belongs to NSO, but given Mr. Rosner’s role, NSO could readily designate him and resolve both
12 notices in a single sitting—sparing itself the burden of preparing multiple witnesses. NSO objects to
13 any Rule 30(b)(1) deposition of Mr. Rosner that is not limited to topics related to enforcement of the
14 money judgment. Marzorati Decl. ¶ 13. But disagreement over the scope of particular questions is
15 no reason to refuse to produce a witness at all.
16 Nor does the Hague Convention supply a reason to withhold him. If service of process itself
17 may be made on a foreign defendant through its U.S. counsel—in Hague Convention countries, and
18 even where counsel disclaims authority to accept—so may a deposition notice. See Richmond Techs.,
19 Inc. v. Aumtech Bus. Sols., 2011 WL 2607158, at *13 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2011) (“Nothing in the Hague
20 Convention prohibits such service”); Al-Sadhan v. Twitter Inc., 2024 WL 3012491, at *2–3 (N.D.
21 Cal. June 14, 2024) (collecting cases permitting such service “even when the attorney has not been
22 authorized to accept service of process”); CSPC Dophen Corp. v. Hu, 2020 WL 4059521, at *5 (E.D.
23 Cal. July 20, 2020) (authorizing service through U.S. counsel that disclaimed authority, because
24 counsel had “repeatedly appeared on behalf of [those parties]”), report and recommendation adopted,
25 2020 WL 6118611 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2020). NSO’s U.S. counsel has appeared for NSO and ac-
26 cepted service of all documents throughout this litigation. Marzorati Decl. ¶ 36. And NSO has never
27 before insisted on the Hague Convention: before judgment, Plaintiffs deposed four NSO execu-
28 tives—including its then-CEO, Yaron Shohat—on Rule 30 notices served by email on that same
19
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 27 of 28 PageID
#: 34601
1 counsel. Id. ¶ 36 & Exs. BB–EE. NSO offers no reason counsel cannot accept the same notice for
2 its current CEO.
3 NSO’s deposition objections follow the pattern of its document objections: each defers dis-
4 covery, and none identifies an actual bar. The Court should order NSO to produce a Rule 30(b)(6)
5 designee and to make Mr. Rosner available for deposition under Rule 30(b)(1) within 30 days of the
6 Court’s order; should NSO designate Mr. Rosner, both may proceed in a single sitting.
7 CONCLUSION
8 Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their motion to compel and order NSO to:
9 (1) within 14 days of the Court’s order, produce, without geographic limitation and from January 9,
10 2023 forward, documents and information responsive to RFP Nos. 1, 4, and 13 and supplement its
11 answers to Interrogatory Nos. 5–7 and 9, as set forth in Parts II.A–C, without conditioning that pro-
12 duction on Plaintiffs’ agreement that it satisfies or eliminates any request; and (2) within 30 days of
13 the Court’s order, produce a Rule 30(b)(6) designee and make Mr. Rosner available for deposition
14 under Rule 30(b)(1), in a single sitting should NSO designate him, as set forth in Part III.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 888 Filed 10/30/26 Page 28 of 28 PageID
#: 34602
Dated: October 30, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,
1
2 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
3
By: /s/ Micah G. Block
4 Greg D. Andres
Antonio J. Perez-Marques
5 Luca Marzorati
(admitted pro hac vice)
6 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
7 450 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
8 Telephone: (212) 450-4000
Facsimile: (212) 701-5800
9 Email: greg.andres@davispolk.com
antonio.perez@davispolk.com
10 luca.marzorati@davispolk.com
11
Micah G. Block (SBN 270712)
12 DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
900 Middlefield Road, Suite 200
13 Redwood City, California 94063
Telephone: (650) 752-2000
14
Facsimile: (650) 752-2111
15 Email: micah.block@davispolk.com
16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
WhatsApp LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21
MEMO. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL POST-JUDGMENT DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 4:19-CV-07123-PJH