WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited — Entry #885: ORDER re post-judgment discovery disputes
Case: WhatsApp Inc. v. NSO Group Technologies Limited cand · 4:19-cv-07123
filed October 29, 2019
What this document is
Docket entry #885 · filed October 16, 2026
ORDER re post-judgment discovery disputes. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 10/16/2026. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2026)
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
2 page(s), 5,438 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 885 Filed 10/16/26 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
WHATSAPP INC., et al.,
7 Case No. 19-cv-07123-PJH
Plaintiffs,
8
v. ORDER RE POST-JUDGMENT
9 DISCOVERY DISPUTES
NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES
10 LIMITED, et al., Re: Dkt. 870, 873, 874, 881
11 Defendants.
12
United States District Court
13
14 The parties in the above-captioned case have multiple disputes regarding post-
15 judgment discovery. See Dkt. 870, 873, 874, 881. The parties first filed a joint letter brief
Northern District of California
16 (Dkt. 870), which was followed by a unilateral letter filed by defendants (Dkt. 873), then a
17 unilateral letter filed by plaintiffs (Dkt. 874). The court then directed the parties to file an
18 updated joint letter. See Dkt. 881.
19 To summarize the disputes, plaintiffs argue that defendants have refused to
20 produce responsive discovery regarding its financing, tax returns, distributions and
21 compensation, and valuations, which are relevant to plaintiffs’ efforts to collect more than
22 $20 million of unpaid judgments. See Dkt. 870. Defendants argue that plaintiffs seek
23 overly-expansive discovery far beyond defendants’ executable assets. See id. The
24 parties also dispute plaintiffs’ right to take deposition testimony. See Dkt. 881.
25 Both parties seek to file a motion to obtain their requested relief. Specifically,
26 plaintiffs seek to file a motion to compel discovery, while defendants seek to file a motion
27 for protective order. See Dkt. 881. Both proposed motions appear to seek an answer on
28 the same discovery issues. Thus, it would be duplicative to have two motions, two
Case 4:19-cv-07123-PJH Document 885 Filed 10/16/26 Page 2 of 2
1 opposition briefs, and two reply briefs, all concerning the same discovery issues.
2 Accordingly, the court sets the following briefing schedule to resolve pending discovery
3 issues: the parties shall file cross-motions on October 30, 2026, with plaintiffs filing a
4 motion to compel and defendants filing a motion for protective order. On November 14,
5 2026, each side shall file a single responsive brief, addressing the arguments made in
6 the opposing party’s motion. No further briefing will be accepted, and the motions will
7 thereafter be decided on the papers. Each brief is limited to twenty (20) pages.
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10 Dated: October 16, 2026
11 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
12 United States District Judge
United States District Court
13
14
15
Northern District of California
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2