{"cached_at":"2026-09-18T09:58:23.391973+00:00","cl_docket_id":"71873171","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","id":71873171,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/paed/","court_id":"paed","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/234/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2025-11-04T13:20:55.014949-08:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:13:01.782595-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Wendy Beetlestone","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-11-04","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-09-16","case_name_short":"RAO","case_name":"EPAM SYSTEMS, INC. v. RAO","case_name_full":"","slug":"epam-systems-inc-v-rao","docket_number":"2:25-cv-06260","docket_number_core":"2506260","docket_number_raw":"2:25-cv-06260","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"WB","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"645799","cause":"18:1836(a) Injunction Against Misappropriation of Trade Secrets","nature_of_suit":"880 Defend Trade Secrets Act (of 2016)","jury_demand":"Defendant","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":"2025-11-04T13:20:54.997017-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/23691769/","id":23691769,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/16051659/","attorney_id":16051659,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"role":10},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13892971/","attorney_id":13892971,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13892971/","attorney_id":13892971,"date_action":"2026-03-23","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13892972/","attorney_id":13892972,"date_action":"2026-03-23","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"role":6}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"name":"Counter Claimant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-09-14T09:09:04.099539-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T09:09:04.099562-07:00","name":"GOWTHAM Adamane RAO","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/16641552/","id":16641552,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13892968/","attorney_id":13892968,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13892969/","attorney_id":13892969,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13892970/","attorney_id":13892970,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/10852794/","attorney_id":10852794,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","docket_id":71873171,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2025-11-05T14:05:00.435678-08:00","date_modified":"2025-11-05T14:05:00.435700-08:00","name":"EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478246476/","id":478246476,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493867157/","id":493867157,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/86/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T12:58:49.273436-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:11:47.824596-07:00","sha1":"e894820c8b9b2bfad89ce76cc0976729b127621c","page_count":1,"file_size":84486,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.86.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-\n Defendant,\n\n v.\n NO. 25-6260\n GOWTHAM RAO,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n Plaintiff.\n\n ORDER\n\n AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2026, upon consideration of Plaintiff\u2019s Motion\n\nfor Sanctions (ECF Nos. 58, 71), and Defendant\u2019s Response in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 62),\n\nand following a Hearing in Open Court on September 16, 2026, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED\n\nthat Plaintiff\u2019s Motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.\n\n BY THE COURT:\n\n\n\n S/ WENDY BEETLESTONE\n _______________________________\n WENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-16T16:11:47.819738-07:00","document_number":"86","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024194269","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Sanctions","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T12:58:49.253225-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:10:13.959229-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-16","time_filed":"15:02:57","entry_number":86,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-16.002","pacer_sequence_number":231,"description":"ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 58 IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 9/16/26. 9/16/26 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(mbh) (Entered: 09/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478246469/","id":478246469,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493867150/","id":493867150,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/87/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T12:58:48.045037-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:11:22.799050-07:00","sha1":"dd25c1cb8ee001d0d3fd6a8ae15d6fb130d5217f","page_count":1,"file_size":82850,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.87.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-\n Defendant,\n\n v.\n NO. 25-6260\nGOWTHAM RAO,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n Plaintiff.\n\n ORDER\n\n AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2026, upon consideration of Defendant\u2019s\n\nMotion for Leave to File Replacement Exhibit I (ECF No. 79), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED\n\nthat Defendant\u2019s Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.\n\n BY THE COURT:\n\n\n\n S/ WENDY BEETLESTONE\n _______________________________\n WENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-16T16:11:22.795038-07:00","document_number":"87","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024194293","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T12:58:48.027249-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:10:13.971532-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-16","time_filed":"15:05:09","entry_number":87,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-16.003","pacer_sequence_number":233,"description":"ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLACEMENT EXHIBIT I 79 IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 9/16/26. 9/16/26 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (mbh) (Entered: 09/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478246463/","id":478246463,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493867144/","id":493867144,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/88/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T12:58:47.192806-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:10:22.633928-07:00","sha1":"c3564c66b12d71e25d23143a62ec900845e59f2a","page_count":1,"file_size":94361,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.88.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 88 Filed 09/16/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-\n Defendant,\n\n v.\n NO. 25-6260\n GOWTHAM RAO,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n Plaintiff.\n\n ORDER\n\n AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2026, upon consideration of Defendant\u2019s\n\nMotion for Leave to File Supplement to the Record on Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Sanctions (ECF\n\nNos. 81, 83), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant\u2019s Motion is DENIED AS MOOT.\n\n BY THE COURT:\n\n\n S/ WENDY BEETLESTONE\n\n _______________________________\n WENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-16T16:10:22.629672-07:00","document_number":"88","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024194317","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion for Sanctions","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T12:58:47.168229-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:10:13.981157-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-16","time_filed":"15:07:53","entry_number":88,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-16.004","pacer_sequence_number":235,"description":"ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS [81,83] IS DENIED AS MOOT. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 9/16/26. 9/16/26 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (mbh) (Entered: 09/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478232804/","id":478232804,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493853353/","id":493853353,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/85/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T11:55:57.833546-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T11:55:57.844049-07:00","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":"85","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024193808","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T11:55:57.805235-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:10:13.945691-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-16","time_filed":"14:13:25","entry_number":85,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-16.001","pacer_sequence_number":228,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before CHIEF JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE in Courtroom 10A. Motion Hearing - Evidentiary Hearing held on 9/16/26 (mbh) (Entered: 09/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478175704/","id":478175704,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493795280/","id":493795280,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/84/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T06:49:46.473192-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:12:14.659038-07:00","sha1":"01d2ae20f768871bb6589372d5e034ebcdf4027c","page_count":2,"file_size":170252,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.84.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-\n Defendant,\n\n v.\n NO. 25-6260\n GOWTHAM RAO,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n Plaintiff.\n\n ORDER\n\n AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2026, upon consideration of Plaintiff\u2019s Motion\n\nto Seal (ECF Nos. 60, 73), and Defendant\u2019s Response in Opposition thereto (ECF No. 66), IT IS\n\nHEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1\n\n 1. Plaintiff\u2019s Motion is GRANTED with respect to the sealing of Exhibits 9, 10, and 13;\n\n 2. Plaintiff\u2019s Motion is DENIED with respect to Exhibits 6, 7, and 8; and,\n\n 3. Plaintiff\u2019s Motion is DENIED with respect to closing the courtroom during portions\n\n of the September 16, 2026 Hearing.\n\n\n BY THE COURT:\n\n\n\n S/ WENDY BEETLESTONE\n _______________________________\n WENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J.\n\n\n1\n Plaintiff EPAM Systems, Inc. (\u201cEPAM\u201d) has filed a Motion to Seal, seeking permission to introduce a number of\nunredacted versions of exhibits under seal at the September 16, 2026, Spoliation Hearing and requesting courtroom\nclosure for testimony regarding any information that it proposes to seal.\n\nThe documents EPAM seeks to seal are \u201cjudicial materials\u201d to which there is a common law right to public access. In\nre Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924 F.3d 662, 672 (3d Cir. 2019). Although there is a\npresumption against sealing such documents, it can be overcome if a movant shows \u201cthat the interest in secrecy\noutweighs the presumption.\u201d Id. (quoting Bank of Am. Nat\u2019l Tr. & Sav. Ass\u2019n v. Hotel Rittenhouse Assocs., 800 F.2d\n339, 344 (3d Cir. 1986)). Specifically, the movant must show that: (1) \u201cthe material is the kind of information that\ncourts will protect[;]\u201d and, (2) \u201cdisclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking\n[secrecy].\u201d Id. at 673 (quoting Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir. 1994)).\n\fTo evaluate whether a document ought to be sealed, courts must engage in \u201c[c]areful factfinding\u201d and \u201cbalanc[e] . . .\ncompeting interests\u201d on a \u201cdocument-by-document\u201d basis. Id. at 677 (citing Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion\nTechs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 167 (3d Cir. 1993)). In the present case, EPAM wishes to seal three documents\u2014Exhibits\n9, 10, and 13\u2014in their entirety, categorizing the information within them as either trade secret or confidential business\nand marketing information. The disclosure of this information, it argues, would provide EPAM\u2019s competitors with a\nroadmap to EPAM\u2019s proprietary technology or its sales and marketing strategy, competitive positioning, product\ndifferentiation, and commercialization efforts. EPAM also seeks to redact the names of certain executives from\nExhibits 6, 7, and 8, arguing that disclosure might cause \u201csubstantial embarrassment and reputational injury\u201d to these\nnonparty individuals.\n\nWith respect to the first category, the \u201cprotection of a party\u2019s interest in confidential commercial information, such as\na trade secret,\u201d is one such widely recognized exception to the right of public access. In re Gabapentin Patent Litig.,\n312 F. Supp.2d 653, 664 (D.N.J. 2004) (citation omitted); see also In re Avandia, 924 F.3d at 679 n.14 (noting that the\nprotection of trade secrets is an exception to the presumption of public access); Publicker Industries, Inc. v. Cohen,\n733 F.2d 1059, 1073 (3d Cir. 1984) (\u201c[A]n interest in safeguarding a trade secret may overcome a presumption of\nopenness.\u201d). Such information encompasses \u201csources of business information that might harm a litigant\u2019s competitive\nstanding,\u201d In re Avandia, 924 F.3d at 679, including, inter alia, \u201cany formula, pattern, device or compilation of\ninformation which is used in one\u2019s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over\ncompetitors who do not know or use it.\u201d Feenix Payment Sys., LLC v. Steel Cap. Mgmt., LLC, 2021 WL 2587844, at\n*4 (D. Del. June 24, 2021) (quoting Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1001 (1984)). Exhibits 9 and 10\nmeet this standard. These documents contain descriptions of and references to the technical specifications of two\nEPAM technology products. The documents detail the backend architectural design of these products, the specifics\nof the technology stack, the internal processes that render the products unique, and the tools, processes, and AI prompts\nthrough which the products could be replicated.\n\nSo too is the second category of information\u2014the confidential business and marketing materials reflected in Exhibit\n13\u2014the \u201ckind of information that courts will protect.\u201d In re Avandia, 924 F.3d at 673; see, e.g., Joint Stock Soc. v.\nUDV North America, Inc., 104 F. Supp.2d 390, 396 (D. Del. 2000) (explaining that strategic plans, potential\nadvertising and marketing campaigns or financial information is the \u201ctype of sensitive commercial information . . .\nentitled to confidential protection\u201d); Invention Submission Corp. v. Taylor Mack Enters., 2021 WL 914290, at *3 (W.D.\nPa. Mar. 10, 2021). In that Exhibit 13, EPAM\u2019s \u201cSales Battle Card,\u201d contains information about internal confidential\nmarketing strategy, sales strategy, and EPAM differentiators vis-\u00e0-vis its competitors, the public disclosure of this\ninformation would be detrimental to EPAM\u2019s competitive positioning.\n\nHowever, the final category of information that EPAM seeks to seal\u2014the identities of certain third-party executives\nset forth in Exhibits 6, 7, and 8\u2014is not the sort of information that courts will protect. Mere embarrassment, especially\nin the context of business communications, is insufficient to overcome the presumption of public access. In re\nAvandia, 924 F.3d at 679; see also Publicker Indus., 733 F.2d at 1074 (explaining that courts generally should not seal\nevidence of \u201cbad business practices\u201d).\n\nIn addition to the common law right of access which attaches to judicial records, the public also has a First Amendment\nright of access in court proceedings. In re Avandia, 924 F.3d at 673. The First Amendment right of access presents\nan even higher burden than the common law right of access, requiring the party to demonstrate \u201can overriding interest\nin excluding the public based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to\nserve that interest.\u201d Id. EPAM has not made that showing.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-16T16:12:14.654351-07:00","document_number":"84","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024191398","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Seal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-16T06:49:46.448054-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:10:13.925101-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":84,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":226,"description":"ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL 60 IS GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO THE SEALING OF EXHIBITS 9, 10 AND 13. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IS DENIED WITH RESPECT TO EXHIBITS 6, 7 AND 8. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IS DENIED WITH RESPECT TO CLOSING THE COURTROOM DURING PORTIONS OF THE 9/16/26 HEARING. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 9/15/26. 9/16/26 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (mbh) (Entered: 09/16/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477872714/","id":477872714,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493482914/","id":493482914,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/83/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-14T10:21:23.296317-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:13:01.610046-07:00","sha1":"eb435e103bcd9499f255512568256e9d74c3f032","page_count":9,"file_size":146520,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.83.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n v. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n GOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ON\n PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF NO. 58) CONCERNING THE\n AUGUST 10, 2025 DOCUMENT (OSLICK EXHIBIT 9), WITH DISCOVERY SERVED\n AFTER BRIEFING CLOSED\n\nI, Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD, the Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, appearing pro se, move\n\nunder section IV.A of the Court's Policies and Procedures (at 7) for leave to file a short\n\nsupplement to the record on EPAM's motion for sanctions: the submission attached as Exhibit 1;\n\nmy supplemental declaration, attached as Exhibit 2, which identifies the underlying records by\n\nBates number; the declaration of Dr. Sudeep Ghate, attached as Exhibit 3; the one-page Google\n\nDrive activity record attached as Exhibit 4; excerpts of my served discovery responses, attached\n\nas Exhibit 5; and the Google announcement attached as Exhibit 6. I also ask leave to present\n\nthem at the September 16, 2026 evidentiary hearing. Because the grounds are short, this motion\n\nstates them and is submitted as the motion and the supporting brief together under Local Civil\n\nRule 7.1(c). In support, I state as follows.\n\n\nBackground\n1. EPAM moved for sanctions on July 29, 2026 (ECF No. 58). I opposed on August 19,\n\n 2026 (ECF No. 62), and EPAM replied on August 26, 2026 (ECF No. 71). The\n\n evidentiary hearing is set for September 16, 2026 at 10:00 AM.\n\n2. EPAM's motion relies on a document dated August 10, 2025, filed as Exhibit 9 to the\n\n Oslick Declaration (ECF No. 58-12), and on the declaration of Dmitrii Ilin (ECF No. 58-\n\n\n Page 1 of 9\n\f 25 \u00b6\u00b6 8-15). From those two sources EPAM argues that the document is a \"step-by-step\n\n plan\" for rebuilding Synapse that \"was very likely generated by providing a generative AI\n\n program with highly confidential and proprietary information about Synapse,\" and that I\n\n \"had no legitimate business reason for creating such a document.\" (ECF No. 58-2 at 13-\n\n 14.)\n\n3. EPAM's reply brief, filed August 26, 2026 in reply to my opposition (ECF No. 62), then\n\n states that \"nowhere in Rao's brief, or his 30 page declaration, or his 11 page 'Scope\n\n Appendix' does Rao supply such a reason.\" (ECF No. 71 at 10.) That reply was the last\n\n brief on the motion. Under section IV.A of the Policies I could not answer it without\n\n leave, and I have not answered it.\n\n4. Mr. Ilin, a Lead Software Engineer at Odysseus Data Services, describes Synapse as\n\n software he has coded for about the past year (ECF No. 58-25 \u00b6\u00b6 1, 6). My served\n\n position is that the deliverable Mr. Ilin describes was built for Takeda under a Master\n\n Services Agreement that EPAM's legal team read in September 2025 to mean \"everything\n\n we build belongs to Takeda\" (ECF No. 62-30 \u00b6 17; ECF No. 33 \u00b6\u00b6 215-220), and that the\n\n proposed EPAM Synapse concept described in Oslick Exhibit 9 (ECF No. 58-12) was, as\n\n far as I know and remember, never built.\n\n5. After EPAM filed its reply, I served four sets of discovery responses. They state the\n\n reason the document was created, and they identify the records that show how it was\n\n created: my Responses to EPAM's First Set of Requests for Admission (August 28,\n\n 2026), my Responses to EPAM's First Request for Production (September 5, 2026), my\n\n First Supplemental Responses to that Request (September 7, 2026), and my Second\n\n Supplemental Answers to EPAM's First Set of Interrogatories (September 7, 2026),\n\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 9\n\f together with production volumes GRAO_PROD_000 and GRAO_PROD_001. Those\n\n records include the Google Drive activity record and version history of the August 10,\n\n 2025 document; the research document generated earlier that day, which was among its\n\n inputs; the three GitHub repositories and the coding-agent session generated from it that\n\n evening; and the record of the document's sharing with an EPAM employee the same\n\n evening. They also include the six archives bearing the Takeda-Synapse project's name\n\n that I found in my OneDrive, which hold GitLab template README files and\n\n deployment configuration and no application code (GRAO001507\u2013GRAO001512).\n\n6. The EPAM Systems India employee with whom I shared the document, Dr. Sudeep\n\n Ghate, has now declared that I gave him editor access to the \"Research - Agents\"\n\n document on Sunday, August 10, 2025, India time, editor access to the \"Synapse\n\n architecture\" document on Monday, August 11, 2025, India time, and a link to the\n\n GitHub repository for the work (Exhibit 3 \u00b6\u00b6 4-6).\n\n\nGood Cause\n7. Good cause exists. EPAM's opening brief argued that I had no legitimate business reason\n\n for creating the document, and its reply argued that my opposition supplied none. The\n\n responses that state the reason and identify the records were served on August 28,\n\n September 5, and September 7, 2026, after briefing closed, so they were not before the\n\n Court with my opposition, and the Policies did not allow me to answer the reply without\n\n leave. They were made under Rule 26(g) and, as to Request for Admission No. 9, under\n\n Rule 36.\n\n8. I also ask the Court to excuse the timing of this motion. I located and analyzed the\n\n records while responding to EPAM's First Request for Production, served August 10,\n\n\n\n\n Page 3 of 9\n\f 2026, which required me to search my personal Google account, my GitHub account, and\n\n my OneDrive folder, and to compare what I found against EPAM's exhibits. I served the\n\n analysis and the records on September 5 and 7, 2026, in the same period in which I was\n\n answering EPAM's requests for admission and interrogatories, and I assembled this\n\n submission afterward. Obtaining Dr. Ghate's declaration also took time: he is a nonparty\n\n who lives in India, and his signed declaration reached me on September 14, 2026. I am\n\n self-represented and have brought this motion as soon as I could.\n\n9. The records bear on the questions the Court must decide under Rule 37(e). On the\n\n threshold question and on prejudice under Rule 37(e)(1), they show that for the August\n\n 10, 2025 work, the origin, the inputs identified in my responses, the tools, the times, the\n\n output, and the disclosure are in the record and can be tested against EPAM's Synapse\n\n without any activity artifact from the desktop. On intent under Rule 37(e)(2), they bear on\n\n the motive EPAM attributes to me from this document. My discovery requests to EPAM\n\n on the same points are pending, with responses due September 15 through 28, 2026\n\n (Requests for Admission Nos. 88, 110-118, 127, 159-162, 174-175, and 177; Requests\n\n for Production Nos. 1-7, 37-38, 42, 46-47, and 52-53; Interrogatories Nos. 1-5 and 11-\n\n 12).\n\n10. The records also bear on EPAM's motion to seal and to close the courtroom (ECF No.\n\n 60), which I opposed (ECF No. 66) and to which EPAM has replied (ECF No. 73).\n\n EPAM's motion and reply rest the sealing of Oslick Exhibit 9 (ECF No. 58-12) on Mr.\n\n Ilin's description of it as a \"comprehensive, step-by-step plan\" for recreating Synapse\n\n (ECF No. 60 at 2; ECF No. 73 at 6-7). The records show the document's inputs, its output\n\n in public repositories under an Apache-2.0 license, and its disclosure to an EPAM\n\n\n\n\n Page 4 of 9\n\f employee the same evening. They support my position that EPAM has not shown\n\n reasonable measures to preserve secrecy (ECF No. 66 at 2-3), and I ask that the Court\n\n consider the supplement on that motion as well.\n\n11. EPAM is not prejudiced by the supplement. It has held the responses since August 28,\n\n September 5, and September 7, 2026, and the produced records since September 5 and 7,\n\n 2026. Exhibit 1 draws on those responses and productions, on Dr. Ghate's declaration\n\n (Exhibit 3), which is served with this motion, and on a public Google announcement\n\n (Exhibit 6). EPAM may respond at the hearing or on any schedule the Court sets. Exhibit\n\n 1 is five pages, double-spaced in 12-point type, except that its record table is set single-\n\n spaced in 10-point type. I ask the Court to accept it within the five-page limit for a sur-\n\n reply brief under section IV.A of the Policies or, if the Court prefers the table in 12-point\n\n type, to allow the one additional page that change adds. The served responses it cites are\n\n reproduced in Exhibit 5 with their caption and signature pages, and the public\n\n announcement it cites is Exhibit 6, printed with its address together with an Internet\n\n Archive capture. In the public copy of Exhibit 5, the names of two individuals who are\n\n not parties to this action are covered where they appear in the text of Requests for\n\n Admission Nos. 1 and 8, because EPAM's motion to seal asks the Court to protect the\n\n identities of nonparties it refers to as Executives #1 through #3 and I proposed continuing\n\n that convention in any exhibit displayed publicly (ECF No. 66 at 1). The copies served on\n\n EPAM are unredacted, and I will provide an unredacted copy to the Court on request.\n\n12. Because EPAM's motion to seal contends that Oslick Exhibit 9 (ECF No. 58-12) and\n\n related material contain trade secrets, I do not place the underlying records on the public\n\n docket with this motion, with one exception. Exhibit 4 is the one-page Google Drive\n\n\n\n\n Page 5 of 9\n\f activity record for the August 10, 2025 document (GRAO007391). It shows the\n\n document's title, its creation and sharing on August 10, 2025, an edit on August 13, 2025,\n\n and the access restriction of November 2, 2025, and nothing of the document's contents.\n\n Every other record is identified by Bates number, and the repositories are identified by\n\n their public addresses.\n\n13. I maintain my opposition to EPAM's motion to seal (ECF No. 66) and object, on the\n\n same grounds, to sealing the records identified in Exhibits 1 and 2. I withhold them from\n\n the public docket now only because that motion is pending. Under the Court's Policies\n\n and Procedures, \"The Court will only approve confidentiality or sealing orders for good\n\n cause shown.\" (Policies at 6.) The records are records from my personal accounts, code\n\n that was public under an Apache-2.0 license, and six archives that hold GitLab template\n\n text and deployment configuration. I would prefer to file them on the public docket, and I\n\n ask leave to do so if the Court permits or EPAM does not object. Otherwise I will provide\n\n copies to the Court in camera or under seal, as the Court directs.\n\n\nRelief Requested\n14. I ask the Court to enter the proposed Order submitted with this motion, granting leave to\n\n file Exhibits 1 through 6 as a supplement to the record on ECF No. 58, permitting me to\n\n present them and the records they identify at the September 16, 2026 hearing, permitting\n\n me to file those records on the public docket unless EPAM objects and, if it objects, to\n\n provide them in camera or under seal, and permitting me to rely on the supplement in\n\n opposition to ECF No. 60. In the alternative, I ask to be permitted to offer the records at\n\n the hearing through my testimony.\n\n\n\n\n Page 6 of 9\n\fDated: September 14, 2026\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Gowtham A. Rao\nGowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n184 Mansgrove Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540\nTelephone: (803) 386-7890\ngowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\nExhibits\nExhibit 1: The August 10, 2025 document (Oslick Exhibit 9, ECF No. 58-12): my served\n\n explanation and the records that accompany it.\n\nExhibit 2: Supplemental Declaration of Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD, Identifying the Produced\n\n Records Concerning the August 10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9), my declaration\n\n identifying the records by Bates number.\n\nExhibit 3: Declaration of Dr. Sudeep Ghate, executed at Mangaluru, India on September 14,\n\n 2026 under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746(1) and served on EPAM with this motion. Dr. Ghate, the\n\n EPAM Systems India employee with whom the document was shared on August 10,\n\n 2025, is identified in my interrogatory answers of September 1 and 7, 2026. He cannot\n\n travel to the hearing and is willing to answer questions by video if the Court permits.\n\nExhibit 4: Google Drive activity record for the August 10, 2025 document, as produced to\n\n EPAM on September 7, 2026 (GRAO007391; one page). Its footer carries the\n\n \"CONFIDENTIAL\" legend that my production applied to every page of that volume. As\n\n the producing party, I withdraw that designation for this exhibit.\n\nExhibit 5: Excerpts of my served discovery responses concerning the August 10, 2025\n\n document, cited in Exhibit 1: my Responses to EPAM's First Set of Requests for\n\n Admission (August 28, 2026), my Responses to EPAM's First Request for Production\n\n (September 5, 2026), my First Supplemental Responses to that Request (September 7,\n\n\n Page 7 of 9\n\f 2026), and my Second Supplemental Answers to EPAM's First Set of Interrogatories\n\n (September 7, 2026), each with its caption page and signature page. In this public copy\n\n the names of two individuals who are not parties to this action, which appear in the text\n\n of Requests for Admission Nos. 1 and 8 on pages 1 and 4 of Part A, are covered, as\n\n paragraph 11 explains. Nothing else is altered.\n\nExhibit 6: Google, \"Jules, our asynchronous coding agent, is now available for everyone\"\n\n (August 6, 2025), as printed from blog.google on September 14, 2026, with the Internet\n\n Archive capture of September 6, 2025.\n\nRecords identified and not filed, all produced to EPAM:\n\n \u2013 the version-history and share-settings captures for the August 10, 2025 document\n\n (GRAO000448\u2013GRAO000451, September 5, 2026);\n\n \u2013 the \"Research - Agents\" document, its version-history captures, and its Google Docs\n\n captures (GRAO007214\u2013GRAO007386; GRAO007392\u2013GRAO007393;\n\n GRAO007387\u2013GRAO007390 and GRAO007394\u2013GRAO007399, September 7,\n\n 2026);\n\n \u2013 the captures of the Jules session, the GitHub repository list, pull request 2, the branch\n\n list, and the Apache License 2.0 file (GRAO007208\u2013GRAO007213, September 7,\n\n 2026);\n\n \u2013 the complete git bundles and the Jules session archive (GRAO007204\u2013\n\n GRAO007207, September 7, 2026); and\n\n \u2013 the six Takeda-Synapse archives from my OneDrive (GRAO001507\u2013GRAO001512,\n\n September 5, 2026), which my response to Request No. 1 designates Contested\n\n Materials under the Protocol.\n\n\n\n\n Page 8 of 9\n\fThe repositories are https://github.com/gowthamrao/synapse-core,\n\nhttps://github.com/gowthamrao/synapse-mcp-client, and\n\nhttps://github.com/gowthamrao/synapse-retrievers, in my personal GitHub account.\n\n\nCertificate of Service\nI certify that on September 14, 2026, I filed the foregoing Defendant's Motion for Leave to\n\nSupplement the Record on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 58) Concerning the August\n\n10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9), With Discovery Served After Briefing Closed, with\n\nExhibits 1 through 6 and the proposed Order, with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system,\n\nthat the document is available for viewing and downloading from that system, and that the\n\nCM/ECF system will serve notice of the filing electronically on all counsel of record, including\n\ncounsel for Plaintiff:\n\n\nJacob Oslick, Esq. (joslick@seyfarth.com)\nJames S. Yu, Esq. (jyu@seyfarth.com)\nMatthew Christoff, Esq. (mchristoff@seyfarth.com)\nBrooke K. Gary, Esq. (brgary@seyfarth.com)\nSEYFARTH SHAW LLP\n\n/s/ Gowtham A. Rao\nGowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n\n\n\n\n Page 9 of 9\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-16T16:13:01.600695-07:00","document_number":"83","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024183148","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Sanctions","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493906231/","id":493906231,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/83/1/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.171968-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.171976-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":6,"file_size":119708,"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":"83","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"153024183149","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493906232/","id":493906232,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/83/2/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.203006-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.203015-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":6,"file_size":99544,"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":"83","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"153024183150","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493906233/","id":493906233,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/83/3/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.215653-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.215661-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":696428,"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":"83","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"153024183151","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493906234/","id":493906234,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/83/4/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.229213-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.229223-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":118228,"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":"83","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"153024183152","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 4","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493906235/","id":493906235,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/83/5/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.241710-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.241718-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":29,"file_size":4860773,"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":"83","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"153024183153","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 5","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493906236/","id":493906236,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/83/6/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.254178-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.254186-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":7,"file_size":4120343,"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":"83","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"153024183154","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 6","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493906237/","id":493906237,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/83/7/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.267225-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.267233-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":75425,"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":"83","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"153024183155","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493906238/","id":493906238,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/83/8/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.279173-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-16T16:12:56.279181-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":413003,"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":"83","attachment_number":8,"pacer_doc_id":"153024183156","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Cover Page","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-14T10:21:23.275067-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T11:35:04.066270-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-14","time_filed":"12:41:50","entry_number":83,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-14.003","pacer_sequence_number":224,"description":"DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF NO. 58) CONCERNING THE AUGUST 10, 2025 DOCUMENT (OSLICK EXHIBIT 9), WITH DISCOVERY SERVED AFTER BRIEFING CLOSED, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Proposed Order, # 8 Cover Page) (mbh) (Entered: 09/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477860828/","id":477860828,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493470889/","id":493470889,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/82/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-14T09:26:44.970380-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T10:21:28.470783-07:00","sha1":"30552644900e66aacc0bdc06c65295fd15e8f2e7","page_count":57,"file_size":652496,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.82.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 1 of 57\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n -----------------------------------------------------------------x\n :\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC., : Civ. A. No. 2:25-cv-06260\n :\n Plaintiff, :\n :\n - against - :\n :\n GOWTHAM RAO, and COREASON, Inc. :\n :\n DefendantDefendants. :\n :\n -----------------------------------------------------------------x\n\n FIRSTSECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT\n\n Plaintiff EPAM Systems, Inc. (\u201cEPAM\u201d or the \u201cCompany\u201d), by and through its\n\nundersigned attorneys, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, as and for its FirstSecond Amended Complaint1\n\nagainst defendantdefendants Gowtham Rao, (\u201cRao\u201d or \u201cDefendant\u201d),\u201d) and CoReason, Inc.\n\n(\u201cCoReason\u201d) alleges as follows:\n\n NATURE OF THE ACTION\n\n 1. EPAM, a leading provider of technology solutions with a business unit dedicated\n\nto the life sciences industry, bringsoriginally brought this action for injunctive relief and damages\n\narising from Rao\u2019s blatant theft of over 44,000 data files, almost all of which contain confidential\n\nand/or trade-secret information relating to EPAM\u2019s life sciences business, along with proprietary\n\n\n\n\n1\n Plaintiff files this First Amended Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(2) as it is being\nfiled within 21 days after service of a responsive pleading by Defendant. This First Amended\nComplaint narrows the claims asserted by Plaintiff in this action, including by withdrawing\n(without prejudice) certain causes of action originally pleaded. The factual allegations underlying\nPlaintiff\u2019s remaining claims are largely unchanged. For the Court\u2019s convenience, a redlined\ncomparison of the original Complaint and this First Amended Complaint is attached hereto as\nExhibit D.\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 2 of 57\n\n\n\n\nsource code developed by EPAM over time at significant expense throughout several software\n\nprojects (collectively \u201cEPAM Confidential Information and IP\u201d).\n\n 2. Specifically, betweenBetween September 11 and October 14, 2025, while planning\n\nhis exit from employment with EPAM, Rao secretly downloaded entire file repositories from\n\nEPAM\u2019s networks containing source code and other intellectual property, along with EPAM\n\nConfidential Information and IP regarding EPAM\u2019s clients and historical account information, RFP\n\ninformation and bid proposals, pricing information, project information (including designs and\n\ndata models), client contract documents, strategic proposals, business pipelines, and P&L and\n\nrelated financial information. Not only were Rao\u2019s actions unauthorized and in violation of\n\nCompany policy, but there can be no business justification for his actions or his personal possession\n\nof this information. Indeed, many of the stolen files relate to historical data, clients, or projects\n\nabout which Rao had no involvement, or are comprised of information that belongs to EPAM\u2019s\n\nclients about which EPAM is contractually obligated to these clients to maintain as confidential.\n\n 3. Before discovering the unauthorized downloads, Rao was terminated for cause on\n\nOctober 15, 2025 after the Company learned of several actions. First, on or about October 12,\n\n2025, the words \u201cCopyright 2025 Gowtham Rao\u201d appeared in software code developed by the\n\nCompany. Second, concerns were raised around the same time that Rao had attempted to\n\npermanently delete various files from EPAM\u2019s SharePoint site. Third, a week earlier, Rao had\n\nfraudulently represented to a longstanding Company client that he was no longer associated with\n\nEPAM, and that he was a \u201cfree agent\u201d in business for himself.\n\n 4. Immediately following Rao\u2019s termination, the Company launched an investigation\n\ninto Rao\u2019s activities on its network, during which the unauthorized download of over 44,000 data\n\nfiles (manythe vast majority of which occurred between October 11 through October 13) came\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 3 of 57\n\n\n\n\nto light. In addition, Rao stole not only the source code to certain software tools owned by EPAM,\n\nbut also source code to tools comprised of intellectual property owned by EPAM\u2019s clients that have\n\nbeen entrusted to EPAM and which EPAM is contractually required to maintain as confidential.\n\nThe investigation also confirmed that Rao had attempted to permanently delete a large number of\n\nEPAM client and project files from EPAM\u2019s servers.\n\n 5. Upon information and belief, Rao purposefully engineered his termination for\n\ncause so that he could compete with EPAM. In the weeks leading up to the discovery of his\n\nmisconduct, Rao expressed unhappiness with his employment and floated the possibility of\n\nvoluntarily resigning from the Company. During these discussions with Company leadership, he\n\nexplored whether EPAM would agree to waive the non-competition covenant in the Employment\n\nCovenants Agreement that he executed on November 12, 2024 as a condition of his employment\n\nwith EPAM (the \u201cAgreement\u201d). When told that the non-compete would not be waived, and because\n\nit could only be triggered by a voluntary resignation, upon information and belief, Rao devised\n\nand embarked on a campaign to compel his termination in an attempt to circumvent the restriction.\n\n 5. Rao\u2019s theft of EPAM\u2019s data files and intellectual property makes clear EPAM has\n\nsince learned that Rao\u2019s massive theft of over 44,000 files was only one part of a far larger\n\nscheme to misappropriate EPAM Confidential Information and IP, particularly relating to\n\nEPAM\u2019s \u201cSynapse\u201d2 technology, so that Rao could unfairly compete against EPAM through\n\nhis pre-planned competing enterprise, CoReason.\n\n 6. Upon information and belief, Rao\u2019s other acts in furtherance of his scheme\u2014\n\nmost of which he undertook while still an EPAM employee who owed EPAM fiduciary\n\n\n2 \u201cSynapse\u201d was a name that EPAM used internally during the software\u2019s development, not\n\na final tradename. Together with MedRag, it forms part of EPAM\u2019s AI Accelerator software\nsolution.\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 4 of 57\n\n\n\n\nduties\u2014have included the following: (a) feeding Synapse\u2019s source code and/or other highly\n\nconfidential information about Synapse into a generative artificial intelligence platform or\n\nmodel, in order to obtain incredibly detailed step-by-step instructions for re-coding Synapse\n\nfrom scratch; (b) \u201crefactoring\u201d Synapse code to improve the technology, but without sharing\n\nthese improvements with the EPAM team\u2014and instead keeping them in reserve to use on\n\nbehalf of CoReason; (c) marketing his version of Synapse (based on stolen EPAM\n\nConfidential Information and IP) to investors, in order to raise money for CoReason; (d)\n\ncontacting at least one high-level EPAM client representative, in order to pitch him on\n\npartnering with him on CoReason; (e) encouraging the same high-level EPAM client\n\nrepresentative to cease ordering Synapse related services from EPAM and instead to order\n\nsuch services through him and CoReason (f) otherwise preparing to launch CoReason,\n\nincluding by having a domain name registered and incorporating the company in Delaware;\n\n(g) purposefully underperforming at EPAM, in order to engineer his own involuntarily\n\ntermination so that, in Rao\u2019s view, he would be free to compete against EPAM; and (h)\n\nimproperly downloading over 44,000 files from EPAM and deleting critical files and folders\n\nabout Synapse from an EPAM storage account, for his and CoReason\u2019s benefit.\n\n 6.7. Rao\u2019s theft of EPAM\u2019s data files and intellectual property, along with the\n\ninformation that hisEPAM has learned since the filing of this action, confirms that Rao\u2019s plan\n\nall along was to immediately compete with EPAM during his employment and after his exit and\n\nleverage the stolen information to aid his efforts. Indeed, immediately followingRao and/or his\n\nexit, he announced on an industry platform, \u201cI am now a competitor for EPAM.\u201dbusiness partner\n\nregistered the domain name for CoReason in September 2025, during his EPAM\n\nemployment, finalized the company\u2019s incorporation in Delaware on October 16, 2025 (one\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 5 of 57\n\n\n\n\nday after his termination), and \u2013 by his own allegation \u2013 had already secured a Statement of\n\nWork from Johnson & Johnson (\u201cJ&J\u201d), an EPAM client, by October 20, 2025 (just five days\n\nafter his termination).\n\n 8. Since hisRao\u2019s departure from EPAM, the Company has Rao and CoReason have\n\nbeen made awarewrongfully competing against EPAM, using stolen EPAM Confidential\n\nInformation and IP.\n\n 7.9. Indeed, in the morning of October 16, 2025, the same day that Rao is in fact\n\nattempting to incorporated CoReason, and a mere one day after his EPAM employment\n\nended, Rao was already soliciting J&J on CoReason\u2019s behalf, representing to J&J that\n\nCoReason was \u201cbuilt to solve\u201d problems, through its \u201ctransparent \u2018glass-box\u2019 platform.\u201d\n\nQuite obviously, Rao did not build CoReason\u2019s \u201c\u2018glass-box\u2019 platform\u201d from scratch in the\n\none-day after his EPAM employment ended. Rather, Rao built CoReason\u2019s platform using\n\nmisappropriated EPAM technology and, within a day of his departure from EPAM, was\n\nalready using that misappropriated technology to wrongfully compete withagainst EPAM.\n\n 10. Rao\u2019s and CoReason\u2019s actions as described herein are in violation of the Defend\n\nTrade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1832, et seq., the Agreement,the Uniform Pennsylvania Trade\n\nSecrets Act, 12 Pa. C.S.A. \u00a7 5301, , et seq., the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1125, et seq., and\n\nalso constitute common law unfair competition, tortious inference, and conversion.\n\n 8.11. Additionally, Rao\u2019s actions as described herein his Employment Covenants\n\nAgreement (the \u201cCovenants Agreement\u201d), the Company\u2019s written policies with respect to the\n\nuse of the Company\u2019s computer equipment and the protection of EPAM Confidential Information\n\nand IP, and his fiduciary obligations to EPAM, among other legal obligations.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 6 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 9.12. By this action, EPAM seeks, among other things, a return and forensic remediation\n\nof all EPAM Confidential Information and IP in Rao\u2019s and CoReason\u2019s possession and control,\n\nan injunction prohibiting him and CoReason from using or disclosing any EPAM Confidential\n\nInformation and IP, an injunction enforcing his post-termination restrictive covenants, and\n\nforfeiture of Rao\u2019s compensation during his period of his disloyal employment, damages\n\nresulting from his willful misconduct.and CoReason\u2019s wrongful acts, punitive damages, and\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees.\n\n 10.13. Absent injunctive relief and specific performance of his contractual obligations,\n\nEPAM faces irreparable injury, including the loss of proprietary information relating to its business\n\nas contained and reflected in the intellectual property and thousands of files purloined by Rao that\n\nEPAM developed over the course of many years, at immense cost.\n\n THE PARTIES\n\n 11.14. EPAM is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in\n\nNewtown, Pennsylvania.\n\n 12.15. Upon information and belief, Rao is a citizen of the State of New Jersey and resides\n\nin Princeton, New Jersey.\n\n 16. Upon information and belief, CoReason is a Delaware corporation with its\n\nprincipal place of business in New Jersey.\n\n JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n 13. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1332 because\n\nthe parties are citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds $150,000.00\n\nexcluding interest and costs.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 7 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 14.17. This Court alsoThis Court has original subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.\n\n\u00a7 1331 because this action involves a claim arising under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016,\n\n18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1832, et seq. and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1125, et seq., and supplemental Formatted: Font: Not\n Italic\njurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367 because all other claims are so related that they form part of\n\nthe same case or controversy.\n\n 15.18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Rao and venue is proper in this District\n\nby reason of his execution of the Covenants Agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto as\n\nExhibit A, in which he consented to the jurisdiction of the state and federal courts located within\n\nthe Eastern District of Pennsylvania. See Covenants Agreement \u00b6 9.\n\n 16.19. Moreover, general and specific jurisdiction exists against Rao based on his contacts\n\nwith the jurisdiction, the fact that he conducts business in Pennsylvania, committed tortious acts\n\nagainst Plaintiff in Pennsylvania, and/or caused harm to Plaintiff in Pennsylvania.\n\n 17.20. Although the Covenants Agreement also contains an agreement to arbitrate,\n\nspecifically excluded from the arbitration provision are any claims seeking injunctive relief in a\n\ncourt of law. See Covenants Agreement at 7.\n\n 21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over CoReason and venue is proper in\n\nthis District because CoReason has committed tortious acts against EPAM in Pennsylvania,\n\nand/or caused harm to Plaintiff in Pennsylvania.\n\n ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS\n\n I. EPAM\u2019s Confidential Information and IP\n\n 18.22. Founded in 1993 as a software engineering company, today EPAM is a leading\n\nglobal provider of digital engineering, cloud and AI-enabled transformation services, and a leading\n\nbusiness and experience consulting partner for global enterprises and startups across a broad\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 8 of 57\n\n\n\n\nspectrum of industries. EPAM\u2019s clients include businesses engaged in life sciences and healthcare,\n\nfinancial services, media and entertainment, and insurance, among many others.\n\n 19.23. The Real-World Evidence (\u201cRWE\u201d) business unit is positioned within EPAM\u2019s life\n\nsciences and healthcare group. RWE refers to clinical evidence about the usage and potential\n\nbenefits or risks of a medical product derived from analysis of real-world data.\n\n 20.24. A core part of EPAM\u2019s business is the sale of digital tools and software solutions\n\nthat EPAM\u2019s employees and engineers have continuously developed and refined over many years\n\nand via significant investments by the Company. Certain of these products are sold as a commercial\n\nlicense to its pharmaceutical and healthcare clients and are thus considered highly proprietary\n\nintellectual property.\n\n 21.25. Among these software tools is what is known as an ETL Conversion Kit. This tool\n\ntook 10 years to develop by EPAM and the businesses it acquired to Extract, Transform and Load\n\n(\u201cETL\u201d) data for medical data standardization. This software is focused on medical data\n\nmanagement\u2014cleaning, harmonizing, and preparing patient medical history data for healthcare\n\ndata analytics purposes, including drug safety, disease, and/or cost and quality of care research.\n\nEPAM offers this solution as a core part of the Company\u2019s services in the RWE market segment,\n\nand it makes the Company uniquely competitive by automating tasks which are often done by\n\nothers manually. The software can be further customized based on a particular client project or a\n\nclient\u2019s specific need.\n\n 22.26. Another software product developed by EPAM is an AI Cohort Generator. This\n\nproduct was developed by EPAM in 2025 utilizing the latest AI technologies. EPAM offers this\n\ninnovative solution as part of a larger healthcare analytics platform, allowing customers to\n\nautomatically generate clinical study designs (patient cohorts, medical codes) from free text, thus\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 9 of 57\n\n\n\n\nsignificantly boosting research team productivity and saving customers significant time and\n\nmoney.\n\n 23.27. A third software product at issue in this case is an AI Accelerator, which includes\n\nSynapse and a solution known as MedRag. This product was also developed by EPAM in 2025\n\nas part of a Company-wide investment and strategy to leverage AI technology. The software is a\n\ndata and decision support platform that serves as the client\u2019s centralized biomedical knowledge\n\nlayer making it easy for non-technical users. It operates as an AI-powered co-reasoning partner\n\nfor teams in the pharmaceutical industry, transforming complex text into verifiable,\n\nevidence-based insights through an auditable, multi-step process.\n\n 24.28. The underlying code to these tools and products are considered confidential and\n\nproprietary, accessible only to EPAM employees who work on the development of these products,\n\nare senior executives with broad access needs, or otherwise have business need for access to such\n\ninformation.\n\n 25.29. The life sciences technology industry, including RWE in particular, is highly\n\ncompetitive. EPAM\u2019s competitors in this regard include a range of prominent global IT consulting\n\nand technology companies with dedicated life sciences practices.\n\n 26.30. To obtain new business, EPAM invests considerable resources cultivating\n\nrelationships with pharmaceutical companies, healthcare organizations, and other life science\n\nconsultants to facilitate consideration for RFP invitations on particular projects.\n\n 27.31. Because competitive pricing is integral to a successful bid, pricing of work or\n\nservices on a particular project is meticulously calculated based upon a number of factors,\n\nincluding EPAM\u2019s use of highly proprietary software solutions and engagement of specialized\n\nexperts, which are incorporated into EPAM\u2019s RFP responses and bid proposals.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 10 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 28.32. And because EPAM\u2019s business is service oriented, the relationships that EPAM has\n\nwith its clients are highly dependent on the attention and service, as well as EPAM\u2019s development\n\nof successful technology solutions and results tailored to each client\u2019s specific needs, which EPAM\n\nprovides to them on an ongoing basis. EPAM\u2019s investment in client service enables those who deal\n\nwith EPAM to develop confidence in the quality of the services offered, and increased recognition\n\nof, and familiarity with, EPAM as a provider of quality and reliable services.\n\n 29.33. Furthermore, because clients also entrust the protection of their businesses and their\n\nconfidential information to EPAM, an essential aspect of EPAM\u2019s business model is to protect its\n\nreputation and goodwill. Customer goodwill is particularly critical in this industry because any\n\ncompromise of a client\u2019s own data and/or intellectual property (IP) could seriously damage its\n\nbusiness operations and EPAM\u2019s reputation.\n\n 30.34. Maintaining client relationships and generating repeat business from clients based\n\non its reputation are critical to EPAM\u2019s success because long-term business relationships with\n\nestablished clients allow EPAM to maintain its competitive advantage and strategic position in the\n\nindustry.\n\n 31.35. To effectively service EPAM\u2019s clients, the Company also compiles data pertaining\n\nto its clients spanning many years. Such client information includes data reflecting prior work done\n\non behalf of particular clients, pricing arrangements, and the identities of individual points of\n\ncontact among clients to facilitate the development of new leads and opportunities.\n\n 32.36. EPAM\u2019s executives and sales representatives, including Rao, who interface directly\n\nwith existing and potential clients, not only are the face of the Company, but they benefit directly\n\nand indirectly from the goodwill, reputation, and name recognition generated by EPAM\u2019s\n\ninvestments in client service and proprietary technology. These individuals consequently are able\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 11 of 57\n\n\n\n\nto forge relationships and cultivate accounts and new business on behalf of EPAM.\n\n 33.37. Given that the Company\u2019s success and reputation in the market is a function of all\n\nof the foregoing considerations, the Company not only treats its software code and developments\n\nin technology as highly proprietary, but also treats its client information, bid proposals, RFP\n\nresponses, pricing information, client contracts, project data, P&L analysis, sales and growth\n\nstrategies, employee compensation data, and other similarly sensitive information as confidential,\n\nproprietary, and/or trade-secret information.\n\n 34.38. The foregoing compilation of information and software code is treated as highly\n\nconfidential and trade secret information by the Company because it would provide a competitor\n\nwith a \u201cplaybook\u201d into how to approach each client, replicate EPAM\u2019s life sciences business by\n\noffering identical solutions, and usurp business from EPAM. Such information could also be used\n\nto undercut pricing, outbid competitive proposals, evaluate service opportunities, and target\n\nspecific clients.\n\n 35.39. In addition, EPAM\u2019s client engagements often result in the creation of customized\n\ncomputer code/intellectual property which is delivered to the client. This code sometimes becomes\n\nthe intellectual property of the client and sometimes is retained as intellectual property of EPAM\n\nbut is licensed to the client. EPAM treats such code as particularly sensitive and confidential, as it\n\nis of significant commercial value to each client and to EPAM. Moreover, EPAM has specific\n\ncontractual obligations to safeguard its clients\u2019 intellectual property. EPAM\u2019s reputation as a\n\nreliable custodian of client confidential information is essential to its business model.\n\n 36.40. EPAM has spent a substantial amount of time and money in developing EPAM\n\nConfidential Information and IP to which the Company\u2019s trusted senior executives have access to\n\nenable them to cultivate client relationships, engage on projects, develop new solutions, and\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 12 of 57\n\n\n\n\nexpand the business on the Company\u2019s behalf.\n\n 37.41. The foregoing EPAM Confidential Information and IP is not generally known to\n\nthe public.\n\n 38.42. The foregoing EPAM Confidential Information and IP would give a competitor who\n\nacquired it an unfair competitive advantage by, among other things: (a) not having to invest the\n\ntime and resources to develop the client relationships, software, or information as the Company\n\nhas done; and (b) allowing the competitor to unfairly compete by, among other things, leveraging\n\ntheir access to or knowledge of such information, including pricing, software source code, and the\n\naforementioned client information.\n\n 39.43. Given the paramount importance of EPAM Confidential Information and IP to\n\nEPAM and its business, EPAM utilizes a number of guardrails to maintain the confidentiality of\n\nEPAM Confidential Information and IP. These measures include: (i) making all employees subject\n\nto a robust set of IT security policies and work instructions, including the Acceptable Use of IT\n\nResources Policy and EPAM\u2019s Code of Conduct; (ii) making employees execute agreements that\n\ncontain confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations as a condition to obtaining access to EPAM\n\nConfidential Information and IP, and in certain instances additional restrictive covenants, such as\n\nnon-competition and non-solicitation provisions; (iii) limiting access to EPAM Confidential\n\nInformation and IP to employees on a need-to-know basis; (iv) storing information on secure\n\nnetworks and password protected devices; (v) requiring all employees to periodically complete\n\ntraining lessons regarding confidentiality obligations and data privacy compliance; (vi) monitoring\n\nemployee access and activity on the Company\u2019s computer systems to detect questionable conduct;\n\nand (viii) requiring employees to return all EPAM Confidential Information and IP upon\n\ntermination of employment.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 13 of 57\n\n\n\n\n II. Rao\u2019s Employment and Agreements with EPAM\n\n 40.44. Rao was employed by EPAM as Managing Principal, Life Sciences Consulting\n\nstarting on or about November 18, 2024 until he was terminated for cause on October 15, 2025.\n\n 41.45. In the role for which he was hired, Rao was responsible for heading the data science\n\nbusiness unit within EPAM\u2019s life sciences group and RWE business unit, including business\n\ndevelopment, revenue generation, portfolio management, and managing the members of the data\n\nscience team.\n\n 42.46. Prior to his employment with EPAM, Rao purportedly had significant experience\n\nworking in the pharmaceutical industry, with an expertise in epidemiology. The Company had\n\nbelieved his connections in the industry might be well-suited for the role.\n\n 43.47. Rao was highly compensated for this position, earning a base salary of $250,000\n\nannually.\n\n 44.48. In consideration for his employment, Rao executed the Covenants Agreement on\n\nNovember 12, 2024. The Covenants Agreement contains various provisions with respect to the\n\nprotection of EPAM\u2019s confidential information and business interests, such as a provision\n\nprohibiting the misuse and disclosure of confidential information and restrictive covenants\n\nprohibiting the solicitation of certain employees and clients of the Company during employment\n\nand for a period of 12 months following termination of employment.\n\n 45.49. With regard to non-disclosure and use restrictions, Section 1(d) of the Covenants\n\nAgreement expressly provides, in relevant part, as follows:\n\n You agree you will: (i) treat all Confidential Information 3 as strictly\n confidential; (ii) not directly or indirectly disclose Confidential Information, or\n\n\n3\n Confidential Information is defined in the Covenants Agreement to include, \u201cwithout limitation,\nall information not generally known to the public, in spoken, printed, electronic, or any other form,\nrelating to the EPAM Group\u2019s business processes, practices, policies, plans, publications, research,\n\n 13\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 14 of 57\n\n\n\n\n allow it to be disclosed in whole or in part, to any entity or person whatsoever\n outside of the direct employ of the EPAM Group4 except as required in the\n performance of your authorized duties (and then, only within the limits and to\n the extent of such duties); and (iii) not access, use, or copy Confidential\n Information or any documents, records, files, media, or other resources\n containing any Confidential Information, or remove any such items from the\n premises or control of the EPAM Group, except as required in the performance\n of your authorized employment (and then, only within the limits and to the\n extent of such duties or consent).\n\n \u2026\n\n You understand and acknowledge these obligations regarding Confidential\n Information continue during and after your employment until such time as such\n Confidential Information becomes public knowledge, except as a result of your\n breach of this Agreement, or by those acting in concert with you.\n\n If/when your employment terminates, you shall immediately return any and all\n Confidential Information and other EPAM Group equipment or information in\n your possession.\n\n 46.50. Separately, the Covenants Agreement makes clear that any work made by Rao in\n\nconnection with or in the course of his employment with the Company is owned by EPAM.\n\nSpecifically, Section 2 of the Covenants Agreement provides, in relevant part:\n\n Ownership of Work Product. Any Confidential Information, design, program,\n product, invention, package, prototype, model, innovation, data, improvement,\n new technique, process, discovery, concept, know how, trade secret, work\n product and original work of authorship, whether or not patentable,\n copyrightable or otherwise legally protectable (individually and collectively,\n \u201cWork\u201d) made, collected, developed, conceived, discovered, learned, or used\n by you in connection with or in the course of your employment, whether during\n\noperations, services, strategies, techniques, contracts, transactions, potential transactions,\nnegotiations, pending negotiations, know-how, trade secrets, computer programs, software,\napplications, design, databases, records, systems, supplier and vendor information, financial\ninformation, accounting information, legal information, marketing, pricing, payroll, staffing\npersonnel, internal controls, security, formula, algorithms, ideas, inventions, patent applications,\noriginal works of authorship, discoveries, experimental processes/results, specifications, and\nclient information of the EPAM Group or any existing or prospective client, supplier, investor,\nor other person or entity that has entrusted information to the EPAM Group in confidence.\u201d\n(emphasis added)\n4\n \u201cEPAM Group\u201d is defined in the Covenants Agreement to include EPAM\u2019s owned affiliates,\nand successors and assigns.\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 15 of 57\n\n\n\n\n or after normal business hours, shall constitute \u201cwork made for hire\u201d as that\n term is defined by the Copyright Act of 1978, as amended from time to time,\n and shall be deemed to have been made or developed by you solely for the\n benefit of your employer within the EPAM Group (\u201cEmployer\u201d) and shall be\n the sole and exclusive property of Employer. In order to effectuate the terms of\n this Agreement and in the event any Work created by or on behalf of you would\n not be deemed to be the sole and exclusive property of Employer, you assign\n and agree to assign to Employer all your rights in and to the Work including,\n without limitation, any trademarks, copyrights, patents, moral rights, and all\n other proprietary interest that you may have in any such Work without\n additional compensation. You shall not during the course of employment or any\n time after, use or (to the extent that the Work constitutes Confidential\n Information) disclose to any other person any such Work, except as expressly\n authorized in writing by Employer.\n\n 51. In simpler terms, the Ownership of Work Product provision prohibited Rao\n\nfrom developing a product (such as a software or other technology) during his employment\n\nwith EPAM, even \u201cafter normal business hours,\u201d and then claiming ownership of it. By\n\nvirtue of the Covenants Agreement, anything that Rao developed, during his employment,\n\nwas EPAM\u2019s property.\n\n 47.52. As an employee of EPAM, Rao was also subject to the Company\u2019s Code of\n\nConduct, which contains express policies regarding EPAM\u2019s culture of confidentiality and\n\ntreatment of confidential information both with respect to EPAM information and third-party\n\ninformation. A copy of the Code of Conduct is attached hereto as Exhibit B.\n\n 48.53. For example, the Code of Conduct emphasizes \u201cOur confidential and proprietary\n\ninformation is a special kind of company asset. It is the non-public information that brings EPAM\n\nvalue. If such information is disclosed, it might harm our business or benefit our competitors. We\n\nprotect our customers\u2019 and business partners\u2019 confidential information the same way.\u201d See Code\n\nof Conduct at 29.\n\n 49.54. Employees are instructed in the Code of Conduct to use Confidential Information\n\nonly if and as authorized, follow non-disclosure agreements, share it securely with permitted\n\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 16 of 57\n\n\n\n\nrecipients, and to not obtain information that is not needed or that the employee shouldn\u2019t have.\n\nId.\n\n 50.55. The Code of Conduct further provides examples of EPAM Confidential\n\nInformation, which includes, among other types of information, business operating strategies and\n\nplans, technical information, pricing information, Company financial data, customer and client\n\nlists, and research and development activities, among others. Id. at 30.\n\n 51.56. The Code of Conduct also instructs employees regarding the acceptable use of\n\ntechnology, and to not use technology to violate non-disclosure agreements, intellectual property\n\nrights, or disclose client names or confidential information. Id. at 32.\n\n 52.57. Rao\u2019s HR Records show that he completed the Code of Conduct training module\n\non November 18, 2024, and was thus aware of the policies contained therein. He also completed\n\nthe Company\u2019s Confidentiality and Social Media course. Rao was thus well-aware of the\n\nCompany\u2019s policies with respect to the need to safeguard EPAM Confidential Information and IP\n\nfrom misuse.\n\n 53.58. As an employee of EPAM, Rao was also subject to the Corporate Governance\n\nPolicy with respect to Acceptable Use of IT Resources (the \u201cIT Resources Policy\u201d). A copy of the\n\nIT Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit C.\n\n 54.59. As stated therein, the purpose of the IT Resources Policy is to establish standards\n\nand obligations for proper use of IT Resources (including, for example, computers, devices,\n\nnetwork communications and information systems) in EPAM\u2019s business activities. See IT\n\nResources Policy at 5.\n\n 55.60. The IT Resources Policy repeats the same confidentiality policies set forth in the\n\nCode of Conduct. Id. at 7.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 17 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 56.61. The IT Resources Policy also provides rules for managing confidential information,\n\nincluding a prohibition against storing confidential data on local workstations or mobile devices.\n\nId. at 15.\n\n 57.62. The IT Resources Policy also requires employees to return all work equipment\n\nwhen departing the Company, including any Company-issued laptops. Id. at 30.\n\n III. Rao\u2019s Work at EPAM and Pattern of Disloyal Conduct\n\n 63. Among the projects that Rao worked on at EPAM was Synapse. EPAM\n\ndescribed Synapse as a \u201cco-reasoning\u201d platform \u2013 meaning that the technology worked by\n\nutilizing multiple artificial intelligence \u201cagents\u201d to analyze a problem simultaneously, using\n\ndifferent perspectives. Synapse\u2019s principal market was identified from the start as life\n\nsciences and, specifically, the pharmaceutical industry.\n\n 64. At one point during his work on Synapse, Rao mentioned to another EPAM\n\nemployee, Dmitrii Ilin, that he was working on \u201crefactoring\u201d (i.e., reorganizing and\n\nimproving the code without changing what it does) the Synapse source code in order to\n\nimprove its design and to add features. But, when Mr. Ilin asked Rao to provide his\n\n\u201crefactored\u201d code, Rao failed to supply it or share it with his EPAM team members.\n\n 65. Instead, upon information and belief, Rao misappropriated this \u201crefactored\u201d\n\ncode, along with other Synapse code, and incorporated it into a competing Synapse-like\n\nsoftware product that he began developing during his EPAM employment.\n\n 66. Upon information and belief, on or about August 10, 2025,5 Rao imputed trade\n\nsecrets and/or highly Confidential Information (including the source code directly and/or\n\nhighly sensitive architecture documents used in the development of Synapse), into a\n\n\n5 The date is based on the metadata associated with this document.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 18 of 57\n\n\n\n\ngenerative AI platform or model, in order to obtain incredibly detailed \u201cstep-by-step plan\u201d\n\nfrom the generative AI platform or model for how to code a Synapse-like software product\n\nfrom scratch, based on a version of Synapse then in development at EPAM.6 (See ECF #58-\n\n12 for a heavily redacted copy of this document. The original, unredacted version contains\n\nEPAM trade secrets and other confidential information, and cannot be made publicly\n\navailable).\n\n 67. Rao had no legitimate business reason to use an AI platform or model to obtain\n\nstep-by-step instructions for recoding a Synapse-like software product. EPAM already had\n\nthe Synapse source code. It did not need AI-generated instructions explaining how it could\n\nrecreate what it already had. Upon information and belief, Rao\u2019s only reason for having an\n\nAI platform or model generate a \u201cstep-by-step plan\u201d for re-coding Synapse would be if he\n\nwanted to create a Synapse competitor, using ostensibly new code. For example, Rao could\n\nuse the instructions to create a Synapse copy that maintained the same features and functions\n\nas Synapse, but with different underlying file names and metadata, so that he could disguise\n\nthe copy\u2019s reliance on misappropriated Synapse data, making it more difficult to determine\n\nthe origin of his competing product.\n\n 68. Upon information and belief, Rao also created other incredibly detailed\n\ndocuments relating to EPAM\u2019s Synapse software solution, likely by feeding EPAM\n\nConfidential Information into generative AI platforms. These documents described the\n\n\n6 The current version of Synapse is somewhat different, as Synapse has continued to undergo\n\ndevelopment. The specific version of Synapse depicted in this document incorporates some\nfeatures that Rao sought to include in Synapse, which EPAM ultimately decided not to\ninclude (or, at least, have not yet included) as the development proceeded. However, the\ndocument would still enable someone with coding expertise to recreate, from scratch, a\nsoftware solution substantially similar in its foundational architecture, principal\ncomponents, and core functionality to Synapse as it exists today.\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 19 of 57\n\n\n\n\ninternal architecture of various versions and/or proposals for its Synapse software solution.\n\nRao had no legitimate business reason to create any of these documents. He created them so\n\nthat he could better develop his Synapse-competitor, using Confidential Information and IP\n\nstolen from EPAM.\n\n 69. By mid-September 2025, while still an EPAM employee, Rao was already taking\n\nconcrete steps to form an EPAM competitor, which would market and license the Synapse\n\ncompetitor technology that Rao developed based on the refactored or otherwise stolen\n\nSynapse code.\n\n 70. On or about September 16, 2025, Rao attended a business development\n\nmeeting on EPAM\u2019s behalf. During the meeting, Rao represented in his Interrogatory\n\nResponses that he was presented with the \u201cquestion why I was not doing such work\n\nindependently myself.\u201d (See Resp. to Interrog. No. 7.) According to Rao, that question\n\nformed the \u201cinitial seed of what later became CoReason.\u201d (Id.) In other words, CoReason\n\nbegan as a means of coverting an EPAM business development opportunity into Rao\u2019s\n\nprivate, personal business development opportunity.\n\n 71. Upon information and belief, as reflected in a document discovered on Rao\u2019s\n\npersonal Google Drive account, dated September 18, 2025, Rao represented, while still\n\nemployed at EPAM, in sum or substance, the following to a high-level executive (\u201cExecutive\n\n#1\u201d7) at an EPAM client: (a) Rao intended to start a separate company, in order to\n\n\u201cseamlessly transition the work he is currently doing\u201d at EPAM \u201cto his own independent\n\n\n\n7 In an abundance of caution, EPAM redacted the names of the non-parties identified in the\n\ndocuments. While the only credible explanation is that these documents are summaries of\nRao\u2019s conversations with non-parties, EPAM cannot know without further discovery if every\nword in the summaries are accurate.\n\n\n 19\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 20 of 57\n\n\n\n\ncompany\u201d; (b) Rao \u201cbuilt\u201d technology that was \u201cout of this world\u201d and \u201cbest in class,\u201d\n\nspecifically targeting \u201cevery pharma company\u201d as potential customers (notably,\n\npharmaceutical companies are the exact intended market for Synapse); (c) Rao had already\n\nlocated private investors, whom he was meeting with that night to discuss potential\n\ninvestments in his venture; (d) Rao would complete the development of the software by using\n\noffshore developers that he knew in India. (A redacted version is available at ECF #58-9.)\n\n 72. In response to Rao\u2019s proposal, Executive #1 committed to providing Rao\u2019s new\n\ncompany with half-a-million in work over the next five to six months.\n\n 73. Rao was well-aware that these discussions breached his on-going fiduciary\n\nduty of loyalty to EPAM in addition to multiple of the covenants in his Covenants Agreement,\n\nincluding for example IP assignment and non-solicitation restrictions. In fact, Rao and\n\nExecutive #1 specifically discussed the need for \u201cabsolute confidentiality\u201d because Rao was\n\n\u201cstill employed by EPAM.\u201d\n\n 74. On September 18, 2025, Rao and/or his CoReason business partner registered\n\nthe internet domain name coreason.ai, using a private domain registration service to avoid\n\nhaving the public WhoIs database identify the domain name\u2019s owner. During his discussion\n\nwith Executive #1, which happened the same day that this domain name was registered, Rao\n\nspecifically identified \u201ccoreason.ai\u201d as the domain name that his new company would use.\n\n 75. On September 21, 2025, during a conversation with a different individual\n\n(\u201cExecutive #2\u201d), a summary of which was also discovered on Rao\u2019s personal Google Drive\n\naccount, Rao made his plan explicit. (See ECF #58-10, for a redacted version of his\n\ndocument.) He would launch an EPAM competitor based on work (i.e. Synapse) he originally\n\nperformed for EPAM. But he would try to \u201ccircumvent\u201d intellectual property issues by not\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 21 of 57\n\n\n\n\nusing the \u201cspecific code\u201d he developed for EPAM, and instead rebuilding the system (i.e.\n\nSynapse) from scratch. As Rao put it, \"I'm not going to use the same code. It's the concept.\n\nI'm going to write my own code... it's rebuilt.\" And Rao had the misappropriated means to\n\nfollow through on this plan: he had already obtained an AI-generated \u201cstep-by-step\u201d plan for\n\ncoding Synapse from scratch, making it easy for him ostensibly to \u201cwrite [his] own code\u201d in\n\norder to create a Synapse-like product.\n\n 76. Upon information and belief, Rao engaged in numerous other acts of disloyalty\n\nduring his EPAM employment.\n\n III.IV. Rao\u2019s Exit from EPAM\n\n 58.77. During his tenure with EPAM, Rao failed to consistently fulfill the expectations of\n\nhis position. In particular, he failed to build revenue and exhibited poor managerial capabilities;\n\nteam members cited his lack of leadership and unwillingness to engage in their professional\n\ndevelopment.\n\n 78. In light of theseRao\u2019s failure to meet EPAM\u2019s performance expectations were\n\nnot because he was unable to perform. It was because he purposefully chose to\n\nunderperform, intending to get fired so that he could evade his non-compete, and begin\n\nunfairly competing against EPAM. Rao laid out his strategy during a conversation with\n\nanother individual (\u201cExecutive #3\u201d) on or about September 21, 2025, a summary of which\n\nwas also discovered on Rao\u2019s personal Google Drive account. (A redacted version of this\n\ndocument is available at ECF #58-11.) In brief, Rao explained how he would remain an\n\nEPAM employee while working \u201cin the shadows\u201d on developing his EPAM competitor.\n\nDuring his EPAM employment, he would be \"slowly weaning, being less responsive,\u201d until\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 22 of 57\n\n\n\n\nhe caused EPAM to \u201cput him on a \"performance improvement plan, or some crap like that.\u201d\n\nHe could then negotiate an exit that would \u201cnullify his non-compete clause.\u201d\n\n 79. Rao alluded to this plan during his conversation with Executive #1 on or about\n\nSeptember 18, 2025. As Rao explained, he believed once EPAM involuntarily terminated\n\nhim, he would be a \u201cfree agent,\u201d who would be able to \u201cwalk with all the intelligence\u201d he\n\ndeveloped for EPAM, which he could then immediately use to compete against EPAM.\n\n 59.80. In any event, in light of Rao\u2019s significant performance issues, in September 2025,\n\nthe Company made the decision to transition Rao to a different role in which he would be\n\nresponsible for developing EPAM\u2019s AI capabilities with regard to certain solutions for specific\n\nclients. No decision had been made to exit Rao from EPAM employment, and EPAM leadership\n\nmade this quite clear to him on several occasions.\n\n 60.81. Rao appearedclaimed to take offense to both the negative performance evaluations\n\nand the change to his role.\n\n 61. Despite being assured that there was no intention to terminate him, Rao sent a\n\nnumber of messages on Microsoft Teams expressing concern about the state of his employment\n\nwith EPAM and his continued ability to access messages as if he were about to be terminated.\n\n 62. On Monday, September 29, 2025, Rao shared his personal number and encouraged\n\nteam members to communicate directly with him via WhatsApp and thereafter set his status as\n\n\u201coffline\u201d on EPAM\u2019s internal Microsoft Teams platform indicating to EPAM employees that he\n\nwas unavailable. However, he continued to communicate with some EPAM employees through an\n\nexternal Microsoft Teams platform referred to as \u201cOHDSI\u2019s Teams Tenant.\u201d\n\n 63.82. In late September, Rao also began exploringfloated the concept with EPAM hisof\n\nresignation via a mutually agreeable separation. As part of those discussions, Rao asked EPAM\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 23 of 57\n\n\n\n\nleadership whether EPAMit would agree to waive the post-employment non-solicitation and non-\n\ncompetition restrictions in the Covenants Agreement.\n\n 64.83. EPAM responded that it would not waive the restrictive covenants and again\n\nreiterated that EPAM was not terminating him, and that his decision to leave was entirely his\n\nchoice. Rao then appeared to abandon discussions about a resignation.\n\n 65.84. During the week of October 6 through October 9, 2025, Rao attended a professional\n\nindustry conference in New Jersey as a representative of EPAM. At the conference, an EPAM RWE\n\nemployee learned that Rao had approached at least one major EPAM client and falsely conveyed\n\nthat he was no longer working at EPAM. Rao stated that he was a \u201cfree agent,\u201d suggesting that he\n\nwas in business for himself.\n\n 66.85. Rao\u2019s statements to the client were patently untrue; he was still employed with\n\nEPAM and the Company had no plans at that time to terminate his employment.\n\n 67.86. On or about October 14, 2025, the Company found the phrase \u201cCopyright 2025\n\nGowtham Rao\u201d embedded in the software code for one of EPAM\u2019s tools it had been developing\n\nand to which Rao had access via GitLab (a software code repository).8\n\n 68.87. The project team also raised concerns that Rao had attempted to deletedeleted\n\nvarious files from an EPAM SharePoint site (including by attempting to make them permanently\n\nunavailable by clearing the recovery folder).\n\n 69.88. The sum total of Rao\u2019s conduct and the attendant circumstances compelled EPAM\n\nto terminate his employment, effective October 15, 2025. Rao\u2019s access to his EPAM email account\n\nand the Company\u2019s networks were also suspended that same day.\n\n\n8 As EPAM later learned, after Rao\u2019s termination, the attachment of the phrase \u201cCopyright\n\n2025 Gowtham Rao\u201d may not have been intentional. It nevertheless recounts this incident\nbecause it was one of the reasons for Rao\u2019s termination.\n\n\n 23\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 24 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 70.89. Upon information and belief, Rao purposefully orchestrated a for causehis\n\ntermination from the Company in an effort to evade the non-competition restriction in the\n\nCovenants Agreement.\n\n 71.90. In fact, when he was advised of his termination, Rao specifically questioned\n\nwhether the termination was for cause and whether the non-competition provision would be\n\nenforced.\n\n 72.91. During that same discussion, Rao was advised to return his Company-issued\n\ncomputer, but the Company did not receive it until October 31, 2025.\n\n IV.V. Rao\u2019s Unauthorized Transmission of EPAM Files and Source Code to His\n Personal Devices and Other Misconduct\n\n 73.92. Given Rao\u2019s misconduct and unethical actions resulting in his termination, the\n\nCompany took immediate steps to investigate its computer network for evidence of any further\n\nmisconduct, including other instances of data alteration or exfiltration by Rao.\n\n 74.93. The Company\u2019s information security team (the \u201cInfoSec Team\u201d) discovered that\n\nbetween September 11, 2025 (around the same time when EPAM advised Rao of a change to his\n\nrole) through October 14, 2025, Rao downloaded approximately 44,960 documents and data files\n\nfrom the Company\u2019s networks to one or more personal external devices, without the Company\u2019s\n\nauthorization.\n\n 75.94. A large volume of these downloads occurred between October 11 and October 13,\n\n2025, after Rao had taken several affirmative steps to start CoReason, and just days before\n\nhis termination.\n\n 76.95. Among the documents accessed and downloaded by Rao were software code bases\n\nfor a number of EPAM\u2019s digital tools and products, including proprietary source code to EPAM\u2019s\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 25 of 57\n\n\n\n\nETL Conversion Kit, AI Cohort Generator, and Synapse/AI Accelerator. Some of the downloaded\n\nsource code also included custom built or customized software built by EPAM for clients.\n\n 77.96. In addition to purloining EPAM\u2019s proprietary intellectual property, Rao also\n\ndownloaded entire data folders relating to EPAM\u2019s clients, client account information, RFP\n\nresponses and bid proposals, pricing documentation, client facing project information, including\n\ndesigns and data models, contract documents, CRM data, and P&L data, among other highly\n\nconfidential and sensitive information.\n\n 78.97. Not only were Rao\u2019s actions unauthorized and in violation of Company policy, but\n\nthere could be no business justification for his personal possession of this information or use of\n\nthis information on a personal device given that many of the stolen files relate to historical data,\n\nclients, or projects about which Rao was not involved or had no need for in his work with EPAM,\n\nor are comprised of information that belong to EPAM\u2019s clients.\n\n 79. Upon information and belief, Rao intends to leverage the information contained in\n\nall of the foregoing purloined documents and other EPAM Confidential Information and IP to\n\ncompete with EPAM.\n\n 80. Indeed, Rao began competing with EPAM immediately after his separation from\n\nEPAM. On October 16, 2025, the day after his termination, Rao declared on an external Teams\n\nenvironment, \u201cIn full disclosure I am now a competitor for EPAM.\u201d\n\n 81.98. Separate from the data exfiltration, the InfoSec team also confirmed earlier reports\n\nfrom the relevant project team that on October 13, 2025, Rao had deleted (and attempted to\n\npermanently delete files in) over 60 EPAM client and project folders and files from EPAM\u2019s\n\nSharePoint network, several of which related to Synapse.\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 26 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 82.99. The InfoSec team also identified over a dozen outbound emails from Rao\u2019s EPAM\n\nemail account to a personal email account between September 20, 2025 through October 3, 2025,\n\neither forwarding or attaching various documents that appear to be related to Rao\u2019s obligations to\n\nthe Company.\n\n 100. As EPAM has now learned, Rao was also using his personal accounts to move\n\nEPAM documents. For instance, on September 21, 2025, Raosent EPAM\u2019s \u201cSales Battle\n\nCard\u201d for Synapse (and the related MedRag program) to a nondescript personal email\n\naddress\u2014subscriptionrao@gmail.com. (A redacted version of this document is available at\n\nECF #58-16.) The \u201cSales Battle Card\u201d set forth a marketing strategy for Synapse. (Id.)\n\n 83.101. In addition to investigating its computer networks, the Company also\n\ninvestigated Rao\u2019s misuse of resources during his employment at EPAM. For example, Rao had\n\nimproperly staffed an employee to work on a personal website for Rao and had requested that\n\nanother employee ghost write a blog for Rao\u2019s personal website on Rao\u2019s behalf.\n\n V.VI. Irreparable Harm to EPAM Without Injunctive Relief\n\n 102. Rao immediately began using the EPAM Confidential Information and IP that\n\nhe pilfered to compete with EPAM. Indeed, given the timing of Rao\u2019s admitted competitive\n\nactivities, it appears likely that Rao was already actively marking his Synapse competitor to\n\nclients even before his termination.\n\n 103. As noted above, Rao registered the domain name \u201ccoreason.ai\u201d on September\n\n18, 2025.\n\n 104. On October 16, 2025, the day after his termination, Rao declared on an\n\nexternal communication platform, \u201cIn full disclosure I am now a competitor for EPAM.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 27 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 105. Also on October 16, 2025, the day after his termination, Rao incorporated\n\nCoReason in Delaware, apparently through Ammar Shalall, who became his colleague at\n\nCoReason. It is utterly implausible that Rao managed to create and finalize corporate\n\nincorporation documents in a single day.\n\n 106. Further on October 16, 2025, again, just one day after his termination, Rao was\n\nalready soliciting J&J, an EPAM client, on CoReason\u2019s behalf. During this solicitation, Rao\n\nrepresented to J&J that CoReason possessed a \u201ctransparent \u2018glass-box\u2019 platform\u201d that could\n\nsolve J&J\u2019s problems. Quite obviously, Rao did not build CoReason\u2019s \u201c\u2018glass-box\u2019 platform\u201d\n\nfrom scratch in the one-day after his EPAM employment ended. Rather, Rao built\n\nCoReason\u2019s platform using misappropriated EPAM technology and, within a day of his\n\ndeparture from EPAM, was already using that misappropriated technology to wrongfully\n\ncompete against EPAM.\n\n 107. By October 17, 2025, two days after his termination, Rao and Shallal were\n\nmeeting with Johnson & Johnson, in an effort to secure business for CoReason. (See ECF\n\n#33-9 at 3-5.)\n\n 108. By October 20, 2025, five days after his termination, Rao had prepared a\n\nStatement of Work with CoReason\u2019s \u201cStandard Terms and Conditions.\u201d Once again, it is\n\nimplausible that Rao managed to perform all these functions in the mere few days after his\n\nEPAM employment ended. Further, Rao\u2019s solicitation to Johnson & Johnson was in direct\n\nviolation of his non-solicitation obligations contained in his Covenants Agreement, regardless\n\nof whether the conduct was during or after employment.\n\n 109. Rao\u2019s ability to actively market products and services on CoReason\u2019s behalf,\n\njust days after his EPAM employment ended, only further augments that Rao and CoReason\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 28 of 57\n\n\n\n\nwere relying on EPAM Confidential Information and IP that Rao pilfered from EPAM,\n\nand/or work that Rao created or contributed to during his EPAM employment (and which\n\nbelongs to EPAM as a result of the Ownership of Work Product provisions in Rao\u2019s\n\nCovenants Agreement). That includes software code that Rao ostensibly coded from\n\n\u201cscratch,\u201d using the step-by-step instructions for recording Synapse that he obtained by\n\nfeeding EPAM Confidential Information and IP into a generative AI program.\n\n 110. Rao also created a professional website for CoReason. (See ECF #58-23; see\n\nalso www.coreason.ai) The CoReason website reflects that it is not a one-man shop, but a\n\nsophisticated and extremely well-funded company \u2013 which had and/or has two \u201cSenior\n\nStrategic Advisor[s],\u201d a \u201cData Officer,\u201d a \u201cLegal Advisor,\u201d a \u201cFounding Investor\u201d (Shallal),\n\nand a \u201cClinical Advisor.\u201d\n\n 111. The CoReason website explains what CoReason\u2019s product does, including its\n\nfunction and capabilities. CoReason\u2019s own description on the prior version of its website,\n\nincluding the use of \u201c[p]arallel agents\u201d to analyze a problem (See ECF #58-23 at 7),9 reflects\n\nthat CoReason is essentially a copycat of EPAM\u2019s Synapse. Further, upon information and\n\nbelief, to the extent that CoReason\u2019s specific features are different, those different features\n\nreflect proposals that Rao made, as an EPAM employee, to EPAM\u2019s Synapse team.\n\nRegardless of whether EPAM elected to include all of these proposals in the current version\n\nof EPAM\u2019s Synapse, Rao\u2019s work on those proposals, by virtue of the Ownership of Work\n\nProduct provision, is EPAM property.\n\n\n\n\n9 In the midst of this litigation, CoReason recently revised its website, but still appears to be\n\nmarketing the same software solution.\n\n\n 28\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 29 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 112. Upon information and belief, Rao has also misappropriated other EPAM\n\nConfidential Information and IP, and, together with CoReason, is misusing them on\n\nCoReason\u2019s behalf.\n\n 113. For example, through the parties\u2019 forensic protocol, EPAM identified a\n\n\u201cCoReason Stakeholder Communication Toolkit\u201d on Rao\u2019s personal Google Drive. The 274\n\npage document appears to set out CoReason\u2019s comprehensive business plan. Included within\n\nthis business plan are six \u201cStrategic Recipes\u201d that appear to be misappropriated, in large\n\npart, from six EPAM \u201cRecipes\u201d that existed on an EPAM Sharepoint folder during Rao\u2019s\n\nemployment. All six of CoReason\u2019s \u201cStrategic Recipes\u201d contain the same names and, with\n\nsome differences in wording, the same material information as the EPAM \u201cRecipies.\u201d\n\n 114. Indeed, even CoReason\u2019s corporate name appears to have been taken from\n\nEPAM, as EPAM materials from July 2025 specifically describe Synapse as \u201cYour AI Co-\n\nReasoning Partner,\u201d and one of EPAM\u2019s Recipies sets forth the \u201cingredients\u201d for \u201cProtocol\n\nCo-Reasoning.\u201d\n\n VII. Irreparable Harm to EPAM Without Injunctive Relief\n\n 84.115. EPAM Confidential Information and IP is the lifeblood of EPAM\u2019s business.\n\n 85.116. Anyone with unauthorized access to EPAM Confidential Information and\n\nIP could exploit such information to replicate EPAM\u2019s business and intellectual property, usurp\n\nbusiness opportunities, or leverage such information to destroy EPAM\u2019s competitive advantage or\n\nreputation in the marketplace.\n\n 86.117. Due to Rao\u2019s misconduct, EPAM stands to lose an incalculable amount of\n\ndollars in business and the loss of value of its trade secrets, and confidential and proprietary\n\ninformation, as well as its reputation with its clients.\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 30 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 87.118. Rao\u2019s misconduct is particularly willful and egregious in that he was a\n\nsenior employee of EPAM\u2019s life science business who understands the importance of protecting\n\nCompany property and its data.\n\n 88.119. All told, Rao is causing, threatening, and/or will continue to cause or\n\nthreaten significant irreparable harm to EPAM, including the loss of value of confidential and/or\n\ntrade secret information, the loss of long-standing client relationships, damage to reputation, and\n\nloss of goodwill, unless injunctive relief is obtained.\n\n 120. Indeed, Rao and CoReason are now directly competing against EPAM, using\n\nConfidential Information and IP that Rao misappropriated from EPAM.\n\n AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST RAO AND COREASON)\n (Actual and/or Threatened Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1832)\n\n 89.121. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 90.122. By virtue of his employment at EPAM and performance of responsibilities\n\nfor EPAM, Rao was given access to and possessed trade secrets and confidential and proprietary\n\ninformation of EPAM, to wit, the EPAM Confidential Information and IP.\n\n 123. Rao also developed EPAM Confidential Information and IP by virtue of his\n\nemployment with EPAM, and EPAM owned all property rights to what Rao developed\n\nduring his employment, pursuant to the Ownership of Work Product provision in Rao\u2019s\n\nCovenants Agreement.\n\n 91.124. The EPAM Confidential Information and IP was developed by EPAM at\n\ngreat time and expense to EPAM, and is maintained on password-protected computer networks\n\naccessible only by EPAM authorized personnel at an executive level, or otherwise with need to\n\nuse information on EPAM\u2019s behalf or in furtherance of EPAM\u2019s business interests.\n\n\n\n 30\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 31 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 92.125. EPAM derives independent economic value from the EPAM Confidential\n\nInformation and IP entrusted to Rao by EPAM; such information is not generally known or readily\n\nascertainable by proper means by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure\n\nand use, and the information is the subject of significant efforts to maintain its secrecy.\n\n 93.126. Such information is considered a trade secret under the federal Defend\n\nTrade Secrets Act of 2016 (\u201cDTSA\u201d), 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1832 et seq., because EPAM derives\n\nindependent economic value from this information not being generally known to the public, the\n\ninformation is not readily ascertainable by proper means by persons who could obtain economic\n\nvalue from its disclosure or use, and the information is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain\n\nits secrecy. 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1839.\n\n 94.127. Rao acquired EPAM\u2019s trade secrets by improper means, including by\n\nsurreptitiously downloading without authorization thousands of data files\u2014including the software\n\ncode to its ETL Conversion Kit, AI Cohort Generator, and Synapse/AI Accelerator, and other\n\nEPAM Confidential Information and IP\u2014to a personal external device outside of EPAM\u2019s network\n\nand control, in the days leading up to his planned termination from EPAM, and furthermore by not\n\nreturning or disclosing to EPAM his possession of the Confidential Information and IP after his\n\ntermination.\n\n 95.128. At the time Rao transmitted EPAM Confidential Information and IP to his\n\npersonal device, Rao knew, or had reason to know, that he had a duty to maintain its secrecy or\n\nlimit its use.\n\n 96.129. By his actions, Rao has used and disclosed, intends to use and disclose\n\nand/or threatens to use or disclose EPAM\u2019s trade secrets without express or implied consent.\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 32 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 97.130. Rao knew or should have known that such information, including the EPAM\n\nConfidential Information and IP: (1) is confidential; (2) was acquired under circumstances giving\n\nrise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; (3) was developed or acquired by EPAM at\n\ngreat expense and effort; (4) was maintained as confidential and is not generally available to the\n\npublic and EPAM\u2019s competitors; (5) would provide significant benefit to a competitor competing\n\nor seeking to compete with EPAM; and (6) is critical to EPAM\u2019s ability to conduct its business\n\nsuccessfully.\n\n 98.131. Rao has misappropriated, exploited, misused, and/or disclosed or threatened\n\nto disclose EPAM\u2019s trade secrets for his own self-interest and benefit, and without EPAM\u2019s express\n\nor implied consent.\n\n 132. Among the ways that Rao has misappropriated EPAM Confidential\n\nInformation and IP, including trade secrets, has been by disclosing such materials to\n\nCoReason. Because Rao owns and controls CoReason, Rao\u2019s knowledge must be imputed to\n\nCoReason. Thus, CoReason knew or should have known that the materials contained EPAM\n\nConfidential Information and IP, including trade secrets.\n\n 133. Rao and CoReason are now actively marking and seeking to sell, including to\n\ncurrent and potential EPAM clients, a competitor to EPAM\u2019s Synapse product. This Synapse\n\ncompetitor is built on EPAM Confidential Information and IP, including trade secrets, that\n\nRao misappropriated from EPAM, and then disclosed to CoReason.\n\n 134. Indeed, as reflected in the documents that EPAM has discovered, Rao created\n\nhis Synapse competitor by taking EPAM\u2019s trade secrets (i.e., highly confidential Synapse\n\nfiles, including the Synapse source code and/or highly sensitive architectural documents used\n\nin the creation of Synapse), and feeding these materials into a generative AI platform or\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 33 of 57\n\n\n\n\nmodel which, in turn, then created a \u201cstep-by-step\u201d plan that Rao followed for recoding\n\nSynapse from scratch. Thus, CoReason\u2019s product depends on, and derives from, EPAM\u2019s\n\ntrade secrets.\n\n 99.135. Rao and CoReason will be or isare being unjustly enriched by the\n\nmisappropriation of EPAM Confidential Information and IP and, unless restrained, will continue\n\nto threaten to use, actually use, divulge, inevitably disclose, acquire and/or otherwise\n\nmisappropriate EPAM Confidential Information and IP.\n\n 100.136. As a result of Rao\u2019s and CoReason\u2019s wrongdoing, EPAM has suffered and\n\ncontinues to suffer the substantial and irreparable loss of its trade secrets, goodwill, and business\n\nexpectancies in amounts which may be impossible to determine unless Rao is enjoined and\n\nrestrained by order of the Court.\n\n 101.137. In addition, EPAM seeks actual, incidental, compensatory, punitive and\n\nconsequential damages, along with reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs in an amount to be\n\ndetermined at trial.\n\n AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST RAO AND COREASON)\n(Actual and/or Threatened Misappropriation of Trade Secrets in Violation of the Uniform\n Pennsylvania Trade Secrets Act, 12 Pa. C.S.A. \u00a7 5301, et seq.)\n\n 102.138. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 103.139. By virtue of his employment at EPAM and performance of responsibilities\n\nfor EPAM, Rao was given access to and possessed trade secrets and confidential and proprietary\n\ninformation of EPAM, to wit, the EPAM Confidential Information and IP.\n\n 140. Rao also developed EPAM Confidential Information and IP by virtue of his\n\nemployment with EPAM, and EPAM owned all property rights to what Rao developed\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 34 of 57\n\n\n\n\nduring his employment, pursuant to the Ownership of Work Product provision in Rao\u2019s\n\nCovenants Agreement.\n\n 104.141. The EPAM Confidential Information and IP was developed by EPAM at\n\ngreat time, cost, and expense to EPAM, and is maintained on password -protected computer\n\nnetworks accessible only by EPAM authorized personnel at an executive level, or otherwise with\n\nneed to use information on EPAM\u2019s behalf or in furtherance of EPAM\u2019s business interests.\n\n 105.142. EPAM derives independent economic value from the EPAM Confidential\n\nInformation and IP entrusted to Rao by EPAM; such information is not generally known or readily\n\nascertainable by proper means by other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure\n\nand use, and the information is the subject of significant efforts to maintain its secrecy.\n\n 106.143. Such information is considered a trade secret under the Pennsylvania\n\nUniform Trade Secrets Act, 12 Pa. C.S.A. \u00a7\u00a7 5301-5308 (the \u201cPUTSA\u201d), because EPAM derives\n\nindependent economic value from this information not being generally known to the public, the\n\ninformation is not readily ascertainable by proper means by persons who could obtain economic\n\nvalue from its disclosure or use, and the information is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain\n\nits secrecy. 12 Pa. C.S.A. \u00a7 5302.\n\n 107.144. Rao acquired EPAM\u2019s trade secrets by improper means, including by\n\nsurreptitiously downloading without authorization thousands of data files\u2014including the software\n\ncode to its ETL Conversion Kit, AI Cohort Generator, and Synapse/AI Accelerator, and other\n\nEPAM Confidential Information and IP\u2014to a personal external device outside of EPAM\u2019s network\n\nand control, in the days leading up to his anticipatedplanned termination from EPAM, and\n\nfurthermore by not returning or disclosing to EPAM his possession of the Confidential\n\nInformation and IP after his termination.\n\n\n\n\n 34\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 35 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 108.145. At the time Rao transmitted EPAM Confidential Information and IP to his\n\npersonal device, Rao knew, or had reason to know, that he had a duty to maintain its secrecy or\n\nlimit its use, and furthermore to return the Confidential Information and IP after his termination..\n\n 109.146. By his actions, Rao has used and disclosed, intends to use and disclose\n\nand/or threatens to use or disclose EPAM\u2019s trade secrets without express or implied consent.\n\n 110.147. Rao knew or should have known that such information, including the EPAM\n\nConfidential Information and IP: (1) is confidential; (2) was acquired under circumstances giving\n\nrise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; (3) was developed or acquired by EPAM at\n\ngreat expense and effort; (4) was maintained as confidential and is not generally available to the\n\npublic and EPAM\u2019s competitors; (5) would provide significant benefit to a competitor competing\n\nor seeking to compete with EPAM; and (6) is critical to EPAM\u2019s ability to conduct its business\n\nsuccessfully.\n\n 111.148. Rao has misappropriated, exploited, misused, and/or disclosed or threatened\n\nto disclose EPAM\u2019s trade secrets for his own self-interest and benefit, and without EPAM\u2019s express\n\nor implied consent.\n\n 149. Rao will be or isAmong the ways that Rao has misappropriated EPAM\n\nConfidential Information and IP, including trade secrets, has been by disclosing such\n\nmaterials to CoReason. Because CoReason is owned and controlled by Rao, CoReason knew\n\nor should have known that the materials contained EPAM Confidential Information and IP,\n\nincluding trade secrets.\n\n 150. Rao and CoReason are now actively marking and seeking to license, including\n\nto current and potential EPAM clients, a competitor to EPAM\u2019s Synapse product. This\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 36 of 57\n\n\n\n\nSynapse competitor is built on EPAM Confidential Information and IP, including trade\n\nsecrets, that Rao misappropriated from EPAM, and then disclosed to CoReason.\n\n 151. Indeed, as reflected in the documents that EPAM has discovered, Rao created\n\nhis Synapse competitor by taking EPAM\u2019s trade secrets (i.e., highly confidential Synapse\n\nfiles, including the Synapse source code and/or highly sensitive architectural documents used\n\nin the creation of Synapse), and feeding these materials into a generative AI platform or\n\nmodel which, in turn, then created a \u201cstep-by-step\u201d plan that Rao followed for recoding\n\nSynapse from scratch. Thus, CoReason\u2019s product depends on, and derives from, EPAM\u2019s\n\ntrade secrets.\n\n 112.152. Rao and CoReason will be or are being unjustly enriched by the\n\nmisappropriation of EPAM Confidential Information and IP and, unless restrained, will continue\n\nto threaten to use, actually use, divulge, inevitably disclose, acquire and/or otherwise\n\nmisappropriate EPAM Confidential Information and IP.\n\n 113.153. As a result of Rao\u2019s and CoReason\u2019s wrongdoing, EPAM has suffered and\n\ncontinues to suffer the substantial and irreparable loss of its trade secrets, goodwill, and business\n\nexpectancies in amounts which may be impossible to determine unless Rao is enjoined and\n\nrestrained by order of the Court.\n\n 114. In addition, EPAM seeks actual, incidental, compensatory, punitive and\n\nconsequential damages, along with reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs in an amount to be\n\ndetermined at trial.\n\n AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST RAO)\n (Breach of Contract: Non-Disclosure of Confidential Information)\n\n 115.154. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n\n\n 36\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 37 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 116.155. On or about November 12, 2024, Rao entered into the Covenants\n\nAgreement in connection with his employment with EPAM.\n\n 117.156. The Covenants Agreement explicitly prohibits him from, inter alia,\n\naccessing, using, disclosing or copying any EPAM Confidential Information and IP, or removing\n\nany EPAM Confidential Information and IP from the premises or control EPAM, other than in the\n\nperformance of duties for and authorized by EPAM.\n\n 118.157. The Covenants Agreement also explicitly obligates Rao to return any and\n\nall EPAM Confidential Information and IP and EPAM equipment or information in his possession,\n\nupon termination of employment.\n\n 119.158. The Covenants Agreement is a duly executed and enforceable contract.\n\n 120.159. The confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations contained in the\n\nCovenants Agreement remain in full force and effect, and Rao, for good and valuable\n\nconsideration, remains obligated to comply with those provisions.\n\n 121.160. Rao breached the Covenants Agreement by secretly accessing,\n\ntransmitting, copying or downloading, without the Company\u2019sEPAM\u2019s knowledge or\n\nauthorization, thousands of data files\u2014including the software code to its ETL Conversion Kit, AI\n\nCohort Generator, and AI Accelerator and other EPAM Confidential Information and IP\u2014to a\n\npersonal external device outside of EPAM\u2019s network and control, in the days leading up to his\n\nanticipated termination from EPAM.\n\n 122.161. Rao also breached the Covenants Agreement by continuing to maintain\n\npossession of and failing to return EPAM Confidential Information and IP, and disclosing the\n\nEPAM Confidential Information and IP to CoReason and other third-parties.\n\n\n\n\n 37\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 38 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 123.162. Rao\u2019s actions have damaged EPAM\u2019s legitimate business interests, and have\n\ndenied EPAM the benefit of its bargain in respect to the Covenants Agreement.\n\n 124.163. As a result of Rao\u2019s breach, EPAM has suffered and continues to suffer\n\nirreparable injury, including loss of its confidential and trade secret information, and damage to its\n\nbusiness, for which a remedy at law is inadequate. Accordingly, EPAM is entitled to injunctive and\n\nequitable relief.\n\n 125.164. In addition, EPAM seeks actual, incidental, compensatory, punitive and\n\nconsequential damages, along with reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs in an amount to be\n\ndetermined at trial.\n\n AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Formatted: *Body\n (Breach of Contract: Ownership of Work) Dbl,bd\n Formatted: No\n 165. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the underline\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 166. On or about November 12, 2024, Rao entered into the Covenants Agreement\n\nin connection with his employment with EPAM.\n\n 167. The Covenants Agreement states that any \u201cConfidential Information, design,\n\nprogram, product, invention, package, prototype, model, innovation, data, improvement,\n\nnew technique, process, discovery, concept, know how, trade secret, work product and\n\noriginal work of authorship, whether or not patentable, copyrightable or otherwise legally\n\nprotectable (individually and collectively, \u201cWork\u201d) made, collected, developed, conceived,\n\ndiscovered, learned, or used by [Rao] in connection with or in the course of [Rao\u2019s]\n\nemployment, whether during or after normal business hours, shall constitute \u201cwork made\n\nfor hire\u201d as that term is defined by the Copyright Act of 1978, as amended from time to time,\n\nand shall be deemed to have been made or developed by you solely for the benefit of your\n\n\n\n 38\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 39 of 57\n\n\n\n\nemployer within the EPAM Group (\u2018Employer\u2019) and shall be the sole and exclusive property\n\nof Employer.\u201d\n\n 168. In simpler terms, the Covenants Agreement states that any work product that\n\nRao creates or develops during his EPAM employment is the \u201csole and exclusive property\u201d\n\nof EPAM.\n\n 169. Rao has breached the Covenants Agreement by claiming ownership of work\n\nproduct (such as by \u201crefactoring,\u201d drafting, or editing computer code) developed during his\n\nEPAM employment, which is the \u201csole and exclusive property\u201d of EPAM. Indeed, Rao is\n\nnow seeking to profit from this work product, through CoReason.\n\n 170. As a result of Rao\u2019s breach, EPAM has suffered and continues to suffer\n\nirreparable injury, including loss of its property, and damage to its business, for which a\n\nremedy at law is inadequate. Accordingly, EPAM is entitled to injunctive and equitable relief.\n\n 171. EPAM is further entitled to declaratory relief, in the form of a declaration that\n\nit \u2013 not Rao or CoReason \u2013 owns all work product developed by Rao during Rao\u2019s\n\nemployment, as well as derivatives of that work product that continued to be developed after\n\nRao\u2019s employment.\n\n 172. In addition, EPAM seeks actual, incidental, compensatory, and consequential\n\ndamages, in an amount to be determined at trial.\n\n AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST RAO)\n (Breach of Contract: Non-Solicitation of Clients)\n\n 173. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n\n\n\n 39\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 40 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 174. The Covenants Agreement is a duly executed and enforceable contract giving\n\nrise to legal obligations between EPAM and Rao, including the non-solicitation covenants\n\ncontained in Section 6.\n\n 175. The non-solicitation covenant remains in full force and effect and is supported\n\nby good consideration.\n\n 176. The non-solicitation covenant is necessary and tailored to protect EPAM\u2019s\n\nlegitimate business interests, including but not limited to EPAM Confidential Information\n\nand IP, goodwill and business relationships.\n\n 177. Rao has breached the non-solicitation covenant by soliciting and/or contacting\n\nEPAM clients on behalf of himself for the purpose of offering services similar or competitive\n\nto those offered by EPAM both during employment and within the 12-month period\n\nfollowing the termination of his employment. Indeed, as set forth in Rao\u2019s Answer, he has\n\nadmitted to soliciting EPAM clients.\n\n 178. Upon information and belief, Rao\u2019s breach of the non-solicitation covenant\n\nwill continue unless and until he is ordered to abide by the obligations to which he agreed\n\nwhen he executed the Covenants Agreement.\n\n 179. As a direct result of EPAM\u2019s breach of the non-solicitation covenant, EPAM\n\nhas suffered and continues to suffer irreparable injury, including loss of its confidential and\n\ntrade secret information, and damage to its business, for which a remedy at law is\n\ninadequate. Accordingly, EPAM is entitled to injunctive and equitable relief.\n\n 180. In addition, EPAM seeks actual, incidental, compensatory, punitive and\n\nconsequential damages, along with reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs in an amount to\n\ndetermined at trial.\n\n\n\n\n 40\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 41 of 57\n\n\n\n\n AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST RAO)\n (Breach of Fiduciary Duty And Faithless Servant)\n\n 126.181. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 127.182. In his role as Managing Principal, Life Sciences Consulting, Rao was placed\n\nin a position of trust and confidence, and was expected to devote his full time to the management\n\nand promotion of the company\u2019s business interests.\n\n 128.183. As a result of this special relationship, Rao owed certain fiduciary duties to\n\nEPAM, including a duty of loyalty and honesty, and a duty not to act in any way contrary to the\n\ninterests of EPAM, including, but not limited to, a duty, while still employed with EPAM and being\n\ncompensated by the Company: (a) not to make fraudulent representations to EPAM clients with\n\nrespect to the status of his employment with EPAM; (b) not to misuse or misappropriate the\n\nCompany\u2019s confidential or trade secret information, including EPAM Confidential Information\n\nand IP; (c) not to attempt to destroy Company property, including data files on its networks; (d)\n\nnot to engage in conduct for the purpose of compelling a termination for cause; and (e) not to be\n\ndeceitful to the Company.\n\n 129.184. Notwithstanding these obligations and duties, and in violation thereof, Rao\n\nbreached his fiduciary duty of loyalty and honesty to EPAM by, among other willful acts of\n\nmisconduct during his employment,: (a) fraudulently representing to third persons, including at\n\nleast one EPAM client, that he is no longer associated with the Company; (b) stealing data\n\nbelonging to EPAM, including EPAM Confidential Information and IP, out of EPAM\u2019s control and\n\ninto his own possession for his own personal benefit; (c) planning a competing enterprise, using\n\nmisappropriated EPAM Confidential Information and IP, including by reaching out to at\n\nleast one executive at a key EPAM client to solicit business for his competing enterprise, and\n\n\n\n 41\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 42 of 57\n\n\n\n\nseeking funding from investors for his competing enterprise; (d) \u201crefactoring,\u201d or otherwise\n\ndrafting computer code, but not sharing this code with EPAM, because he wanted to use it\n\nfor his competing enterprise; (e) feeding EPAM Confidential Information and IP into\n\ngenerative AI platforms or models, in order to obtain instructions on how to duplicate\n\nEPAM\u2019s Synapse product from scratch, in order to unfairly compete against EPAM; (f)\n\nattempting to permanently delete (and succeeding to delete) data files on the Company network;\n\nand (dg) intentionally engineering a underperforming in order to engineer his termination for\n\ncause for the purpose of evading the non-competition restrictive covenant in the Covenants\n\nAgreement.\n\n 130.185. As a consequence of Rao\u2019s breach of his fiduciary duty of loyalty to EPAM,\n\nEPAM has been injured and faces irreparable injury. EPAM is threatened with loss and misuse of\n\nits confidential and trade secret information, including the EPAM Confidential Information and IP\n\nin amounts which may be impossible to determine, unless Rao is enjoined and restrained by order\n\nof this court.\n\n 131.186. In addition, as a consequence of Rao\u2019s breach of his fiduciary duty, EPAM\n\nseeks actual, incidental, compensatory, punitive and consequential damages, along with reasonable\n\nattorneys\u2019 fees and costs in an amount to be determined at trial.\n\n 187. Further, because Rao breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty and/or acted as a\n\nfaithless servant to EPAM, he must be required to disgorge and/or forfeit any compensation\n\nthat he received during his period of disloyalty and/or faithless service. EPAM is entitled to\n\nthe remedy of disgorgement/forfeiture, in addition to damages, in an amount to be\n\ndetermined at trial.\n\n AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST COREASON)\n (Tortious Interference)\n\n\n\n 42\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 43 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 188. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 189. EPAM and Rao had a valid and enforceable contract, the Covenants\n\nAgreement, under which Rao owed contractual obligations to EPAM, including as to Non-\n\nDisclosure of Confidential Information, Ownership of Work, and Non-Solicitation of Clients.\n\n 190. EPAM had the reasonable expectation that Rao would honor his contractual\n\nobligations, and that his contractual obligations would not be unjustifiably disrupted.\n\n 191. CoReason knew that Rao owed EPAM the above-mentioned contractual\n\nobligations, through the Covenants Agreement. Indeed, given the substantial overlap\n\nbetween Rao and CoReason, with Rao serving as CoReason\u2019s Chief Executive Officer and\n\nFounder, Rao\u2019s knowledge of his own contractual obligations is imputed to CoReason.\n\n 192. CoReason intentionally interfered with Rao\u2019s contractual obligations to\n\nEPAM, and induced him to breach those obligations, with malice. Indeed, as set forth herein,\n\nCoReason\u2019s core business model appears to depend on Rao\u2019s breaches. CoReason is selling\n\nand marketing a product (including by having Rao wrongfully solicit EPAM\u2019s clients and\n\nprospective clients in violation of his obligations to EPAM) and that is based on, derives from,\n\nand/or incorporates EPAM Confidenital Information and IP. And CoReason is also using\n\nEPAM Confidential Information and IP as part of its sales, marketing, and business\n\nstrategies.\n\n 193. CoReason\u2019s actions were without privilege or justification.\n\n 194. As a result of CoReason\u2019s intentional interference, EPAM has suffered\n\nmonetary damages and has suffered substantial and irreparable harm and is threatened with\n\nfurther substantial and irreparable harm due to the loss of trade secrets, Confidential\n\n\n\n\n 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 44 of 57\n\n\n\n\nInformation and IP, and customer goodwill, for which there is no adequate remedy at law to\n\ncompensate.\n\n 195. In addition, EPAM seeks actual, incidental, compensatory, punitive and\n\nconsequential damages, along with reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs in an amount to be\n\ndetermined at trial.\n\n AS AND FOR AN FIFTHEIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST RAO AND\n COREASON)\n (Replevin)\n\n 132.196. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 133.197. As set forth above, Rao isand CoReason are currently in possession or\n\ncontrol of EPAM property, including EPAM Confidential Information.\n\n 134.198. Upon information and belief, the EPAM Confidential Information and IP\n\ncurrently resides on a personal computer device owned by Rao.and/or other devices and/or\n\naccounts owned by Rao as well as devices and accounts controlled by CoReason.\n\n 135.199. Despite his duties and obligations under the Covenants Agreement and the\n\nIT Resources Policy to return all Confidential Information and other EPAM equipment or\n\ninformation in his possession, Rao has not returned and continues to remain in possession of the\n\nstolen EPAM Confidential Information and IP.\n\n 136.200. Rao hasand CoReason have no right to possession of EPAM Confidential\n\nInformation and IP, and, accordingly, EPAM has a possessory right superior to that of Rao and\n\nCoReason.\n\n 137.201. Given that Rao is no longer employed by EPAM, EPAM is entitled to\n\nimmediate possession of the EPAM Confidential Information and IP.\n\n\n\n\n 44\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 45 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 138.202. In addition, EPAM is entitled to recover its attorneys\u2019 fees and expenses\n\nincurred as a result of Rao\u2019s theft and wrongful detention of EPAM Confidential Information and\n\nIP.\n\n AS AND FOR A SIXTHNINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST RAO AND\n COREASON)\n (Conversion)\n\n 139.203. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 140.204. Rao has intentionally and wrongfully misappropriated EPAM\u2019s property,\n\nincluding, among other things, EPAM Confidential Information and IP.\n\n 141.205. Rao downloaded the EPAM Confidential Information and IP onto his\n\npersonal device without EPAM\u2019s consent and without legal justification.\n\n 206. Further, Rao created EPAM Confidential Information and IP during his\n\nEPAM employment, some of which Rao may always have been stored on his personal devices.\n\nThis EPAM Confidential Information and IP is the sole and exclusive property of EPAM.\n\n 207. Rao has disclosed EPAM Confidential Information and IP to CoReason. Rao\n\nand CoReason have and are marketing EPAM Confidential Information and IP as the\n\nproperty of Rao and/or CoReason.\n\n 142.208. Rao continues to be in possession of EPAM Confidential Information and\n\nIP despite his obligation to return such property upon the cessation of his employment. Further,\n\nCoReason is now in possession of EPAM Confidential Information and IP, despite never\n\nhaving any right to possess it.\n\n 143.209. By engaging in the conduct set forth above, Rao and CoReason have acted\n\nwith the intent to exercise dominion and control over EPAM Confidential Information and IP, thus\n\n\n\n\n 45\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 46 of 57\n\n\n\n\ndepriving EPAM\u2019s exclusive rights to such property and which will result in the dilution of its\n\nvalue to EPAM.\n\n 144.210. As a result of Rao\u2019s and CoReason\u2019s intentional and wrongful conduct,\n\nEPAM has been and will continue to be injured, for which it is entitled to recover actual, incidental,\n\ncompensatory, punitive and consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial.\n\n 145.211. EPAM is further entitled to recover all monies expended to recover\n\nconverted property as special damages, including attorneys\u2019 fees.\n\n AS AND FOR A SEVENTHTENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST RAO AND\n COREASON)\n (False Advertisement in Violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. \u00a7 1125)\n\n 212. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 213. Rao and CoReason have marketed and continue to market CoReason's\n\nproduct to investors and prospective clients, including EPAM clients and prospective clients,\n\nas CoReason's own original product. (See ECF #58-23; see also www.coreason.ai)\n\n 214. In or about late-2025 or early 2026, Rao, on behalf of CoReason, published a\n\nprofessional website for CoReason that described CoReason's product, its function, and its\n\ncapabilities, including its use of \u201c[p]arallel agents\u201d\" to analyze a problem, and identifies\n\nCoReason's personnel. (See ECF #58-23 at 7.) In a modified form, the website continues to\n\nexist today, and appears to be marketing the same product. See www.coreason.ai.\n\n 215. The website does not include any reference to EPAM\u2019s product Synapse in\n\neither its original version or its current version. Id.\n\n 216. The only reference to EPAM on CoReason\u2019s website is the brief credentials\n\nsection for Rao. See www.coreason.ai, \u2018Our Team\u2019.\n\n\n\n\n 46\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 47 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 217. Rao\u2019s credential section on the CoReason website also indicates that \u201cthe\n\nreasoning frameworks and data models in CoReason are deeply informed by\u201d Rao\u2019s personal\n\nexperience building infrastructure for how the pharmaceutical industry generates and\n\nevaluates clinical evidence. Id.\n\n 218. In fact, Rao created the software advertised on the CoReason website by: (a)\n\nfeeding EPAM's trade secrets and/or other Confidential Information and IP, including the\n\nSynapse source code and/or highly sensitive architectural documents used in the\n\ndevelopment of Synapse, into a generative AI platform or model which produced a \"step-by-\n\nstep\" plan to recode Synapse from scratch; (b) developing the code and/or features during\n\nhis EPAM employment, rendering those materials EPAM\u2019s property under the Covenants\n\nAgreement\u2019s Ownership of Work provision; or (c) some combination of both.\n\n 219. Rao executed an employment agreement, the Covenants Agreement, with\n\nEPAM that includes an Ownership of Work provision assigning all rights to Rao\u2019s\n\nintellectual property developed in the course of his employment to EPAM.\n\n 220. To the extent CoReason's product contains features that differ from Synapse,\n\nthose differing features reflect at least in part proposals that Rao made as an EPAM\n\nemployee to EPAM's Synapse team, which EPAM's Synapse team decided not to include in\n\nthe current version of Synapse.\n\n 221. Rao used this work product related to modifying Synapse to create CoReason,\n\ndespite actual knowledge that this work product is EPAM\u2019s property.\n\n 222. Rao and CoReason are marketing CoReason\u2019s product expressly or implicitly,\n\nas an original product that is owned by CoReason. This marketing includes the CoReason\n\nwebsite. However, Rao and CoReason have actual knowledge that its product was developed\n\n\n\n\n 47\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 48 of 57\n\n\n\n\nwith EPAM\u2019s proprietary software, code, trade secrets, and/or with code and ideas that\n\nconstitute EPAM\u2019s property under the Ownership of Work Product provision.\n\n 223. By marketing CoReason\u2019s product, expressly or implicitly, as an original\n\nproduct that is owned by CoReason, Rao and CoReason are engaging in material\n\nmisrepresentations. Further, by not disclosing on the website or other marketing materials\n\nthat EPAM actually owns the intellectual property that forms the basis of CoReason\u2019s\n\nproduct, and that CoReason is essentially a copycat of Synapse generated by\n\nmisappropriating EPAM\u2019s Confidential Information and/or other EPAM property, Rao and\n\nCoReason have engaged in material omissions.\n\n 224. Rao's and CoReason\u2019s misrepresentations and material omissions regarding\n\nthe origin and ownership of CoReason's product were made in connection with his\n\ncommercial marketing and promotion of CoReason on CoReason\u2019s website. See\n\nwww.coreason.ai.\n\n 225. Nowhere in CoReason\u2019s website description, or in any other public-facing\n\nstatement by Rao or CoReason, do Rao or CoReason disclose that: (a) CoReason's product\n\nis functionally identical to EPAM's Synapse product; (b) Rao created the CoReason product\n\nby taking highly confidential EPAM Synapse files, including the Synapse source code and/or\n\nhighly sensitive architectural documents used in the development of Synapse, and feeding\n\nthose materials into a generative AI platform or model; (c) the generative AI platform or\n\nmodel, in turn, produced a \"step-by-step\" plan that Rao followed to recode Synapse from\n\nscratch; or (d) to the extent CoReason product contains features that differ from Synapse,\n\nthose differing features are proposals and/or code Rao developed as an EPAM employee, and\n\n\n\n\n 48\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 49 of 57\n\n\n\n\nremain EPAM's property under the Ownership of Work Product provision of Rao's\n\nCovenants Agreement.\n\n 226. The omitted information concerns the origin, ownership, and legitimacy of\n\nCoReason\u2019s technology, information that bears directly on whether a purchaser or investor\n\nis acquiring rights to non-infringing, properly owned technology or is instead exposing itself\n\nto a competing ownership claim and potential injunctive action by a third party.\n\n 227. CoReason\u2019s failure to indicate in any way that its product was developed with\n\nEPAM\u2019s Confidential Information or property has the capacity to deceive consumers.\n\n 228. As a result of Rao's and CoReason's wrongdoing, including the false and\n\nmisleading representations described above, EPAM has suffered and continues to suffer\n\nsubstantial and irreparable loss of its trade secrets, goodwill, and business expectancies in\n\namounts which may be impossible to determine unless Rao and CoReason are enjoined and\n\nrestrained by order of the Court.\n\n\n AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST RAO AND\n COREASON)\n (Common Law Unfair Competition)\n\n 229. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 230. Rao and CoReason have marketed and continue to market CoReason's\n\nproduct to investors and prospective clients, including EPAM clients and prospective clients,\n\nas CoReason's own original product. (See ECF #58-23; see also www.coreason.ai)\n\n 231. In or about late-2025 or early 2026, Rao, on behalf of CoReason, published a\n\nprofessional website for CoReason that described CoReason's product, its function, and its\n\ncapabilities, including its use of \u201c[p]arallel agents\u201d\" to analyze a problem, and identifies\n\n\n\n 49\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 50 of 57\n\n\n\n\nCoReason's personnel. (See ECF #58-23 at 7.) In a modified form, the website continues to\n\nexist today, and appears to be marketing the same product. See www.coreason.ai.\n\n 232. The website does not include any reference to EPAM\u2019s product Synapse in\n\neither its original version or its current version. Id.\n\n 233. The only reference to EPAM on CoReason\u2019s website is the brief credentials\n\nsection for Rao. See www.coreason.ai, \u2018Our Team\u2019.\n\n 234. Rao\u2019s credential section on the CoReason website also indicates that \u201cthe\n\nreasoning frameworks and data models in CoReason are deeply informed by\u201d Rao\u2019s personal\n\nexperience building infrastructure for how the pharmaceutical industry generates and\n\nevaluates clinical evidence. Id.\n\n 235. In fact, Rao created the software advertised on the CoReason website by: (a)\n\nfeeding EPAM's trade secrets and/or other Confidential Information and IP, including the\n\nSynapse source code and/or highly sensitive architectural documents used in the\n\ndevelopment of Synapse, into a generative AI platform or model which produced a \"step-by-\n\nstep\" plan to recode Synapse from scratch; (b) developing the code and/or features during\n\nhis EPAM employment, rendering those materials EPAM\u2019s property under the Covenants\n\nAgreement\u2019s Ownership of Work provision; or (c) some combination of both.\n\n 236. Rao executed an employment agreement, the Covenants Agreement, with\n\nEPAM that includes an Ownership of Work provision assigning all rights to Rao\u2019s\n\nintellectual property developed in the course of his employment to EPAM.\n\n 237. To the extent CoReason's product contains features that differ from Synapse,\n\nthose differing features reflect proposals that Rao made as an EPAM employee to EPAM's\n\n\n\n\n 50\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 51 of 57\n\n\n\n\nSynapse team, which EPAM's Synapse team decided not to include in the current version of\n\nSynapse.\n\n 238. Rao used this work product related to modifying Synapse to create CoReason,\n\ndespite actual knowledge that this work product is EPAM\u2019s property.\n\n 239. Rao and CoReason are marketing CoReason\u2019s product expressly or implicitly,\n\nas an original product that is owned by CoReason. This marketing includes the CoReason\n\nwebsite. However, Rao and CoReason have actual knowledge that its product was developed\n\nwith EPAM\u2019s proprietary software, code, trade secrets, and/or with code and ideas that\n\nconstitute EPAM\u2019s property under the Ownership of Work Product provision.\n\n 240. By marketing CoReason\u2019s product, expressly or implicitly, as an original\n\nproduct that is owned by CoReason, Rao and CoReason are engaging in material\n\nmisrepresentations. Further, by not disclosing on the website or other marketing materials\n\nthat EPAM actually owns the intellectual property that forms the basis of CoReason\u2019s\n\nproduct, and that CoReason is essentially a copycat of Synapse generated by\n\nmisappropriating EPAM\u2019s Confidential Information and/or other EPAM property, Rao and\n\nCoReason have engaged in material omissions.\n\n 241. Rao's and CoReason\u2019s misrepresentations and material omissions regarding\n\nthe origin and ownership of CoReason's product were made in connection with his\n\ncommercial marketing and promotion of CoReason on CoReason\u2019s website. See\n\nwww.coreason.ai.\n\n 242. Nowhere in CoReason\u2019s website description, or in any other public-facing\n\nstatement by Rao or CoReason, do Rao or CoReason disclose that: (a) CoReason's product\n\nis functionally identical to EPAM's Synapse product; (b) Rao created the CoReason product\n\n\n\n\n 51\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 52 of 57\n\n\n\n\nby taking highly confidential EPAM Synapse files, including the Synapse source code and/or\n\nhighly sensitive architectural documents used in the development of Synapse, and feeding\n\nthose materials into a generative AI platform or model; (c) the generative AI platform or\n\nmodel, in turn, produced a \"step-by-step\" plan that Rao followed to recode Synapse from\n\nscratch; or (d) to the extent CoReason product contains features that differ from Synapse,\n\nthose differing features are proposals and/or code Rao developed as an EPAM employee, and\n\nremain EPAM's property under the Ownership of Work Product provision of Rao's\n\nCovenants Agreement.\n\n 243. The omitted information concerns the origin, ownership, and legitimacy of\n\nCoReason\u2019s technology, information that bears directly on whether a purchaser or investor\n\nis acquiring rights to non-infringing, properly owned technology or is instead exposing itself\n\nto a competing ownership claim and potential injunctive action by a third party.\n\n 244. CoReason\u2019s failure to indicate in any way that its product was developed with\n\nEPAM\u2019s Confidential Information or property has the capacity to deceive consumers.\n\n 245. In addition to using EPAM Confidential Information and IP to create\n\nCoReason\u2019s product, Rao and CoReason have also misappropriated and repurposed other\n\nEPAM-owned materials (including Confidential Information and IP) to benefit CoReason,\n\nincluding business plans. Further, upon information and belief, Rao is using EPAM\n\nConfidential Information and IP, such as bid proposals, pricing information, and the\n\nSynapse marketing \u201cSales Battle Card,\u201d to gain an unfair advantage in competing against\n\nEPAM.\n\n\n\n\n 52\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 53 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 246. As a result of Rao's and CoReason's wrongdoing, including the false and\n\nmisleading representations described above, and its misuse and misappropriation of EPAM\n\nConfidential Information and IP, Rao and CoReason are unfairly competing against EPAM.\n\n 247. EPAM has suffered and continues to suffer substantial and irreparable loss of\n\nits trade secrets, goodwill, and business expectancies in amounts which may be impossible to\n\ndetermine unless Rao and CoReason are enjoined and restrained by order of the Court.\n\n\n AS AND FOR A TWELTH CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST RAO AND COREASON)\n(Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S. Code \u00a7 2201, et\n seq)\n\n 248. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 249. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between EPAM, Rao, and\n\nCoReason concerning the ownership of CoReason\u2019s technology.\n\n 250. Rao and CoReason claim ownership of intellectual property that was\n\ndeveloped by misappropriating EPAM\u2019s Confidential Information and/or trade secrets.\n\n 251. Rao and CoReason also claim ownership of work product Rao developed\n\nduring his EPAM employment, which is subject to an Ownership of Work provision.\n\n 252. Rao and CoReason are marketing and profiting from intellectual property\n\nthat EPAM owns.\n\n 253. EPAM is entitled to a declaration that owns all work product and/or\n\nintellectual property developed by misappropriating its Confidential Information and/or\n\ntrade secrets, such as by feeding Synapse information into generative artificial intelligence\n\nplatforms or models.\n\n\n\n\n 53\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 54 of 57\n\n\n\n\n 254. EPAM is also entitled to a declaration that it owns all work product and/or\n\nintellectual property developed by Rao during his EPAM employment, as well as all\n\nderivatives of that work product that continued to be developed after Rao's employment\n\nended.\n\n 255. Because CoReason\u2019s claimed intellectual property and technology is based on\n\nmisappropriated EPAM Confidential Information, trade secrets, and/or other EPAM\n\nintellectual property, EPAM is further entitled to a declaration that it owns all of CoReason\u2019s\n\nintellectual property and technology.\n\n 256. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time for EPAM to\n\nascertain its respective rights and obligations with respect to the ownership of the above,\n\nincluding as to CoReason\u2019s claimed intellectual property and technology.\n\n\n AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (AGAINST RAO AND\n COREASON)\n (Unjust Enrichment)\n\n 146.257. EPAM repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the\n\npreceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 147.258. Rao obtained the EPAM Confidential Information and IP that in equity and\n\ngood conscience he should not have obtained, and then provided this material to CoReason.\n\n 148.259. Rao\u2019s theft of EPAM Confidential Information and IP has unjustly enriched\n\nRao and CoReason at EPAM\u2019s expense.\n\n 149.260. Rao was further unjustly enriched with compensation and other benefits\n\nwhile engaging in acts of disloyalty during his employment with EPAM.\n\n 150.261. As a consequence of Rao\u2019s unjust enrichment, EPAM has been and will\n\ncontinue to be injured, for which it is entitled to recover actual, incidental, compensatory, punitive\n\n\n\n 54\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 55 of 57\n\n\n\n\nand consequential damages, along with reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and costs in an amount to be\n\ndetermined at trial.\n\n WHEREFORE, EPAM seeks judgment in its favor and an Order against Rao that grants\n\nthe following relief:\n\n 1. A preliminary injunction and after trial, a permanent injunction that:\n\n (a) Preliminarily and permanently enjoins Rao from breaching his\n confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations to EPAM;\n\n (b) Preliminarily and permanently enjoins Rao, and all persons and/or entities\n acting on his behalf, for his benefit, or in active concert or participation with\n him, from directly or indirectly accessing, disclosing, reproducing,\n transmitting or using any confidential, proprietary, or trade secret\n information of any kind, nature or description belonging to EPAM,\n including EPAM Confidential Information and IP;\n\n (a) Preliminarily and permanently enjoins Rao, and all persons and/or entities\n acting on his behalf, for his benefit, or in active concert or participation with\n him, from directly or indirectly accessing disclosing, reproducing,\n transmitting or using any intellectual property of any kind belonging to\n EPAM or any EPAM client, including software code;\n\n (b) Preliminarily and prospectively enjoins Rao from directly or indirectly\n soliciting, contacting, or attempting to solicit or contact, or meet with any\n EPAM client, former, or prospective client, for purposes of offering services\n similar to or competitive with those offered by EPAM;\n\n (c) Preliminarily and prospectively enjoins Rao from breaching his contractual\n obligations to EPAM;\n\n 2. An Order that Rao, and all parties in active concert or participation with him, to\n return to EPAM all EPAM property, including all originals and copies of all files,\n devices and/or documents that contain or relate to EPAM\u2019s proprietary software\n source code, confidential, proprietary and trade secret information, including\n EPAM Confidential Information and IP;\n\n 3. An Order that Rao, and all parties in active concert or participation with him, to\n return to EPAM all intellectual property belonging to EPAM or its clients, including\n any and all source code and data relating to software tools owned by EPAM or any\n EPAM client;\n\n 4. An Order that Rao and CoReason produce for inspection, imaging, and\n remediation all computers and other electronic storage devices or storage accounts,\n\n\n 55\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 56 of 57\n\n\n\n\n including any cloud accounts, sharefile accounts, USB devices, email accounts, and\n smartphones belonging to, under the control of, accessible to, or operated by Rao\n or CoReason or any employee or agent of each, at Rao\u2019s and CoReason\u2019s\n expense;\n\n5. An Order declaring that the software and other intellectual property currently\n marketed as \u201cCoReason\u201d was developed by and is the proprietary software of\n EPAM;\n\n5. Actual, incidental, compensatory, and consequential damages in excess of\n $150,000, in an amount to be proven at trial;\n\n66. Disgorgement/forfeiture of Rao\u2019s EPAM compensation during the period of\n his disloyalty;\n\n8. Disgorgement/forfeiture of CoReason\u2019s sales and/or earnings of products and\n services are based on, derive from, or contain misappropriated EPAM\n Confidential Information and IP.\n\n9. Exemplary damages pursuant to the DTSA and PUTSA, in an amount to be proven\n at trial;\n\n710. Punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial due to Rao\u2019s willful and\n malicious conduct;\n\n811. Costs and expenses incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees and\n interest, including pursuant to the Covenants Agreement;\n\n912. Pre-judgment interest; and\n\n1013. All other relief as the Court may deem just, equitable and proper.\n\n\n\n\n 56\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 82 Filed 09/14/26 Page 57 of 57\n\n\n\n\nDated: April 20September 10, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n\n By its attorneys,\n\n /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick (Pa. Attorney No. 311028)\n joslick@seyfarth.com\n James S. Yu (admitted pro hac vice)\n jyu@seyfarth.com\n Brooke Gary (admitted pro hac vice)\n brgary@seyfarth.com\n SEYFARTH SHAW LLP\n 620 Eighth Avenue\n New York, NY 10018-1405\n (212) 218-5500\n\n\n\n\n 57\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-14T09:27:00.546940-07:00","document_number":"82","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024183004","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Exhibit","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-14T09:26:44.933306-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T11:35:03.992703-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-14","time_filed":"12:23:33","entry_number":82,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-14.002","pacer_sequence_number":222,"description":"EXHIBIT to Docket No. 80 - Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint - Redline of Proposed Amended Complaint by EPAM SYSTEMS, INC... (GARY, BROOKE) (Entered: 09/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477859650/","id":477859650,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493469685/","id":493469685,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/81/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-14T09:18:19.476914-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T18:38:28.435231-07:00","sha1":"8819f0037869591a7165f4499cc2d00211957953","page_count":9,"file_size":163291,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.81.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81 Filed 09/14/26 Page 1 of 9\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n v. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n GOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD ON\n PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS (ECF NO. 58) CONCERNING THE\n AUGUST 10, 2025 DOCUMENT (OSLICK EXHIBIT 9), WITH DISCOVERY SERVED\n AFTER BRIEFING CLOSED\n\nI, Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD, the Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, appearing pro se, move\n\nunder section IV.A of the Court's Policies and Procedures (at 7) for leave to file a short\n\nsupplement to the record on EPAM's motion for sanctions: the submission attached as Exhibit 1;\n\nmy supplemental declaration, attached as Exhibit 2, which identifies the underlying records by\n\nBates number; the declaration of Dr. Sudeep Ghate, attached as Exhibit 3; the one-page Google\n\nDrive activity record attached as Exhibit 4; excerpts of my served discovery responses, attached\n\nas Exhibit 5; and the Google announcement attached as Exhibit 6. I also ask leave to present\n\nthem at the September 16, 2026 evidentiary hearing. Because the grounds are short, this motion\n\nstates them and is submitted as the motion and the supporting brief together under Local Civil\n\nRule 7.1(c). In support, I state as follows.\n\n\nBackground\n1. EPAM moved for sanctions on July 29, 2026 (ECF No. 58). I opposed on August 19,\n\n 2026 (ECF No. 62), and EPAM replied on August 26, 2026 (ECF No. 71). The\n\n evidentiary hearing is set for September 16, 2026 at 10:00 AM.\n\n2. EPAM's motion relies on a document dated August 10, 2025, filed as Exhibit 9 to the\n\n Oslick Declaration (ECF No. 58-12), and on the declaration of Dmitrii Ilin (ECF No. 58-\n\n\n Page 1 of 9\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81 Filed 09/14/26 Page 2 of 9\n\n\n\n\n 25 \u00b6\u00b6 8-15). From those two sources EPAM argues that the document is a \"step-by-step\n\n plan\" for rebuilding Synapse that \"was very likely generated by providing a generative AI\n\n program with highly confidential and proprietary information about Synapse,\" and that I\n\n \"had no legitimate business reason for creating such a document.\" (ECF No. 58-2 at 13-\n\n 14.)\n\n3. EPAM's reply brief, filed August 26, 2026 in reply to my opposition (ECF No. 62), then\n\n states that \"nowhere in Rao's brief, or his 30 page declaration, or his 11 page 'Scope\n\n Appendix' does Rao supply such a reason.\" (ECF No. 71 at 10.) That reply was the last\n\n brief on the motion. Under section IV.A of the Policies I could not answer it without\n\n leave, and I have not answered it.\n\n4. Mr. Ilin, a Lead Software Engineer at Odysseus Data Services, describes Synapse as\n\n software he has coded for about the past year (ECF No. 58-25 \u00b6\u00b6 1, 6). My served\n\n position is that the deliverable Mr. Ilin describes was built for Takeda under a Master\n\n Services Agreement that EPAM's legal team read in September 2025 to mean \"everything\n\n we build belongs to Takeda\" (ECF No. 62-30 \u00b6 17; ECF No. 33 \u00b6\u00b6 215-220), and that the\n\n proposed EPAM Synapse concept described in Oslick Exhibit 9 (ECF No. 58-12) was, as\n\n far as I know and remember, never built.\n\n5. After EPAM filed its reply, I served four sets of discovery responses. They state the\n\n reason the document was created, and they identify the records that show how it was\n\n created: my Responses to EPAM's First Set of Requests for Admission (August 28,\n\n 2026), my Responses to EPAM's First Request for Production (September 5, 2026), my\n\n First Supplemental Responses to that Request (September 7, 2026), and my Second\n\n Supplemental Answers to EPAM's First Set of Interrogatories (September 7, 2026),\n\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 9\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81 Filed 09/14/26 Page 3 of 9\n\n\n\n\n together with production volumes GRAO_PROD_000 and GRAO_PROD_001. Those\n\n records include the Google Drive activity record and version history of the August 10,\n\n 2025 document; the research document generated earlier that day, which was among its\n\n inputs; the three GitHub repositories and the coding-agent session generated from it that\n\n evening; and the record of the document's sharing with an EPAM employee the same\n\n evening. They also include the six archives bearing the Takeda-Synapse project's name\n\n that I found in my OneDrive, which hold GitLab template README files and\n\n deployment configuration and no application code (GRAO001507\u2013GRAO001512).\n\n6. The EPAM Systems India employee with whom I shared the document, Dr. Sudeep\n\n Ghate, has now declared that I gave him editor access to the \"Research - Agents\"\n\n document on Sunday, August 10, 2025, India time, editor access to the \"Synapse\n\n architecture\" document on Monday, August 11, 2025, India time, and a link to the\n\n GitHub repository for the work (Exhibit 3 \u00b6\u00b6 4-6).\n\n\nGood Cause\n7. Good cause exists. EPAM's opening brief argued that I had no legitimate business reason\n\n for creating the document, and its reply argued that my opposition supplied none. The\n\n responses that state the reason and identify the records were served on August 28,\n\n September 5, and September 7, 2026, after briefing closed, so they were not before the\n\n Court with my opposition, and the Policies did not allow me to answer the reply without\n\n leave. They were made under Rule 26(g) and, as to Request for Admission No. 9, under\n\n Rule 36.\n\n8. I also ask the Court to excuse the timing of this motion. I located and analyzed the\n\n records while responding to EPAM's First Request for Production, served August 10,\n\n\n\n\n Page 3 of 9\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81 Filed 09/14/26 Page 4 of 9\n\n\n\n\n 2026, which required me to search my personal Google account, my GitHub account, and\n\n my OneDrive folder, and to compare what I found against EPAM's exhibits. I served the\n\n analysis and the records on September 5 and 7, 2026, in the same period in which I was\n\n answering EPAM's requests for admission and interrogatories, and I assembled this\n\n submission afterward. Obtaining Dr. Ghate's declaration also took time: he is a nonparty\n\n who lives in India, and his signed declaration reached me on September 14, 2026. I am\n\n self-represented and have brought this motion as soon as I could.\n\n9. The records bear on the questions the Court must decide under Rule 37(e). On the\n\n threshold question and on prejudice under Rule 37(e)(1), they show that for the August\n\n 10, 2025 work, the origin, the inputs identified in my responses, the tools, the times, the\n\n output, and the disclosure are in the record and can be tested against EPAM's Synapse\n\n without any activity artifact from the desktop. On intent under Rule 37(e)(2), they bear on\n\n the motive EPAM attributes to me from this document. My discovery requests to EPAM\n\n on the same points are pending, with responses due September 15 through 28, 2026\n\n (Requests for Admission Nos. 88, 110-118, 127, 159-162, 174-175, and 177; Requests\n\n for Production Nos. 1-7, 37-38, 42, 46-47, and 52-53; Interrogatories Nos. 1-5 and 11-\n\n 12).\n\n10. The records also bear on EPAM's motion to seal and to close the courtroom (ECF No.\n\n 60), which I opposed (ECF No. 66) and to which EPAM has replied (ECF No. 73).\n\n EPAM's motion and reply rest the sealing of Oslick Exhibit 9 (ECF No. 58-12) on Mr.\n\n Ilin's description of it as a \"comprehensive, step-by-step plan\" for recreating Synapse\n\n (ECF No. 60 at 2; ECF No. 73 at 6-7). The records show the document's inputs, its output\n\n in public repositories under an Apache-2.0 license, and its disclosure to an EPAM\n\n\n\n\n Page 4 of 9\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81 Filed 09/14/26 Page 5 of 9\n\n\n\n\n employee the same evening. They support my position that EPAM has not shown\n\n reasonable measures to preserve secrecy (ECF No. 66 at 2-3), and I ask that the Court\n\n consider the supplement on that motion as well.\n\n11. EPAM is not prejudiced by the supplement. It has held the responses since August 28,\n\n September 5, and September 7, 2026, and the produced records since September 5 and 7,\n\n 2026. Exhibit 1 draws on those responses and productions, on Dr. Ghate's declaration\n\n (Exhibit 3), which is served with this motion, and on a public Google announcement\n\n (Exhibit 6). EPAM may respond at the hearing or on any schedule the Court sets. Exhibit\n\n 1 is five pages, double-spaced in 12-point type, except that its record table is set single-\n\n spaced in 10-point type. I ask the Court to accept it within the five-page limit for a sur-\n\n reply brief under section IV.A of the Policies or, if the Court prefers the table in 12-point\n\n type, to allow the one additional page that change adds. The served responses it cites are\n\n reproduced in Exhibit 5 with their caption and signature pages, and the public\n\n announcement it cites is Exhibit 6, printed with its address together with an Internet\n\n Archive capture. In the public copy of Exhibit 5, the names of two individuals who are\n\n not parties to this action are covered where they appear in the text of Requests for\n\n Admission Nos. 1 and 8, because EPAM's motion to seal asks the Court to protect the\n\n identities of nonparties it refers to as Executives #1 through #3 and I proposed continuing\n\n that convention in any exhibit displayed publicly (ECF No. 66 at 1). The copies served on\n\n EPAM are unredacted, and I will provide an unredacted copy to the Court on request.\n\n12. Because EPAM's motion to seal contends that Oslick Exhibit 9 (ECF No. 58-12) and\n\n related material contain trade secrets, I do not place the underlying records on the public\n\n docket with this motion, with one exception. Exhibit 4 is the one-page Google Drive\n\n\n\n\n Page 5 of 9\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81 Filed 09/14/26 Page 6 of 9\n\n\n\n\n activity record for the August 10, 2025 document (GRAO007391). It shows the\n\n document's title, its creation and sharing on August 10, 2025, an edit on August 13, 2025,\n\n and the access restriction of November 2, 2025, and nothing of the document's contents.\n\n Every other record is identified by Bates number, and the repositories are identified by\n\n their public addresses.\n\n13. I maintain my opposition to EPAM's motion to seal (ECF No. 66) and object, on the\n\n same grounds, to sealing the records identified in Exhibits 1 and 2. I withhold them from\n\n the public docket now only because that motion is pending. Under the Court's Policies\n\n and Procedures, \"The Court will only approve confidentiality or sealing orders for good\n\n cause shown.\" (Policies at 6.) The records are records from my personal accounts, code\n\n that was public under an Apache-2.0 license, and six archives that hold GitLab template\n\n text and deployment configuration. I would prefer to file them on the public docket, and I\n\n ask leave to do so if the Court permits or EPAM does not object. Otherwise I will provide\n\n copies to the Court in camera or under seal, as the Court directs.\n\n\nRelief Requested\n14. I ask the Court to enter the proposed Order submitted with this motion, granting leave to\n\n file Exhibits 1 through 6 as a supplement to the record on ECF No. 58, permitting me to\n\n present them and the records they identify at the September 16, 2026 hearing, permitting\n\n me to file those records on the public docket unless EPAM objects and, if it objects, to\n\n provide them in camera or under seal, and permitting me to rely on the supplement in\n\n opposition to ECF No. 60. In the alternative, I ask to be permitted to offer the records at\n\n the hearing through my testimony.\n\n\n\n\n Page 6 of 9\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81 Filed 09/14/26 Page 7 of 9\n\n\n\n\nDated: September 14, 2026\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Gowtham A. Rao\nGowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n184 Mansgrove Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540\nTelephone: (803) 386-7890\ngowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\nExhibits\nExhibit 1: The August 10, 2025 document (Oslick Exhibit 9, ECF No. 58-12): my served\n\n explanation and the records that accompany it.\n\nExhibit 2: Supplemental Declaration of Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD, Identifying the Produced\n\n Records Concerning the August 10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9), my declaration\n\n identifying the records by Bates number.\n\nExhibit 3: Declaration of Dr. Sudeep Ghate, executed at Mangaluru, India on September 14,\n\n 2026 under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746(1) and served on EPAM with this motion. Dr. Ghate, the\n\n EPAM Systems India employee with whom the document was shared on August 10,\n\n 2025, is identified in my interrogatory answers of September 1 and 7, 2026. He cannot\n\n travel to the hearing and is willing to answer questions by video if the Court permits.\n\nExhibit 4: Google Drive activity record for the August 10, 2025 document, as produced to\n\n EPAM on September 7, 2026 (GRAO007391; one page). Its footer carries the\n\n \"CONFIDENTIAL\" legend that my production applied to every page of that volume. As\n\n the producing party, I withdraw that designation for this exhibit.\n\nExhibit 5: Excerpts of my served discovery responses concerning the August 10, 2025\n\n document, cited in Exhibit 1: my Responses to EPAM's First Set of Requests for\n\n Admission (August 28, 2026), my Responses to EPAM's First Request for Production\n\n (September 5, 2026), my First Supplemental Responses to that Request (September 7,\n\n\n Page 7 of 9\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81 Filed 09/14/26 Page 8 of 9\n\n\n\n\n 2026), and my Second Supplemental Answers to EPAM's First Set of Interrogatories\n\n (September 7, 2026), each with its caption page and signature page. In this public copy\n\n the names of two individuals who are not parties to this action, which appear in the text\n\n of Requests for Admission Nos. 1 and 8 on pages 1 and 4 of Part A, are covered, as\n\n paragraph 11 explains. Nothing else is altered.\n\nExhibit 6: Google, \"Jules, our asynchronous coding agent, is now available for everyone\"\n\n (August 6, 2025), as printed from blog.google on September 14, 2026, with the Internet\n\n Archive capture of September 6, 2025.\n\nRecords identified and not filed, all produced to EPAM:\n\n \u2013 the version-history and share-settings captures for the August 10, 2025 document\n\n (GRAO000448\u2013GRAO000451, September 5, 2026);\n\n \u2013 the \"Research - Agents\" document, its version-history captures, and its Google Docs\n\n captures (GRAO007214\u2013GRAO007386; GRAO007392\u2013GRAO007393;\n\n GRAO007387\u2013GRAO007390 and GRAO007394\u2013GRAO007399, September 7,\n\n 2026);\n\n \u2013 the captures of the Jules session, the GitHub repository list, pull request 2, the branch\n\n list, and the Apache License 2.0 file (GRAO007208\u2013GRAO007213, September 7,\n\n 2026);\n\n \u2013 the complete git bundles and the Jules session archive (GRAO007204\u2013\n\n GRAO007207, September 7, 2026); and\n\n \u2013 the six Takeda-Synapse archives from my OneDrive (GRAO001507\u2013GRAO001512,\n\n September 5, 2026), which my response to Request No. 1 designates Contested\n\n Materials under the Protocol.\n\n\n\n\n Page 8 of 9\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81 Filed 09/14/26 Page 9 of 9\n\n\n\n\nThe repositories are https://github.com/gowthamrao/synapse-core,\n\nhttps://github.com/gowthamrao/synapse-mcp-client, and\n\nhttps://github.com/gowthamrao/synapse-retrievers, in my personal GitHub account.\n\n\nCertificate of Service\nI certify that on September 14, 2026, I filed the foregoing Defendant's Motion for Leave to\n\nSupplement the Record on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 58) Concerning the August\n\n10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9), With Discovery Served After Briefing Closed, with\n\nExhibits 1 through 6 and the proposed Order, with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system,\n\nthat the document is available for viewing and downloading from that system, and that the\n\nCM/ECF system will serve notice of the filing electronically on all counsel of record, including\n\ncounsel for Plaintiff:\n\n\nJacob Oslick, Esq. (joslick@seyfarth.com)\nJames S. Yu, Esq. (jyu@seyfarth.com)\nMatthew Christoff, Esq. (mchristoff@seyfarth.com)\nBrooke K. Gary, Esq. (brgary@seyfarth.com)\nSEYFARTH SHAW LLP\n\n/s/ Gowtham A. Rao\nGowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n\n\n\n\n Page 9 of 9\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-15T18:38:28.431452-07:00","document_number":"81","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024182900","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to File Document","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493754338/","id":493754338,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/81/1/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-15T18:38:22.547696-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T18:38:23.262889-07:00","sha1":"6c0cc69ffdb0008d2cbc8aa3bc3511f0e8f73850","page_count":6,"file_size":135858,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.81.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-1 Filed 09/14/26 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB (E.D. Pa.)\nDefendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 58)\nConcerning the August 10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9), With Discovery Served After Briefing\nClosed\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n The August 10, 2025 document (Oslick Exhibit 9, ECF No. 58-12): my served\n explanation and the records that accompany it\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-1 Filed 09/14/26 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n v. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n GOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n THE AUGUST 10, 2025 DOCUMENT (OSLICK EXHIBIT 9, ECF NO. 58-12): MY\n SERVED EXPLANATION AND THE RECORDS THAT ACCOMPANY IT\nThis packet, submitted for the September 16, 2026 hearing on ECF No. 58, sets out the\n\nexplanation I served on August 28, September 5, and September 7, 2026 and the records I\n\nproduced with it. EPAM has held them since service; I do not know whether EPAM, Mr. Ilin, or\n\nits other fact witnesses have reviewed them.\n\nShort forms; exhibit numbers below refer to the exhibits to the motion (the served text is Parts A\n\nthrough D of Exhibit 5; Ghate Decl. is Exhibit 3):\n\n \u2013 RFA: Responses to Requests for Admission (Aug. 28, 2026), Exhibit 5, Part A\n \u2013 RFP-S5: Responses to the First Request for Production (Sept. 5, 2026), Part B\n \u2013 RFP-S7: First Supplemental RFP Responses (Sept. 7, 2026), Part C\n \u2013 ROG-S7: Second Supplemental Interrogatory Answers (Sept. 7, 2026), Part D\n1. EPAM's theory\nEPAM's motion calls Oslick Exhibit 9 (ECF 58-12) a \"step-by-step plan\" for rebuilding Synapse\n\nthat \"was very likely generated by providing a generative AI program with highly confidential\n\nand proprietary information about Synapse.\" (ECF 58-2 at 13.) Its source is Dmitrii Ilin, who\n\nstates that \"it would be impossible to draft the 'Architectural Vision' without access to extremely\n\nsensitive, confidential, and propriety EPAM data relating to Synapse\" (ECF 58-25 \u00b6 10), that\n\n\"This is not a document that EPAM created for any business purpose\" (\u00b6 13), and that I once\n\n\"mentioned that [I] had started 'refactoring' the Synapse code\" (\u00b6 15), without giving any date,\n\nprompt, input, or record for the document (\u00b6\u00b6 8-14). EPAM's reply brief adds that \"nowhere in\n\n\n Exhibit 1 to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on ECF No. 58\n Page 1 of 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-1 Filed 09/14/26 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\n\nRao's brief, or his 30 page declaration, or his 11 page 'Scope Appendix' does Rao supply such a\n\nreason.\" (ECF 71 at 10.) The explanation and records below were served after it.\n\n\n2. My served explanation\nMy served explanation is that Google Gemini generated the document on August 10, 2025,\n\nduring my work for EPAM as Product Owner of a proposed product concept that, as far as I\n\nknow and remember, was never built and that is distinct from the Takeda deliverable also called\n\nSynapse. \"I prompted Google Gemini with my own product ideas and publicly available\n\ninformation,\" and \"I did not input EPAM trade secrets, EPAM source code, or client source code\n\nto generate the output.\" (RFA No. 9 at 4-5.)\n\nThe document describes \"a comprehensive, step-by-step plan for building the modular backend\n\nof the EPAM Synapse platform\" (ECF 58-12 at 9) and carries a tab headed \"Jules based vibe\n\ncoding\" (id. at 14). That evening I shared it with Dr. Sudeep Ghate, an EPAM employee who\n\nreported to me (Ghate Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 4-6), and gave the plan to two AI coding agents whose output is\n\nin the record.\n\n\n3. The records in time order (all times Eastern)\nWhen What the record shows Produced at Served in\nAug. 10, 2025, \"Research - Agents\": Gemini Deep Research GRAO007214\u2013 RFP-S7 No. 8 at\n5:54 to 9:39 reports on publicly documented agent frameworks; GRAO007390; 7-8; ROG-S7 No.\nAM versions from 5:54 AM to a 9:39 AM current GRAO007392\u2013 12 at 2-3; Ghate\n version, before the architecture document existed; GRAO007399 (native Decl. \u00b6 4\n among the inputs to the later prompts; Dr. Ghate export, captures,\n declares he had editor access on Aug. 10, 2025, version history)\n India time (Ghate Decl. \u00b6 4).\nAug. 10, 2025, Drive activity shows the document's creation in my GRAO007391 (Drive RFP-S7 No. 9 at\n7:50 PM personal Google Drive and its sharing, with editor activity; filed as 10; RFP-S5 No. 9\n access, with Dr. Sudeep Ghate, then an EPAM Exhibit 4); at 77; ROG-S7\n Systems India employee who reported to me, and GRAO000448\u2013 No. 1 at 4; Ghate\n with \"Anyone on the internet with the link\" as GRAO000451 Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 5-6\n editor (Exhibit 4; see ECF 66 at 3); last edit Aug. (version history, share\n 13, 2025. settings)\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 1 to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on ECF No. 58\n Page 2 of 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-1 Filed 09/14/26 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\n\nWhen What the record shows Produced at Served in\nAug. 10, 2025, Three public GitHub repositories, each with an GRAO007204\u2013 RFP-S7 Nos. 67\n8:15 to 9:10 Apache-2.0 license from its first commit: synapse- GRAO007213 (git and 8 at 3-7;\nPM core (created 8:15 PM; its Codex pull request bundles with every ROG-S7 Nos. 12\n opened 8:41 PM), synapse-mcp-client (8:24 PM), commit; Jules session and 6 at 1-4\n synapse-retrievers (9:10 PM). Jules session archive; captures)\n 8031755035392793862, prompted with the\n document's build plan, generated the synapse-core\n scaffolding.\nAug. 11, 2025 I showed or described the work to Mr. Ilin and EPAM's Teams ROG-S7 No. 1 at\n(recollection) others at EPAM as \"vibe coded,\" meaning system 5; RFP-S7 No. 67\n generated by an AI coding agent from the plan. I at 4\n also recall sending links to the repositories inside\n EPAM over Teams, but not when or to whom;\n EPAM holds its Teams records.\nSept. 21 to I made synapse-core private Sept. 21 (settings GRAO007210\u2013 RFP-S7 No. 67 at\nDec. 12, 2025 change 6:40 AM); I restricted Dr. Ghate's access to GRAO007213; 4-5, No. 9 at 10;\n the document Nov. 2, with no content change after GRAO007391 ROG-S7 No. 6 at\n Aug. 13 (Exhibit 4; GRAO000448\u2013 4\n GRAO000451); I made the other repositories\n private Nov. 19, after this action was filed, on\n counsel's advice; iDS collected the GitHub and\n Google accounts on Dec. 12.\n\n\n\n4. What the code contains and why it matters\nMy served responses state that, after a search of \"every file of every commit in the three\n\nrepositories,\" \"none contains EPAM source code, client material, or any reference to Takeda,\n\nMedRAG, or Johnson & Johnson\" (RFP-S7 No. 67 at 3-4), and that \"The code in those\n\nrepositories was not refactored from anything of EPAM's\" (RFP-S7 No. 23 at 11). For the\n\nAugust 10 work, the record therefore shows the origin, the identified inputs, the tools, the times,\n\nthe output, and the disclosure. Those facts bear on restoration, prejudice, and intent under Rule\n\n37(e).\n\nMr. Ilin describes Synapse as software he has coded for about the past year and says the\n\ndocument would let someone recreate a solution \"substantially similar ... to Synapse as it exists\n\ntoday\" (ECF 58-25 \u00b6\u00b6 1, 6, 8). My served position is that the deliverable Mr. Ilin describes was\n\nbuilt for Takeda under a Master Services Agreement (ECF 62-30 \u00b6 17; ECF 33 \u00b6\u00b6 215-220), and\n\n\n\n Exhibit 1 to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on ECF No. 58\n Page 3 of 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-1 Filed 09/14/26 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\n\nthat, as far as I know and remember, the concept in Oslick Exhibit 9 (ECF 58-12) was never built\n\n(RFA No. 9 at 4; RFP-S7 No. 23 at 11-12).\n\n\n5. The repositories and Mr. Ilin's paragraph 15\nThe repositories, https://github.com/gowthamrao/synapse-core, synapse-mcp-client, and\n\nsynapse-retrievers, in my personal GitHub account, were public when I set them up on August\n\n10, 2025 and while Dr. Ghate had them, each with an Apache License 2.0 file from its first\n\ncommit, and no code was added to or changed in any of them afterward (RFP-S7 No. 67 at 4-5;\n\nNo. 23 at 11).\n\nMr. Ilin says that, to the best of his knowledge, I \"did not store this code ... on any EPAM\n\nsystem, device, or account\" (ECF 58-25 \u00b6 15). I recall sending links to the repositories inside\n\nEPAM over Teams, though not when or to whom, and I do not claim that I gave Mr. Ilin the\n\ncode (ROG-S7 No. 1 at 5-6). The code was one evening's experiment: \"I did not test the code the\n\nagent generated, I could not tell whether it was working code or something the model had\n\ninvented, and to the best of my knowledge it has never been used\" (ROG-S7 No. 1 at 5). Four\n\ndays earlier Google had announced that Jules was \"officially out of beta and launching publicly\"\n\n(Exhibit 6). In my view nothing here is refactoring, which reworks existing code: the Jules\n\nprompt was the plan (GRAO007208), and \"To the best of my knowledge and recollection, I did\n\nnot give EPAM source code, client material, or any part of the Takeda deliverable to either\n\ncoding agent\" (RFP-S7 No. 8 at 7).\n\n\n6. The Takeda-Synapse archives in my files\nMy September 5 response to Request No. 1 identifies six archives in my OneDrive named for the\n\nTakeda-Synapse project, produced as exact-byte natives at GRAO001507\u2013GRAO001512.\n\nTogether they are 23,175 bytes, about 23 kilobytes: smaller than a single small photograph, and\n\n\n\n Exhibit 1 to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on ECF No. 58\n Page 4 of 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-1 Filed 09/14/26 Page 6 of 6\n\n\n\n\nsmaller than the 47-kilobyte bundle of one of my repositories from the evening of August 10\n\n(RFP-S7 No. 67 at 3). Five hold a single README.md of about six kilobytes, the sixth a\n\nREADME.md and Terraform deployment configuration. A README is a repository's front-\n\npage description, and these are \"the default text GitLab writes when a repository is created.\" The\n\nsame contents sit in the iDS workspace under control numbers RAO0012666, RAO0002017, and\n\nRAO0012673, and of the 405 hash values on Exhibit C to the Forensic Protocol (ECF 55 at 11)\n\nonly three match content inside them, each a README.md. My served conclusion is that \"the\n\narchives bearing the project's name hold documentation and deployment configuration, not an\n\napplication.\" (RFP-S5 No. 1 at 27-28.)\n\nIn my view, I held only the repositories' initial state, and the inference quoted in section 1\n\ndepends on my having had that code.\n\n\n7. How EPAM's filings describe Synapse\nThe amended complaint says the AI Accelerator \"was also developed by EPAM in 2025\" (ECF\n\n37 \u00b6 23, at 6). Mr. Klebanov says that \"Synapse and MedRag (another EPAM development)\n\ntogether are referred to as AI Accelerator\" (ECF 58-28 \u00b6 3, at 1) and that EPAM logged \"over\n\n4,600 employee hours\" to \"the project that included Synapse\" (ECF 60-3 \u00b6 2, at 1).\n\nThe one repository EPAM has put in the record is its GitLab project \"takeda-synapse-infra\"\n\n(ECF 58-20 at 2). EPAM's product manager relayed EPAM Legal's reading of the Takeda\n\nagreements to me on September 23, 2025: \"everything we build belongs to Takeda and the MSA\n\ncontrols over the SOW in the event of a conflict between the terms of the two documents\" (ECF\n\n43-7 at 3; ECF 33-2 at 1).\n\nDated: September 14, 2026. /s/ Gowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD, Defendant and Counterclaim-\nPlaintiff, pro se, 184 Mansgrove Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540, Telephone: (803) 386-7890,\ngowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n\n\n Exhibit 1 to Defendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on ECF No. 58\n Page 5 of 5\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-15T18:38:23.262428-07:00","document_number":"81","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"153024182901","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1 - Served Explanation and Records (Aug. 10, 2025 Document)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493754339/","id":493754339,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/81/2/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-15T18:38:22.588543-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T18:38:23.735124-07:00","sha1":"292f82065dfffd1327868a77f9800eed9ac9860c","page_count":6,"file_size":115691,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.81.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-2 Filed 09/14/26 Page 1 of 6\n\n\n\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB (E.D. Pa.)\nDefendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 58)\nConcerning the August 10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9), With Discovery Served After Briefing\nClosed\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n Supplemental Declaration of Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD, Identifying the Produced\n Records Concerning the August 10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9)\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-2 Filed 09/14/26 Page 2 of 6\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n v. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n GOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF GOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD, IDENTIFYING\n THE PRODUCED RECORDS CONCERNING THE AUGUST 10, 2025 DOCUMENT\n (OSLICK EXHIBIT 9)\n\nI, Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD, declare under penalty of perjury under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746:\n\n1. I am the Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff in this action, appearing pro se. I make\n\n this declaration from personal knowledge to identify the records described in Exhibit 1,\n\n each of which I produced to EPAM under the Bates numbers stated below. Because\n\n EPAM contends in its motion to seal (ECF No. 60) that the August 10, 2025 document\n\n contains trade secrets, I have not attached those records to this public filing, with one\n\n exception: the one-page Google Drive activity record identified in paragraph 3, which\n\n shows nothing of the document's contents.\n\n2. I opposed EPAM's motion to seal (ECF No. 66) and maintain that opposition. I object on\n\n the same grounds to sealing the records identified in this declaration, and I withhold them\n\n from the public docket now only because EPAM's motion is pending. I would prefer to\n\n file them on the public docket and will do so if the Court permits or EPAM does not\n\n object; otherwise I will provide copies to the Court in camera or under seal, as the Court\n\n directs.\n\n3. On September 7, 2026, I produced at GRAO007391 a capture I made of the Google\n\n Drive activity record for the August 10, 2025 document that EPAM filed as Exhibit 9 to\n\n\n\n Page 1 of 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-2 Filed 09/14/26 Page 3 of 6\n\n\n\n\n the Oslick Declaration (ECF No. 58-12). On September 5, 2026, I produced at\n\n GRAO000448\u2013GRAO000451 the version-history and share-settings captures for the\n\n same document. I made each capture from my personal Google account,\n\n gowthamrao@gmail.com, and each shows the screen as it appeared when I captured it. A\n\n true copy of GRAO007391, as produced, is Exhibit 4 to the motion. It shows the\n\n document's title, \"Synapse architecture,\" its creation and sharing on August 10, 2025 at\n\n 7:50 PM, an edit on August 13, 2025, and the access restriction of November 2, 2025;\n\n there was no change to the document's content after August 13, 2025. The\n\n \"CONFIDENTIAL\" legend in its footer is the production legend that my production\n\n applied to every page of volume GRAO_PROD_001 under the confidentiality\n\n designation in that volume's load file. As the producing party, I withdraw that designation\n\n for Exhibit 4.\n\n4. Also on September 7, 2026, I produced the document titled \"Research - Agents\" from the\n\n same account: a native export at GRAO007214\u2013GRAO007386, its version-history\n\n captures at GRAO007392\u2013GRAO007393, and captures of its tabs and content at\n\n GRAO007387\u2013GRAO007390 and GRAO007394\u2013GRAO007399.\n\n5. On the same date I produced captures of the GitHub repository list for my personal\n\n account, of pull request No. 2 and the branch list of gowthamrao/synapse-core, of that\n\n repository's Apache License 2.0 file, and of the Google Jules session page and repository\n\n overview (GRAO007208\u2013GRAO007213). The three repositories are\n\n https://github.com/gowthamrao/synapse-core, https://github.com/gowthamrao/synapse-\n\n mcp-client, and https://github.com/gowthamrao/synapse-retrievers, in my personal\n\n GitHub account. I set them up on the evening of Sunday, August 10, 2025. They were\n\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-2 Filed 09/14/26 Page 4 of 6\n\n\n\n\n public when I set them up and while Dr. Ghate had them to review, and each carried an\n\n Apache License 2.0 file from its first commit.\n\n6. I made synapse-core private on September 21, 2025, and I do not recall my reason for\n\n doing so that day. I made my other personal GitHub repositories, including synapse-mcp-\n\n client and synapse-retrievers, private in November 2025, after this action was filed, on\n\n the advice of the counsel then representing me. GitHub does not record when a\n\n repository's visibility changed, but its account records show a settings change to synapse-\n\n core at 6:40 AM Eastern on September 21, 2025, and a settings change to 122 of my\n\n repositories, including synapse-mcp-client and synapse-retrievers, between 7:34 and 7:38\n\n AM Eastern on November 19, 2025. No code was added to or changed in any of the three\n\n after August 10, 2025 (in GitHub's terms, there was no push), and I have not developed,\n\n run, or built on any of them since that evening.\n\n7. I produced the three repositories to EPAM as git bundles at GRAO007204\u2013\n\n GRAO007206, with the Jules session archive at GRAO007207, on September 7, 2026.\n\n The bundles were taken from GitHub on September 6, 2026 and carry every commit,\n\n branch, tag, and pull-request reference that each repository held that day, so every\n\n commit in each repository's history as of that day is before EPAM.\n\n8. On September 5, 2026, I produced at GRAO001507\u2013GRAO001512, as exact-byte\n\n natives, the six archives bearing the Takeda-Synapse project's name that I found in the\n\n OneDrive Documents\\ss folder on Device Source A0001: takeda-synapse-backend-\n\n main.zip, takeda-synapse-embedding-main.zip, takeda-synapse-etl-main.zip, takeda-\n\n synapse-infra-main.zip, takeda-synapse-vector-mcp-server-main.zip, and takeda-synapse-\n\n webapp-main.zip. Together they come to 23,175 bytes, about 23 kilobytes. Five of them\n\n\n\n\n Page 3 of 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-2 Filed 09/14/26 Page 5 of 6\n\n\n\n\n hold a single README.md each, and the sixth holds a README.md and Terraform\n\n configuration files; each README.md is the default text that GitLab writes when a\n\n repository is created. My response to Request for Production No. 1 (September 5, 2026,\n\n at 27-28) describes them. The same contents are in the iDS review workspace as separate\n\n documents with control numbers, among them RAO0012666, RAO0002017, and\n\n RAO0012673, and the copies that existed on December 12, 2025 are in the December 12\n\n image that iDS holds.\n\n9. My responses to Request for Admission No. 9 (August 28, 2026), to Requests for\n\n Production Nos. 1, 8, 9, 23, and 67 (September 5 and 7, 2026), and to Interrogatories\n\n Nos. 1, 6, and 12 (September 7, 2026) describe these records and explain how the August\n\n 10, 2025 document and the code were generated. What those responses say about how the\n\n document and the code were generated, and about the records identified in this\n\n declaration, is true to the best of my knowledge and recollection, with two corrections to\n\n my response to Request for Production No. 1 (at 27): the takeda-synapse-infra archive\n\n holds six Terraform files, not eight, and the six README.md files differ from one\n\n another in the project name, which appears on the first line and in two web addresses in\n\n each file, not on the first line alone. True copies of the cited pages of those responses,\n\n with their caption and signature pages, are Exhibit 5 to the motion. In the public copy of\n\n Exhibit 5, the names of two individuals who are not parties to this action, which appear in\n\n the text of Requests for Admission Nos. 1 and 8 on pages 1 and 4 of Part A, are covered,\n\n consistent with the position I took in my opposition to EPAM's motion to seal (ECF No.\n\n 66 at 1). The copies I served on EPAM are unredacted, and I will provide an unredacted\n\n copy to the Court on request. Nothing else in Exhibit 5 is altered.\n\n\n\n\n Page 4 of 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-2 Filed 09/14/26 Page 6 of 6\n\n\n\n\n10. Paragraph 17 of my declaration of August 19, 2026 (ECF No. 62-30) states that EPAM's\n\n product manager relayed EPAM Legal's conclusion to me on September 22, 2025. The\n\n Microsoft Teams record that EPAM filed (ECF No. 43-7 at 2-3) stamps that exchange\n\n September 23, 2025. I correct the date to September 23, 2025.\n\n11. Exhibit 6 to the motion is Google's announcement of August 6, 2025, \"Jules, our\n\n asynchronous coding agent, is now available for everyone,\" printed on September 14,\n\n 2026 from my computer, at my direction, from the address shown on its cover page,\n\n together with the Internet Archive capture of that page dated September 6, 2025, printed\n\n the same day in the same way. The cover page records both addresses and the print times.\n\n\nExecuted on September 14, 2026, at Princeton, New Jersey.\n\n/s/ Gowtham A. Rao\nGowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n184 Mansgrove Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540\nTelephone: (803) 386-7890\ngowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n\n\n\n\n Page 5 of 5\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-15T18:38:23.734775-07:00","document_number":"81","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"153024182902","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2 - Supplemental Declaration of Gowtham Rao","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493754340/","id":493754340,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/81/3/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-15T18:38:22.601623-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T18:38:24.413231-07:00","sha1":"6a966f1cd97121deadec074dd13e81550abcc2f7","page_count":3,"file_size":711480,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.81.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-3 Filed 09/14/26 Pagelof3\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB (E.D. Pa.)\n\nDefendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 58)\nConcerning the August 10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9), With Discovery Served After Briefing\nClosed\n\nEXHIBIT 3\n\nDeclaration of Dr. Sudeep Ghate, executed at Mangaluru, India on September 14,\n2026 under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746(1)\n\fCase 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-3 Filed 09/14/26 Page 2of3\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\nPlaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n\nVv. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n\nGOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\nDefendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\nDECLARATION OF DR. SUDEEP GHATE\n\nI, Sudeep Ghate, declare as follows:\n\nl. I live in Mangaluru, Karnataka, India. | am over eighteen years old. | am not a party to\nthis action. | make this declaration from my own knowledge, voluntarily, and no one has\npaid or promised me anything for it.\n\n2. I worked for EPAM Systems India Private Limited, Hyderabad, from June 11, 2025 until\nJanuary 30, 2026, as Senior Scientific Curation Specialist (Employee ID 674226). I\nresigned, and EPAM Systems India accepted my resignation with effect from the closing\nhours of January 30, 2026; its Relieving Letter of January 30, 2026 and Service Letter of\nFebruary 22, 2026 record these dates. From June 11, 2025 until October 15, 2025, I\nreported to Dr. Gowtham Rao.\n\n3. From May 9, 2026, under an appointment letter of that date, I served as President and\nCountry Head of CoReason India LLP, the position that had been advertised as Managing\nDirector, and I resigned on August 24, 2026. I hold no position with, and have no\nfinancial interest in, CoReason, Inc. or CoReason India LLP.\n\n4. On Sunday, August 10, 2025, India time, Dr. Rao gave me editor access to a Google\n\nDocs document titled \"Research - Agents.\"\n\nPage | of 2\n\fCase 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-3 Filed 09/14/26 Page 3of3\n\n5. On Monday, August 11, 2025, India time, Dr. Rao gave me editor access to a Google\nDocs document titled \"Synapse architecture.\" | understood the document to concern the\nSynapse product concept that Dr. Rao was proposing for EPAM, and I understood the\n\nsharing as part of my EPAM work under his supervision.\n\n6. Around the same time, Dr. Rao also gave me a link to the GitHub repository for this\nwork.\na This declaration states the facts of the sharing and nothing else about EPAM's business. |\n\ncannot travel to Philadelphia for the September 16, 2026 hearing. | am a citizen of India,\nand I do not currently hold a visa to travel to the United States. I cannot bear the cost of\nthe travel, and there is no time left to make travel arrangements. I am not a party to this\n\ncase. I am willing to answer questions by video if the Court permits.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the\n\nforegoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on September 14, 2026, at Mangaluru, Karnataka, India.\n\nSudeep Ghate\n\nPage 2 of 2\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-15T18:38:24.412877-07:00","document_number":"81","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"153024182903","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3 - Declaration of Dr. Sudeep Ghate","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493754341/","id":493754341,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/81/4/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-15T18:38:22.614794-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T18:38:25.031342-07:00","sha1":"d606cff487c6965e17ff6fa7dee13cf029034e7c","page_count":2,"file_size":132598,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.81.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-4 Filed 09/14/26 Pagelof2\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB (E.D. Pa.)\n\nDefendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 58)\nConcerning the August 10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9), With Discovery Served After Briefing\nClosed\n\nEXHIBIT 4\n\nGoogle Drive activity record for the August 10, 2025 document, as produced to\nEPAM on September 7, 2026 (GRAO007391)\n\fCONFIDENTIAL\n\nCase 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-4 Filed 09/14/26 Page2of2\n\n\u2014 BRS) ate) eee ali renal a\n\nBy-a ee) 1S p Xen ahh a7\n=) oro\n\nb olUMeat-10 a (e1(seN-|ee\\s1-1-M (OR- ami (slip\nTo eee betas! ee 4 |\n\naos ect ae\n\naa\n\nb(olUm=re/icsiem-)amicsian\nNU Le i eee cee O Tee B EN)\n\nBBS ar cece ae\n\nb (olUMeig-t-] (<0 M-laleM-jar-lc-10B-la Nici n\nrN ile | O10 Pc ors 0 4010) 21\")\n\nCM Aan |\n\nSEs ce neice\n\n4) NeW ielal-Mevemisl-Minlcceelcim i 1ag\nidarem lass\nsto lites\n\nPMs Te le (27-1 oe Lal)\nee = lie)\n\nGRAO007391\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-15T18:38:25.031024-07:00","document_number":"81","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"153024182904","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 4 - Google Drive Activity Record (GRAO007391)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493754342/","id":493754342,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/81/5/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-15T18:38:22.627840-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T18:38:26.152944-07:00","sha1":"4dbbbf22aa08c0c40ae5e09edad1865e57a8eb05","page_count":29,"file_size":5075122,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.81.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 1 of 29\n\n\n\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB (E.D. Pa.)\nDefendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 58)\nConcerning the August 10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9), With Discovery Served After Briefing\nClosed\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 5\n Excerpts of Rao's served discovery responses concerning the August 10, 2025\n document, cited in Exhibit 1 (served August 28, September 5, and September 7,\n 2026), with caption and signature pages; two nonparty names covered in this\n public copy\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 2 of 29\n\n\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB (E.D. Pa.)\n\nEXHIBIT 5\nExcerpts of Rao's served discovery responses concerning the August 10, 2025 document,\ncited in Exhibit 1\n\nEach excerpt is copied from the response as served, with the document's caption page and its signature,\ncertification, or verification page. Page numbers below are the served documents' own page numbers.\nPages not reproduced are omitted only for length; complete copies were served on EPAM on the dates\nshown.\n\nIn this public copy the names of two individuals who are not parties to this action, which appear in the\ntext of Requests for Admission Nos. 1 and 8 on pages 1 and 4 of Part A, are covered by black boxes.\nEPAM's motion to seal (ECF No. 60) asks the Court to protect the identities of nonparties it refers to as\nExecutives #1 through #3, and Rao proposed continuing that convention in any exhibit displayed publicly\n(ECF No. 66 at 1). The copies served on EPAM are unredacted, and an unredacted copy will be provided\nto the Court on request. Nothing else is altered.\n\nA. Rao's Responses to EPAM's First Set of Requests for Admission, served August 28, 2026\n\n\n caption; Request No. 9 and response (pp. 4-5); signature and Rule 26(g) certification (p. 10) (4 pages)\n\n\nB. Rao's Responses to EPAM's First Request for Production, served September 5, 2026\n\n\n caption; Request No. 1 response, the six Takeda-Synapse archives (pp. 27-28); Request No. 9\n response (p. 77); signature (p. 304) (5 pages)\n\nC. Rao's First Supplemental Responses to EPAM's First Request for Production, served September\n7, 2026\n caption; Requests Nos. 67 (pp. 3-5), 7-8 (pp. 6-8), 9 (p. 10), and 23 (pp. 11-12); signature (p. 16) (11\n pages)\n\nD. Rao's Second Supplemental Answers to EPAM's First Set of Interrogatories, served September\n7, 2026\n complete: Interrogatories Nos. 12, 6, and 1 (pp. 1-6); signature and Rule 26(g) certification (p. 7) (7\n pages)\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 3 of 29\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc., CIVIL ACTION\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n v.\nGOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n NO. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n\n\n DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF GOWTHAM RAO'S RESPONSES\n AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.'S FIRST SET OF\n REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION (NOS. 1\u201318)\n\nPursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 36, I, Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff\nGowtham Rao, MD, PhD, proceeding pro se, respond and object to Plaintiff and Counterclaim-\nDefendant EPAM Systems, Inc.'s (\"EPAM\") First Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 1\u201318),\nserved on August 10, 2026, as follows.\n\n PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\nThese responses are based on the information known or readily obtainable after reasonable\ninquiry as of August 28, 2026. Each response states its own objection, admission, denial, or\nqualification. No general objection is incorporated into a numbered response. A qualified\nresponse admits what is true and denies or declines to admit only the remainder. I reserve\nobjections to the admissibility of EPAM's exhibits, including objections based on completeness,\nfoundation, authentication, and hearsay; those reservations do not replace the substantive Rule 36\nresponses below.\n\n RESPONSES AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS\n\n REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1\n\n Admit that you had conversations with on September 18-19, 2025.\n\nResponse: Admitted.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 4 of 29\n\n\n\n\n REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8\n\n Admit that Exhibit D is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum prepared by a\n generative artificial intelligence program, summarizing a conversation you had with\n on September 18, 2025.\n\nResponse: Admitted in part and qualified in part. Exhibit D appears to be a copy of a machine-\ngenerated memorandum associated with my September 18, 2025 conversation with\n . The memorandum labels him \u201c EPAM.\u201d Its format and content appear\nsimilar to the memorandum I recall. After reasonable inquiry, including review of Exhibit D and\nthe available iDS source information, the information I know or can readily obtain is insufficient\nto determine whether Exhibit D is a complete and unaltered reproduction of the material\ncollected by iDS. A passive listening application generated the source memorandum. I did not\nedit, correct, or delete the source memorandum. My admission is limited to the apparent subject\nand provenance of Exhibit D. It does not admit that the memorandum is a verbatim, complete, or\nsubstantively accurate account of the conversation. I do not adopt the model's characterizations,\nattributions, inferences, or legal conclusions. I also cannot attest whether the memorandum\ncontains an AI-generated hallucination or overstatement, adds content attributable to the model's\npretrained weights rather than the underlying conversation, or reflects regression toward the\nmean or another generic model pattern. Except as expressly admitted, Request No. 8 is denied.\n\n REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9\n\n Admit that Exhibit E is a true and accurate copy of a document that you generated, at least\n in part, by inputting, into a generative AI program, documents relating to EPAM's Synapse\n software.\n\nResponse: I object because \u201cEPAM's Synapse software\u201d is undefined, and the Request combines\ncopy identity, generation method, and source provenance in a single proposition. During my\nemployment, \u201cSynapse\u201d referred to two different subjects: \u201cTakeda-Synapse,\u201d a Takeda client\ndeliverable, and \u201cEPAM Synapse,\u201d a theoretical and, to my present knowledge, unbuilt product\nconcept that I proposed EPAM build. I understand this Request to concern the proposed EPAM\nSynapse concept.\nSubject to and without waiving the objection, admitted with qualification. Exhibit E appears to\nbe a copy of an August 10, 2025 conceptual-architecture document that I generated during work I\nperformed for EPAM from approximately July through August 2025, and its format and content\nappear similar to the document I recall. After reasonable inquiry, including review of Exhibit E\nand the available iDS source information, the information I know or can readily obtain is\ninsufficient to determine whether Exhibit E is a complete and unaltered reproduction of the\nmaterial collected by iDS. I performed this work as an EPAM employee and designated Product\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 5 of 29\n\n\n\n\nOwner. EPAM authorized my use of Google Gemini for this work. I prompted Google Gemini\nwith my own product ideas and publicly available information. My present recollection is that I\nalso used earlier Google Gemini-generated outputs, including research outputs from the same\nJune-August 2025 workflow, as inputs to later Google Gemini prompts, and that those prior\noutputs and later prompts concerned the proposed, unbuilt EPAM Synapse concept. Based on\nthat present recollection, I admit that documents relating to that proposed concept were input into\nGoogle Gemini. I do not admit the Request's characterization of the proposed concept as existing\n\u201csoftware.\u201d I did not input EPAM trade secrets, EPAM source code, or client source code to\ngenerate the output. I did not compose the model-generated text, and I do not adopt the model's\ncharacterizations, attributions, inferences, or legal conclusions. I cannot attest whether the\nmodel-generated content contains an AI-generated hallucination or overstatement, adds content\nattributable to the model's pretrained weights rather than to the inputs I supplied, or reflects\nregression toward the mean or another generic model pattern. Except as expressly admitted,\nRequest No. 9 is denied.\n\n REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10\n\n Admit that Exhibit F is a true and accurate copy of a document that you generated, at least\n in part, by inputting, into a generative AI program, documents relating to EPAM's Synapse\n software.\n\nResponse: I object because \u201cEPAM's Synapse software\u201d is undefined, and the Request combines\ncopy identity, generation method, and source provenance in a single proposition. During my\nemployment, \u201cSynapse\u201d referred to two different subjects: \u201cTakeda-Synapse,\u201d a Takeda client\ndeliverable, and \u201cEPAM Synapse,\u201d a theoretical and, to my present knowledge, unbuilt product\nconcept that I proposed EPAM build. I understand this Request to concern the proposed EPAM\nSynapse concept.\nSubject to and without waiving the objection, admitted with qualification. Exhibit F appears to be\na copy of an August 16, 2025 NotebookLM comparison derived from the architectural work I\nperformed for EPAM from approximately July through August 2025, and its format and content\nappear similar to the document I recall. After reasonable inquiry, including review of Exhibit F\nand the available iDS source information, the information I know or can readily obtain is\ninsufficient to determine whether Exhibit F is a complete and unaltered reproduction of the\nmaterial collected by iDS. I performed this work as an EPAM employee and designated Product\nOwner. EPAM authorized my use of Google Gemini for this work. My present recollection is that\nI imported into Google NotebookLM as an input source a Google Doc containing Google\nGemini-generated output from an iterative workflow using my own product ideas, publicly\navailable information, and earlier Gemini-generated outputs, including research outputs. My\npresent recollection is also that the Google Doc concerned the proposed, unbuilt EPAM Synapse\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 6 of 29\n\n\n\n\n SIGNATURE AND RULE 26(G) CERTIFICATION\n\nBy signing below, I certify under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(1) that, to the best of my\nknowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry, these responses and\nobjections are consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and warranted by existing\nlaw; are not interposed for an improper purpose; and are neither unreasonable nor unduly\nburdensome.\n\nDated: August 28, 2026\nPrinceton, New Jersey\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n/s/ Gowtham Rao\n\nGowtham Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n184 Mansgrove Rd.\n\nPrinceton, NJ 08540\nTelephone: (803) 386-7890 | gowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI certify that on August 28, 2026, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by electronic\nmail, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) and the parties' written consent to\nelectronic service, on counsel of record for EPAM Systems, Inc.\n/s/ Gowtham Rao\n\nGowtham Rao, MD, PhD\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 7 of 29\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION\nPlainti\ufb00/Counterclaim-Defendant,\nv. NO. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nGOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\nDefendant/Counterclaim-Plainti\ufb00.\n\n DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF GOWTHAM RAO'S\n RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.'S\n FIRST REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (NOS. 1\u201370)\n\nPursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34, I, Defendant and Counterclaim-\nPlainti\ufb00 Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD, proceeding pro se, respond and object to Plainti\ufb00 and\nCounterclaim-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc.'s (\"EPAM\") First Request for the Production\nof Documents (Nos. 1\u201370), served on August 10, 2026 (the \"Requests\"), as follows.\n\n Preliminary Statement\n\n \u2022 These responses are based on information known or reasonably available to me after\n reasonable inquiry as of September 5, 2026.\n \u2022 Each numbered response states its own objections and states whether responsive\n material is being withheld on the basis of an objection, as Rule 34(b)(2)(C) requires.\n \u2022 The objections to EPAM's De\ufb01nitions and Instructions in Part I apply only where a\n numbered response invokes them by number, except Objections I-14 and I-16, which\n state the form of production and the sources I have not searched and apply to every\n Request.\n\n \u2022 I assert the same protections stated in my September 1, 2026 answers to EPAM's First\n Set of Interrogatories:\n \u25cb the attorney-client privilege for qualifying con\ufb01dential legal-advice\n communications\n \u25cb work-product protection under Rule 26(b)(3) for material prepared in anticipation\n of litigation or for trial by or for me\n \u25cb and the con\ufb01dential-marital-communications privilege.\n\n \u2022 I do not assert a \"pro se privilege\" or a \"family privilege,\" and I do not treat\n con\ufb01dentiality, privacy, or commercial sensitivity as privilege.\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 8 of 29\n\n\n\n\n \\OneDrive\\Documents\\ss\\ folder on Device Source A0001 identi\ufb01ed in\n EPAM's counsel's April 22, 2026 email, produced as exact-byte natives as they\n exist in that folder on Device Source A0001 on September 3, 2026, with hash\n values in the load \ufb01le; the copies that existed on December 12, 2025 are in the\n December 12 image, which controls on any di\ufb00erence.\n \u25a0 Six of the thirty-four carry names matching the Takeda-Synapse project:\n takeda-synapse-backend-main.zip, takeda-synapse-embedding-\n main.zip, takeda-synapse-etl-main.zip, takeda-synapse-infra-\n main.zip, takeda-synapse-vector-mcp-server-main.zip, and\n takeda-synapse-webapp-main.zip.\n \u25a0 Together those six are 23,175 bytes, between 3,023 and 7,932 bytes each and\n averaging 3,862 bytes, and 48,462 bytes when extracted.\n \u25a0 Five of the six contain one \ufb01le each, a README.md of about six kilobytes. The\n sixth, takeda-synapse-infra-main.zip, contains a README.md and eight\n Terraform con\ufb01guration \ufb01les under iac/dev, the largest of which is 6,512\n bytes. Nothing else is in them.\n \u25a0 The six README.md \ufb01les are the default text GitLab writes when a repository\n is created, identical to one another except for the project name on the \ufb01rst line.\n The \ufb01le in takeda-synapse-etl-main.zip begins: \"# takeda-synapse-etl\n ... ## Getting started ... To make it easy for you to get started with GitLab,\n here's a list of recommended next steps. Already a pro? Just edit this\n README.md and make it your own.\" The remainder is GitLab's checklist for\n adding \ufb01les, integrating tools, and setting up continuous integration, followed\n by the generic section headings from makeareadme.com. Each \ufb01le carries the\n repository's address on EPAM's GitLab server.\n \u25a0 The Terraform \ufb01les in takeda-synapse-infra-main.zip are deployment\n con\ufb01guration for a development environment. They reference a client's\n Terraform Cloud organization and workspace and describe instance, network,\n and access settings; credentials are read from a vault at run time, and no\n credential, key, or password appears in any of the six \ufb01les. I do not quote them\n here, because they concern a nonparty client's infrastructure; they are\n produced in full, and I ask that they be treated accordingly.\n \u25a0 The contents of these archives are also in the iDS review workspace as\n separate documents with control numbers, where I reviewed and coded them\n under Protocol \u00a7 III(b). The README.md from takeda-synapse-\n embedding-main.zip is control number RAO0012666, and the Terraform\n backend con\ufb01guration appears at control numbers RAO0002017 and\n RAO0012673. The same content carries more than one control number because\n\n\n\n 27\n\fCase 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 9 of 29\n\n\n\n\n the workspace holds a document for each place the \ufb01le was found, which is\n the same reason iDS's hash workbooks report 4,406 hit rows for 405 distinct\n \ufb01les. What I state about their contents is what those documents show.\n \u25a0 Three of the 405 Exhibit C hash values match content inside these six\n archives, and each of the three is a README.md, in takeda-synapse-etl-\n main.zip, takeda-synapse-vector-mcp-server-main.zip, and\n takeda-synapse-webapp-main.zip, at one hit row each. No Exhibit C\n value matches any other \ufb01le in the six, and none matches the archives\n themselves.\n \u25a0 What I state here is what I observed when I retrieved the six archives from the\n ss folder on September 3, 2026: the archives bearing the project's name hold\n documentation and deployment con\ufb01guration, not an application.\n \u25a0 Because these are Contested Materials, and because what I retrieved appears\n to show that the archives hold no substantive \ufb01le, I will work with EPAM to\n retrieve the six from iDS, at EPAM's cost under Protocol \u00a7 V(a), so that the\n copies as they stood on December 12, 2025 are the copies before the parties. I\n authorize that release under paragraph 2 for these six archives.\n\n \u25cb GRAO001478: a capture of the AWS Pricing Calculator estimate dated October 6,\n 2025 for a Johnson & Johnson Innovative Research deployment of MedRAG\n Knowledge Fabric, which I prepared for EPAM's MedRAG work during my\n employment and which shows the EPAM work for which I was using Takeda-\n Synapse and MedRAG materials at the end of September and in early October\n 2025.\n \u25cb Of the 354 residual values, 278 \ufb01les are on Device Source A0001 today with\n matching hash values and are produced at GRAO001522\u2013GRAO002585 as they\n exist there. Two hundred seventy-seven of the 278 sit in the Altera copy folder\n of my OneDrive, which holds the EPAM Altera Health Modernization and\n Transformation document library that EPAM shared with me when I joined and\n that synchronized to the device: the library's data-warehouse, reporting, CMS\n quality-measure, document-scan, and Elitea proof-of-concept working \ufb01les, in the\n form of presentations, spreadsheets, PDFs, Word documents, notebooks, scripts,\n diagrams, and logs; the remaining one is Odysseus RM onboarding.pdf.\n Seventeen are recordings, which I produce at GRAO002614\u2013GRAO002630 as\n exact-byte natives with their hash values in the load \ufb01le, about 1.54 gigabytes in\n all; sixteen of them are in the EPAM Altera Health Modernization and\n Transformation document library, under its DW, Reporting, Docu Scan, and\n Elitea POC folders. EPAM shared that library with me when I joined, and it\n synchronized to Device Source A0001, which is why it holds recordings whose \ufb01le\n\n\n 28\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 10 of 29\n\n\n\n\n \u25cb (18) Existing documents only: I produce existing documents; I create none and\n execute no authorization or release.\n\n \u2022 De\ufb01nitions and instructions incorporated.\n \u25cb (19) Objections I-3, I-17, and I-18 apply to this Request as stated in Part I, and I\n respond under the constructions they state.\n \u25cb (20) Part I objections applied: I-3, I-17, I-18.\n\n \u2022 Grounds incorporated from another Request.\n \u25cb (21) The grounds stated in response to Request No. 8 apply to the extent this\n Request overlaps them.\n \u25cb (22) Related: Request No. 8; documents produced under them are not re-produced\n here.\n\nResponse [RFP-9]\n \u2022 Produced with these responses.\n \u25cb GRAO000448\u2013GRAO000452: Google Docs version-history and share-settings\n captures for the Exhibit E document and the Exhibit F comparison content.\n \u25cb Exhibit G re\ufb02ects a concept I developed in December 2025, after my employment\n ended (Request for Admission No. 11); its development materials are addressed in\n Request No. 8.\n\n \u2022 Identi\ufb01ed and not re-produced.\n \u25cb The application data that existed on a collected source is in the December 12\n image (paragraph 2).\n\n \u2022 Not located or not in existence.\n \u25cb The recordings from which the Exhibit A through D summaries were generated\n were made with my telephone's voice-recorder application or with the Otter\n application while I subscribed to it. My general practice at the time was to delete a\n recording once its summary had been generated, and I hold no recording or\n transcript of the conversations those Exhibits summarize. I departed from that\n practice for ten recordings, and I state why rather than leave the exception\n unexplained: I kept the recordings of my September 17 through October 1, 2025\n meetings with EPAM management because they are material to the end of my\n employment. I produce them under Request No. 29. The Otter application and its\n data are not on my current devices or accounts.\n \u25cb Exhibits E and F were created in Google accounts collected by iDS (Requests for\n Admission Nos. 9 and 10).\n\n\n\n 77\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 11 of 29\n\n\n\nNo. 62 230 GRAO000001\u2013GRAO000252; GRAO000316\u2013GRAO000363; GRAO000375\u2013\n GRAO000436; GRAO000438\u2013GRAO000447; GRAO000477\u2013GRAO000736;\n GRAO000790\u2013GRAO000975; GRAO000987\u2013GRAO000988; GRAO000993\u2013\n GRAO001089; GRAO001094\u2013GRAO001129; GRAO001140\u2013GRAO001290;\n GRAO001293\u2013GRAO001296; GRAO001298\u2013GRAO001521; and 1 further ranges\nNo. 63 1240 GRAO000976\u2013GRAO000992; GRAO001333\u2013GRAO001405; GRAO002848\u2013\n GRAO007203\nNo. 64 2 GRAO001140\u2013GRAO001290\nNo. 65 26 GRAO000001\u2013GRAO000008; GRAO000453\u2013GRAO000476\nNo. 66 0 none\nNo. 67 4 GRAO001437\u2013GRAO001439; GRAO002682\u2013GRAO002697\nNo. 68 111 GRAO001437\u2013GRAO001439; GRAO001464; GRAO002740\u2013GRAO002847\nNo. 69 0 none\nNo. 70 0 none\n\n\n Signature and Rule 26(g) Certi\ufb01cation\n\nI certify under Rule 26(g)(1) that, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief\nformed after a reasonable inquiry, these responses and objections are consistent with the\nFederal Rules of Civil Procedure and warranted by existing law or a nonfrivolous argument\nfor its extension, are not interposed for any improper purpose, and are neither unreasonable\nnor unduly burdensome or expensive considering the needs of the case.\n\nDated: September 5, 2026 Princeton, New Jersey\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Gowtham Rao Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD Defendant and Counterclaim-Plainti\ufb00, pro se\n184 Mansgrove Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (803) 386-7890\ngowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n\n Certi\ufb01cate of Service\n\nI certify that on September 5, 2026, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing\nResponses and Objections, together with production volume GRAO_PROD_000\n(transmitted through EPAM's Kiteworks folder with a manifest of \ufb01le names and hash\nvalues), by electronic mail pursuant to the parties' agreement on electronic service, upon\ncounsel for Plainti\ufb00/Counterclaim-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc.:\n\nJacob Oslick, Esq. (joslick@seyfarth.com) James S. Yu, Esq. (jyu@seyfarth.com) Brooke\nGary, Esq. (brgary@seyfarth.com) Seyfarth Shaw LLP, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York,\nNew York 10018-1405\n\n/s/ Gowtham Rao Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD\n\n\n 304\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 12 of 29\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION\nPlainti\ufb00/Counterclaim-Defendant,\nv. NO. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nGOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\nDefendant/Counterclaim-Plainti\ufb00.\n\n DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF GOWTHAM RAO'S FIRST\nSUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.'S FIRST\n REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (NOS. 6, 7, 8, 9, 23, 29,\n AND 67)\n\nPursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(A), I, Defendant and Counterclaim-\nPlainti\ufb00 Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD, proceeding pro se, supplement my Responses and\nObjections of September 5, 2026 to Plainti\ufb00 and Counterclaim-Defendant EPAM Systems,\nInc.'s (\"EPAM\") First Request for the Production of Documents as follows.\n\nPreliminary statement\n\n \u2022 These supplemental responses are based on information known or reasonably available\n to me after reasonable inquiry as of September 7, 2026.\n \u2022 The objections stated in my September 5, 2026 Responses to Requests Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9,\n 23, 29, and 67, and the objections in Part I of that document, are preserved and are not\n restated. Nothing here waives an objection, a privilege, or a protection asserted there.\n The de\ufb01nitions and conventions of the September 5, 2026 Responses apply, including\n the December 12 image rule in paragraph 2 of its Preliminary Statement.\n \u2022 Each supplemental response states only what is added. The Response as served on\n September 5, 2026 otherwise stands.\n \u2022 The documents identi\ufb01ed below are produced in volume GRAO_PROD_001, Bates\n GRAO007204 through GRAO007587 (384 pages; 28 documents), served with these\n supplemental responses and described in its load \ufb01le and request-to-Bates map.\n Paragraph 4 of the Preliminary Statement of my September 5, 2026 Responses said that\n the items listed there would follow as GRAO_PROD_001 on or before September 9,\n 2026; because this volume is served \ufb01rst it takes that name, and those items will follow\n as GRAO_PROD_002 on or before September 9, 2026.\n \u2022 The occasion for this supplement. In preparing for the September 16, 2026 hearing I re-\n read the August 10, 2025 document EPAM \ufb01led as Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 13 of 29\n\n\n\n\n Request for Production No. 67 [RFP-67]\n\n All documents and information associated with your personal cloud-based accounts\n whose primary purpose is to host source code, such as https://github.com/gowthamrao\n \u2026 (text as served)\n\nSupplemental response. My September 5, 2026 Response states that my personal GitHub\naccount as it stood on December 12, 2025 is in the December 12 image, from which\nrepositories can be released as git bundles. I now produce three of those repositories myself,\nas git bundles carrying every branch, tag, and pull-request reference, each veri\ufb01ed with git\nbundle verify, at GRAO007204 through GRAO007206:\n\n \u2022 gowthamrao/synapse-core, created August 10, 2025 at 8:15 PM Eastern; \ufb01ve\n commits on \ufb01ve branches (main, vibe, vibeJules, feat/build-synapse-core-\n package, codex/implement-synapse-core-orchestrator) and two pull requests;\n 28 KB;\n \u2022 gowthamrao/synapse-mcp-client, created August 10, 2025 at 8:24 PM Eastern;\n two commits; 47 KB; and\n \u2022 gowthamrao/synapse-retrievers, created August 10, 2025 at 9:10 PM Eastern;\n one commit, the Apache-2.0 license \ufb01le; 5 KB.\n\nI created the three repositories on the evening of Sunday, August 10, 2025 to test whether\nthe concept the architecture document describes could be built quickly with an AI coding\nassistant, and to show EPAM the result. As far as I know and remember, EPAM Synapse\nwas never built. What I did that evening was a \ufb01rst attempt at building it from scratch,\nindependent of the Takeda deliverable that was also called Synapse, as a proof of concept\ndone in a few hours on a Sunday. Generating a codebase by prompting an AI coding agent\nwith a written speci\ufb01cation, instead of writing the code, was a new practice in the summer\nof 2025. The term then used for it was \"vibe coding,\" and the architecture document has a\ntab headed \"Jules based vibe coding.\" Google had released Jules to the public shortly\nbefore, and I was experimenting with it. This was an experiment with a new tool. I am not a\nPython developer. I did not test the code the agent generated, I could not tell whether it was\nworking code or something the model had invented, and to the best of my knowledge it has\nnever been used. I was waiting for Dr. Sudeep Ghate to test it: he reported to me, the three\nrepositories were public at the time, and he had access to them. The code in them was not\nwritten by me. Google's Jules coding agent generated it in a single session (session\n8031755035392793862) from the step-by-step build plan and package designs in that\ndocument: its commits, by google-labs-jules[bot], are dated 8:38 PM (synapse-\nmcp-client) and 8:39 PM (synapse-core) Eastern, and I merged the synapse-core\npull request (No. 2) into the branch vibeJules at 9:04 PM. OpenAI Codex generated one\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 14 of 29\n\n\n\n\nfurther branch of synapse-core (codex/implement-synapse-core-orchestrator;\npull request No. 1, opened 8:41 PM), which I never merged; that pull request remains open.\nThe generated code is package sca\ufb00olding: a Pydantic state model, a LangGraph state\nmachine with stub nodes, a FastAPI entry point, custom exceptions, and tests \u2014 318 added\nlines in the Jules pull request. I searched every \ufb01le of every commit in the three repositories:\nnone contains EPAM source code, client material, or any reference to Takeda, MedRAG, or\nJohnson & Johnson; \"EPAM\" appears once, in the package description \"The central\norchestrator for the EPAM Synapse backend.\" The default branch of each repository holds\nonly the license \ufb01le; the generated code is on the other branches. No commit has been made\nto any of the three since August 10, 2025. Captures of the repository list, of pull request No.\n2, of the branch list of synapse-core, and of that repository's Apache License 2.0 \ufb01le are\nproduced at GRAO007210 through GRAO007213. The commits I made carry the author\naddress rao@ohdsi.org. My personal GitHub account is registered with more than one\nemail address, including gowthamrao@gmail.com and rao@ohdsi.org, and both receive\nthat account's noti\ufb01cations. I used rao@ohdsi.org to identify myself on contributions to\nthe OHDSI open-science community and gowthamrao@gmail.com for other work, and\nGitHub records on each commit whichever of the account's addresses is con\ufb01gured when\nthe commit is made. The address on these commits does not mean that this work was\na\ufb03liated with, performed for, or part of OHDSI. No OHDSI system was used for it, and my\nSeptember 1, 2026 answer to Interrogatory No. 12 stands: I did not use the OHDSI-issued\naccount for EPAM work or EPAM Con\ufb01dential Information.\n\nThe three repositories were public when I created them and while Dr. Ghate had them to\nreview, and each carried an Apache License 2.0 \ufb01le from its \ufb01rst commit. Dr. Ghate was an\nEPAM employee who reported to me, so giving him the document and the repositories to\nreview was giving them to EPAM. My recollection is that I also sent links to the\nrepositories inside EPAM over Microsoft Teams from my EPAM account\ngowtham_rao@epam.com. I do not recall when I did so or to whom. My employment ended\nand I have no access to that account or to those messages; EPAM controls that system and\nholds its own records of what was sent, when, and to whom. I state this rather than leave it\nunstated, and I will supplement under Rule 26(e) if I recall more.\n\nEach of the three repositories is private today, and they became private on two di\ufb00erent\ndays.\n\nI made synapse-core private on September 21, 2025. I do not recall my reason for doing\nit that day, and I do not o\ufb00er one. I made my other personal GitHub repositories private in\nmid or late November 2025, after this action was \ufb01led, on the advice of the counsel then\nrepresenting me. GitHub does not record when a repository's visibility changed, and its\naccount security log covers only the last ninety days, so I also state what its records do\nshow: a settings change to synapse-core at 6:40 AM Eastern on September 21, 2025, and\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 15 of 29\n\n\n\n\na settings change to 122 of my repositories, including synapse-mcp-client and\nsynapse-retrievers, between 7:34 and 7:38 AM Eastern on November 19, 2025. There\nwas no push to any of the three after August 10, 2025. I have not developed, run, or built on\nany of them since that evening, and I have not used any of them in any business since my\nemployment ended; the account changes described above and my retrieval of the bundles\nproduced here are the only things I have done with them. If I recall more about the\nSeptember 21 change, I will supplement under Rule 26(e).\n\nThe three repositories were collected by iDiscovery Solutions on December 12, 2025 as part\nof my personal GitHub account (source A0011) and are in the December 12 image; the\nbundles produced here are taken from GitHub on September 6, 2026 and carry the same\ncommits.\n\nNothing else in this supplemental response changes the Withholding paragraph of the\nSeptember 5, 2026 Response.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 16 of 29\n\n\n\n\n Request for Production No. 7 [RFP-7]\n\n All documents concerning your Use of an AI Platform \u2026 where your Use of the AI\n Platform was paid for or reimbursed by EPAM. (text as served)\n\nSupplemental response. The Google Jules use described in my supplemental response to\nRequest No. 8 was on my personal Google account gowthamrao@gmail.com, which\nEPAM neither paid for nor reimbursed.\n\nThe OpenAI Codex use described there was through an OpenAI ChatGPT account of mine.\nI do not presently recall which one, and the only record of the task I hold is the link\nrecorded in pull request No. 1 of gowthamrao/synapse-core. It was one of two personal\naccounts, as my supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 12 states. Whichever it was,\nEPAM did not pay for or reimburse any OpenAI subscription of mine in August 2025: the\nonly OpenAI charge EPAM ever paid for me was one month of a ChatGPT Pro subscription\nin the spring of 2025, and its receipt, dated March 1, 2025, is produced at GRAO001406 in\nvolume GRAO_PROD_000. I identify the August 10, 2025 use here rather than withhold it\nwhile the account question is open; I produce the records of it, which are described in my\nsupplemental response to Request No. 8; and I will supplement under Rule 26(e) if I\nidentify the account.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 17 of 29\n\n\n\n\n Request for Production No. 8 [RFP-8]\n\n All documents concerning your Use of an AI Platform that relate to: (a) Real World\n Evidence, or to the life sciences; (b) any product or service o\ufb00ered by EPAM; \u2026 (text\n as served)\n\nSupplemental response. I add two uses of an AI Platform during my employment\nconcerning the proposed EPAM Synapse concept, and one Gemini output that preceded\nthem, and I produce their records.\n\nBoth coding agents worked from the same input: the step-by-step build plan in the August\n10, 2025 architecture document. That document was itself written by Google Gemini and\nexported into Google Docs earlier the same day, as was the research document described\nbelow. To the best of my knowledge and recollection, I did not give EPAM source code,\nclient material, or any part of the Takeda deliverable to either coding agent.\n\n \u2022 Google Jules, Google's asynchronous coding agent (jules.google.com), on my\n personal Google account gowthamrao@gmail.com, which EPAM neither paid for nor\n reimbursed. In one session on August 10, 2025 (session 8031755035392793862),\n prompted with the step-by-step build plan and package designs set out in the August\n 10, 2025 architecture document, Jules generated the code described in my supplemental\n response to Request No. 67. The session's downloadable archive, as downloaded from\n Jules on September 6, 2026, is produced at GRAO007207; its ten source \ufb01les are the\n same code as the commit: six are byte-for-byte identical, and the other four (main.py\n and the three test \ufb01les) di\ufb00er only in trailing whitespace on blank lines, with the same\n content on every line; the committed versions are in the synapse-core bundle.\n Captures of the session page and of the Jules repository overview are produced at\n GRAO007208 through GRAO007209. The session remains on Google's service,\n locked to further edits because of its age.\n \u2022 OpenAI Codex, through one of my personal OpenAI ChatGPT accounts, which my\n supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 12 identi\ufb01es and which I cannot presently\n narrow further: one task on August 10, 2025 (the task link recorded in pull request No.\n 1 of synapse-core), which produced the codex/implement-synapse-core-\n orchestrator branch. The task's output is in the synapse-core bundle. I hold no\n other record of the task: I opened the task link on September 7, 2026 and the task\n record is no longer viewable, and I do not know when or how it ceased to be available.\n \u2022 \"Research - Agents\", a Google Doc in my personal Google Drive\n (gowthamrao@gmail.com) holding Google Gemini Deep Research reports on publicly\n documented agent frameworks (LangChain, LangGraph, LangServe, AutoGen,\n CrewAI, the Model Context Protocol, and the A2A protocol) and a proposed\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 18 of 29\n\n\n\n\n \"Universal Agent De\ufb01nition Framework,\" created on the morning of August 10, 2025:\n its Google Docs version history begins with a version at 5:54 AM Eastern that day,\n continues at 5:55, 5:56, 5:57, 7:43 and 8:29 AM, and its current version is timestamped\n 9:39 AM, all before the August 10, 2025 architecture document was created at 7:50 PM\n that evening. The 5:57 AM version holds a single tab, the \"Standardization and reuse\"\n research analysis; by 7:43 AM the framework tabs (LangChain, LangGraph, AutoGen,\n Universal Agent De\ufb01nition) had been added. It is one of the earlier Gemini research\n outputs that my August 28, 2026 response to Request for Admission No. 9 describes as\n inputs to the later Gemini prompts that produced the August 10, 2025 document. I\n searched it before producing it and found no Synapse, Takeda, MedRAG, or client\n content and no EPAM source code; one of its reports contains a section on\n opportunities the protocols o\ufb00ered EPAM. The document is general research. Its\n reports are machine-generated summaries of publicly available material about those\n frameworks and protocols, produced by Google Gemini's Deep Research feature from\n public content. I did not compose their text and I do not adopt the model's\n characterizations, and, as my August 28, 2026 response to Request for Admission No.\n 9 states of this work\ufb02ow, I did not input EPAM trade secrets, EPAM source code, or\n client source code to generate it. It is produced at GRAO007214 through\n GRAO007386 as a native Google Docs export in .docx form, with its pages rendered;\n captures of its version history are produced at GRAO007392 through GRAO007393,\n and captures of the document as it appears in Google Docs, including the tab that\n mandates the technology stack the architecture document adopts (LangGraph for\n macro-orchestration, AutoGen or CrewAI for micro-orchestration, OHDSI\n LlmPromptBuilders for prompt standardization, and Pydantic for state), at\n GRAO007387 through GRAO007390 and GRAO007394 through GRAO007399.\n\n\u2022 Four Google Docs of June and July 2025 on the proposed EPAM Synapse\n platform, produced under Request No. 6 at GRAO007498 through GRAO007583\n with captures of their version histories at GRAO007584 through GRAO007587. Each\n is generative-AI output that entered Google Docs as an imported HTML \ufb01le in a single\n edit: a critical review of an EPAM Synapse design document (June 23, 2025), a\n playbook on turning the Takeda pilot into a product (July 11), and two naming\n exercises (July 14 and 17). Their subject is a product EPAM proposed to o\ufb00er and the\n life-sciences work it would do, so they fall within subparts (a) and (b) of this Request.\n\u2022 The Star Magnet planning records, four documents I prepared in my personal\n Google Drive on and before August 5, 2025 and produce under Request No. 6 at\n GRAO007400 through GRAO007494. Three of them are generative-AI research\n outputs, and one is the research prompt that produced such an output; their subject is\n real-world evidence, health economics, and the marketing of EPAM's services, so they\n fall within subparts (a) and (b) of this Request. I reviewed them before producing them\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 19 of 29\n\n\n\n\n Request for Production No. 9 [RFP-9]\n\n All audio or video recordings, transcripts, or other documents, data, or materials\n which were used to generate the documents attached hereto as Exhibits A\u2013G, or which\n otherwise relate to the documents attached hereto as Exhibits A\u2013G. (text as served)\n\nSupplemental response. As to Exhibit E, I add: the \"Research - Agents\" document,\nproduced under Request No. 8, which was among the materials used to generate Exhibit E;\nthe three repositories and the Jules session archive, produced under Requests Nos. 67 and 8,\nwhich were generated from Exhibit E; and a capture of the Google Drive activity record for\nthe Exhibit E document, produced at GRAO007391, showing its creation and sharing at\n7:50 PM Eastern on August 10, 2025 (shared with Dr. Sudeep Ghate, then an employee of\nEPAM Systems India Private Limited who reported to me, to whom I gave editor access as\nhis manager for EPAM-approved work; he is in India, and my recollection is that I shared it\non the Sunday night Eastern so that he could look at it on the Monday morning India time,\nand by link), its last edit on August 13, 2025, and the restriction of access on November 2,\n2025. I restricted access two days after EPAM's October 31, 2025 letter. My recollection,\nand I give it as recollection, is that I did so to preserve the document as it then stood and to\nstop it from being edited, and that the access I removed was that of EPAM employees. The\nGoogle Docs version-history and share-settings captures at GRAO000448\u2013GRAO000452\nstand.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 20 of 29\n\n\n\n\n Request for Production No. 23 [RFP-23]\n\n All documents concerning any refactoring (or other editing/revisions) of Synapse code,\n or representations that you were refactoring Synapse code (or otherwise editing/\n revising Synapse code). (text as served)\n\nSupplemental response. I add the three repositories produced under Request No. 67 at\nGRAO007204 through GRAO007206 and the coding-agent session archive produced\nunder Request No. 8 at GRAO007207, and I state what they are, because the declaration of\nDmitrii Ilin says that I mentioned having started \"refactoring\" the Synapse code (ECF No.\n58-25 \u00b6 15) and EPAM's brief describes what I now sell as \"a refactored version of EPAM's\nSynapse software.\"\n\nThe code in those repositories was not refactored from anything of EPAM's. AI coding\nagents generated it on the evening of August 10, 2025 from the step-by-step build plan in\nthe architecture document, as my supplemental responses to Requests Nos. 8 and 67\ndescribe, and no commit has been made to any of the three since that evening. I searched\nevery \ufb01le of every commit on every branch before producing them: none contains EPAM\nsource code, none contains any part of the Takeda deliverable that was also called Synapse,\nand none refers to Takeda, to MedRAG, or to Johnson & Johnson. The words \"EPAM\" and\n\"Synapse\" appear only in package names and descriptions. The bundles carry every commit\non every branch, tag, and pull-request reference each repository holds today, so EPAM can\nverify each of those statements for itself rather than take mine. Each repository was created\nwith an Apache License 2.0 \ufb01le, committed in its initial commit before the agent generated\nanything, and that \ufb01le is the only \ufb01le on each repository's default branch; a capture of it in\nsynapse-core is produced at GRAO007213.\n\nThe document EPAM \ufb01led as Exhibit 9 is itself a plan for generating this code with an AI\ncoding agent, which is what happened. Its \"Backend Build Guide\" tab says it \"provides a\ncomprehensive, step-by-step plan for building the modular backend of the EPAM Synapse\nplatform\" (ECF No. 58-12 at 9) and sets out a \"Step-by-Step Package Build Guide\" (id. at\n10). The tab that follows is headed \"Jules based vibe coding\" (id. at 14) and holds an \"AI-\nAssisted Build Guide for EPAM Synapse\" describing \"a strategic work\ufb02ow for developing\nthe EPAM Synapse backend by pairing a mid-level Python developer with an advanced,\ncontext-aware AI coding assistant like Google's Jules,\" beginning with \"Phase 0: Context\nPriming and Environment Setup\" (id. at 15). Seven further tabs each specify one Python\npackage. The three repositories I created that evening carry the names of the \ufb01rst three of\nthose packages, and what is in them is what Jules and Codex produced when given that\nplan. The text of that document is Gemini's output, generated earlier the same day; I did not\ncompose it and I do not adopt its wording.\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 21 of 29\n\n\n\n\nI do not adopt the characterization in paragraph 15 of Mr. Ilin's declaration. That paragraph\ngives no date, no repository, and no other identi\ufb01er for the conversation it describes, so I\ncannot say which conversation it is, and I do not concede that it is about the August 10,\n2025 work. The same paragraph states, of that conversation, \"I asked Rao to see the code\nthat he was drafting for the Synapse project, but he never shared it with me.\" That is\nconsistent with my account: I described this work to people at EPAM, and I did not give the\ncode to Mr. Ilin. To the extent EPAM reads paragraph 15 as a statement that I was editing\nor reorganizing EPAM's Synapse code, that is not what the August 10, 2025 work was. It\nwas a \ufb01rst attempt to build the proposed concept from scratch, and what came of it is\nproduced in full.\n\nEPAM has not identi\ufb01ed in this litigation what it means by \"Synapse\" apart from the\ndeliverable built for Takeda. If EPAM's claim rests on something else of that name, or on\nwhat it describes as an AI accelerator, and if that thing is not the Takeda deliverable, then to\nthe best of my present knowledge the three repositories produced here are what it is\ndescribing, because they are the only thing answering that description that I ever made. I\nstate that so EPAM has it. It is not a concession: I do not concede that these repositories are\nEPAM's, that anything in them is EPAM's, or that anything in them is a trade secret. They\nare produced in full, with every commit on every branch each repository holds today, so\nEPAM can compare them against whatever it contends was taken. If EPAM means\nsomething else by \"Synapse,\" it should identify it, and I will respond to that identi\ufb01cation.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 22 of 29\n\n\n\n\n Request for Production No. 29 [RFP-29]\n\n To the extent you claim that your termination of employment from EPAM was\n unlawful, all documents concerning such claim. (text as served)\n\nSupplemental response. I add the Star Magnet planning document at GRAO007400\nthrough GRAO007436 and the Google Drive activity captures at GRAO007495 through\nGRAO007497, produced under Request No. 6 and described there. They concern my claim\nbecause EPAM authorized, sponsored, and supported a program built on my public\nscienti\ufb01c pro\ufb01le as a means of attracting business to EPAM, in the same months in which\nEPAM later said my role was being eliminated. My Veri\ufb01ed Counterclaims plead that\nprogram at paragraphs 343 through 346 (ECF No. 33). The materials produced with my\nSeptember 5, 2026 Responses under this Request, including the ten audio recordings at\nGRAO002631 through GRAO002640, are not re-produced here.\n\n Signature and Rule 26(g) Certi\ufb01cation\n\nI certify under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(1) that, to the best of my knowledge,\ninformation, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry, these supplemental responses are\nconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and warranted by existing law or a\nnonfrivolous argument for its extension, are not interposed for any improper purpose, and\nare neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive considering the needs of the\ncase. The objections stated in my September 5, 2026 Responses and Objections are\npreserved and are not restated here.\n\nDated: September 7, 2026 Princeton, New Jersey\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Gowtham Rao MD, PhD Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD Defendant and Counterclaim-\nPlainti\ufb00, pro se 184 Mansgrove Rd. Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (803) 386-7890 |\ngowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n\n Certi\ufb01cate of Service\n\nI certify that on September 7, 2026, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing\nsupplemental responses, together with production volume GRAO_PROD_001 (transmitted\nthrough EPAM's Kiteworks folder with a manifest of \ufb01le names and hash values), by\nelectronic mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) and the parties'\nwritten consent to electronic service, on counsel of record for Plainti\ufb00 and Counterclaim-\nDefendant EPAM Systems, Inc.\n\n/s/ Gowtham Rao MD, PhD Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 23 of 29\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION\nPlainti\ufb00/Counterclaim-Defendant,\nv. NO. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nGOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\nDefendant/Counterclaim-Plainti\ufb00.\n\nDEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF GOWTHAM RAO'S SECOND\n SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.'S FIRST\n SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1, 6, AND 12)\n\nPursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), I, Defendant and Counterclaim-Plainti\ufb00\nGowtham Rao, MD, PhD, proceeding pro se, further supplement my answers of September\n1, 2026, as supplemented on September 5, 2026, to Plainti\ufb00 and Counterclaim-Defendant\nEPAM Systems, Inc.'s (\"EPAM\") First Set of Interrogatories as follows.\n\nPreliminary statement\n\n \u2022 These supplemental answers are based on information known or reasonably available\n to me after reasonable inquiry as of September 7, 2026.\n \u2022 Rule 26(e)(1)(A) requires supplementation where an answer is incomplete in a material\n respect and the additional information has not otherwise been made known to EPAM. I\n supplement Interrogatories Nos. 1, 6, and 12 for that reason.\n \u2022 The objections stated in my September 1, 2026 answers are preserved and are not\n restated. The de\ufb01nitions and conventions of the Preliminary Statement to those answers\n apply. Each answer below states only what is added; the answers as served on\n September 1 and supplemented on September 5, 2026 otherwise stand.\n \u2022 The documents identi\ufb01ed below are produced in volume GRAO_PROD_001\n (GRAO007204 through GRAO007587 (384 pages; 28 documents)), served with my\n First Supplemental Responses to EPAM's First Request for the Production of\n Documents, which describe them.\n\nInterrogatory No. 12\n (text as served)\n\nSupplemental answer. I add two AI Platform accounts to paragraph 4 of my September 1,\n2026 answer, and I supplement paragraph 3.\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 24 of 29\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Google Jules (jules.google.com), Google's asynchronous coding agent, used\n through my personal Google account gowthamrao@gmail.com, which EPAM neither\n paid for nor reimbursed. I used it on August 10, 2025 in one session (session\n 8031755035392793862) to generate package sca\ufb00olding from the step-by-step build\n plan in the August 10, 2025 architecture document that EPAM \ufb01led as Exhibit 9 to the\n Declaration of Jacob Oslick, as my supplemental responses to Requests Nos. 8 and 67\n of EPAM's First Request for the Production of Documents describe. I do not disclose\n credentials or security con\ufb01guration.\n \u2022 OpenAI Codex, OpenAI's coding agent, which runs through an OpenAI ChatGPT\n account, used for one task on August 10, 2025 on the repository gowthamrao/\n synapse-core, as those supplemental responses describe. I do not presently recall\n which of my accounts ran the task, and the only record of it I hold is the task link\n recorded in pull request No. 1 of that repository. It was one of two: the OpenAI\n ChatGPT account on my personal Google account subscriptionrao@gmail.com\n that my September 5, 2026 supplemental answer identi\ufb01es, or an OpenAI ChatGPT\n account on my personal Google account gowthamrao@gmail.com, which I identify\n here to the extent one existed then. EPAM paid for one month of a ChatGPT Pro\n subscription on subscriptionrao@gmail.com in the spring of 2025, and the March\n 1, 2025 receipt for it is produced at GRAO001406 in volume GRAO_PROD_000; that\n month is the only OpenAI charge EPAM paid or reimbursed for me, and EPAM did not\n pay for or reimburse any OpenAI subscription of mine in August 2025. I will\n supplement under Rule 26(e) if I identify the account.\n\nParagraph 3 of my September 1, 2026 answer identi\ufb01es my personal GitHub account\ngowthamrao, and my September 5, 2026 supplement adds the ten public forks. I add three\nrepositories in that account, created on August 10, 2025, whose contents are unchanged\nsince that evening although their visibility settings later changed as described below:\ngowthamrao/synapse-core, gowthamrao/synapse-mcp-client, and gowthamrao/\nsynapse-retrievers. They hold code generated by Jules and by Codex from the August\n10, 2025 architecture document, as my supplemental response to Request No. 67 describes;\nthey are private today, and they became private on two di\ufb00erent days. I made synapse-\ncore private on September 21, 2025; I do not recall my reason for doing it that day, and I\ndo not o\ufb00er one. I made my other personal GitHub repositories, including synapse-mcp-\nclient and synapse-retrievers, private in mid or late November 2025, after this action\nwas \ufb01led, on the advice of the counsel then representing me. GitHub does not record when a\nrepository's visibility changed; its records show a settings change to synapse-core at 6:40\nAM Eastern on September 21, 2025 and to the other two between 7:34 and 7:38 AM\nEastern on November 19, 2025, and GitHub does not record what a settings change was.\nThey were among the repositories iDiscovery Solutions collected from that account on\nDecember 12, 2025 (source A0011). They are produced as git bundles at GRAO007204\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 25 of 29\n\n\n\n\nthrough GRAO007206 in volume GRAO_PROD_001. The commits I made in them carry\nthe author address rao@ohdsi.org, because my personal GitHub account is registered with\nmore than one email address, including gowthamrao@gmail.com and rao@ohdsi.org,\nand GitHub records on each commit whichever of them is con\ufb01gured at the time. That\naddress does not make this work OHDSI work: no OHDSI system was used, and paragraph\n5 of my September 1, 2026 answer to this Interrogatory stands.\n\nI also identify, as to paragraph 4 of my September 1, 2026 answer, the Google Gemini use\nthat preceded that work. The Google Doc \"Research - Agents\" in my personal Google Drive\n(gowthamrao@gmail.com) holds Google Gemini Deep Research reports on publicly\ndocumented agent frameworks and a proposed \"Universal Agent De\ufb01nition Framework.\" Its\nversion history runs from 5:54 AM to 9:39 AM Eastern on August 10, 2025, before the\nAugust 10, 2025 architecture document was created at 7:50 PM that day, and those reports\nwere among the earlier Gemini outputs that, as my August 28, 2026 response to Request for\nAdmission No. 9 states, were inputs to the later Gemini prompts that produced the\narchitecture document. Both documents are Google Gemini output of August 10, 2025\nexported into Google Docs: the research reports in the morning, and the architecture\ndocument that evening. The Gemini use that produced the reports was on one of the two\nGoogle accounts that paragraph 4 of my September 1, 2026 answer already identi\ufb01es, the\nGoogle Gemini subscription associated with subscriptionrao@gmail.com or the Google\nservices associated with gowthamrao@gmail.com. I used the two alternately and I do not\nrecall which of them produced these reports. The document is general research: its reports\nare machine-generated summaries of publicly available material about those frameworks,\nproduced by Gemini's Deep Research feature from public content, and I did not compose\ntheir text. The document is produced at GRAO007214 through GRAO007386, captures of\nits version history at GRAO007392 through GRAO007393, and captures of its tabs at\nGRAO007387 through GRAO007390 and GRAO007394 through GRAO007399, all in\nvolume GRAO_PROD_001.\n\nThe same Gemini use produced four further Google Docs about the proposed EPAM\nSynapse platform, in June and July 2025, each of which entered Google Docs as an\nimported HTML \ufb01le in a single edit: a critical review of an EPAM Synapse design\ndocument of June 23, 2025, a playbook of July 11, 2025 on turning the Takeda pilot into a\nproduct, and naming exercises of July 14 and July 17, 2025. They are produced at\nGRAO007498 through GRAO007587 and are described in my First Supplemental\nResponses to Requests Nos. 6 and 8 of EPAM's First Request for the Production of\nDocuments.\n\nInterrogatory No. 6\n (text as served)\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 26 of 29\n\n\n\n\nSupplemental answer. I add three locations of electronically stored information to my\nSeptember 1, 2026 answer.\n\n \u2022 Google Jules session `8031755035392793862`, held on Google's Jules service under\n my personal Google account gowthamrao@gmail.com. Jules is one of the Google\n services associated with that account. That account is an Email and Cloud Source\n within the December 2025 Forensic Protocol: I identi\ufb01ed my Google accounts and their\n services to iDiscovery Solutions, and iDS collected the account on December 12, 2025.\n The session records the prompt, the agent's steps, and the generated code for the\n August 10, 2025 work described there. Google marks it locked to further edits because\n of its age; it remains viewable, and its downloadable archive is produced at\n GRAO007207. Its output was also pushed to the GitHub repositories identi\ufb01ed in my\n supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 12, which iDS collected as part of source\n A0011.\n \u2022 Microsoft Teams messages on EPAM's system sent from my EPAM account\n `gowtham_rao@epam.com`. My recollection is that I sent links to the three GitHub\n repositories, and discussed the August 10, 2025 work, in Microsoft Teams chats on\n EPAM's system. I do not recall when I did so or to whom. My employment ended and I\n have no access to that account or to those messages. EPAM controls that system and\n holds those records; I do not. I identify the location rather than leave it unstated, and I\n will supplement under Rule 26(e) if I recall more.\n \u2022 The OpenAI Codex task record for the task recorded in pull request No. 1 of\n gowthamrao/synapse-core, on whichever of the two OpenAI ChatGPT accounts\n described in my supplemental answer to Interrogatory No. 12 ran it. I opened that link\n on September 7, 2026 and the task record is no longer viewable, and I do not know\n when or how it ceased to be available. The output of the task survives as the codex/\n implement-synapse-core-orchestrator branch of that repository, which is\n produced in its git bundle.\n\nInterrogatory No. 1\n (text as served)\n\nSupplemental answer. I supplement the subjects stated in paragraph 48 of my September\n1, 2026 answer for Dr. Sudeep Ghate: the August 10, 2025 \"Synapse architecture\"\ndocument (Oslick Exhibit 9) and the work I did that evening.\n\nDr. Ghate was then an employee of EPAM Systems India Private Limited and reported to\nme. I gave him editor access to the document when I created it on August 10, 2025, as his\nmanager and for EPAM-approved work, so that he could review it; he is in India, and my\nrecollection is that I shared it on the Sunday night Eastern so that he could look at it on the\nMonday morning India time. The document's version history shows no edit to it by him, and\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 27 of 29\n\n\n\n\nI do not know whether he read it or used it. It remained shared with him until November 2,\n2025, when I restricted access. The three repositories were public while he had them to\nreview, and he had access to them. His knowledge of that document, of the repositories, and\nof any discussion of either.\n\nThe purpose of that work bears on the subjects for several of the individuals identi\ufb01ed in my\nSeptember 1, 2026 answer, so I state it here. As far as I know and remember, EPAM\nSynapse was never built. What I did on August 10, 2025 was a \ufb01rst attempt at building it\nfrom scratch, independent of the Takeda deliverable that was also called Synapse: a proof of\nconcept, done in a few hours on a Sunday, to show EPAM that the concept could be built\nquickly with an AI coding assistant. Generating a codebase by prompting an AI coding\nagent with a written speci\ufb01cation, instead of writing the code, was a new practice in the\nsummer of 2025. The term then used for it was \"vibe coding,\" and the architecture\ndocument itself has a tab headed \"Jules based vibe coding\" (ECF No. 58-12 at 14). Google\nhad released Jules to the public shortly before, and I was experimenting with it. This was an\nexperiment with a new tool. I am not a Python developer. I did not test the code the agent\ngenerated, I could not tell whether it was working code or something the model had\ninvented, and to the best of my knowledge it has never been used.\n\nI was waiting for Dr. Ghate to test it. He reported to me, so I could ask him to do that; the\nthree repositories were public at the time and he had access to them. Dr. Ghate was an\nEPAM employee, and giving him the document and the work to review was giving them to\nEPAM. My recollection is that I also sent links to the repositories inside EPAM over\nMicrosoft Teams from my EPAM account gowtham_rao@epam.com, though I do not recall\nwhen or to whom; EPAM holds those records and I no longer have access to that account.\nMr. Ilin did not report to me and I could not direct him to test anything. My recollection is\nthat on the Monday I showed or described the work to him and to others at EPAM, and that\nI described the code as having been \"vibe coded,\" by which I meant that an AI coding agent\nhad generated it rather than that I had written or veri\ufb01ed it.\n\nI further supplement the subjects stated in my September 1, 2026 answer as to EPAM's Star\nMagnet program. Star Magnet was an EPAM thought-leadership and business-development\nprogram directed at using my public scienti\ufb01c pro\ufb01le to attract enterprise clients to EPAM;\nmy Veri\ufb01ed Counterclaims describe it at paragraphs 343 through 346 (ECF No. 33), and\nparagraphs 19 and 20 of my September 1, 2026 answer already identify James Gatch and\nGabby Semon by reference to \"the Star Magnet and CIO.com work.\" The planning records I\nprepared for the program are produced at GRAO007400 through GRAO007497 in volume\nGRAO_PROD_001 and are described in my First Supplemental Responses to Requests\nNos. 6 and 29 of EPAM's First Request for the Production of Documents.\n\n \u2022 James Gatch (paragraph 19) \u2014 in addition to the subjects stated: my Microsoft Teams\n messages with him on EPAM's system, from my EPAM account\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 28 of 29\n\n\n\n\n gowtham_rao@epam.com, concerning the program; and a meeting about the program\n at which he told Gabby Semon and others present that it was an important priority. My\n contemporaneous note of a July 16, 2025 meeting on the program records him, Ms.\n Semon and me as its participants. EPAM holds the Teams messages and its own\n records of the meeting.\n \u2022 Gabby Semon (paragraph 20) \u2014 in addition to the subjects stated: her presence at that\n meeting and the marketing work for the program.\n \u2022 Gregory Klebanov (paragraph 2), Greg Killian (paragraph 3), and Chris Waller\n (paragraph 5) \u2014 in addition to the subjects stated: the Star Magnet program, according\n to their participation in it. My Veri\ufb01ed Counterclaims identify Mr. Gatch, Mr. Killian\n and Mr. Klebanov as the executives who authorized and supported the program (ECF\n No. 33 \u00b6 344). I do not state here what any of them said to me about it, and I will\n supplement under Rule 26(e) if I recall a particular conversation.\n\nI also supplement the subjects stated for Dmitrii Ilin (paragraph 36): the manner in which\nthe August 10, 2025 document was generated and what it was used for on that date, as the\nrecords produced with my First Supplemental Responses to EPAM's First Request for the\nProduction of Documents show, as against the characterization in paragraphs 8 through 14\nof his declaration (ECF No. 58-25); what I showed or described to him about that work on\nor about Monday, August 11, 2025, including my use of the words \"vibe coded\" to mean\nthat an AI coding agent had generated the code from the plan in that document; and the\nconversation described in paragraph 15 of his declaration, in which he says I mentioned\nhaving started \"refactoring\" the Synapse code. I do not adopt that characterization. That\nparagraph gives no date, no repository, and no other identi\ufb01er, so I cannot say which\nconversation it describes, and I do not concede that it is about the August 10, 2025 work. It\nalso states that he asked to see the code and that I never shared it with him, which is\nconsistent with my account that I described this work at EPAM rather than gave it to him.\nThe code generated that evening is produced in full, it was generated from the step-by-step\nbuild plan in the architecture document, and my search of every \ufb01le of every commit in the\nthree repositories found no EPAM source code, no client material, and no part of the\nTakeda deliverable that was also called Synapse.\n\n Veri\ufb01cation\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing\nsupplemental answers are true and correct.\n\nExecuted on: September 7, 2026 Princeton, New Jersey\n\n/s/ Gowtham Rao MD, PhD Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-5 Filed 09/14/26 Page 29 of 29\n\n\n\n\n Signature and Rule 26(g) Certi\ufb01cation\n\nBy signing below, I certify under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g)(1) that, to the best\nof my knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry, these\nsupplemental answers are complete and correct as of the time they are made.\n\nDated: September 7, 2026\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Gowtham Rao MD, PhD Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD Defendant and Counterclaim-\nPlainti\ufb00, pro se 184 Mansgrove Rd. Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (803) 386-7890 |\ngowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n\n Certi\ufb01cate of Service\n\nI certify that on September 7, 2026, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing by\nelectronic mail, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) and the parties'\nwritten consent to electronic service, on counsel of record for EPAM Systems, Inc.\n\n/s/ Gowtham Rao MD, PhD Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-15T18:38:26.152550-07:00","document_number":"81","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"153024182905","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 5 - Excerpts of Served Discovery Responses","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493754343/","id":493754343,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/81/6/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-15T18:38:22.640628-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T18:38:27.006735-07:00","sha1":"409f9b59b532e20de6a331f1f8867b01ca8659e7","page_count":7,"file_size":4148815,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.81.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-6 Filed 09/14/26 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB (E.D. Pa.)\nDefendant's Motion for Leave to Supplement the Record on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 58)\nConcerning the August 10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9), With Discovery Served After Briefing\nClosed\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 6\n Google, \"Jules, our asynchronous coding agent, is now available for everyone\"\n (August 6, 2025), as printed from blog.google on September 14, 2026, with the\n Internet Archive capture of September 6, 2025\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-6 Filed 09/14/26 Page 2 of 7\n\n\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB (E.D. Pa.)\n\nEXHIBIT 6\n\nGoogle, \"Jules, our asynchronous coding agent, is now available for everyone,\" published August 6,\n2025, on Google's corporate blog.\n\nAddress: https://blog.google/technology/google-labs/jules-now-available/ (which now redirects to\nhttps://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/google-labs/jules-now-available/, the address\nshown in the footer of the printed pages)\n\nPart 1 (2 pages): the page as printed from that address on September 14, 2026 at 07:48 AM Eastern, using\na headless browser's print function; page headers and footers, where present, were added by the browser.\n\nPart 2 (3 pages): the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine capture of the same address, timestamped\nSeptember 6, 2025 at 04:56:10 UTC (capture identifier 20250906045610), as printed on September 14,\n2026 at 07:49 AM Eastern. Address:\nhttps://web.archive.org/web/20250906045610/https://blog.google/technology/google-labs/jules-now-avail\nable/\n\nExhibit 1 quotes this announcement for the words \"officially out of beta and launching publicly.\"\n\f9/14/26, 7:48 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WBJules,Document 81-6 AI coding\n Google\u2019s asynchronous Filedagent,\n 09/14/26 Page\n is out of public beta 3 of 7\n\n Newsletter\n\n\n Home Innovation & AI Models & research Google Labs\n\n\n Jules, our asynchronous coding agent, is now available for everyone.\n\n Aug 06, 2025\n\n\n\n Jules is officially out of beta and launching publicly, powered by Gemini 2.5.\n\n During the beta, thousands of developers tackled tens of thousands of tasks, resulting in over 140,000 code improvements shared publicly.\n Thanks to developer feedback, we\u2019ve polished the user interface, fixed hundreds of bugs and launched new capabilities including reusing\n previous setups so new tasks run faster, GitHub issues integration and multimodal support.\n\n Jules now uses the advanced thinking capabilities of Gemini 2.5 Pro to develop coding plans, resulting in higher-quality code outputs. We\u2019re\n also introducing new structured tiers for Jules, including higher limits* for Google AI Pro and Ultra subscribers:\n\n Introductory access to Jules: Perfect for getting to know Jules across your projects.\n Jules in Google AI Pro: 5x higher limits. Ideal for daily coding.\n Jules in Google AI Ultra: 20x higher limits. Built for intensive, multi-agent workflows at scale.\n\n These changes will begin rolling out today to Google AI Pro and Ultra subscribers. This includes eligible college students who can sign up for a\n free year of AI Pro. Get started today at jules.google.\n\n *Specific usage limits are listed at jules.google.\n\n\n\n\n Posted in:\n Google Labs Developer tools Google One\n\n\n\n\n Related stories Skip to main content\n\n\n\nhttps://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/google-labs/jules-now-available/ 1/2\n\f9/14/26, 7:48 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WBJules,Document 81-6 AI coding\n Google\u2019s asynchronous Filedagent,\n 09/14/26 Page\n is out of public beta 4 of 7\n\n\n\n\n Google Labs Google One Google Workspace\n\n Dreambeans: Daily stories, Tackle your to-do list with new Use your voice to get more\n brewed just for you, now features in our Google AI plans. done in Gmail, Docs, and Keep\n available to all accounts in the\u2026\n By Vikas Kansal By Yulie Kwon Kim\n\n\n\n\n Privacy Terms Help More of Google Global (English)\n\n\n\n\nhttps://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/google-labs/jules-now-available/ 2/2\n\f9/14/26, 7:49 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WBJules,Document 81-6 AI coding\n Google\u2019s asynchronous Filedagent,\n 09/14/26 Page\n is out of public beta 5 of 7\n\n The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20250906045610/https://blog.google\u2026\n The Keyword\n\n\n\n\n TECHNOLOGY GOOGLE LABS\n\n\n\n Aug 06, 2025\n\n\n Jules, our asynchronous coding agent, is now available\n for everyone.\n Jules is officially out of beta and launching publicly, powered by Gemini 2.5.\n\n During the beta, thousands of developers tackled tens of thousands of tasks, resulting in over 140,000 code\n improvements shared publicly. Thanks to developer feedback, we\u2019ve polished the user interface, fixed hundreds\n of bugs and launched new capabilities including reusing previous setups so new tasks run faster, GitHub issues\n integration and multimodal support.\n\n Jules now uses the advanced thinking capabilities of Gemini 2.5 Pro to develop coding plans, resulting in higher-\n quality code outputs. We\u2019re also introducing new structured tiers for Jules, including higher limits* for Google AI\n Pro and Ultra subscribers:\n Introductory access to Jules: Perfect for getting to know Jules across your projects.\n Jules in Google AI Pro: 5x higher limits. Ideal for daily coding.\n Jules in Google AI Ultra: 20x higher limits. Built for intensive, multi-agent workflows at scale.\n\n These changes will begin rolling out today to Google AI Pro and Ultra subscribers. This includes eligible college\n students who can sign up for a free year of AI Pro. Get started today at jules.google.\n\n *Specific usage limits are listed at jules.google.\n\n\n\n\nhttps://web.archive.org/web/20250906045610/https://blog.google/technology/google-labs/jules-now-available/ 1/3\n\f9/14/26, 7:49 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WBJules,Document 81-6 AI coding\n Google\u2019s asynchronous Filedagent,\n 09/14/26 Page\n is out of public beta 6 of 7\n\n\n\n The Keyword\n\n\n\n\n POSTED IN:\n\n Google Labs Developers\n\n\n\n\n Related stories\n We\u2019re introducing Flow Sessions and our first filmmaker in residence.\n As our new resident filmmaker, Henry Daubrez will help us shape the future of Flow, our AI filmmaking tool.\n\n\n\n NotebookLM's Video Overviews are now available in 80 languages\n\n\n\n Explore all the Made by Google news with NotebookLM.\n\n\n\n Get more out of Flow in Google AI Ultra.\nhttps://web.archive.org/web/20250906045610/https://blog.google/technology/google-labs/jules-now-available/ 2/3\n\f9/14/26, 7:49 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WBJules,Document 81-6 AI coding\n Google\u2019s asynchronous Filedagent,\n 09/14/26 Page\n is out of public beta 7 of 7\n\n\n\n The Keyword\n\n\n\n\n Follow Us\n\n\n\n\n Privacy Terms About Google Google Products About the Keyword\n\n\n Help Global (English)\n\n\n\n\nhttps://web.archive.org/web/20250906045610/https://blog.google/technology/google-labs/jules-now-available/ 3/3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-15T18:38:27.006346-07:00","document_number":"81","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"153024182906","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 6 - Google Jules Announcement (Aug. 6, 2025)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493754344/","id":493754344,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/81/7/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-15T18:38:22.653985-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-15T18:38:27.899387-07:00","sha1":"5edb37b0d2882a7a9f2ea10f20b6c8fdcc83da37","page_count":1,"file_size":89496,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.81.7.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 81-7 Filed 09/14/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n v. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n GOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER\n\nAND NOW, this ___ day of September, 2026, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion for\n\nLeave to Supplement the Record on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 58) Concerning\n\nthe August 10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9), With Discovery Served After Briefing\n\nClosed, and any response, it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED. Defendant may file\n\nExhibits 1 through 6 to the Motion as a supplement to the record on ECF No. 58, may present\n\nthem and the records they identify at the September 16, 2026 hearing, and may rely on them in\n\nopposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Seal and to Close the Courtroom (ECF No. 60). Defendant\n\nmay file the records identified in Exhibits 1 and 2 on the public docket unless Plaintiff objects in\n\nwriting within three (3) days of this Order, in which event Defendant shall provide them to the\n\nCourt in camera or under seal pending further order. Plaintiff may respond to the supplement at\n\nthe hearing or on such schedule as the Court sets.\n\n\nBY THE COURT:\n\n______________________________\nWENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J.\n\n\n\n\n Page 1 of 1\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-15T18:38:27.899085-07:00","document_number":"81","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"153024182907","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-14T09:18:19.458791-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-14T09:26:44.863646-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-14","time_filed":"12:11:42","entry_number":81,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-14.001","pacer_sequence_number":220,"description":"MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to the Record on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 58) Concerning the August 10, 2025 Document (Oslick Exhibit 9) filed by GOWTHAM Adamane RAO.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - Served Explanation and Records (Aug. 10, 2025 Document), # 2 Exhibit 2 - Supplemental Declaration of Gowtham Rao, # 3 Exhibit 3 - Declaration of Dr. Sudeep Ghate, # 4 Exhibit 4 - Google Drive Activity Record (GRAO007391), # 5 Exhibit 5 - Excerpts of Served Discovery Responses, # 6 Exhibit 6 - Google Jules Announcement (Aug. 6, 2025), # 7 Exhibit Proposed Order)(RAO, GOWTHAM) (Entered: 09/14/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477758103/","id":477758103,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493363828/","id":493363828,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/80/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-11T21:23:48.773810-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-12T02:09:34.592469-07:00","sha1":"bfa99825734067c1fe3205b110a81240170d6059","page_count":4,"file_size":158563,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.80.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80 Filed 09/11/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n \u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af X\n )\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC., )\n ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim- )\n Defendant )\n v. )\n )\n GOWTHAM RAO, )\n )\n Defendant/Counterclaim- )\n Plaintiff )\n ____________________________________ X\n\n PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.\u2019S\n MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLIANT\n\n Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc. (\"EPAM\") submits this motion,\n\nPursuant to Rules 15(a)(2) and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order granting\n\nEPAM leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add new claims and factual allegations, and\n\nto add CoReason, Inc. (\u201cCoReason\u201d), as a defendant, alongside existing Defendant and\n\nCounterclaim-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao (\u201cRao\u201d).\n\n In sum, the central grounds for this Motion, which are set forth in more detail and with\n\nlegal support in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, are as follows:\n\n 1. EPAM commenced this action on November 4, 2025 by filing a complaint\n\nprimarily related to misappropriation of trade secrets. (ECF #1.) On April 20, 2026, in the hopes\n\nof narrowing the issues and leading the case towards resolution, EPAM filed an Amended\n\nComplaint to remove certain claims. (ECF #37.)\n\n 2. Since the filing of the Amended Complaint, EPAM discovered evidence that Rao\n\nengaged in a far broader and more egregious scheme to misappropriate EPAM's intellectual\n\nproperty than EPAM previously believed, including through his company CoReason. These\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80 Filed 09/11/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\ndocuments also reflected that Rao began acting as a faithless servant in breach of his fiduciary\n\nduties to EPAM for a far longer period of time than EPAM originally believed.\n\n 3. In addition, Rao also provided new information in his Answer and Counterclaims,\n\nthrough materials that he has posted on CoReason\u2019s website, and through initial discovery\n\nresponses, which further support that Rao and CoReason misappropriated trade secrets and other\n\nconfidential information, engaged in tortious inference and conversion, wrongfully solicited\n\nEPAM\u2019s clients, and committed other improper acts.\n\n 4. A court should \u201cfreely grant leave\u201d to amend \u201cwhen justice so requires.\u201d Fed. R.\n\nCiv. P. 15(a)(2). Here, justice so requires. The proposed Second Amended Complaint is based\n\nupon significant evidence uncovered during the Forensic Protocol process, factual allegations\n\ncontained in Rao\u2019s Answer and Counterclaims, materials discovered on CoReason\u2019s website, and\n\nfacts learned in initial discovery that has just been received. The new and amended claims asserted\n\nagainst Rao and CoReason are meritorious, not futile. There has been no undue delay. And Rao\n\nwould not suffer any prejudice from the amendments. Further, adding CoReason as a party to this\n\nlitigation is far more efficient than commencing a separate litigation against CoReason based on\n\nlargely the same underlying facts.\n\n 5. Accordingly, EPAM seeks leave of Court to file its proposed Second Amended\n\nComplaint which adds CoReason as a party, adds certain allegations and causes of action, and\n\nmodifies other causes of action.\n\n 5. Rao opposes this motion.\n\n\n\n\n -2-\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80 Filed 09/11/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\nDated: September 11, 2026\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Brooke K. Gary\n Jacob Oslick (Pa. Bar No. 311028)\n joslick@seyfarth.com\n James S. Yu (admitted pro hac vice)\n jyu@seyfarth.com\n Brooke K. Gary (admitted pro hac vice)\n brgary@seyfarth.com\n SEYFARTH SHAW LLP\n 620 Eighth Avenue,\n New York, New York 10018\n (212) 218-5500\n\n Matthew Christoff (admitted pro hac vice)\n mchristoff@seyfarth.com\n SEYFARTH SHAW LLP\n 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000\n Chicago, IL 60606\n (312) 460-5000\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant\n EPAM Systems, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80 Filed 09/11/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on September 11, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing Notice of\n\nMotion; Memorandum of Law in Support; and Proposed Order, with the Clerk of the District\n\nCourt using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to all counsel of record,\n\nand a courtesy copy sent via electronic mail to the following:\n\n\n\n GOWTHAM ADAMANE ROA\n 184 Mansgrove Rd\n Princeton, NJ 08540\n gowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n gowthamrao@gmail.com\n\n\n\n\n /s/ Brooke Gary\n Brooke Gary\n\n\n\n\n -4-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-12T02:09:34.586154-07:00","document_number":"80","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024181107","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to File Document","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493381135/","id":493381135,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/80/1/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-12T02:07:38.291555-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-12T02:09:45.056622-07:00","sha1":"ae1b5875256855dac476691196036b81414f5e86","page_count":30,"file_size":128957,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.80.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 1 of 30\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n )\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., )\n )\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim- ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260\n Defendant, )\n )\n v. )\n )\nGOWTHAM RAO\n )\n Defendant/Counterclaim- )\n Plaintiff. )\n )\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS\n MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 2 of 30\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\nI. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..................................................................................... 1\n\nII. EPAM\u2019S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ........................................................................... 3\n\nIII. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 9\n\n A. Legal Standard ........................................................................................................ 9\n\n B. Justice Requires Granting EPAM Leave to File A Second Amended\n Complaint.............................................................................................................. 10\n\n 1. First Cause of Action: DTSA (CoReason)................................................ 11\n\n 2. Second Cause of Action: PUTSA (CoReason) ......................................... 13\n\n 3. Fourth Cause of Action: Breach of Contract: Ownership of Work\n (Rao) ......................................................................................................... 13\n\n 4. Fifth Cause of Action: Breach of Contract: Non-Solicitation of Clients\n (Rao) ......................................................................................................... 14\n\n 5. Sixth Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Faithless\n Servant (Rao) ............................................................................................ 15\n\n 6. Seventh Cause of Action: Tortious Interference (CoReason)................... 15\n\n 7. Eighth Cause of Action: Replevin (CoReason) ........................................ 16\n\n 8. Ninth Cause of Action: Conversion (CoReason) ...................................... 17\n\n 9. Tenth Cause of Action: Lanham Act (Rao and CoReason) ...................... 17\n\n 10. Eleventh Cause of Action: Unfair Competition (Rao and CoReason) ..... 18\n\n 11. Twelfth Cause of Action: Declaratory Judgment (Rao and CoReason) ... 19\n\n 12. Thirteenth Cause of Action: Unjust Enrichment (CoReason) .................. 20\n\n C. Leave Should Be Granted Because Rao Cannot Establish Undue Delay,\n Bad Faith, or Prejudice ......................................................................................... 20\n\n D. CoReason Lacks Standing to Oppose this Motion ............................................... 23\n\nCONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 24\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 3 of 30\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nAcclaim Sys., Inc. v. Infosys, Ltd.,\n 2015 WL 4257463 (E.D. Pa. 2015) .........................................................................................16\n\nAdams v. Gould, Inc.,\n 739 F.2d 858 (3d Cir. 1984)...........................................................................................9, 10, 22\n\nAdvanced Fluid Sys., Inc. v. Huber,\n 28 F. Supp. 3d 306 (M.D. Pa. 2014), aff'd, 958 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2020) ................................18\n\nAdvanced Power Sys., Inc. v. Hi-Tech Sys., Inc.,\n 801 F. Supp. 1450 (E.D. Pa. 1992) ..........................................................................................16\n\nAlpha Card Servs., LLC v. Timothy Toombs Paycompass LLC,\n 2026 WL 1161448 (E.D. Pa. 2026) .........................................................................................16\n\nAlpha Pro Tech, Inc. v. WVR Int\u2019l LLC,\n 984 F. Supp. 2d 425 (E.D. Pa. 2013) .......................................................................................17\n\nAmes Pub. Co. v. Walker\u2013Davis Pubs., Inc.,\n 372 F. Supp. 1 (E.D. Pa. 1974) ................................................................................................18\n\nBechtel v. Robinson,\n 886 F.2d 644 (3d Cir. 1989).....................................................................................................10\n\nBittner v. Waterford Twp. Sch. Dist.,\n 2020 WL 10223599 (D.N.J. 2020) ....................................................................................23, 24\n\nCoventry v. U.S. Steel Corp.,\n 856 F.2d 514 (3d Cir. 1988)...............................................................................................10, 22\n\nCureton v. Nat\u2019l Collegiate Athletic Ass\u2019n,\n 252 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2001).......................................................................................................9\n\nCustom Pak Brokerage, LLC v. Dandrea Produce, Inc.,\n 2014 WL 988829 (D.N.J. 2014) ........................................................................................23, 24\n\nDastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.,\n 539 U.S. 23 (2003) ...................................................................................................................17\n\nDePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc.,\n 259 F. Supp. 3d 225 (E.D. Pa. 2017) .......................................................................................14\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 4 of 30\n\n\n\n\nDole v. Arco Chem. Co.,\n 921 F.2d 484 (3d Cir. 1990).....................................................................................................10\n\nHarbor Bus. Compliance Corp. v. Firstbase.io, Inc.,\n 2023 WL 3095563 (E.D. Pa. 2023) .............................................................................12, 13, 20\n\nHouser v. Feldman,\n 600 F. Supp. 3d 550 (E.D. Pa. 2022) .................................................................................13, 17\n\nHydrogen Master Rights, Ltd. v. Weston,\n 228 F. Supp. 3d 320 (D. Del. 2017) .........................................................................................16\n\nIlapak, Inc. v. Young,\n No. 5:20-CV-01877, 2020 WL 2787689 (E.D. Pa. 2020) .......................................................18\n\nIQVIA, Inc. v. Breskin,\n 2023 WL 2588450 (E.D. Pa. 2023) .........................................................................................12\n\nLong v. Wilson,\n 393 F.3d 390 (3d Cir. 2004).....................................................................................................10\n\nNeopart Transit, LLC v. CBM N.A. Inc.,\n 314 F. Supp. 3d 628 (E.D. Pa. 2018) .......................................................................................15\n\nOzburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. 721 Logistics, LLC,\n 2012 WL 12896257. (E.D. Pa. 2012) ......................................................................................13\n\nRaab Family P\u2019ship v. Borough of Magnolia,\n 2009 WL 10689669 (D.N.J. 2009) ..........................................................................................24\n\nRehab. Inst. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc\u2019y of the U.S.,\n 131 F.R.D. 99 (W.D. Pa. 1990) .................................................................................................9\n\nShane v. Fauver,\n 213 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2000).......................................................................................................9\n\nState Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. CPT Med. Servs., P.C.,\n 246 F.R.D. 143 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) .............................................................................................23\n\nSynthes, Inc. v. Marotta,\n 281 F.R.D. 217 (E.D. Pa. 2012) ....................................................................................... passim\n\nVasquez v. Summit Women\u2019s Ctr., Inc.,\n 2001 WL 34150397 (D. Conn. Nov. 16, 2001) .......................................................................23\n\nYakitori Boy, Inc. v. Starr Indem. & Liab., Co.,\n 2019 WL 1259502 (E.D. Pa. 2019) .........................................................................................19\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 5 of 30\n\n\n\n\nStatutes\n\nDefend Trade Secrets Act ..............................................................................................3, 11, 12, 13\n\nLanham Act ....................................................................................................................3, 11, 17, 18\n\nPennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act ......................................................................3, 13, 18, 20\n\nOther Authorities\n\nFed. R. Civ. P.15 ........................................................................................................1, 9, 10, 11, 18\n\nF Fed. R. Civ. P. 21..................................................................................................................1, 8, 9\n\nF Fed. R. Civ. P. 12........................................................................................................................19\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 6 of 30\n\n\n\n\n Pursuant to Rules 15(a)(2) and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff and\n\nCounterclaim-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc. (\u201cEPAM\u201d), respectfully requests leave to file a\n\nSecond Amended Complaint to add new claims and factual allegations, and to add CoReason, Inc.\n\n(\u201cCoReason\u201d), as a defendant, alongside existing Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Gowtham\n\nRao (\u201cRao\u201d), (collectively, \u201cDefendants\u201d). As set forth in greater detail below, new facts that\n\nEPAM has discovered since the filing of its Amended Complaint support EPAM\u2019s proposed\n\namendments. If leave is not granted, EPAM\u2019s alternative will be to file a separate, related action\n\nagainst CoReason, which is unnecessary and will be inefficient. Accordingly, EPAM requests\n\nleave to file a Second Amended Complaint within one week of the Court granting leave.\n\nI. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND\n\n EPAM commenced this action on November 4, 2025 by filing a complaint primarily related\n\nto misappropriation of trade secrets. (ECF #1.) On November 4, 2025, EPAM filed a motion for a\n\ntemporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and expedited discovery. (ECF #3.) The Court\n\ndenied EPAM\u2019s motion for a temporary restraining order and scheduled a hearing for the\n\npreliminary injunction motion. (ECF #10.) The parties conferred and stipulated to resolve the\n\nmotion. (ECF #20.) Subsequently, the parties entered into the Stipulated Forensic Protocol\n\nAgreement (\u201cForensic Protocol\u201d), which granted EPAM limited access to certain documents\n\nwithin Rao\u2019s possession. (ECF #55.) A key purpose of the Forensic Protocol was to identify\n\nEPAM\u2019s \u201cConfidential Information\u201d and/or \u201cWork\u201d within Rao\u2019s possession, to confirm that Rao\n\nhad not used or disclosed any of the EPAM Confidential Information or Work for non-EPAM\n\npurposes, and to then remediate the EPAM Confidential Information or Work. A professed goal\n\nof successful completion of the aforementioned steps was to enable resolution of the dispute\n\naltogether. This was exemplified by the Parties requests/consent to extending time for Rao to\n\nAnswer the Complaint in hopes that successful completion of the aforementioned steps would\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 7 of 30\n\n\n\n\nnegate the need for Rao to Answer altogether. On April 20, 2026, in the hopes of narrowing the\n\nissues and leading the case towards resolution, EPAM filed an Amended Complaint to remove\n\ncertain claims. (ECF #37.)\n\n Unfortunately, the case did not resolve. To the contrary, the progression of the Forensic\n\nProtocol has had the opposite effect. Instead of providing evidence that Rao did not use or disclose\n\nEPAM Confidential Information or Work for non-EPAM purposes, EPAM discovered evidence\n\nthat Rao engaged in a far broader and more egregious scheme to misappropriate EPAM's\n\nintellectual property than EPAM previously believed, including through his company CoReason.\n\nSee Proposed Second Amended Complaint, (\u201cSAC\u201d), attached as Exhibit 1, \u00b6 5. These documents\n\nalso reflected that Rao began acting as a faithless servant in breach of his fiduciary duties to EPAM\n\nfor a far longer period of time than EPAM originally believed. SAC \u00b6\u00b6 63-74. While EPAM\n\nuncovered some of this information by May 2026, it was unable (due to the parties\u2019 disagreements\n\nabout the Forensic Protocol) to obtain confirmation from its relevant technical employees\n\nregarding the nature of the documents until late-July 2026, thus not being able to truly understand\n\nthe extent of Rao\u2019s misappropriation and related damages to EPAM.\n\n In addition, Rao also provided new information in his Answer and Counterclaims, through\n\nmaterials that he has posted on CoReason\u2019s website, and through initial discovery responses, which\n\nfurther support that Rao and CoReason misappropriated trade secrets and other confidential\n\ninformation, engaged in tortious inference and conversion, wrongfully solicited EPAM\u2019s clients,\n\nand committed other improper acts. See SAC \u00b6\u00b6 111-114; 177; 191-192; 204-205.\n\n The current posture of the case is that the parties are litigating a dispute over Rao\u2019s\n\nspoliation of evidence, with EPAM\u2019s motion fully briefed, and an evidentiary hearing upcoming\n\non September 16. This case otherwise is in its infancy. The pleadings have not closed. Neither\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 8 of 30\n\n\n\n\nparty has served an Answer to each other\u2019s claims/counterclaims, and both plan to re-file their\n\nmotions to dismiss after a decision on the spoliation motion. (ECF #49.) EPAM served its first set\n\nof discovery requests on August 10, 2026. Rao began serving discovery requests on August 15.\n\nRao began responding to discovery on or about August 28, and provided additional discovery\n\n(including a large document production) over Labor Day Weekend. EPAM is currently seeking a\n\nprotective order quashing certain of those requests, and has begun the process of drafting responses\n\nand objections concerning other requests. No depositions have taken place. The discovery\n\ndeadline is currently September 30, 2026, but the Court indicated at the May 20, 2026 hearing that\n\nthis deadline would likely be extended in due time, and EPAM is in the process of seeking an\n\nextension.\n\nII. EPAM\u2019S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS\n\n The factual allegations set forth below form the basis of the new claims asserted in the\n\nSecond Amended Complaint. See generally, SAC. The SAC includes additional or revised claims\n\nagainst Rao under the Lanham Act, for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair\n\ncompetition, and for declaratory judgment. Id. The SAC also includes claims against an additional\n\ndefendant, CoReason, under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (\u201cDTSA\u201d), the Pennsylvania Uniform\n\nTrade Secrets Act (\u201cPUTSA\u201d), the Lanham Act, for the torts of tortious interference, conversion,\n\nunfair competition, and unjust enrichment, for replevin, and for declaratory judgment. Id.\n\n Indeed, only after filing the Amended Complaint, did EPAM learn that Rao\u2019s massive theft\n\nof 44,960 EPAM files was only one part of an even more brazen scheme to misappropriate\n\nEPAM\u2019s confidential information and intellectual property (\u201cIP\u201d). The scheme further involved\n\nRao using EPAM\u2019s confidential information and IP to unfairly compete against EPAM through\n\nhis competing enterprise, CoReason. Id.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 9 of 30\n\n\n\n\n In brief, among the projects that Rao worked on at EPAM was Synapse, a \u201cco-reasoning\u201d\n\nplatform, meaning that the technology worked by utilizing multiple artificial intelligence \u201cagents\u201d\n\nto analyze a problem simultaneously, using different perspectives. SAC \u00b6 63. Since filing its\n\nAmended Complaint, EPAM has discovered that, while Rao was still an EPAM employee, Rao\n\nfed Synapse\u2019s source code and/or other highly confidential information about Synapse into a\n\ngenerative artificial intelligence (\u201cAI\u201d) platform or model, in order to obtain (i) a document which\n\nprovided step-by-step instructions for re-coding Synapse from scratch, and (ii) detailed notes on\n\nSynapse\u2019s internal architecture, and that Rao has retained this information following his\n\nemployment. Rao had no legitimate business reason to use an AI platform to model or obtain step-\n\nby-step instructions for recoding a Synapse-like software product or to produce details of its\n\ninternal architecture. Id. \u00b6 66. The information would allow Rao to create a Synapse copy that\n\nmaintained the same core features and functions as Synapse, but with different underlying file\n\nnames and metadata, to disguise the copy\u2019s reliance on misappropriated Synapse data and make it\n\nmore difficult to determine the origin of his competing product. Id.\n\n The answer to \u201cwhy\u201d Rao would generate, and furthermore retain, these documents, is that\n\nRao planned to and indeed did launch a copycat of Synapse through his company, CoReason.\n\n Rao marketed his version of Synapse, based on stolen EPAM confidential information and\n\nIP, to investors, in order to raise money for CoReason. According to Rao, on September 16, 2025,\n\nRao was pitching business development on behalf of EPAM, which was attended by Ammar\n\nShallal and Dr. David Youmans (both of whom would later join him at CoReason) when he first\n\ncontemplated creating his own competing venture. According to Rao, what began as a business\n\ndevelopment discussion for EPAM culminated in the \u201cquestion why I was not doing such work\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 10 of 30\n\n\n\n\nindependently myself,\u201d and that question was the \u201cinitial seed of what later became CoReason.\u201d\n\n(Resp. to Interrog. No. 7.)\n\n Two days later, on September 18, 2025, Rao contacted a high-level EPAM client\n\nrepresentative (\u201cExecutive #1\u201d), in order to pitch him on partnering with him on CoReason. See\n\nECF No. 58-9; SAC \u00b6 69. In response, Executive #1 committed to providing Rao\u2019s new company\n\nwith $500,000 in work over the next six months. See ECF No. 58-9 at 13; SAC \u00b6 70. Rao and\n\nExecutive #1 specifically discussed the need for \u201cabsolute confidentiality\u201d because Rao was \u201cstill\n\nemployed by EPAM.\u201d SAC \u00b6 71. On the same day, Rao and/or his CoReason business partner,\n\nAmmar Shallal, registered a domain name, www.coreason.ai. Id. \u00b6 72. The next day, September\n\n19, 2025, according to an AI-generated summary of a conversation between Rao and Executive\n\n#1, he and Executive #1 finalized a plan to spin out an AI project, currently at EPAM, into a new\n\nindependent venture. SAC \u00b6\u00b6 71-74.\n\n On September 21, 2025, Rao outlined his plan to unfairly compete with EPAM by\n\nlaunching an EPAM competitor based on work he performed for EPAM (i.e., Synapse) to another\n\nindividual, (\u201cExecutive #2\u201d). See ECF No. 58-10; SAC \u00b6 75. According to an AI-generated\n\nsummary of the conversation, Rao told Executive #2 he would try to \u201ccircumvent\u201d IP issues by\n\nrebuilding the system (i.e., Synapse) himself. SAC \u00b6 75. At this point, Rao had the misappropriated\n\nmeans to follow through with this plan. He had already obtained an AI-generated \u201cstep-by-step\u201d\n\nplan for coding Synapse from scratch, making it easy for him to ostensibly \u201cwrite [his] own code\u201d\n\nto create a Synapse-like product. See ECF No. 58-10; SAC \u00b6 75. That same day, Rao sent EPAM\u2019s\n\n\u201cSales Battle Card\u201d for Synapse, which set forth a marketing strategy for Synapse, to a nondescript\n\npersonal email address. See ECF No. 58-16; SAC \u00b6 100.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 11 of 30\n\n\n\n\n While undertaking this effort, Rao purposefully underperformed at EPAM, in order to\n\nengineer his own involuntary termination. SAC \u00b6\u00b6 6, 78, 184. In Rao\u2019s view, if he succeeded in\n\ngetting EPAM to involuntarily terminate him, he would be free to compete against it. Id. On or\n\nabout September 21, 2025, Rao had a conversation with another individual, (\u201cExecutive #2\u201d),\n\nabout his plan to purposefully underperform. See ECF No. 58-11; SAC \u00b6 75. According to his own\n\nsummary of the conversation, Rao explained to Executive #3 that he would remain an EPAM\n\nemployee while working \u201cin the shadows\u201d to develop his EPAM competitor. Id. During his EPAM\n\nemployment, he would be \u201cslowly weaning, being less responsive,\u201d until EPAM terminated him\n\nfor cause, which would \u201cnullify his non-compete clause.\u201d Id. \u00b6 78. Rao also alluded to this plan to\n\nExecutive #1 on or about September 18, 2025. Id. \u00b6 79. In late September, Rao proposed to EPAM\n\nthat he resign via a mutually agreeable separation, but only if EPAM would waive his post-\n\nemployment restrictive covenants. EPAM declined to waive the covenants and Rao rescinded his\n\nproposal. Id. \u00b6 83.\n\n From at least September 18, 2026 through his eventual termination, Rao continued\n\nplanning discussions with his now-parter in CoReason, and took steps to solicit investors.\n\n Shortly before his termination, and while he had taken significant steps to start his\n\ncompeting company, Rao downloaded massive amounts of EPAM Confidential Information and\n\nWork to his personal computer, and also deleted critical files and folders about Synapse from an\n\nEPAM storage account, - all of this for his and CoReason\u2019s benefit. SAC \u00b6 93, 96.\n\n Rao was terminated by EPAM on October 15, 2025 based on suspicious conduct. Rao\n\nincorporated CoReason in Delaware the next day, on October 16, 2025. SAC \u00b6 105. That same\n\nday, Rao declared on an external communication platform that he was now competing with EPAM.\n\nId. \u00b6 104.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 12 of 30\n\n\n\n\n Two days after his termination, on October 17, 2025, Rao and his partner at CoReason,\n\nAmmar Shallal, were already meeting with an EPAM client, Johnson & Johnson (\u201cJ&J\u201d), in an\n\neffort to secure business for CoReason. See ECF No. 33-9 at 5; SAC \u00b6 107. According to his own\n\nallegation, Rao had already secured a Statement of Work from J&J by October 20, 2025. SAC \u00b6\n\n108.\n\n The CoReason website reflects that it is not a one-man shop, but a sophisticated and\n\nextremely well-funded company, which at one point had two \u201cSenior Strategic Advisor[s]\u201d, a\n\n\u201cData Officer\u201d, a \u201cLegal Advisor\u201d, a \u201cFounding Investor\u201d (Shallal), and a \u201cClinical Advisor.\u201d SAC\n\n\u00b6 110. The website also explains what CoReason\u2019s product does, including its function and\n\ncapabilities. CoReason\u2019s own description on the prior version of its website, including the use of\n\n\u201c[p]arralel agents\u201d to analyze a problem (see ECF No. 58-23 at 7), reflects that CoReason is a\n\ncopycat of EPAM\u2019s Synapse. SAC \u00b6 111. To the extent that CoReason\u2019s specific features are\n\ndifferent, those different features appear to reflect proposals that Rao made as an EPAM employee.\n\nId. Rao\u2019s work on those proposals, by virtue of the Ownership of Work Product provision of Rao\u2019s\n\nCovenant Agreement, is EPAM property. Id. Separately, EPAM discovered that CoReason also\n\nhas a subsidiary in India, and has been hiring and recruiting employees in India, including at least\n\none person then-employed by EPAM.\n\n Via the parties\u2019 forensic protocol, EPAM identified a \u201cCoReason Stakeholder\n\nCommunication Toolkit\u201d on Rao\u2019s personal Google Drive. SAC \u00b6 113. The 274-page document\n\nappears to set out CoReason\u2019s comprehensive business plan. Id. Included with this business plan\n\nare six \u201cStrategic Recipes\u201d that appear to be misappropriated, in large part, from six EPAM\n\n\u201cRecipes\u201d that existed on an EPAM Sharepoint folder during Rao\u2019s employment. Id. All six of\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 13 of 30\n\n\n\n\nCoReason\u2019s \u201cStrategic Recipes\u201d contain the same names and, with some differences in wording,\n\nsimilar substance as the EPAM \u201cRecipes.\u201d Id.\n\n Even CoReason\u2019s corporate name appears to have been taken from EPAM, as EPAM\n\nmaterials from July 2025 specifically describe Synapse as \u201cYour AI Co-reasoning Partner,\u201d and\n\none of EPAM\u2019s Recipes sets forth the \u201cingredients\u201d for \u201cProtocol Co-Reasoning.\u201d SAC \u00b6 114.\n\n Rao misappropriated EPAM\u2019s confidential information and IP, including trade secrets, by\n\ndisclosing such materials to CoReason. SAC \u00b6 128-129. Rao owns and controls CoReason, so\n\nRao\u2019s knowledge must be imputed to CoReason. Id. CoReason knew or should have known that\n\nthe materials Rao used to create the CoReason software product contained EPAM\u2019s confidential\n\ninformation and IP, including trade secrets. Id.\n\n Rao and CoReason are now actively marketing and seeking to sell, including to current and\n\npotential EPAM clients, a competitor to EPAM\u2019s Synapse product. SAC \u00b6 133. This Synapse\n\ncompetitor is built on EPAM confidential information and IP, including trade secrets, that Rao\n\nmisappropriated from EPAM and then disclosed to CoReason. Id.\n\n On August 10, 2026, EPAM notified Rao of its intent to file a Second Amended Complaint.\n\nSee Parties\u2019 Correspondence regarding Second Amended Complaint, attached herewith as Exhibit\n\n2. In his August 14, 2026 response, Rao indicated that he would not consent to the filing of the\n\nproposed Second Amended Complaint on the following grounds: (1) consent is not sufficient to\n\njoin an additional party under Rule 21; (2) the Court has already sequenced the case; (3) the current\n\ndiscovery schedule would prejudice CoReason; (4) the new claims are futile. Id. As a result, EPAM\n\nbrings the present motion. Then, as EPAM was preparing this motion, Rao responded to discovery.\n\nEPAM waited to file this motion until after not only the initial wave of Rao\u2019s discovery responses\n\nand document production appeared complete, but also until EPAM had an opportunity to conduct\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 14 of 30\n\n\n\n\nat least an initial review of these materials. Rao produced documents a large quantity of documents\n\nover Labor Day Weekend, and EPAM finalized its proposed Second Amended Complaint and this\n\nmotion within a week after receiving that production.\n\nIII. ARGUMENT\n\n A. Legal Standard\n\n Read together, Rules 15 and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit the\n\namendment of a complaint to add a party either by agreement of the parties or upon leave of court,\n\nwhich \u201c[t]he court should freely give . . . when justice so requires.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).\n\n A district court may deny leave to amend a complaint if the defendant has demonstrated\n\nundue delay or bad faith, if the amendment would be futile, or if the amendment would prejudice\n\nthe other party. Synthes, Inc. v. Marotta, 281 F.R.D. 217, 224 (E.D. Pa. 2012). In the absence of\n\nthese factors, leave to amend should be freely given. Futility means that the amended complaint\n\n\u201cwould fail to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Shane v. Fauver, 213 F.3d 113,\n\n115 (3d Cir. 2000). \u201cComplication of the issues alone does not justify denying plaintiffs\u2019 motion\n\nfor leave to amend.\u201d Synthes, 281 F.R.D at 227 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).\n\n \u201cThe touchstone of whether the amendment should be allowed is the issue of prejudice.\n\nOnly where \u2018the amendment substantially changes the theory on which the case has been\n\nproceeding and is proposed late enough so that the opponent would be required to engage in\n\nsignificant new preparation,\u2019 may the court deem it prejudicial.\u201d Id., 281 F.R.D. at 227 (quoting\n\nRehab. Inst. v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc\u2019y of the U.S., 131 F.R.D. 99, 102 (W.D. Pa. 1990)).\n\n In the Third Circuit, delay alone does not justify denying a motion to amend. See Cureton\n\nv. Nat\u2019l Collegiate Athletic Ass\u2019n, 252 F.3d 267, 273 (3d Cir. 2001) (\u201cThe mere passage of time\n\ndoes not require that a motion to amend a complaint be denied on grounds of delay\u201d); Adams v.\n\nGould, Inc., 739 F.2d 858, 868 (3d Cir. 1984). Rather, it is only where delay becomes \u201c\u2018undue,\u2019\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 15 of 30\n\n\n\n\nplacing an unwarranted burden on the court, or . . . \u2018prejudicial,\u2019 placing an unfair burden on the\n\nopposing party\u201d that denial of a motion to amend is appropriate. Adams, 739 F.2d at 868.\n\n Prejudice arises where a new complaint would \u201c(i) require the opponent to expend\n\nsignificant additional resources to conduct discovery and prepare for trial; (ii) significantly delay\n\nthe resolution of the dispute; or (iii) prevent the plaintiff from bringing a timely action in another\n\njurisdiction.\u201d Long v. Wilson, 393 F.3d 390, 400 (3d Cir. 2004). Even when a proposed amended\n\ncomplaint adds substantive allegations against a defendant, where the evidence required to meet\n\nthese new allegations is substantially similar to that which was originally required, prejudice does\n\nnot exist. Coventry v. U.S. Steel Corp., 856 F.2d 514, 520 (3d Cir. 1988).\n\n B. Justice Requires Granting EPAM Leave to File A Second Amended\n Complaint\n\n Justice requires granting EPAM leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Rule 15\n\nembodies a liberal policy favoring amendment so that claims may be resolved on their merits rather\n\nthan on technical pleading limitations. Dole v. Arco Chem. Co., 921 F.2d 484, 487 (3d Cir. 1990);\n\nBechtel v. Robinson, 886 F.2d 644, 652-53 (3d Cir. 1989) (holding justice required leave to amend\n\nto add defendant where plaintiffs learned new information during the litigation, promptly sought\n\namendment upon discovering the proper party, and the case remained in the early stages of\n\ndiscovery). The proposed Second Amended Complaint is based upon significant evidence\n\nuncovered during the Forensic Protocol process, factual allegations contained in Rao\u2019s Answer\n\nand Counterclaims, materials discovered on CoReason\u2019s website, and facts learned in initial\n\ndiscovery that has just been received.\n\n The Forensic Protocol process revealed misconduct substantially beyond what EPAM\n\nknew when it filed the Amended Complaint. The review revealed that Rao fed EPAM confidential\n\ninformation and IP into an artificial intelligence program, which generated a \u201cstep-by-step\u201d guide\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 16 of 30\n\n\n\n\non how to rebuild the Synapse code from scratch. SAC \u00b6 66. Rao then took this guide, along with\n\n44,960 stolen EPAM files, and created his own, similar product known as CoReason. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 69,\n\n73. Rao also solicited EPAM\u2019s clients for business for his competing product. Id. \u00b6 106. Rao\n\nattempted to willfully evade his non-compete agreement with EPAM by purposefully\n\nunderperforming until EPAM terminated him for cause. Id. \u00b6 76. Now, Rao and CoReason are\n\nactively marketing a competitor product which contains EPAM\u2019s confidential information and IP.\n\nId. \u00b6\u00b6 133-134.\n\n These factual allegations form the basis of the new claims asserted in the SAC, including\n\nadditional or revised claims against Rao under the Lanham Act, for breach of contract, breach of\n\nfiduciary duty, the tort of unfair competition, and for declaratory judgment. The SAC also includes\n\nclaims against CoReason under the DTSA, PUTSA, Lanham Act, for the torts of tortious\n\ninterference, conversion, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment, for replevin, and for\n\ndeclaratory judgment.\n\n As discussed further below, the proposed amendment serves the core purpose of Rule 15\n\nby allowing EPAM to present claims based on facts that were discovered during the course of this\n\nlitigation. Denying leave would not eliminate those claims, but would merely force EPAM to file\n\na separate action asserting substantially identical facts against substantially identical parties based\n\non substantially identical evidence, which is unnecessary and inefficient. Justice is best served by\n\nresolving all related disputes in a single proceeding. Thus, justice requires granting EPAM leave\n\nto amend its complaint to address Defendant Rao and CoReason\u2019s willful tortious conduct and\n\nunfair business practices.\n\n 1. First Cause of Action: DTSA (CoReason)\n\n Justice requires granting EPAM leave to amend its complaint to include CoReason in its\n\nclaim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the DTSA. Such an amendment is not futile\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 17 of 30\n\n\n\n\nbecause the SAC articulates sufficient facts to set out a claim under the DTSA against CoReason.\n\nSynthes, Inc., 281 F.R.D. at 233 (\u201cBecause the proposed Amended Complaint, as pled, clearly\n\nstates claims against [co-Defendant] upon which relief may be granted, the Court cannot deem the\n\namendment to add him as a defendant to be futile\u201d); Harbor Bus. Compliance Corp. v. Firstbase.io,\n\nInc., 2023 WL 3095563, at *5 (E.D. Pa. 2023) (denying motion to dismiss DTSA claim because\n\n\u201cthe Complaint's allegations that the Firstbase Agent service on its website in November 2022\n\nlooked \u201cremarkably similar\u201d to the one [Plaintiff] provided are sufficient to plead [Defendant\u2019s]\n\nmisappropriation of [Plaintiff\u2019s] trade secrets\u201d); IQVIA, Inc. v. Breskin, 2023 WL 2588450 at *7\n\n(E.D. Pa. 2023) (granting leave to amend complaint in trade secrets litigation where employee\n\ndownloaded employer files shortly before leaving to work for competitor).\n\n In brief, Rao is now actively competing against EPAM through his company CoReason. It\n\nis more than plausible that Rao has shared some of the trade secrets he improperly downloaded\n\nfrom EPAM with CoReason. Further, as CoReason\u2019s founder and CEO, Rao\u2019s knowledge\n\nregarding EPAM\u2019s trade secrets, including what he misappropriated from EPAM, should be\n\nimputed to CoReason. SAC \u00b6 132.\n\n Those inferences aside, since filing the Amended Complaint, EPAM has uncovered strong\n\nevidence to support CoReason\u2019s misappropriation of EPAM trade secrets. Specifically, it has\n\nlearned that Rao likely misappropriated EPAM\u2019s trade secrets by feeding EPAM materials that it\n\nconsiders trade secrets (i.e., the source code and/or sensitive architectural documents) into a\n\ngenerative AI platform, which produced a step-by-step guide to recode its Synapse technology. Id.\n\n\u00b6\u00b6 109, 134, . Rao also bragged to a friend about how he intended to take technology he developed\n\nwhile at EPAM, and recode it from scratch in order to compete with EPAM. Then, shortly after\n\nRao\u2019s EPAM employment ended, Rao and CoReason began actively marketing and seeking to sell\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 18 of 30\n\n\n\n\na competitor to EPAM\u2019s Synapse product. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 129, 133. The most logical inference from these\n\nfacts is that CoReason is marketing a product that was developed based upon stolen EPAM trade\n\nsecrets.\n\n These facts warrant amending the complaint to include CoReason in EPAM\u2019s claim under\n\nthe DTSA.\n\n 2. Second Cause of Action: PUTSA (CoReason)\n\n For similar reasons, justice requires allowing EPAM to amend the complaint to include\n\nCoReason in its claim under the PUTSA. The amendment would not be futile because the SAC\n\nalleges sufficient facts to establish that both Rao and CoReason misappropriated EPAM\u2019s trade\n\nsecrets, including by using EPAM\u2019s trade secrets to build an competing product based upon\n\nmisappropriated EPAM\u2019s Synapse technology. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. 721 Logistics,\n\nLLC, 2012 WL 12896257. *2-3 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (finding amendment to add PUTSA claim where\n\ndefendants allegedly misappropriated a customer list would not be futile); Harbor Bus.\n\nCompliance Corp., 2023 WL 3095563, at *5 (denying motion to dismiss PUTSA claim); Synthes,\n\n281 F.R.D. at 233. Because CoReason is owned and controlled by Rao, CoReason knew or should\n\nhave known the materials used to build the core product advertised on CoReason\u2019s website was\n\nbased off of EPAM\u2019s trade secrets. SAC \u00b6\u00b6 145, 255. The Court should grant EPAM leave to\n\namend the complaint to include CoReason in its PUTSA claim.\n\n 3. Fourth Cause of Action: Breach of Contract: Ownership of Work\n (Rao)\n\n An amendment to include a breach of the Ownership of Work provision of Rao\u2019s\n\nCovenants Agreement would not be futile because the SAC alleges each element of a breach of\n\ncontract claim. Houser v. Feldman, 600 F. Supp. 3d 550, 561-62 (E.D. Pa. 2022) (denying motion\n\nto dismiss contract claim based on employment agreement inventions policy). Rao entered into a\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 19 of 30\n\n\n\n\nvalid contract with EPAM, the Covenants Agreement, in connection with his employment. SAC\n\n\u00b6\u00b6 155-158. The Ownership of Work provision of the Covenants Agreement states that any \u201ctrade\n\nsecret, work product and original work of authorship\u201d made in connection with or in the course of\n\nRao\u2019s employment with EPAM is the exclusive property of EPAM. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 50-53; 167. Rao\n\nbreached this provision of the Covenants Agreement by claiming ownership of work product\n\ndeveloped during his EPAM employment and by seeking to profit from this work product through\n\nCoReason. Id. \u00b6 165. The Court should grant EPAM leave to amend the complaint to include the\n\nbreach of the Ownership of Work provision.\n\n 4. Fifth Cause of Action: Breach of Contract: Non-Solicitation of Clients\n (Rao)\n\n Justice requires granting EPAM leave to amend the complaint to include an additional\n\nbreach of contract claim against Rao because EPAM has alleged direct solicitation of EPAM\u2019s\n\nclients by Rao. DePuy Synthes Sales, Inc. v. Globus Med., Inc., 259 F. Supp. 3d 225, 232, 249\n\n(E.D. Pa. 2017) (denying motion to dismiss breach of contract claim where the complaint alleged\n\nfacts to support an interference that the consultants had solicited plaintiff's customers). The\n\nCovenants Agreement includes an enforceable non-solicitation covenant. SAC \u00b6\u00b6 48; 173-79. Rao\n\nbreached the non-solicitation covenant by soliciting and/or contacting EPAM clients on behalf of\n\nhimself for the purpose of offering services similar or competitive to those offered by EPAM. Id.\n\n\u00b6 173. Rao breached this covenant both during his employment with EPAM and in the 12-month\n\nperiod following the termination of his employment. Id. For example, during employment Rao\n\nsolicited a client executive to join his new competing venture he was planning, and shortly after\n\nRao\u2019s termination he secured a Statement of Work agreement from an EPAM client, J&J. Id. \u00b6\u00b6\n\n71-73; 108. The Court should allow EPAM to amend its complaint to include the breach of the\n\nnon-solicitation covenant.\n\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 20 of 30\n\n\n\n 5. Sixth Cause of Action: Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Faithless\n Servant (Rao)\n\n An amendment to include further factual allegations to EPAM\u2019s existing breach of\n\nfiduciary duty is not futile because the claim will survive a motion to dismiss and EPAM has since\n\nlearned of further breaches of Rao\u2019s fiduciary duties. Neopart Transit, LLC v. CBM N.A. Inc., 314\n\nF. Supp. 3d 628, 637-38 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (rejecting gist of the action argument and denying motion\n\nto dismiss because \u201cas long as the fiduciary duties at issue extend beyond the limits of a contract\n\ndue to the parties' relative positions, the gist of the action doctrine will not bar a claim for breach\n\nof loyalty\u201d) (internal quotations and citation omitted)). In addition to the fraudulent representations\n\nand data theft allegations that currently support EPAM\u2019s breach of fiduciary duty claim against\n\nRao, Rao\u2014while still employed by EPAM\u2014began planning a competing enterprise using\n\nmisappropriated EPAM confidential information and IP. SAC \u00b6\u00b6 65-75; 184. Rao\u2019s planning of\n\nthis competitor company involved further breaches, including refactoring EPAM\u2019s software code,\n\nbut withholding these revisions from EPAM, and feeding EPAM\u2019s confidential information and\n\nIP into a generative AI platform to obtain instructions on how to duplicate EPAM\u2019s Synapse\n\nproduct. Id. Rao also attempted to permanently delete EPAM\u2019s files on the company network and\n\nintentionally underperformed to induce EPAM to terminate his employment, in an attempt to evade\n\nhis non-competition restrictive covenant. Id.\n\n 6. Seventh Cause of Action: Tortious Interference (CoReason)\n\n The tortious interference claim is not futile. CoReason knowingly accepted, utilized, and\n\nbenefited from EPAM confidential information and intellectual property, work product belonging\n\nto EPAM, and client solicitations undertaken in violation of Rao\u2019s contractual obligations to\n\nEPAM. CoReason\u2019s business operations, commercial offerings, and efforts to compete against\n\nEPAM were advanced through Rao\u2019s breaches of his contractual obligations concerning\n\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 21 of 30\n\n\n\n\nconfidentiality, ownership of work product, and client non-solicitation. Further, CoReason\n\nnecessarily encouraged Rao to engage in this conduct, as its very business model depended upon\n\nRao\u2019s breaches of his contractual confidentiality and non-solicitation obligations to EPAM. See\n\nSAC \u00b6\u00b6 188-195; Acclaim Sys., Inc. v. Infosys, Ltd., 2015 WL 4257463, at *3-4 (E.D. Pa. 2015)\n\n(sustaining tortious interference claim where defendant knowingly induced violations of restrictive\n\ncovenants); Alpha Card Servs., LLC v. Timothy Toombs Paycompass LLC, 2026 WL 1161448, at\n\n*7 (E.D. Pa. 2026) (holding that allegations that a competing company knowingly encouraged\n\nconduct in violation of contractual restrictions stated a tortious interference claim); Synthes, 281\n\nF.R.D. at 233. At a minimum, these allegations plausibly support the conclusion that CoReason\n\nparticipated in conduct that interfered with EPAM\u2019s contractual rights. Any challenge to the\n\nultimate merits of that claim is not a basis to deny amendment at the pleading stage.\n\n 7. Eighth Cause of Action: Replevin (CoReason)\n\n Justice requires adding CoReason to EPAM\u2019s existing claim for replevin. Synthes, 281\n\nF.R.D. at 233; Advanced Power Sys., Inc. v. Hi-Tech Sys., Inc., 801 F. Supp. 1450, 1457-58 (E.D.\n\nPa. 1992) (denying motion to dismiss replevin claim where complaint \u201calleged surreptitious taking\n\nfrom an employer by a former employee\u201d); Hydrogen Master Rights, Ltd. v. Weston, 228 F. Supp.\n\n3d 320, 335 (D. Del. 2017) (finding \u201cdocuments or other physical objects containing confidential\n\ninformation, as well as computer disks or tapes containing software are tangible and thus able to\n\nbe replevied\u201d) (internal citation omitted). Both Rao and CoReason are currently in possession and\n\ncontrol of EPAM\u2019s property, including EPAM\u2019s confidential information. SAC \u00b6 197. Rao and\n\nCoReason are actively marketing and selling a software product that was built using the source\n\ncode of EPAM\u2019s Synapse product. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 133-134; 150-151. Rao and CoReason have no right to\n\npossess EPAM\u2019s confidential information and IP, but nevertheless are claiming ownership of the\n\ncompetitor product that is nearly identical to Synapse. Id. \u00b6 196. EPAM\u2019s possessory right in its\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 22 of 30\n\n\n\n\nown confidential information and IP, and products derived from such information, is superior to\n\nthat of Rao and CoReason. Id.\n\n 8. Ninth Cause of Action: Conversion (CoReason)\n\n EPAM\u2019s SAC alleges sufficient facts to establish both CoReason and Rao misappropriated\n\nEPAM\u2019s property. SAC \u00b6 203-211. Rao disclosed EPAM\u2019s confidential information and IP to\n\nCoReason. Id. \u00b6 203. Both Rao and CoReason continue to market EPAM confidential information\n\nand IP as the property of Rao and CoReason. Id. \u00b6 204. Rao and CoReason misrepresented the\n\norigins of CoReason\u2019s product in its marketing materials. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 207-209. Justice thus requires\n\nallowing EPAM to amend its complaint to include CoReason in its claim for conversion. See\n\nSynthes, 281 F.R.D. at 233; Houser, 600 F. Supp. 3d at 567-68 (denying motion to dismiss\n\nconversion claim because \u201ca properly pled claim of conversion therefore must include an\n\nallegation that a defendant acquired the information through misconduct. . . [m]isconduct can\n\ninclude misrepresentations\u201d).\n\n 9. Tenth Cause of Action: Lanham Act (Rao and CoReason)\n\n The claims against Rao and CoReason under the Lanham Act are not futile because they\n\nare distinct from EPAM\u2019s claims of trade secret misappropriation. Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth\n\nCentury Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23, 29-30 (2003). EPAM\u2019s Lanham Act claim is based on Rao\u2019s\n\nand CoReason\u2019s alleged commercial representations and omissions that create a misleading\n\nimpression regarding the origin, ownership, and legitimacy of the technology being marketed\n\nthrough CoReason. This claim is distinct from the trade secrets claim, and does not depend on it.\n\nIndeed, even if the trier of fact somehow finds that Rao\u2019s misappropriation did not involve trade\n\nsecrets, but rather other EPAM confidential information and property that does not rise to the level\n\nof trade secrets, the claim would remain equally viable. Defendants who intentionally create false\n\nimpressions are liable under the Lanham Act. Alpha Pro Tech, Inc. v. WVR Int\u2019l LLC, 984 F. Supp.\n\n\n 17\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 23 of 30\n\n\n\n\n2d 425, 451 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (noting that the Lanham Act does not require that statements be\n\n\u201cliterally false\u201d and that liability \u201carises if the commercial message or statement is either (1)\n\nliterally false or (2) literally true or ambiguous, but has the tendency to deceive consumers\u201d)\n\n(internal citations omitted); Ames Pub. Co. v. Walker\u2013Davis Pubs., Inc., 372 F. Supp. 1, 11 (E.D.\n\nPa. 1974) (liability is not limited to descriptions, \u201cbut extends to instances where the defendant\n\ncreates a false impression\u201d).\n\n Advertising a product, without attribution to the product\u2019s designer, has a tendency to\n\ndeceive consumers because the \u201cambiguity[] invites the logical inference that Defendants []\n\ndesigned [the product].\u201d Advanced Fluid Sys., Inc. v. Huber, 28 F. Supp. 3d 306, 352 (M.D. Pa.\n\n2014), aff'd, 958 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2020). The description of CoReason\u2019s product on its website\n\ndoes not include any attribution to the origins of the product, or mention EPAM in any capacity.\n\nSAC \u00b6 211. The lack of attribution invites the logical inference that Rao, as CoReason\u2019s Founder\n\nand CEO, developed the product. See id. \u00b6\u00b6 222-225. CoReason\u2019s and Rao\u2019s failure to indicate\n\nthat its product was developed with EPAM\u2019s confidential information has the capacity to deceive\n\nconsumers. Id. \u00b6 223. These allegations are more than sufficient to state a plausible Lanham Act\n\nclaim and therefore cannot be deemed futile at the Rule 15 stage.\n\n 10. Eleventh Cause of Action: Unfair Competition (Rao and CoReason)\n\n The unfair competition claims against both Rao and CoReason are not preempted by the\n\nPennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act (PUTSA) because the claims, pled in the alternative if\n\nnecessary, arise from confidential information that does not rise to the level of trade secrets.\n\nMoreover, the possibility of preemption later in the proceedings does not deem an amendment\n\nfutile. Ilapak, Inc. v. Young, No. 5:20-CV-01877, 2020 WL 2787689, at *5 (E.D. Pa. 2020) (Tort\n\nclaims that may or may not be preempted by PUTSA are not dismissed at the motion to dismiss\n\nstage). Further, the unfair competition claim also depends on material misrepresentations in the\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 24 of 30\n\n\n\n\nmarketing of CoReason. Rao, on behalf of CoReason, published a professional website that\n\ndescribed CoReason\u2019s product. SAC \u00b6 231. Using this website, Rao and CoReason have marketed\n\nand continue to market CoReason\u2019s product to investors and prospective clients, including\n\nEPAM\u2019s clients and prospective clients, as CoReason\u2019s original product. Id. \u00b6 230. There is no\n\nreference to EPAM or Synapse anywhere on CoReason\u2019s website. Id. \u00b6 242. In reality, Rao created\n\nthe software advertised on the CoReason website by feeding EPAM\u2019s trade secrets and\n\nconfidential information into an AI model to create a guide to recreate the Synapse code from\n\nscratch. Id. \u00b6 235. Both Rao and CoReason have actual knowledge that its product was developed\n\nwith EPAM\u2019s proprietary software, code, and trade secrets. Id. \u00b6 239. Rao and CoReason have\n\nalso misappropriated business plans and marketing materials such as bid proposals, pricing\n\ninformation, and the Synapse \u201cSales Battle Card\u201d in its efforts to market and sell CoReason\u2019s\n\nproduct. Id. \u00b6 245. EPAM\u2019s SAC has alleged sufficient facts for the unfair competition claims to\n\nsurvive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The proposed amendment is not futile.\n\n 11. Twelfth Cause of Action: Declaratory Judgment (Rao and CoReason)\n\n In regard to Plaintiff\u2019s claim for declaratory judgment, CoReason\u2019s core product appears\n\nto be a misappropriated version of Synapse according to its website. SAC \u00b6\u00b6 250-55. There is no\n\nindication that CoReason has any other intellectual property. Id. If Plaintiff takes the position\n\nCoReason has intellectual property that was developed independent of EPAM\u2019s Confidential\n\nInformation and IP, the proper venue for such a dispute is discovery followed by motion practice\n\nand/or trial. There is no basis to deny leave to amend the Amended Complaint on these grounds.\n\nYakitori Boy, Inc. v. Starr Indem. & Liab., Co., 2019 WL 1259502, at *3 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (granting\n\nmotion to amend in declaratory judgment action to add additional plaintiffs). Justice requires\n\npermitting EPAM to amend the complaint to add a claim for declaratory judgment against both\n\nRao and CoReason.\n\n\n 19\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 25 of 30\n\n\n\n 12. Thirteenth Cause of Action: Unjust Enrichment (CoReason)\n\n The unjust enrichment claim is not preempted by the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets\n\nAct (PUTSA) because the claim, pled in the alternative if necessary, arises from confidential\n\ninformation that does not rise to the level of trade secrets. Harbor, 2023 WL 3095563, at *5. The\n\nSAC alleges sufficient facts to establish that both Rao and CoReason are unjustly enriching\n\nthemselves by misrepresenting CoReason\u2019s product as their own. SAC \u00b6 250-252, 258-260. Rao\n\nand CoReason have also solicited EPAM\u2019s clients despite actual knowledge that such solicitation\n\nviolates Rao\u2019s Covenants Agreement with EPAM. SAC \u00b6\u00b6 174-178. The Court is well within its\n\nauthority to grant EPAM leave to amend the complaint to add CoReason to its existing unjust\n\nenrichment claim.\n\n C. Leave Should Be Granted Because Rao Cannot Establish Undue Delay, Bad\n Faith, or Prejudice\n\n Here, there has been no undue delay, nor can Rao offer evidence of bad faith or prejudice.\n\nAnd the proposed amendment certainly is not futile, in particular as to Rao.1 There has been no\n\nundue delay. Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on April 20, 2026. ECF No. 37. Since then,\n\nthe parties continued to engage in the Forensic Protocol process, and EPAM was eventually able\n\nto share certain of these documents with its technical employees. As a result, EPAM discovered\n\nadditional claims against both Defendant Rao and CoReason beyond what it knew when it filed\n\nthe Amended Complaint. The evidence obtained through those documents, along with statements\n\nthat Rao made in his Answer and Counterclaims, in response to initial discovery, and on\n\n\n1\n Indeed, even if CoReason had standing to oppose this motion, or if Rao had standing to do so\non its behalf, CoReason has been aware that it may be added to this case. CoReason\u2019s CEO and\nFounder is the sole Defendant in this litigation and its own product is now the central issue.\nPlaintiff has sufficient evidence to assert claims against CoReason based upon the documents\nproduced by Defendant and Defendant\u2019s statements in his Answer and Counterclaims. Nothing\nin the document productions, or Defendant\u2019s own admissions, should come as any surprise to\nCoReason.\n\n\n 20\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 26 of 30\n\n\n\n\nCoReason\u2019s website, indicates that Rao, through his company CoReason, has engaged in a scheme\n\nto misappropriate EPAM\u2019s intellectual property (including its Synapse software), is currently\n\nmarketing competing software that is based on misappropriated trade secrets and confidential\n\ninformation, has solicited EPAM\u2019s clients, and is seeking to profit from this product.\n\n Upon discovering certain of this evidence, EPAM immediately took steps to confirm the\n\nnature and significance of the recovered materials. EPAM\u2019s efforts were impeded, however, by\n\nRao\u2019s insistence that these documents could not be shared with non-attorneys (notably, Rao now\n\nadmits that \u201cno attorneys'-eyes-only designation governs these materials\u201d). Indeed, before filing\n\nthe present Motion, EPAM advised the Court that documents recovered through the forensic\n\nreview presented \u201ca compelling case for EPAM to seek to amend its complaint to assert new\n\nclaims, potentially against additional parties,\u201d but that EPAM was unable to complete the\n\nnecessary factual investigation because Rao insisted that the materials could be reviewed only by\n\nattorneys and not by EPAM\u2019s technical personnel. See Exhibit 3 (July 17, 2026 Letter Regarding\n\nForensic Protocol Dispute) at 3; Exhibit 4 (July 20, 2026 Reply Letter Regarding Forensic\n\nProtocol Dispute (exhibits to this letter are not included here)). Once EPAM was able to obtain the\n\nnecessary technical review and confirm the significance of the recovered materials, it promptly\n\nbegan preparing the proposed Second Amended Complaint, followed by a meet-and-confer\n\nprocess with Rao. In short, EPAM began efforts to prepare the Second Amended Complaint as\n\nsoon as it established that it had sufficient grounds to bring additional, related claims against Rao\n\nand CoReason. Further, while EPAM was in the midst of preparing this motion, Rao began\n\nresponding to discovery. It was prudent, not improper, for EPAM to wait a little while more until\n\nRao completed at least the first wave of his discovery responses, and EPAM had the opportunity\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 27 of 30\n\n\n\n\nto conduct an initial review of the discovery produced. There was no delay. To the contrary, the\n\nrecord demonstrates diligence.\n\n Moreover, any delay was not undue and neither Rao nor CoReason will be prejudiced if\n\nthe amendment is permitted. Adams, 739 F.2d at 868 (holding that delay is only \u201cundue,\u201d where it\n\nplaces \u201can unwarranted burden on the court,\u201d and is only \u201cprejudicial,\u201d where it places \u201can unfair\n\nburden on the opposing party\u201d). To establish prejudice, Rao must do more than merely allege it;\n\nhe must identify a specific way in which the proposed amendment would impair his ability to\n\ndefend the case. Coventry, 856 F.2d at 520. Rao cannot make that showing here. Indeed, the factual\n\nallegations underlying the proposed Second Amended Complaint arise from the very same course\n\nof conduct already at issue in this litigation, namely Rao\u2019s alleged misappropriation and misuse of\n\nEPAM\u2019s confidential information, intellectual property, and client relationships. The proposed\n\namendment does not introduce an unrelated dispute; rather, it expands upon facts uncovered\n\nthrough formal and informal discovery and other litigation activity, and seeks to add CoReason,\n\nthe entity through which Rao allegedly carried out much of the misconduct described in the\n\nproposed pleading.\n\n From the outset of this litigation, both Rao and CoReason should have reasonably\n\nanticipated that CoReason could be brought into the case as a co-defendant. The sole Defendant\n\ncurrently in the lawsuit is CoReason\u2019s Founder and CEO. Moreover, CoReason\u2019s principal\n\ntechnology and business activities are already central to EPAM\u2019s existing claims and to the parties\u2019\n\nongoing discovery efforts. The Court has already indicated that the discovery deadline would\n\nlikely be extended. As a practical matter, formal discovery remains in its early stages. EPAM\n\nserved its first set of discovery requests on August 10, 2026, Rao did not begin serving discovery\n\nrequests until August 15, 2026, did not begin responding to discovery until August 28, and did not\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 28 of 30\n\n\n\n\nbegin producing documents until Labor Day Weekend. EPAM has not yet responded to discovery\n\nor produced documents, and no depositions have been taken. No party will be required to duplicate\n\ncompleted discovery, or revisit prior depositions. Rao (and CoReason) are not being unfairly\n\ndisadvantaged or deprived of the opportunity to present facts or allegations. Rao has had, and will\n\nhave, ample opportunity to do so (as will CoReason).\n\n Nor will permitting amendment meaningfully delay resolution of this action. To the\n\ncontrary, resolving EPAM\u2019s related claims against Rao and CoReason in a single proceeding\n\npromotes efficiency and avoids the need for a separate lawsuit based on substantially the same\n\nfacts, witnesses, and evidence. Requiring EPAM to pursue its claims against CoReason in a\n\nseparate action would create duplicative litigation, risk inconsistent rulings, and result in the\n\nunnecessary expenditure of party and judicial resources. Under these circumstances, amendment\n\npromotes efficiency rather than delay. Indeed, compared to the prospective of a second, duplicative\n\nlitigation, permitting EPAM\u2019s proposed amendment would, if anything, benefit Rao and CoReason\n\nby ensuring the final resolution of potential claims in this case.\n\n D. CoReason Lacks Standing to Oppose this Motion\n\n As other courts in this circuit (and others) have held, CoReason does not have standing to\n\noppose this motion because it is not yet a party to the lawsuit. See Bittner v. Waterford Twp. Sch.\n\nDist., 2020 WL 10223599, at *2 (D.N.J. 2020) (citing Custom Pak Brokerage, LLC v. Dandrea\n\nProduce, Inc., 2014 WL 988829, at *2-3 (D.N.J. 2014)) (finding that proposed new defendants\n\nlack standing to oppose a motion to amend the pleadings); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. CPT\n\nMed. Servs., P.C., 246 F.R.D. 143, 146 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (finding that the proposed new\n\ndefendants do not have standing to oppose the proposed amendments because they are not yet\n\nnamed parties in the action); Vasquez v. Summit Women\u2019s Ctr., Inc., 2001 WL 34150397, at *1 n.1\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 29 of 30\n\n\n\n\n(D. Conn. Nov. 16, 2001) (\u201cthe standing of nonparties to challenge a motion for leave to file an\n\namended complaint that seeks to add them is, at best, dubious\u201d).\n\n Thus, the only party that has standing to argue undue delay, bad faith, or prejudice is Rao.\n\nWhile he may oppose this Motion on the grounds that CoReason will be unduly delayed or\n\nprejudiced, he \u201cmay not raise a futility argument as to proposed claims against proposed new\n\nparties.\u201d Raab Family P\u2019ship v. Borough of Magnolia, 2009 WL 10689669, at *4 (D.N.J. 2009);\n\nsee also Custom Pak Brokerage, 2014 WL 988829, at *2 (same). Rather, upon service of the\n\nSecond Amended Complaint, CoReason \u201cmay, of course, challenge the sufficiency of the\n\npleadings by way of dispositive motion practice.\u201d Bittner, 2020 WL 10223599, at *2.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant leave for\n\nEPAM to file a Second Amended Complaint.\n\nDated: September 11, 2026\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Brooke K. Gary\n Brooke K. Gary (admitted pro hac vice)\n brgary@seyfarth.com\n Jacob Oslick (Pa. Attorney No. 311028)\n joslick@seyfarth.com\n James S. Yu (admitted pro hac vice)\n jyu@seyfarth.com\n SEYFARTH SHAW LLP\n 620 Eighth Avenue\n New York, New York 10018\n (212) 218-5500\n\n Matthew Christoff (admitted pro hac vice)\n mchristoff@seyfarth.com\n SEYFARTH SHAW LLP\n 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000\n Chicago, IL 60606\n (312) 460-5000\n\n\n\n 24\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-1 Filed 09/11/26 Page 30 of 30\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent\n\nelectronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)\n\non September 11, 2026 and copy via email as follows:\n\n\n\n GOWTHAM ADAMANE ROA\n 184 Mansgrove Rd\n Princeton, NJ 08540\n gowthamrao@gmail.com\n gowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n\n\n\n\n /s/ Brooke K. Gary\n Brooke K. Gary\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-12T02:09:45.056137-07:00","document_number":"80","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"153024181108","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Memorandum of Law in Support","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493381136/","id":493381136,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/80/2/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-12T02:07:38.375670-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-12T02:20:16.580811-07:00","sha1":"921fabec4ea9032409056f7c813cf62f91618848","page_count":156,"file_size":11512975,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.80.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-09-12T02:20:16.580282-07:00","document_number":"80","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"153024181109","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493381137/","id":493381137,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/80/3/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-12T02:07:38.394940-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-12T02:20:18.945089-07:00","sha1":"fe141a081cdc225fa80fe4327a2f2433ae6afa30","page_count":4,"file_size":277498,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.80.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-3 Filed 09/11/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-3 Filed 09/11/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Gowtham Rao \nSent: Friday, August 14, 2026 2:19 PM\nTo: Oslick, Jacob\nCc: Gowtham Rao; Sarah Lugar; Christoff, Matthew; Etwaru, Simone\nSubject: Re: EPAM v. Rao: Proposed Second Amended Complaint\n\n\n\n This Message Is From an External Sender\n This message came from outside your organization.\n\n\nJacob,\n\nI do not consent to the filing of the proposed Second Amended Complaint. EPAM must seek leave from the\nCourt.\n\nUnlike your implications, consent in this case has costs. I decline for four reasons.\n\n1. Consent is procedurally ineffective. The central purpose of the SAC is to add CoReason, Inc. as a\ndefendant. Rule 15(a)(2) consent runs only between existing parties. Joining a new party requires an order\nunder Rule 21. I appear in this action pro se in my individual capacity. I am not counsel. In this Circuit, a\ncorporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel. Simbraw, Inc. v. United States, 367\nF.2d 373 (3d Cir. 1966). I have no authority to take a litigation position for CoReason. CoReason has not been\nserved. EPAM must move regardless of my answer.\n\n2. The Court has already sequenced this case. The Court entered the May 21 order (ECF 49) on consent.\nThat order dismissed both motions to dismiss (ECF 43, 46) without prejudice. It permits refiling thirty days after\na decision on the spoliation motion. A new thirteen-count pleading unwinds that structure. It restarts pleading\npractice before the September 16 hearing has even occurred.\n\n3. The schedule prejudices a new defendant. Fact discovery closes September 30, 2026 (ECF 27). The\nevidentiary hearing is September 16. The Court denied my request for additional time to respond to EPAM's\nsanctions motion (ECF 59). Adding a new corporate defendant six weeks before the discovery cutoff\nprejudices a party that has never appeared. It requires extending the schedule.\n\n4. The new counts are futile. I will not brief the merits by email. But I will resolve these defects once on your\nmotion, rather than after a second round of Rule 12 practice.\n\n \uf0b7 Tenth (Lanham Act). EPAM pleads that CoReason's software was independently coded (\u00b6\u00b6 214, 221).\n EPAM complains only that CoReason failed to credit EPAM. Dastar forecloses the use of \u00a7 43(a) to\n police the authorship of ideas or code. The count alleges an omission. The Lanham Act creates no duty\n to disclose intellectual ancestry.\n \uf0b7 Ninth, Eleventh, Thirteenth (Conversion, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment). These counts\n rest on the same factual nucleus as the trade secret counts. They are displaced by 12 Pa. C.S.A. \u00a7\n 5308(a).\n \uf0b7 Seventh (Tortious Interference). EPAM imputes my knowledge to CoReason (\u00b6 187). EPAM then\n alleges CoReason induced me to breach my contract (\u00b6 188). A corporation cannot be a third party that\n induces its only relevant mind to breach his own contract.\n \uf0b7 Twelfth (Declaratory Judgment). EPAM demands a declaration that it owns all of CoReason's\n intellectual property (\u00b6 251). This demand is untethered to any assignment or patent identified in the\n pleading.\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-3 Filed 09/11/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\nI reserve all arguments and defenses. Nothing here waives them.\n\nI will revisit consent to an amendment directed at me alone once the Court rules on the spoliation motion. This\nis consistent with the sequencing in ECF 49.\n\nGowtham Rao Defendant Pro Se\n\n\nOn Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 12:11 PM Oslick, Jacob wrote:\n\nGowtham,\n\nI\u2019m writing to follow-up on the below. Please give us your position by the end of the day today. To be clear,\nwe are not asking you to waive any substantive rights. Even if you consent to the filing of the Second\nAmended Complaint, you would retain the right to move to dismiss it, and/or to raise whatever arguments\nyou like regarding it.\n\nJacob\n\nJacob Oslick | Counsel | Seyfarth Shaw LLP\n620 Eighth Avenue | New York, New York 10018-1405\nDirect: +1-212-218-6480 | Mobile: +1-917-613-2523\nN.Y. Bar No. 4275699; Pa. Bar No. 311028\nJOslick@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com\n\n\n\n\nCONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any\nunauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender\nimmediately and delete it from your system.\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Oslick, Jacob\nSent: Monday, August 10, 2026 9:14 PM\nTo: Gowtham Rao ; Gowtham Rao \nCc: Sarah Lugar ; Christoff, Matthew ; Etwaru, Simone\n\nSubject: EPAM v. Rao: Proposed Second Amended Complaint\n\n\n\nGowtham,\n\nWe intend to seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (\u201cSAC\u201d). Our proposed SAC is attached,\nalong with a redline comparison between our proposed SAC and the Amended Complaint. As you see,\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-3 Filed 09/11/26 Page 4 of 4\n\nthe proposed SAC asserts new factual allegations (a number of which are similar to the facts set forth in\nour spoliation motion), new claims, and seeks to add CoReason as an additional defendant.\n\nPlease let us know if you consent to the filing of the SAC, or if we will need to seek leave of court.\n\nJacob\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-12T02:20:18.944613-07:00","document_number":"80","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"153024181110","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 2","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493381138/","id":493381138,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/80/4/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-12T02:07:38.425982-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-12T02:20:23.801880-07:00","sha1":"6fa0041bb023e3bf803d079e8095b3ee7c84bfdb","page_count":4,"file_size":233377,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.80.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-4 Filed 09/11/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 3\n\f Case\n Case2:25-cv-06260-WB\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Document80-4\n 53 Filed\n Filed07/17/26\n 09/11/26 Page\n Page12ofof34\n\n Seyfarth Shaw LLP\n 620 Eighth Avenue\n New York, New York 10018\n T (212) 218-5500\n F (212) 218-5526\n\n joslick@seyfarth.com\n T (212) 218-6480\n\n www.seyfarth.com\n\n\nJuly 17, 2026\nVIA ECF\nThe Honorable Wendy Beetlestone, U.S.D.J.\nUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania\n601 Market Street\nPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-1797\nRe: EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, Case No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nDear Judge Beetlestone:\n\nWe write on behalf of Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc. (\u201cEPAM\u201d) to respectfully\nseek the Court\u2019s urgent intervention in a dispute concerning the parties\u2019 Stipulated Forensic\nInspection Protocol Agreement (\u201cForensic Protocol\u201d), pursuant to Your Honor\u2019s individual\nPolicies and Procedures relating to discovery disputes. (See Civil Cases \u00a7 III(c)(2).). EPAM has\nattempted to resolve various disputes regarding the Forensic Protocol amicably with\nDefendant/Counter-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao, over a period of weeks, and has devoted many hours\nto meet-and-confer efforts. Those efforts have included multiple lengthy conference calls with\nMr. Rao, which sometimes lasted 90 minutes, as well as a significant number of email exchanges.\nAnd, while those efforts narrowed the number of disputes between the parties, a critical matter is\nunresolved and ripe for the Court\u2019s intervention. Further, EPAM cannot delay seeking relief any\nlonger: this dispute is simple, and EPAM needs a resolution now in light of the June 29, 2026\ndeadline for it to file a spoliation motion, as well its need to move this case forward.\n\nIn brief, EPAM requests that the Court confirm that it is permitted to use the documents obtained\nthrough the Forensic Protocol for any litigation purpose and, consistent with that use, may share\nthose documents with EPAM\u2019s technical employees with a need-to-know for litigation purposes,\nincluding by having iDS, the parties\u2019 forensic neutral, provide them access to the Relativity\ndatabase where the documents are stored. Rao disagrees, and takes the position that, under\nForensic Protocol, the documents he shared with EPAM were shared on an \u201cattorney eyes\u2019 only\u201d\nbasis. Thus, he insists that only EPAM\u2019s outside and in-house counsel may view the documents\u2014\nno one else.\n\nRao\u2019s position is groundless, both under the Forensic Protocol\u2019s plain text, and as a matter of\ncommon sense. Rao\u2019s position has significantly inhibited EPAM\u2019s ability to investigate its claims\nin this matter and defend its rights.\n\f Case\n Case2:25-cv-06260-WB\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Document80-4\n 53 Filed\n Filed07/17/26\n 09/11/26 Page\n Page23ofof34\n\n The Honorable Wendy Beetlestone\n July 17, 2026\n Page 2\n\n\nIn brief, the Forensic Protocol, which the parties entered into while Rao was represented by\ncounsel, states that documents identified by EPAM, and not objected to by Rao, will initially \u201cbe\nprovided to counsel for EPAM for review.\u201d (Forensic Protocol at \u00a7 III(b)(iv).) However, the\nForensic Protocol imposes no limitations on whom EPAM\u2019s counsel may share those documents\nwith. The sole limitation in the Forensic Protocol is that \u201ccopies of documents created and/or\nidentified in this protocol shall be used for the purposes of this Litigation only and for no other\npurpose.\u201d (Forensic Protocol \u00a7 VI(c).) The Forensic Protocol\u2019s plain text aside, Rao\u2019s proposed\n\u201cattorney\u2019s eyes only\u201d limitation makes no sense. A key purpose of the Forensic Protocol was to\nidentify and remediate EPAM\u2019s \u201cConfidential Information\u201d and/or \u201cWork\u201d within Rao\u2019s\npossession. And, fundamentally, it is EPAM\u2019s technical people (such as Rao\u2019s coworkers and\nsuperiors), not EPAM\u2019s lawyers, who would have the best understanding of what materials\nconstitute or incorporate, including in derivative form, EPAM\u2019s \u201cConfidential Information\u201d and/or\n\u201cWork\u201d (within the Forensic Protocol\u2019s meaning).\n\nEPAM did not seek relief from the Court sooner because of a desire to ensure we exhausted all\navenues before bringing this matter to the Court. Unfortunately, Rao has continued to insist that,\nbased on his reading of the Forensic Protocol, only EPAM\u2019s attorneys can review the documents.\nAnd Rao has conditioned his willingness to permit EPAM\u2019s technical employees access on a series\nof shifting, grossly unacceptable conditions and restrictions. For example, last week, Rao\nindicated that he would grant consent, but only if EPAM agreed to either: (a) disclose its work\nproduct analysis about why it sought to review some documents from his devices/accounts but not\nother documents; or (b) agreed to make affirmative representations about the contents of\napproximately 79,000 documents that EPAM has not yet sought to individually review. This week,\nhe dropped those demands, but instead insisted that access to EPAM\u2019s technical assistance be\nsubject to numerous unreasonable restrictions \u2013 including his unilateral veto power over who\nEPAM can share documents with, an absolute prohibition on EPAM sharing documents with\nemployees located outside the United States (many of his EPAM co-workers, including certain\nindividuals with the most relevant knowledge, live in Europe), an absolute prohibition on EPAM\nsharing documents such as \u201ccommunications, contracts, financial documents, and personal\nmaterials,\u201d even though those documents could easily contain EPAM Confidential Information\nand/or Work, and an insistence (raised for the first time on July 16, 2026) that no sharing could\noccur until the parties enter into a protective order the parties have not yet begun negotiating.1\n\n\n1\n EPAM is, of course, willing to negotiate a confidentiality agreement, and to request that the\nCourt enter this agreement as a protective order. It also advised Rao of its willingness to agree in\nwriting, pending finalization of such an agreement, to keep documents confidential, subject to\nreasonable carveouts \u2013 such as the ability to show the documents to retained experts, or, if\nwarranted, file certain of them in Court. But it can\u2019t afford further delays in getting its\nemployees access to these documents. And that is particularly so given its experience to date\nwith Rao. Indeed, given Rao\u2019s proposed conditions for a protective order, it anticipates that\nnegotiating a confidentiality agreement may require multiple drafts and several meet-and-confer\n\f Case\n Case2:25-cv-06260-WB\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Document80-4\n 53 Filed\n Filed07/17/26\n 09/11/26 Page\n Page34ofof34\n\n The Honorable Wendy Beetlestone\n July 17, 2026\n Page 3\n\n\nFinally, just today, Rao finally agreed to permit limited access to one EPAM employee, but only\npursuant to an undefined \u201csearch strategy,\u201d and while still refusing to grant access to another more\ncentral EPAM employee with specialized knowledge.\n\nEPAM is simply out-of-time to meet-and-confer further. It is critically important that EPAM be\nable to share documents with technical employees of its choosing now, based on its litigation\nneeds\u2014not Rao\u2019s whims or shifting demands. EPAM\u2019s sanctions motion is due in Court on July\n29, 2026. Certain documents that EPAM has located through the Forensic Protocol appear to be\nhighly relevant to that motion, including as to whether Rao acted in bad faith. Yet EPAM has\nnumerous questions about these documents. Its technical employees\u2014not its lawyers\u2014are the\nappropriate people to answer those questions, and to supply declarations regarding them.\n\nThe sanctions motion aside, EPAM\u2019s ability to move this case forward in other ways has been\ninhibited by Rao\u2019s position that EPAM cannot share the documents with non-lawyers. For\nexample, EPAM believes that certain documents that it has located through the Forensic Protocol\npresent a compelling case for EPAM to seek to amend its complaint to assert new claims,\npotentially against additional parties. But, again, it needs its technical people to weigh in on certain\nfactual questions relating to those potential amendments. Further, EPAM needs to provide its\ntechnical employees access to the documents even to proceed further with the Forensic Protocol\u2019s\nremediation provisions. To date, EPAM has identified 6,693 documents through the Forensic\nProtocol as those it believes contain Confidential Information and/or Work, and Rao has stated a\nblanket challenge covering every single one of EPAM\u2019s 6,693 designations. It is impossible to\nmeet-and-confer further with Rao about these challenges without showing the documents to\nEPAM\u2019s technical employees in order to obtain additional information.\n\nThank you for Your Honor\u2019s consideration of this matter. We respectfully request that a telephone\nconference be scheduled at the earliest opportunity so that, if the Court affords EPAM the relief it\nseeks, EPAM has sufficient time before the spoliation motion\u2019s due date to share certain critical\ndocuments with key technical employees.2\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick\ncc: Gowtham Rao, pro se (via email)\n\n\nsessions over many days or more. In any event, EPAM provided Rao with a draft confidentiality\nagreement this morning \u2013 less than one business day after Rao raised this condition.\n2\n The Forensic Protocol is not attached to this letter, because the Court ordered that, if filed, \u201cthe\nfiling party will submit a consented to motion requesting leave\u201d to \u201cfile under seal.\u201d (ECF #20 at\n\u00a7 3.) EPAM reached out to Rao regarding a consented to motion, but has not heard back.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-12T02:20:23.801519-07:00","document_number":"80","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"153024181111","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 3","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493381139/","id":493381139,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/80/5/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-12T02:07:38.444264-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-12T02:20:28.709128-07:00","sha1":"268226609f233e19f1f138cbf0f6814977453e8b","page_count":7,"file_size":206699,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.80.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-5 Filed 09/11/26 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 4\n\f Case\n Case2:25-cv-06260-WB\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Document80-5\n 54 Filed\n Filed07/20/26\n 09/11/26 Page\n Page12ofof67\n\n\n\nJuly 20, 2026\n\nVIA ECF\nThe Honorable Wendy Beetlestone, U.S.D.J.\nUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania\n601 Market Street\nPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania 19106-1797\n\nRe: \u200b EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, Case No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n\n \u200b Response to EPAM's Discovery Letter (ECF No. 53)\n\nDear Judge Beetlestone:\n\nI, Gowtham Rao, proceeding pro se, respectfully respond to EPAM's July 17 letter (ECF No. 53)\npursuant to Your Honor's Policies and Procedures, Civil Cases \u00a7 III(c)(2). Although EPAM casts\nme as unreasonable, I have repeatedly conceded ground and granted access well beyond the\nagreed terms in a good-faith effort to resolve these issues without burdening the Court.\nHowever, EPAM's demands have now escalated beyond the bounds of reasonableness,\nnecessitating Your Honor's guidance and a referral to a Magistrate Judge.\n\nResolved matter. I have released approximately 84,000 of the roughly 85,000 files captured by\nEPAM's search terms, withholding about one percent to protect my attorney-client privilege and\npersonal privacy (Exh. A). While the mutually agreed Forensic Protocol explicitly restricts data\naccess to \u201ccounsel for EPAM,\u201d I have made extra-protocol concessions to authorize Relativity\naccess for EPAM's in-house counsel and for Ms. McDermott, EPAM's United States-based\ntechnical reviewer (Exh. D). I confirm here that Ms. McDermott may receive the same access to\nthe promoted review set that EPAM's counsel possesses. Because two EPAM employees\n(in-house counsel and the U.S. technical reviewer) are already authorized, the dispute over U.S.\naccess is moot.\n\nUnresolved matter. What remains is whether EPAM's remaining reviewer, who is stated to be\nlocated abroad, beyond this Court's subpoena power under Rule 45, and unbound by any\nsigned confidentiality undertaking\u2014should be permitted access by me outside the protocol. This\nremains unresolved because EPAM's own letter explains why that matters: its reviewers will\n\u201csupply declarations\u201d for its planned sanctions motion and will support an anticipated\namendment \u201cto assert new claims, potentially against additional parties.\u201d ECF No. 53 at 3.\n\nIndividuals who will give sworn statements against a pro se defendant must be witnesses I can\nexamine; employees of EPAM's foreign affiliates are non-parties permanently beyond this\nCourt's compulsory process under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2). If I cannot compel their appearance\nfor a deposition, any declarations they supply would be shielded from cross-examination and\nsubject to a motion to strike. Furthermore, I have pending whistleblower counterclaims\nspecifically concerning EPAM's offshore operations.\n\f Case\n Case2:25-cv-06260-WB\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Document80-5\n 54 Filed\n Filed07/20/26\n 09/11/26 Page\n Page23ofof67\n\n\n\n\nPermitting EPAM to distribute my personal, forensic data to the very offshore employee\npopulation my counterclaims implicate is a profound conflict of interest that invites retaliation\nand witness intimidation. I proposed a solution: that each reviewer sign a one-page undertaking\ncontaining confidential treatment, litigation-use-only, and consent to this Court's jurisdiction for\nenforcement. EPAM rejected this proposal (Exh. D).\n\nEPAM's July 17 correspondence states its position plainly: it requires \u201cfull access that replicates\nour firm access\u201d for reviewers of its sole choosing; its three-person limit lasts only \u201cuntil such\ntime as you seek discovery,\u201d so that even this safeguard is conditioned on me forgoing\ndiscovery on my own counterclaims; and EPAM asserts that information from this case \u201cmay be\nreviewed by any EPAM resource it deems necessary\u201d (Exh. D).\n\nEPAM also describes Mr. Ilin, whose location it has not confirmed, as the reviewer with the\nessential \u201cknowledge\u201d (Exh. D), meaning EPAM's self-described key technical witness is the one\nit proposes to keep beyond this Court's reach. EPAM employs thousands of technical personnel\nin the United States; its U.S.-based reviewer already has authorized access; and EPAM has\nnever explained why a second qualified reviewer cannot be identified among its U.S. workforce.\n\nEPAM cannot show good cause for expanding the protocol. EPAM sought access to my\npersonal devices at the TRO stage in November 2025. The Court did not order that access;\ninstead, the parties privately negotiated the Stipulated Consent Order (ECF No. 20) and the\nForensic Protocol, under which I voluntarily submitted my devices and accounts to a bounded,\nneutral-administered review with limited file access to counsel for EPAM as explicitly stated in\nthe Forensic Protocol. ECF No. 53 now asks the Court to convert that negotiated protected\nprocess into the unrestricted internal distribution EPAM did not obtain in November.\nFurthermore, counsel for EPAM has possessed file-level access since at least May 2026. The\nrecord does not support the sudden urgency claimed.\n\nEPAM also claims it urgently needs foreign engineers to evaluate 6,693 files because I have\nraised a \u201cblanket challenge\u201d to its designations (ECF No. 53 at 3). My challenge is not blanket\nobstruction; it rests entirely on the Protocol's own limits. The Consent Order mandates that\nEPAM may only seek remediation of \u201cEPAM Confidential Information... as defined in the\n[Employment Covenants] Agreement\u201d (ECF No. 20, \u00b6 B). EPAM's counsel confirmed in writing\non April 22 that approximately 93% of its 6,693 designated for remediation files \u201cwere extracted\nfrom 'ai-run' and 'codemie' ZIP files,\u201d which the record shows are publicly available,\nApache-licensed open-source projects (Exh. B). This is grounds for my challenge.\n\nSection 1(b) of the ECA (ECF No. 1-1) explicitly defines what is not EPAM's property:\n\n> \"Confidential Information shall not include information generally available and known by the\npublic at the time of disclosure to you...\"\n\nThe ECA adds:\n\f Case\n Case2:25-cv-06260-WB\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Document80-5\n 54 Filed\n Filed07/20/26\n 09/11/26 Page\n Page34ofof67\n\n\n\n\n> \"For avoidance of doubt, Confidential Information expressly does not include general\nindustry knowledge, skills, or software developed or acquired by you without reliance on EPAM\nGroup Confidential Information; which is through and for the purpose of community,\nprofessional, scientific; or similar groups and settings that are reasonably available through\ngeneral industry sources.\" (Emphasis added).\n\nEPAM does not need application engineers to read an Apache license. By demanding the\nremediation of public software, EPAM is violating the Consent Order, the Protocol, and its own\nemployment covenant. Furthermore, when I asked EPAM to articulate an objective standard for\nevaluating these files, EPAM's counsel explicitly admitted on July 10 that defining such criteria is\na \u201cdifficult if not impossible request\u201d because they \u201cdon't know\u201d what they are looking for. It is\nimpossible to resolve designation disputes in good faith when the designating party admits it is\noperating on a retroactive \u201cwe'll know it when we see it\u201d standard.\n\nAt the same time, EPAM has declined to follow the protocol and review or classify the remaining\napproximately 79,000 files. They continue to reserve indefinite rights to determine at a future\ndate if those hit files may reasonably contain EPAM confidential information or IP, violating the\nstrict mandate of Protocol \u00a7 III(b)(ii) that EPAM produce its designations \u201c[w]ithin five (5)\nbusiness days of receiving either the Initial Reports or Redacted Initial Reports\u201d. When pressed\nduring the meet-and-confer, they claimed this requirement is unreasonable because it would\ntake 1,300 hours and be a disproportionate burden (Exh. C). EPAM's counsel explicitly admitted\non July 9 that they intend to hold these unreviewed files in limbo until they \u201clearn information\nlater in discovery\u201d (Exh. C).\n\nFurthermore, this \u201cburden\u201d is entirely self-inflicted and predictable. As early as January 13,\n2026, EPAM was formally warned that its use of overbroad search terms (like \"java\", \"readme\",\nor \"jnj\") was improperly capturing massive volumes of \"generic third-party files such as licenses\nto publicly available software.\" Having ignored these warnings to force a broader sweep, EPAM\ncannot now claim the resulting false-positive rate is a burden. I even offered to have the\nForensic Neutral (iDS) programmatically filter the open-source files for a rough estimate of\n$1,000 (a cost which the Consent Order mandates \u201cshall be borne by EPAM\u201d (ECF No. 20, \u00b6\n4)), but EPAM rejected this neutral solution in favor of expensive manual review.\n\nThe urgency EPAM invokes is the due date of its own planned sanctions motion. Rule 26 does\nnot entitle a party to expanded, unsupervised distribution of an opposing party's personal data in\norder to develop declarations for unfiled motions and unpled claims, and the forensic questions\nsurrounding a system-level event such as an operating system refresh are matters for the\nparties' agreed Forensic Neutral, iDS, not for EPAM's application engineers.\n\nForensic Protocol operates as a Protective Order: The Forensic Protocol operates as a Rule\n26(c) protective order and does not permit foreign software engineers to conduct an\ninvestigative review of my conduct. *See Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg*, 23 F.3d 772, 780\n\f Case\n Case2:25-cv-06260-WB\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Document80-5\n 54 Filed\n Filed07/20/26\n 09/11/26 Page\n Page45ofof67\n\n\n\n(3d Cir. 1994). Furthermore, spoliation inquiries are strictly limited to determining prejudice to\nexisting claims. *See Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp.*, 13 F.3d 76, 79 (3d Cir. 1994).\n\nCorrections to ECF No. 53.\n\nFirst, I have not insisted that \u201conly EPAM's outside and in-house counsel may view the\ndocuments\u201d; my July 16 email states the opposite, and EPAM's U.S.-based reviewer was\nauthorized within minutes of being named. I do dispute EPAM's radical reading of the\nProtocol\u2014specifically its July 9 written assertion that the Protocol \u201cimposes no access or\ndistribution restrictions at all\u201d\u2014which ignores that the Protocol explicitly directs documents to\n\u201ccounsel for EPAM\u201d throughout Section III(b) and refers to \u201cEPAM\u201d separately where it means\nthe company (compare \u00a7 II(a)). However, the Court need not resolve that question, because the\naccess EPAM seeks is available today by my yielding to their pressures via agreement.\n\nSecond, I am not seeking \u201cunilateral veto power\u201d; my proposal states that \u201cno waiting or\napproval period applies\u201d and that access \u201cmay commence upon service\u201d of each reviewer's\nname, title, and signed undertaking.\n\nThird, EPAM cannot complain that the designation disputes remain unresolved when EPAM\nitself refuses to verify compliance with the Court's timeline. The Consent Order explicitly\nmandates that \u201cthe search and remediation time period shall be September 1, 2025 to the\npresent\u201d (ECF No. 20, \u00b6 3). When I repeatedly asked EPAM for download logs to verify that the\ndesignated files actually meet this September 1 transfer prerequisite, EPAM explicitly refused\nmultiple times in writing (Exh. F).\n\nFourth, the protective order condition was not \u201craised for the first time on July 16\u201d: the parties'\nRule 26(f) report states that \u201c\\[t\\]he parties agree that a Protective Order is necessary in this\ncase\u201d (ECF No. 25 at 8), and while EPAM's letter asserts the parties \u201chave not yet begun\nnegotiating\u201d one, its own footnote 1 acknowledges that EPAM transmitted a draft on the morning\nof July 17, which I have reviewed and to which this letter responds.\n\nFifth, as to footnote 2, I have always wanted the Forensic Protocol to be filed on the public\ndocket; the sealing requirement in the Consent Order was included entirely at EPAM's\ninsistence to protect their search terms. EPAM's counsel now writes on July 17 that \u201cother than\nthe Court's order, I do not see a basis for sealing the Forensic Protocol itself\u201d (Exh. D). I agree:\nthe Protocol and its search criteria may be filed publicly, subject to narrow redaction of any\nspecific term EPAM identifies as genuinely proprietary, and I consent to whatever filing\nmechanism the Court prefers under Paragraph 3 of the Stipulated Consent Order (ECF No. 20).\n\nSixth, EPAM cannot claim I obstructed review of the approximately one percent of documents I\nwithheld for privilege. On July 10, in a good-faith effort to build trust, I conducted a live\nscreenshare, walking EPAM's counsel through the metadata and contents of selected withheld\nfiles (including privileged settlement communications and a government patent application). I\nthen offered multiple compromises, including instructing the Forensic Neutral (iDS) to objectively\n\f Case\n Case2:25-cv-06260-WB\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Document80-5\n 54 Filed\n Filed07/20/26\n 09/11/26 Page\n Page56ofof67\n\n\n\nfilter the metadata to protect my privilege. The Consent Order explicitly guarantees that \u201cno\nmaterial that is protected by the attorney-client, work product, or other form of privilege shall\nlose such privilege or protection\u201d (ECF No. 20, \u00b6 3). Yet, EPAM rejected all neutral solutions,\ndemanding physical possession of the privileged metadata instead (Exh. E).\n\nRequested disposition. I am not asking the Court to deny EPAM's reviewers access; I have\nalready granted it. I respectfully ask that the Court:\n\n(1) deny EPAM's request for unrestricted distribution and instead enter an order under Rule\n26(c) providing that EPAM may share Forensic Protocol materials with up to three named\ntechnical expert reviewers, each within this Court's subpoena power, and each first executing a\none-page undertaking providing confidential treatment, litigation use only, and consent to this\nCourt's jurisdiction for enforcement, with access commencing upon service of each executed\nundertaking;\n\n(2) set a schedule for completing the Forensic Protocol's remaining steps, including resolution of\nthe designation objections through the meet-and-confer process the Protocol contemplates, so\nthat this protracted process reaches an end and all files are classified (including the 79,000\nfiles); and authorize the Forensic Neutral to programmatically filter the remaining 79,000 files to\nminimize the manual review burden; and\n\n(3) refer any further disputes arising under the Forensic Protocol to a United States Magistrate\nJudge. I respectfully note that I am without income as a result of the events underlying my\ncounterclaims and cannot fund a special master; a Magistrate Judge referral would relieve the\nCourt of these recurring disputes at no cost to either party. Alternatively, I welcome the\ntelephone or in-person conference EPAM requests, and, consistent with the Court's earlier\nsuggestion, remain willing to proceed to mediation, including through this District's\nCourt-Annexed Mediation Program in view of my *pro se* status.\n\nI respectfully request the Court's swift intervention. As an unemployed *pro se* litigant, I am\nexperiencing severe hardship from EPAM's strategy of litigation by attrition, and I cannot sustain\nthis disproportionate burden. A prompt resolution is necessary to ensure the just, speedy, and\ninexpensive determination of this action under Rule 1. The underlying correspondence is\nattached as Exhibits A through F, and I will promptly provide anything further the Court wishes to\nreview.\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Gowtham Rao\n\nGowtham Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant/Counter-Plaintiff, pro se\n\f Case\n Case2:25-cv-06260-WB\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Document80-5\n 54 Filed\n Filed07/20/26\n 09/11/26 Page\n Page67ofof67\n\n\n\nEnclosures: Exhibits A-F\n\ncc: Counsel of record (via ECF and email)\n\n---\n\nExhibit List\n\nExhibit A\nRolling release of reviewed files: March 26, 2026 initiation and the April 6-7, 2026\nrelease authorizations, with privilege and confidentiality withholding instructions.\nThread: EPAM v. Rao - Relativity - Rolling Production of Reviewed Files (AEO) (excerpts).\n\nExhibit B\nApril 10-28, 2026 correspondence, including EPAM counsel's April 22, 2026 statement that\napproximately 93% of the documents designated from Device A0001 were extracted from\n\"ai-run\" and \"codemie\" ZIP files, and EPAM's April 28, 2026 response.\nThread: Clarification on NSRL Filtering and Environment Files in EPAMR-06448.A0001\n(excerpts).\n\nExhibit C\nJuly 8-10, 2026 meet and confer correspondence: the stated 1,300-hour review burden,\nthe rejection of neutral algorithmic filtering, and the absence of objective designation criteria.\nThread: EPAM vs Rao - 2026-07-08 - Meet and Confer (excerpts).\n\nExhibit D\nJuly 16-17, 2026 reviewer access correspondence: Defendant's protective order proposal,\nEPAM's rejection and final offer, its identification of Mr. Ilin, and the immediate\nauthorization of access for Ms. McDermott.\nThreads: EPAM employee access to Relativity and\nEPAM vs Rao - 2026-07-08 - Meet and Confer (excerpts).\n\nExhibit E\nJuly 10-14, 2026 correspondence concerning the withheld inspection documents:\nthe July 10, 2026 screenshare (including a 107-page draft settlement agreement)\nand EPAM's demands concerning the withheld metadata.\nThread: EPAM vs Rao - 2026-07-08 - Meet and Confer (excerpts).\n\nExhibit F\nJuly 8-9, 2026 correspondence: Defendant's request for comprehensive download logs\nand EPAM counsel's written refusal.\nThread: EPAM vs Rao - 2026-07-08 - Meet and Confer (excerpts).\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-12T02:20:28.707894-07:00","document_number":"80","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"153024181112","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 4","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493381140/","id":493381140,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/80/6/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-12T02:07:38.462016-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-12T02:20:32.811477-07:00","sha1":"3f5a3dd1820f9357fef5f63da71bb3177b81a23b","page_count":1,"file_size":98078,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.80.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 80-6 Filed 09/11/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim- Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260\n Defendant,\n\n v.\n\nGOWTHAM RAO,\n\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n Plaintiff.\n\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER\n\n Upon consideration of Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cEPAM\u201d)\n\nMotion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint, the opposition and reply thereto, and the\n\nrecord herein, it is this _____ day of __________, 2026, hereby ORDERED that EPAM\u2019s motion\n\nis GRANTED; and\n\n IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EPAM may file as its Second Amended Complaint the\n\nproposed Second Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit 1 to its Motion for Leave to File a\n\nSecond Amended Complaint within seven (7) days of this Order.\n\n SO ORDERED:\n\n ________________________________\n Hon. Wendy Beetlestone, Chief Judge\n\n\n\n\n328594628v.1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-12T02:20:32.811148-07:00","document_number":"80","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"153024181113","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-11T21:23:48.747993-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-12T02:09:21.835995-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-11","time_filed":"23:47:21","entry_number":80,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":218,"description":"MOTION for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint filed by EPAM SYSTEMS, INC..Memorandum of Law, Exhibits and Proposed Order. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(GARY, BROOKE) (Entered: 09/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477658181/","id":477658181,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493259780/","id":493259780,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/79/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-11T08:30:14.172065-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T09:14:42.136212-07:00","sha1":"d219e5e1f228a04188840ec70eaef817c6335ab4","page_count":2,"file_size":17335,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.79.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 79 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION\nPlaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nv.\n\nGOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\nDefendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n\n MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLACEMENT EXHIBIT I WITH LIMITED\n REDACTIONS\n\n I request leave to file the attached November 26, 2025 evaluation publicly in place of Exhibit I\n\n identified at ECF 63-2. The replacement supports my declaration (ECF 62-30) and opposition\n\n (ECF 62-1) to EPAM's sanctions motion (ECF 58). I also request approval of the limited\n\n redactions.\n\n SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM\n\n The Court denied my request to seal Exhibit I on September 10, 2026. ECF 78 at 1-2. My\n\n earlier motion asked to withdraw Exhibit I if sealing was denied. ECF 65-1 at 3, para. 7. I now\n\n ask to file the complete seven-page November 26, 2025 evaluation publicly. The replacement\n\n excludes the Penn Medicine records listed in my earlier motion. ECF 65-1 at 1, para. 1; Ex. I\n\n (Replacement), cover.\n\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) limits disclosure of specified personal identifiers. Rule\n\n 5.2(e)(1) permits additional redactions for good cause.\n\n The redactions remove the Social Security number, birth date, patient record numbers, private\n\n contact and insurance information, and a relative's identifying information, including my\n\n mother's maiden name. Ex. I (Replacement) at I-001-I-007. Public disclosure would connect\n\n private contact details and relatives' identities to my psychiatric history. Those identifiers and\n\n administrative entries are unnecessary to assess the clinical findings. My psychiatric and\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 79 Filed 09/10/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\nfamily history and the clinical findings remain visible. Id. at I-001-I-002, I-004-I-006.\n\nI offer the evaluation to support the medical history addressed in my declaration and\n\nopposition. ECF 62-30 at 20-21, paras. 48-49; ECF 62-1 at 25, section V.D.7. My declaration\n\nremains unchanged. This request concerns filing and redactions; admissibility, weight, and the\n\nsanctions merits remain for the Court.\n\nThe hearing is scheduled for September 16. ECF 75 at 1, para. 1. Because ECF 78 issued\n\nSeptember 10, I request consideration before or at the hearing on shortened notice under Rule\n\n6(c)(1)(C) and Local Rule 7.1(c).\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n/s/ Gowtham Rao\nGowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\nDate: September 10, 2026\n184 Mansgrove Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540\ngowthamrao@gmail.com\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI certify that upon electronic filing, CM/ECF will serve this motion and supporting\nmemorandum, Exhibit I (Replacement), and proposed order on EPAM Systems, Inc. through\nits registered counsel of record by Notice of Electronic Filing. The documents will be available\nfor viewing and downloading through CM/ECF.\nDate: September 10, 2026\n/s/ Gowtham Rao\nGowtham A. Rao\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-11T08:30:25.746461-07:00","document_number":"79","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024177918","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to File Document","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493259781/","id":493259781,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/79/1/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-11T08:30:16.043563-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T08:30:38.470670-07:00","sha1":"0d24912695940d6b7c4050681f2459b66cb9d6e5","page_count":8,"file_size":175332,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.79.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 79-1 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 8\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION\nPlaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nv.\n\nGOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\nDefendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n\n EXHIBIT I (REPLACEMENT)\n\n Replacement for Exhibit I identified at ECF 63-2 (Rao Declaration, ECF 62-30, paragraph 49).\n\n November 26, 2025 Clinical Evaluation\n\n Gowtham Rao\n\n HOPERESTOREDMD LLC\n\n Seven source pages, retained in their original order.\n\n This replacement contains the November 26, 2025 evaluation only. The Penn Medicine\n records described in the earlier Exhibit I cover are not included.\n\n Black boxes identify redacted personal identifiers, private contact and insurance information,\n and a relative's maiden name. The clinical narrative remains visible. The browser-link footers\n have been replaced with exhibit labels. Original source page numbers remain visible.\n\f11/28/25, 8:44 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Encounter - Office Visit Date 79-1 Patient:\n of service: 11/26/25 Filed 09/10/26\n Gowtham Rao DOB: Page 2 PRN:\n of 8\n\n PATIENT FACILITY ENCOUNTER\n Gowtham Rao HOPERESTOREDMD LLC Office Visit\n DOB T (609) 664-9145 NOTE TYPE SOAP Note\n AGE 45 yrs F (918) 265-0158 SEEN BY Kafilat Ojo Doctor of\n SEX Male 132 Main Street Medicine\n PRN Princeton, NJ 08540 DATE 11/26/2025\n AGE AT DOS 45 yrs\n Electronically signed by Kafilat Ojo Doctor\n of Medicine at 11/26/2025 11:39 pm\n\n Patient identifying details and demographics\n FIRST NAME Gowtham SEX Male RACE Asian\n MIDDLE NAME - DATE OF BIRTH ETHNICITY Not Hispanic or\n LAST NAME Rao DATE OF DEATH - Latino\n SSN PRN PREF. LANGUAGE Creoles and\n pidgins, English\n based\n STATUS Active patient\n CONTACT INFORMATION\n ADDRESS LINE 1 CONTACT BY Mobile Phone\n EMAIL\n ADDRESS LINE 2 -\n CITY HOME PHONE -\n STATE MOBILE PHONE\n ZIP CODE OFFICE PHONE -\n OFFICE EXTENSION -\n FAMILY INFORMATION\n NEXT OF KIN PATIENT'S MOTHER'S MAIDEN\n RELATION TO PATIENT Spouse NAME\n PHONE\n ADDRESS\n\n PATIENT NOTES\n\n\n\n\n Diagnoses\n Was diagnosis reconciliation completed?\n Yes, reconciliation performed\n Current ACUITY START STOP\n (F33.1) Major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate\n\n Medication FLUoxetine HCl Start: 11/26/25\n (F41.1) Generalized anxiety disorder\n\n Medication hydrOXYzine HCl Start: 11/26/25\n Historical ACUITY START STOP\n No historical diagnoses\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit I (Replacement) | I-001 1/7\n\f11/28/25, 8:44 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Encounter - Office Visit Date 79-1 Patient:\n of service: 11/26/25 Filed 09/10/26\n Gowtham Rao DOB: Page 3 PRN:\n of 8\n Drug Allergies\n Was medication allergy reconciliation completed?\n Yes, reconciliation performed\n Active SEVERITY/REACTIONS ONSET\n No Active drug allergies recorded\n Inactive SEVERITY/REACTIONS ONSET\n No Inactive drug allergies recorded\n\n Food Allergies\n Active SEVERITY/REACTIONS ONSET\n No Active food allergies recorded\n Inactive SEVERITY/REACTIONS ONSET\n No Inactive food allergies recorded\n\n Environmental Allergies\n Active SEVERITY/REACTIONS ONSET\n No Active environmental allergies recorded\n Inactive SEVERITY/REACTIONS ONSET\n No Inactive environmental allergies recorded\n\n\n Medications\n Was medication reconciliation completed?\n Yes, reconciliation performed\n Active SIG START/STOP ASSOCIATED DX\n Fluoxetine HCl (FLUoxetine HCl) 10 MG Take 1 capsule by mouth daily 11/26/25 - Major depressive disorder,\n Oral Capsule recurrent, moderate\n\n ESCRIPT (VERIFIED): 11/26/25 PRESCRIBER: Kafilat Y Ojo MD SIG: Take 1 capsule by mouth daily REFILLS: 0 QUANTITY: 15\n Hydroxyzine HCl (hydrOXYzine HCl) 25 MG Take 1 tablet by mouth daily at 11/26/25 - Generalized anxiety disorder\n Oral Tablet bedtime as needed\n\n ESCRIPT (VERIFIED): 11/26/25 PRESCRIBER: Kafilat Y Ojo MD SIG: Take 1 tablet by mouth daily at bedtime as needed REFILLS: 0\n QUANTITY: 30\n Historical SIG START/STOP ASSOCIATED DX\n No historical medications recorded\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit I (Replacement) | I-002 2/7\n\f11/28/25, 8:44 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Encounter - Office Visit Date 79-1 Patient:\n of service: 11/26/25 Filed 09/10/26\n Gowtham Rao DOB: Page 4 PRN:\n of 8\n\n Social history\n TOBACCO USE RECORDED\n No tobacco use history available for this patient\n ALCOHOL USE RECORDED\n No alcohol use history available for this patient\n SOCIAL HISTORY (FREE-TEXT)\n No social history (free-text) recorded for this patient\n FINANCIAL RESOURCES RECORDED\n No financial resources recorded for this patient\n EDUCATION RECORDED\n No education recorded for this patient\n PHYSICAL ACTIVITY RECORDED\n No physical activity available for this patient\n NUTRITION HISTORY RECORDED\n No nutrition history available for this patient\n STRESS RECORDED\n No stress available for this patient\n SOCIAL ISOLATION AND CONNECTION RECORDED\n No social isolation and connection available for this patient\n EXPOSURE TO VIOLENCE RECORDED\n No exposure to violence history available for this patient\n GENDER IDENTITY\n Male\n SEXUAL ORIENTATION\n Straight or heterosexual\n PREGNANCY STATUS RECORDED\n No pregnancy status recorded for this patient\n PREGNANCY INTENT RECORDED\n No pregnancy intent recorded for this patient\n TRIBAL AFFILIATION RECORDED\n No tribal affiliation recorded for this patient\n OCCUPATIONS RECORDED\n No occupations recorded for this patient\n FOOD INSECURITY RISK - HVS RECORDED\n No food insecurity risk - hvs recorded for this patient\n\n\n\n Past medical history\n No past medical history available for this patient.\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit I (Replacement) | I-003 3/7\n\f11/28/25, 8:44 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Encounter - Office Visit Date 79-1 Patient:\n of service: 11/26/25 Filed 09/10/26\n Gowtham Rao DOB: Page 5 PRN:\n of 8\n\n Family health history\n DIAGNOSIS ONSET DATE\n No Family health history recorded\n FAMILY HEALTH HISTORY (FREE TEXT)\n No family health history (free text)\n available for this patient.\n\n\n\n Subjective\n\n INITIAL: In-person\n Duration: 1 hour.\n\n DOB:\n\n IDENTIFYING DATA: 45 years old Indian Male.\n\n REFERRAL SOURCE: Insurance\n\n RELIABILITY: Yes.\n\n CHIEF COMPLAINE: \"My wife told me to to ask for counseling because I'm feeling very withdrawn in the last one-two months, and\n she thought I should get help.\"\n\n HPI\n Gowtham 45-year-old man presented for evaluation at the urging of his wife due to increasing withdrawal and emotional distress\n following recent significant life stressors. He described a marked decline in mood and functioning since losing his job approximately\n one month ago, compounded by ongoing legal issues with his previous employer. These events have led to persistent feelings of\n sadness, worthlessness, and guilt, particularly regarding his perceived inability to provide for his family. He endorsed frequent early\n morning awakenings, often at 2:00 AM, sometimes accompanied by crying spells. Sleep has been further disrupted by anxiety,\n nocturnal sweating, and ruminative thoughts about the lawsuit and potential financial instability, including fears of losing his home.\n He reported a diminished interest in activities, social withdrawal, and a lack of engagement with his family. Energy levels have\n been low, with significant fatigue, inability to focus, and a tendency to sleep on the couch rather than in bed. He has experienced a\n decrease in motivation and concentration, stating difficulty in reading and managing daily responsibilities. Appetite has remained\n stable, though he noted some unintentional weight loss over the past five months.\n Anxiety symptoms have been prominent, characterized by persistent worry, restlessness, irritability, and physical\n manifestations such as heart palpitations, sweating, and occasional nausea or vomiting. He described being easily angered,\n particularly with his children, and a tendency to isolate himself to avoid conflict. Cognitive symptoms include racing and intrusive\n thoughts, especially regarding his legal and financial situation, as well as his children's schooling. Social anxiety was acknowledged,\n with avoidance of social interactions and reluctance to leave the house.\n He denied current or past suicidal ideation, intent, or plan, though he acknowledged fleeting thoughts of worthlessness and\n guilt. Protective factors include his love for his children and a belief that self-harm is not an acceptable option. There is a history of\n major depressive disorder, first diagnosed in 2006, with multiple prior episodes treated successfully with fluoxetine. He has also\n experienced recurrent episodes of depression in response to significant life stressors, with intermittent use of fluoxetine, most\n recently in 2022-2023. No history of psychiatric hospitalization or suicide attempts was reported. Family history is notable for\n depression and bipolar disorder in his mother and uncle. Past medical history includes sleep apnea, hyperlipidemia, and asthma. He\n occasionally consumes alcohol and has a remote history of marijuana use for sleep. No current use of illicit substances was\n reported.\n Overall, the clinical picture is consistent with a recurrent major depressive episode with significant anxiety features, precipitated\n by recent psychosocial stressors and compounded by a history of mood disorder and familial psychiatric illness.\n\n ALLERGIES: Cats and Penicillin\n\n CURRENT PSYCH MEDICATIONS: None\n Exhibit I (Replacement) | I-004 4/7\n\f11/28/25, 8:44 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Encounter - Office Visit Date 79-1 Patient:\n of service: 11/26/25 Filed 09/10/26\n Gowtham Rao DOB: Page 6 PRN:\n of 8\n\n PAST PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY: Diagnosed with depression in 2006. Engaged in outpatient psychiatric care for depression at various\n intervals: 2006\u20132008 (treated by physician), 2012/2013 (six months in India due to immigration stress), and 2022\u20132023 (six months to\n one year for low mood). All treatments completed with reported improvement and self-discontinuation upon feeling better.\n\n Previous Diagnosis: Depression\n \u2022Previous admissions: No\n \u2022Previous suicide attempts: No\n \u2022Past Medication History: Previously trialed fluoxetine (Prozac) at various times: 2006\u20132008, 2012/2013, and 2022\u20132023; typical\n duration ranged from six months to two years. Reported positive response and no significant side effect. Rosuvastatin, Ezetimibe\n\n SUBSTANCE ABUSE HISTORY:\n \u2022Tobacco: NO\n \u2022ETOH: Uses alcohol occasionally, about once a month\n \u2022Illicit Drugs: Used marijuana a few years ago for sleep; no current use reported\n \u2022Rehab Programs: No\n\n SOCIAL HISTORY:\n \u2022Living Situation: lives with his wife and two children.\n \u2022Children: Two Children\n \u2022Occupation: Worked as a scientist in epidemiology, including positions at Johnson & Johnson and other companies.\n \u2022Education: PHD and MD from India.\n \u2022Parents: Yes, parents are alive but reside outside the country\n \u2022Siblings: One male sibling in India\n \u2022Sexual Orientation: Straight\n \u2022History of Abuse: NO\n \u2022Legal: Yes, legal issues with his previous employer.\n\n FAMILY PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY: Notable for depression and bipolar disorder in his mother and uncle\n PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: Sleep apnea, High cholesterol, Asthma, Appendectomy.\n Objective\n\n 11/26/2025\n VIA In-person\n Start Time: 3:30 pm\n End Time: 4:30 pm\n Risk Level- Low - Moderate\n\n MSE:\n General: Good eye contact, well-groomed, good hygiene, cooperative, and friendly.\n Psychomotor Activity: [x ] normal, [ ] retardation, [ ] agitation, [ ] irritability, [ ] tremors, [ ] tics, [ ] fidgety.\n Mood: \"Not happy, and not too sad,\" but \"more so on the sad side.\"\n Affect: [x ] euthymic, [ ] congruent with mood, [ x] depressed, [ ] constricted/guarded, [ ] flat, [ ] blunted,\n [ ] expansive, [ ] euphoric, [x] anxious, [ ] irritated, [ ] angry, [ ] sedated, [ ] paranoid, [ ] tearful.\n Speech: [x ] normal, [X ] normal volume, [ X] normal tone, [ ] normal prosody, [ ] spontaneous, [ ] rapid,\n [ ] tangential.\n Thought Process: [x ] goal directed, [ ] logical, [ ] flight of ideas, [ ] looseness of associations.\n Thought Content: [ x] absent of suicidal or homicidal intent, [ ] paranoia, [ ] delusions, [ ] obsessions.\n Perception: [x ] does not appear to be reacting to internal or external stimuli today.\n Judgment: [ x] fair to good.\n Insight: [x] fair to good.\n\n Assessment\n\n Gowtham is a 45-year-old male with a personal history of recurrent major depressive episodes and comorbid sleep apnea, along\n with a family history of depression and bipolar disorder. He currently presents with moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms\n including low mood, withdrawal, insomnia with early morning awakening, weight loss, fatigue, poor concentration, excessive guilt,\n\n Exhibit I (Replacement) | I-005 5/7\n\f11/28/25, 8:44 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Encounter - Office Visit Date 79-1 Patient:\n of service: 11/26/25 Filed 09/10/26\n Gowtham Rao DOB: Page 7 PRN:\n of 8\n and anxiety. He also reports somatic anxiety symptoms such as palpitations, sweating, and nausea, as well as increased irritability\n and restlessness.\n These symptoms appear to be precipitated or exacerbated by recent psychosocial stressors, including job loss and ongoing legal\n issues. Despite symptom severity, the patient denies suicidal ideation, plan, or intent, and protective factors include strong family\n attachment.\n Past psychiatric history indicates a positive response to fluoxetine, suggesting that SSRIs may be effective in managing his current\n depressive episode. The clinical picture is consistent with a recurrent major depressive episode with anxious distress, moderately\n impairing daily functioning, requiring continued pharmacologic and supportive intervention.\n\n\n CURRENT SUICIDAL IDEATION: No\n Patient has current suicidal PLAN(s): NO\n Patient has current suicidal INTENT: NO\n Patient has suicidal BEHAVIOR (preparation or attempt) in LIFETIME: No\n Patient has suicidal BEHAVIOR (preparation or attempt) in PAST THREE (3) MONTHS: No.\n ADDITIONAL RISK FACTORS IDENTIFIED: No\n MITIGATING FACTORS IDENTIFIED: Strong family attachment.\n CURRENT SUICIDE RISK LEVEL: Low.\n\n Risk factors include male gender, recent unemployment, financial stressors, chronic mental health issues (history of depression),\n family history of depression and bipolar disorder, and current legal problems. Modifiable risk factors include ongoing stress related\n to the lawsuit, sleep disturbance, anxiety, and lack of current employment. Protective factors include strong family connections,\n sense of responsibility to wife and children, and previous positive response to treatment. Pt. denied active or passive suicidal\n ideation, plan, or intent, and stated, \"I don't think that's a good thing to do,\" when asked about self-harm. Long-term suicide risk is\n moderate due to multiple risk factors, but short-term suicide risk is low given the absence of current suicidal ideation, plan, or intent\n and presence of protective factors.\n Diagnoses attached to this encounter:\n Major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate [ICD-10: F33.1], [ICD-9: 296.32], [SNOMED: 18818009]\n Generalized anxiety disorder [ICD-10: F41.1], [ICD-9: 300.02], [SNOMED: 21897009]\n\n Plan\n\n 1. Admit the patient into the outpatient clinic\n 2. Initiate fluoxetine 10 mg daily in the morning; monitor for side effects and efficacy. Plan to increase dose at next follow-up if\n tolerated. Encourage engagement in therapy for additional support.\n 3. Start hydroxyzine 25 mg at bedtime, with option to increase to two times daily if needed. Advise use primarily at night due to\n potential sedation; monitor response and side effects.\n 4. Encourage regular sleep hygiene and gradual re-engagement in family and social activities as tolerated.\n 5. Next appointment scheduled for December 10 at 5:30 PM. Patient agreed to treatment plan and medication regimen.\n Prescriptions sent to pharmacy.\n 6. Call 911 in case of an emergency.\n Medications attached to this encounter:\n FLUoxetine HCl 10 MG Oral Capsule Take 1 capsule by mouth daily (start date: 11/26/2025)\n hydrOXYzine HCl 25 MG Oral Tablet Take 1 tablet by mouth daily at bedtime as needed (start date: 11/26/2025)\n\n\n Observations\n CATEGORY NAME DATE\n Functional status Able to cater for self 11/26/2025\n Cognitive status Able to analyze information 11/26/2025\n\n\n Quality of care\n Was diagnosis reconciliation completed?\n\n Exhibit I (Replacement) | I-006 6/7\n\f11/28/25, 8:44 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document\n Encounter - Office Visit Date 79-1 Patient:\n of service: 11/26/25 Filed 09/10/26\n Gowtham Rao DOB: Page 8 PRN:\n of 8\n Yes, reconciliation performed\n Was medication allergy reconciliation completed?\n Yes, reconciliation performed\n Was medication reconciliation completed?\n Yes, reconciliation performed\n Documentation of current medications\n Patient Decision Aids / Education Materials Given\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit I (Replacement) | I-007 7/7\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-11T08:30:38.470180-07:00","document_number":"79","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"153024177919","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493259782/","id":493259782,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/79/2/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-11T08:30:16.087514-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T08:30:49.330431-07:00","sha1":"f8eb71fc95fc3f916ba3f6d27ae8a98456535447","page_count":1,"file_size":15711,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.79.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 79-2 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION\nPlaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nv.\n\nGOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\nDefendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER\n\n AND NOW, this _____ day of __________________, 2026, upon consideration of Gowtham\n\n Rao's Motion for Leave to File Replacement Exhibit I with Limited Redactions and any\n\n response, the Court permits consideration on shortened notice under Federal Rule of Civil\n\n Procedure 6(c)(1)(C) and Local Rule 7.1(c), and it is ORDERED that:\n\n 1. The motion is GRANTED. The seven-page November 26, 2025 evaluation attached to the\n\n motion, with its cover, is accepted as public Exhibit I (Replacement) to Rao's declaration, ECF\n\n 62-30, in support of the opposition at ECF 62-1. It replaces the exhibit identified by the\n\n placeholder at ECF 63-2 and excludes the Penn Medicine records.\n\n 2. The additional redactions shown in that version are approved under Federal Rule of Civil\n\n Procedure 5.2(e)(1), together with the personal-identifier redactions under Rule 5.2(a).\n\n 3. This Order addresses filing and redactions. It does not decide admissibility, evidentiary\n\n weight, or the merits of the pending sanctions motion.\n\n 4. The Court may order disclosure of any information covered by this Order or modify this\n\n Order at any time in the interest of justice.\n\n BY THE COURT:\n __________________________________\n WENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-11T08:30:49.326159-07:00","document_number":"79","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"153024177920","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493259783/","id":493259783,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/79/3/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-11T08:30:16.105860-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T08:30:59.174341-07:00","sha1":"340457d08cb84b5c402f79a5ccfabd62c624ac7b","page_count":1,"file_size":373659,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.79.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"9/11/26, 8:22 AM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 79-3 Filed 09/10/26\n MOTION_LIMITED_REDACTIONS.pdf Page 1 of 1\n | Powered by Box\n\n\n Files MOTION_LIMITED_REDACTIONS.pdf 99+\n Share ED\n 2:25-cv-06260 | Gowtham Rao | EPAM \u2026 \u00b7 Updated Yesterday b\u2026\n Recents\n Metadata\n Notes 2:25-cv-06260 | Gowtham Rao | \u2026\n \ueddb\n Sign\n Pro Se Electronic FilingUpdated\n Automate\n Name: EXHIBIT_I_REPLACEMENT.pdf\n Integrations Yesterday \u2022 152.4 KB\n Gowtham Rao\n PROPOSED_ORDER.pdf\n Email Address:\n Solutions\n Yesterday \u2022 2.1 KB\n gowthamrao@gmail.com\n Canvas MOTION_LIMITED_REDACTIONS.pdf\n Phone Number Yesterday \u2022 3.4 KB\n Trash\n 8033867890\n\n Are you filing a new case?\n Collections\n No, I'm not filing a new case.\n\n Case Caption\n EPAM Systems vs Gowtham Rao\n\n Case Number\n 2:25-cv-06260\n\n Description of Document(s)\n MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLACEMENT EXHIBIT I (63-2) WITH LIMITED\n REDACTIONS\n\n Do you have a mailing address?\n Yes\n\n Mailing Address Line 1\n 184 Mansgrove Road\n\n City:\n Princeton\n\n State:\n NJ\n\n Zip Code: 1/2 78%\n\n 08540\n \ueddc\nhttps://paed-circ3-dcn.app.box.com/file/2459614463088?sb=/metadata 1/1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-11T08:30:59.173869-07:00","document_number":"79","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"153024177921","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"cover page","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-11T08:30:14.106873-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T17:52:50.183356-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":79,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-10.003","pacer_sequence_number":216,"description":"MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLACEMENT EXHIBIT I WITH LIMITED REDACTIONS filed by GOWTHAM ADAMANE ROA.EXHIBITS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 cover page)(er) (Entered: 09/11/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477558036/","id":477558036,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493156158/","id":493156158,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/78/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-10T12:56:52.903791-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T13:23:34.061064-07:00","sha1":"63dd17d2fabdd1b66de3c591a49be5c923f7d2eb","page_count":2,"file_size":142606,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.78.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 78 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC., CIVIL ACTION\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-\n Defendant,\n\n v.\n NO. 25-6260\n GOWTHAM RAO,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n Plaintiff.\n\n ORDER\n\n AND NOW, this 10th day of September, 2026, upon consideration of Defendant\u2019s\n\nUnopposed Motion for Leave to File Exhibit I to the Declaration of Gowtham Rao Under Seal\n\n(ECF Nos. 63, 65), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant\u2019s Motion is DENIED. 1\n\n\n BY THE COURT:\n\n S/ WENDY BEETLESTONE\n _______________________________\n WENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J.\n\n\n1\n Attached to his Response in Opposition to Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for Sanctions, Defendant Gowtham Rao (\u201cRao\u201d) filed\na Declaration, setting forth his account of the facts surrounding his former employment with EPAM and the present\nlitigation. The Declaration includes a placeholder for what Rao dubs \u201cExhibit I\u201d\u2014a document containing his clinical\nmedical records, which he seeks to file under seal.\n\nIn re Avandia, explains that once a document \u201chas been filed with the court. . . or otherwise somehow incorporated or\nintegrated into a district court\u2019s adjudicatory proceedings,\u201d 924 F.3d 662, 672 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Cendant\nCorp., 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3d Cir. 2001)), it becomes a judicial record and \u201c a presumption of access attaches.\u201d Id.\nThis presumption can, however, be rebutted, if a movant shows that: (1) \u201cthe material is the kind of information that\ncourts will protect[;]\u201d and, (2) \u201cdisclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking\n[secrecy].\u201d Id.\n\nThere is a \u201clong recognized the right to privacy in one\u2019s medical information,\u201d Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 315 (3d\nCir. 2001). Courts, therefore, will often protect such information, and give particular weight to the privacy interests\nof third parties. See Funkhouser v. Delaware Cnty., 2026 WL 1971265 at *4-5 (E.D. Pa. July 8, 2026); c.f. McCowan\nv. City of Philadelphia, 2021 WL 3737204 at *5 (\u201cThe justification for sealing . . . identifying information of\nnonlitigants . . . cannot apply with equal force to a document discussing the parties and the substantive issues in the\naction before us.\u201d). But, where a party affirmatively places his own medical information at issue to establish or defeat\nan element of a claim, that privacy interest is diminished. See, e.g., Funkhouser, 2026 WL 1971265 at *4-5.\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 78 Filed 09/10/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\nHere, Rao appears to place the contents of these records directly at issue in his defense to the spoliation motion,\nmaintaining that they provide evidence of his \u201cstate of mind during the exact period at issue\u201d and \u201ccorroborate[] the\nearly-morning timing of the events at issue.\u201d Insofar as Roa wishes to rely on these documents in the upcoming\nhearing, and he determines that they are both relevant to his defense and necessary to be presented for the Court\u2019s\nconsideration, sealing is not warranted.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T13:23:34.041425-07:00","document_number":"78","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024174771","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File AND Order on Motion to Seal","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-10T12:56:52.876118-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T17:52:50.109277-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-10","time_filed":"15:43:05","entry_number":78,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-10.002","pacer_sequence_number":213,"description":"ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE EXHIBIT I TO THE DECLARATION OF GOWTHAM RAO UNDER SEAL (ECF NOS. 63, 65) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 9/10/26. 9/10/26 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (mbh) Modified on 9/11/2026 (ldl). (Entered: 09/10/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477509380/","id":477509380,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493106008/","id":493106008,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/77/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-10T09:14:16.538454-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T09:53:13.921541-07:00","sha1":"5b63df2028f2c1128c204871dd85fea24b5afc60","page_count":17,"file_size":207979,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.77.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 17\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n Civil Action No.\n v. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n Hon. Wendy Beetlestone, C.J.\n GOWTHAM RAO,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n\n RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPAM\u2019S EMERGENCY MOTION TO TOLL\n REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEADLINE (ECF NO. 76)\n\n PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n I am Gowtham Rao, the defendant in this action, representing myself. I oppose EPAM\u2019s\n\nemergency motion to toll its response deadlines (ECF No. 76).\n\n EPAM asks the Court to suspend all of its response deadlines for requests for admission\n\nindefinitely, without proposing any date when answers would come due. ECF No. 76 \u00b6 12; ECF\n\nNo. 76-2 at 1. It brings this emergency request under Rule 26(c), ahead of a motion to quash or\n\nlimit the requests that it says it will file by September 18. ECF No. 76 at 1, \u00b6\u00b6 3, 12\u201313. But\n\nEPAM never explains why its workload or hearing preparation requires freezing all 471\n\npropositions\u2014rather than answering what it can\u2014or why it needs an open-ended suspension\n\ninstead of a date certain. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20138, 12\u201313.\n\n Before EPAM came to the Court, I offered a mutual, fixed extension to September 25,\n\nand I gave EPAM specific proposed narrowed requests in Schedule A. ECF No. 70-8 at 10; ECF\n\nNo. 72-2 at 2\u20136. When EPAM refused to engage, I filed a request-by-request appendix\n\nexplaining the source, factual issue, and trial purpose of every request. ECF No. 72-1 at 2.\n\n I am preparing for the very same September 16 hearing, yet I answered all 104 discovery\n\nrequests EPAM served on me\u201418 requests for admission, 16 interrogatories, and 70 document\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 2 of 17\n\n\n\n\nrequests\u2014and produced my documents. ECF No. 72-4 at 5, 13, 35; Ex. 4 \u00a7 I.A\u2013C; Ex. 1, Email\n\n\u00b6\u00b6 3, 5\u20136. Now, I need EPAM\u2019s admissions and denials so I know where EPAM stands on the\n\ncritical facts before we walk into the courtroom. Ex. 1, Email \u00b6\u00b6 3, 6.\n\n I ask the Court to deny this emergency motion on the papers and keep the schedule intact:\n\nEPAM\u2019s responses remain due September 14\u201316, the spoliation hearing proceeds on September\n\n16, and fact discovery closes on September 30.\n\n\n PART ONE \u2014 FACTS\n\n\u00a7 I. I served my requests for admission thirty days before their response deadlines.\n At the Rule 26(f) conference on February 24\u201325, EPAM\u2019s counsel and my then-counsel\n\njointly agreed to propose a September 30 fact-discovery cutoff. ECF No. 25 at 1, 9. The Court\n\nentered that deadline on March 5 (ECF No. 27 at 1 \u00b6 1), and on June 18, scheduled the\n\nevidentiary hearing for September 16 (ECF No. 52 at 1).\n\n In June, I supported a 40-day extension for EPAM\u2019s spoliation brief, which moved its\n\nfiling deadline from June 19 to July 29. ECF No. 49 at 1; ECF No. 51 at 1\u20132; ECF No. 52 at 1.\n\nWhen requesting that relief, EPAM told the Court it would not object if I needed additional time\n\nto respond. ECF No. 50 \u00b6 5.\n\n Yet when I asked for an extension on July 31, EPAM opposed the date I proposed, citing\n\nits counsel\u2019s travel plans over Labor Day weekend and its hearing preparation. Ex. 2, Email \u00b6 3.\n\nEPAM suggested either a shorter extension or postponing the hearing altogether. Ex. 2, Email \u00b6\u00b6\n\n4\u20135. On August 4, the Court denied my request without extending the schedule. ECF No. 59 at 1.\n\nI complied with that ruling and filed my opposition on August 19, exactly on the deadline the\n\nCourt had set. ECF No. 52 at 1; ECF No. 62 at 1.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 3 of 17\n\n\n\n\n Between August 15 and August 17, I served five sets of requests for admission. ECF No.\n\n76 \u00b6 1. EPAM calculates that these sets contain 211 numbered requests and 471 separately\n\nanswerable propositions, and it acknowledges response deadlines running from September 14 to\n\nSeptember 16. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 1\u20132; ECF Nos. 70-1\u201370-5.\n\n\n\u00a7 II. I proposed narrowed requests and a mutual extension before EPAM filed its discovery\nletter.\n On August 19, I asked EPAM to identify any specific requests or subparts for\n\nelimination, narrowing, or rephrasing before our meet-and-confer. ECF No. 70-8 at 10, item 1.\n\nTo accommodate both sides\u2019 hearing preparation, I also proposed extending all discovery-\n\nresponse deadlines to September 25. ECF No. 70-8 at 10, item 3.\n\n EPAM refused to identify any requests to narrow, responding: \u201cWe are not going to play\n\nyour game.\u201d ECF No. 70-8 at 8. Instead, EPAM demanded that I withdraw all 471 propositions\n\nand replace them with no more than 25, claiming that preparing a list of objections would impose\n\npart of the burden it sought to avoid. ECF No. 70-8 at 8.\n\n EPAM did offer to extend its own RFA deadline to September 25, but only on unilateral\n\nterms. It demanded that I answer its 18 RFAs and produce documents for RFPs 9 and 40 by\n\nSeptember 10 without objection, postpone my own deposition, and agree to be deposed before\n\nEPAM\u2019s witnesses. ECF No. 70-8 at 8\u20139. Because EPAM rejected my mutual proposal and\n\nattached conditions I could not accept, I informed EPAM on August 22 that the existing response\n\ndeadlines remained in place. ECF No. 70-8 at 5.\n\n Even so, I continued working to narrow the dispute. On August 22, I sent EPAM a\n\nproposed Schedule A containing 25 specific entries across 13 numbered requests. ECF No. 72-2\n\nat 2\u20136. Among other compromises, I offered to narrow RFA 60, withdraw subparts 173(b) and\n\n173(c), and adopt a mutual standard for reasonable inquiry. ECF No. 72-2 at 3\u20134, 6.\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 4 of 17\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 III. EPAM insisted on an unyielding 25-request demand during our meet-and-confer.\n When we conferred on August 24, counsel for EPAM opened by accusing me of using\n\nartificial intelligence to generate as many requests as possible without considering relevance or\n\nburden. ECF No. 72 at 4. When I asked whether counsel had read my August 22 proposal to\n\nnarrow specific requests and define reasonable inquiry, counsel confirmed having read it. But\n\ncounsel still insisted that I must withdraw all requests and reissue no more than 25. ECF No. 72-\n\n3 at 2. The conference concluded without any discussion of the substance of a single individual\n\nrequest. ECF No. 72 at 4.\n\n I memorialized that discussion in an email sent that afternoon. ECF No. 72-3 at 2.\n\n\n\u00a7 IV. I responded to EPAM\u2019s discovery letter and served my responses on time.\n EPAM filed its discovery letter on August 26, raising objections to RFAs 56, 60, 120(a),\n\nand 203(b). ECF No. 70 at 1\u20133. I responded the next day, August 27, with a request-by-request\n\nexplanation of the sources, factual issues, and trial purposes of my RFAs. ECF No. 72 at 1; ECF\n\nNo. 72-1 at 2. I also filed my Schedule A compromise proposals and my conference\n\nmemorialization. ECF No. 72-2 at 2; ECF No. 72-3 at 2.\n\n Meanwhile, I timely served responses and objections to all 18 RFAs on August 28, all 16\n\ninterrogatories on September 1, and all 70 document requests on September 5, along with\n\nsubsequent supplements. Ex. 4 \u00a7 I.A\u2013C; ECF No. 72-4 at 5, 13, 35; Ex. 1, Email \u00b6 5. EPAM\n\ndoes not identify an overdue written response or a missed discovery deadline on my part. ECF\n\nNo. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 1\u201314.\n\n Regarding document production, EPAM offered on August 20 to treat my production\n\nobligations as satisfied if I simply authorized delivery of the entire iDS forensic database with all\n\nnative files, text, and metadata. Ex. 4 \u00a7 II.A. I declined that blanket authorization because the\n\ndatabase contains personal and nonresponsive material, proposing instead a targeted production\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 5 of 17\n\n\n\n\nprotocol. Ex. 4 \u00a7 II.B. On September 4, EPAM accepted my proposed production format subject\n\nto readability and access, disputed my selection criteria, and stated that it was open to other\n\nproduction methods. Ex. 4 \u00a7 II.C.\n\n I then completed a separate production from my own sources\u2014providing searchable\n\nBates-stamped PDFs, native files, extracted text, and load files, including copies of material\n\npreserved in iDS\u2019s forensic images. Ex. 4 \u00a7\u00a7 I.C, III.A. On September 8, EPAM acknowledged\n\nreceiving my production and confirmed that it was reviewing the documents for possible use as\n\nadditional hearing exhibits or for impeachment against me. Ex. 4 \u00a7 III.B.\n\n That same day, September 8, I emailed Chambers requesting that the Court preserve the\n\nresponse deadlines and the September 30 discovery cutoff. Ex. 1, Email \u00b6\u00b6 2\u20133, 5\u20137. I explained\n\nthat postponing EPAM\u2019s responses would severely prejudice my preparation for the September\n\n16 hearing. EPAM is already using my discovery to prepare against me, while I would be denied\n\nEPAM\u2019s sworn positions on the very facts at issue. Ex. 1, Email \u00b6 3. EPAM did not include that\n\nemail in the chambers correspondence it attached to its motion. ECF No. 76-1 at 2\u20138.\n\n Finally, the disparity in resources between the parties is substantial. I have had no\n\nemployment income since October 2025 and handle all of this litigation on my own. ECF No. 72\n\nat 1\u20132. EPAM, by contrast, reported $5.457 billion in 2025 revenue and $1.301 billion in cash,\n\ncash equivalents, and restricted cash at December 31, 2025. Ex. 3 \u00a7 I. Seyfarth Shaw reports its\n\ninclusion in the 2025 Am Law 100, and EPAM lists three of its attorneys as counsel on this\n\nmotion. Ex. 3 \u00a7 II; ECF No. 76 at 4.\n\n\n\u00a7 V. Chambers requested formal motion briefing on September 9 without granting or\naddressing tolling.\n On the morning of September 9, Chambers instructed the parties that the Court wanted a\n\nformal motion presenting the legal issues raised in the discovery letters. ECF No. 76-1 at 5, 7.\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 6 of 17\n\n\n\n\nWhen EPAM followed up by email to ask about tolling its upcoming deadlines, I immediately\n\nopposed extending the time. ECF No. 76-1 at 2\u20134.\n\n As EPAM acknowledges in its motion, Chambers\u2019 correspondence did not address\n\ntolling. ECF No. 76 \u00b6 4. Yet EPAM filed this emergency motion asking the Court to halt all\n\ndeadlines, submitting a proposed order that suspends its obligations indefinitely. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\n\n12; ECF No. 76-2 at 1.\n\n\n\u00a7 VI. I explained how RFAs 137\u2013139 directly bear on preservation and the evidentiary\nhearing.\n In my August 27 filing, I specifically explained how RFAs 137 through 139 bear on the\n\nissues set for the September 16 spoliation hearing. ECF No. 72-1 at 29. These three numbered\n\nrequests contain eight separately answerable propositions. ECF No. 70-3 at 10\u201311. While EPAM\n\nsummarily dismisses their relevance (ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 9\u201310), these requests go directly to the core\n\nof EPAM\u2019s spoliation claims.\n\n RFA 137 addresses the forensic protocol\u2019s imaging requirements and whether EPAM has\n\nidentified any post-notice deletion. Subpart (b) asks EPAM to admit that:\n\n Plaintiff has identified zero instances where any responsive file, document, or\n communication was deleted, purged, or destroyed following the transmission of\n Plaintiff\u2019s October 31, 2025 cease-and-desist letter.\n ECF No. 70-3 at 10.\n\n RFA 139 covers my April 2026 proposal to filter out system files and public open-source\n\nsoftware, what EPAM said in response, and the search terms it chose. Subpart (b) asks whether:\n\n Plaintiff did not agree to de-NISTing or the algorithmic exclusion of public open-\n source software files from the review sets; and\n ECF No. 70-3 at 11.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 7 of 17\n\n\n\n\n RFA 138 asks when EPAM\u2019s own duty to preserve evidence arose and which records it\n\nreached, establishing EPAM\u2019s position on the preservation trigger date. ECF No. 70-3 at 10;\n\nECF No. 72-1 at 29.\n\n On September 9, I asked the Court to consider these requests together, in the context of\n\nmy defenses, counterclaims, and overall discovery plan. ECF No. 76-1 at 2.\n\n\n PART TWO \u2014 SCOPE OF EPAM\u2019S REQUEST\n\n\u00a7 VII. EPAM seeks an open-ended suspension of all response deadlines without a\nreplacement date.\n What EPAM actually asks for is an open-ended freeze: it moves to toll its RFA response\n\ndeadlines \u201cpending further order of the Court.\u201d ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 12, 14. EPAM states that it plans\n\nto file a broader protective-order motion on or before September 18, or whenever the Court\n\norders. ECF No. 76 \u00b6 13. Yet its proposed order contains no end date, no deadline for that\n\nmotion, and no date on which any response would ever come due. ECF No. 76-2 at 1.\n\n EPAM brings this emergency request under Rule 26(c) and the Court\u2019s extension\n\npolicies. ECF No. 76 at 1. It contends that without immediate relief, it will be forced to perform\n\nthe very work its future motion seeks to avoid. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 5, 11. To support that claim,\n\nEPAM calculates that responding to 471 propositions at five minutes each would require more\n\nthan 39 attorney hours, and it points to its hearing preparation and lead counsel\u2019s weekend\n\nreligious observance. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 7\u20138. EPAM submits this workload estimate and factual\n\nnarrative solely through the assertions of counsel in its motion, without any supporting\n\ndeclaration or evidentiary record. ECF No. 76 at 1\u20135; ECF No. 76-1.\n\n My opposition here addresses only this emergency motion to suspend deadlines. In its\n\nAugust 26 letter, EPAM also asked to quash all RFAs, cap future requests at 25, and extend fact\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 8 of 17\n\n\n\n\ndiscovery by six months. ECF No. 70 at 1, 3. I preserve my full opposition to those broader\n\nrequests if and when EPAM files its motion.\n\n\n PART THREE \u2014 LEGAL STANDARD\n\n\u00a7 VIII. Rules 6 and 26 require a specific showing of good cause for an extension or\nprotective relief.\n Under Rule 6(b)(1)(A) and Rule 26(c)(1), an extension or protective order requires a\n\nshowing of good cause. While Rule 36(a)(3) allows the Court to order a longer response period,\n\nthe party seeking protection bears the burden of persuasion. It must establish a particular need\n\nthrough specific examples or articulated reasoning, rather than broad allegations of harm.\n\nCipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986).\n\n Under Rule 26(b)(1), proportionality requires the Court to evaluate the parties\u2019 relative\n\nresources, their access to relevant information, and the importance of the discovery, alongside\n\nburden and expense. The 2015 Advisory Committee Note to Rule 26 calls for a realistic\n\nassessment of burden and of the available means of reducing it, with the parties\u2019 resources as one\n\npart of that balance.\n\n This Court\u2019s policies require that opposed extension requests be made by formal motion\n\nand describe discovery extensions in terms of a definite period, a specific need, and a specific\n\npurpose. Policies, Civil Cases \u00a7\u00a7 II, III.A. To the extent an extension impacts the Court\u2019s\n\nscheduling order, Rule 16(b)(4) requires good cause and the judge\u2019s consent, an inquiry that\n\ndepends in part on the moving party\u2019s diligence. Premier Comp Solutions, LLC v. UPMC, 970\n\nF.3d 316, 319 (3d Cir. 2020).\n\n\n\u00a7 IX. Rule 36 governs nonresponse, proper answers, and relief from admissions.\n Under Rule 36(a)(3), a matter is admitted unless the responding party serves a signed\n\nwritten answer or objection within 30 days. Merely filing a motion for protective relief does not\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 9 of 17\n\n\n\n\nsuspend that clock; the deadline runs unless and until the Court enters an order extending the\n\ntime.\n\n When answering, a party may admit, deny, qualify its response, or explain in detail why\n\nit cannot do so after a reasonable inquiry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4). Objections must state specific\n\ngrounds and cannot rest solely on the assertion that a request presents a genuine issue for trial.\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5). Under Rule 36(a)(6), the requesting party may challenge the sufficiency\n\nof an answer or objection.\n\n Under Rule 36(b), a court may permit withdrawal or amendment of an admission if doing\n\nso would promote presentation of the merits and would not prejudice the requesting party. While\n\ncourts may consider whether the moving party had good cause for delay, they are not required to\n\ndo so. Gwynn v. City of Philadelphia, 719 F.3d 295, 298\u201399 (3d Cir. 2013). Once a deadline has\n\npassed, however, Rule 6(b)(1)(B) independently requires a showing of excusable neglect.\n\n\n\u00a7 X. The discovery rules require substantive conferral and permit determination on the\npapers.\n Before seeking a protective order under Rule 26(c)(1), the moving party must certify that\n\nit conferred in good faith to resolve the dispute without court action. Local Civil Rule 26.1(f) and\n\nthis Court\u2019s policies (\u00a7 III.C.5) require that certification to reflect genuine, reasonable efforts. In\n\naddition, Local Civil Rule 26.1(b) requires the movant to identify and reproduce the relevant\n\ndiscovery language.\n\n The Court may direct a shortened briefing schedule under Local Civil Rule 7.1(c) and\n\ndecide discovery motions on the papers without oral argument under Local Civil Rule 7.1(f).\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 10 of 17\n\n\n\n\n PART FOUR \u2014 ARGUMENT\n\n\u00a7 XI. EPAM has not shown why the known schedule requires emergency suspension of\nevery response.\n The schedule EPAM complains of has been known for months. The Court scheduled the\n\nSeptember 16 evidentiary hearing back in June. ECF No. 52 at 1. When I served my requests for\n\nadmission on August 15\u201317, EPAM had a full 30 days\u2014until September 14\u201316\u2014to respond.\n\nECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 1\u20132. Yet EPAM\u2019s motion never tells the Court what work it actually completed\n\nduring those 30 days, or how many hours it invested. Nor does EPAM explain why its counsel\n\ncould not schedule response work around a hearing date fixed three months ago. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6\n\n3\u20138.\n\n EPAM raised the overlapping hearing and response deadlines in its August 26 discovery\n\nletter and asked for a six-month discovery extension. ECF No. 70 at 1, 3. But while filing that\n\nletter was the proper initial step under local practice, it did not stay the clock. Under Rule\n\n36(a)(3), response deadlines continue to run unless the Court orders otherwise. EPAM offers no\n\nexplanation for why waiting for Chambers to provide briefing instructions prevented it from\n\npreparing answers in the interim. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 3\u20138, 12\u201313.\n\n Instead, EPAM argues that answering now would force it to do work that its\n\ncontemplated protective order might ultimately excuse. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20136, 11. But Rule\n\n26(c)(1) requires good cause for the specific relief requested. An emergency motion cannot wipe\n\nout every deadline for an indefinite period simply because a party hopes to get a protective order\n\nlater. EPAM seeks a blanket freeze covering all 471 propositions with zero replacement dates.\n\nECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 12\u201313; ECF No. 76-2 at 1. It identifies no requests it could answer on time, and\n\noffers no timeline for answering the remainder. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20138.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 11 of 17\n\n\n\n\n The Court has already enforced this schedule strictly. When EPAM needed a 40-day\n\nextension in June for its spoliation brief, I consented. ECF No. 51 at 1\u20132. But when I asked for\n\nmore time on July 31 to file my opposition, EPAM vigorously opposed my date, citing its\n\ncounsel\u2019s travel schedule and hearing preparation. Ex. 2, Email \u00b6 3. The Court denied my request\n\non August 4, keeping the August 19 deadline in place (ECF No. 59 at 1), and I worked through\n\nthat schedule to file on time (ECF No. 62 at 1). The same standards apply to EPAM: an\n\nextension requires a concrete showing of specific need for a definite time period. Policies, Civil\n\nCases \u00a7\u00a7 II, III.A.\n\n\n\u00a7 XII. EPAM has not shown that it meaningfully addressed my proposed revisions before\nseeking blanket relief.\n Before coming to the Court demanding emergency relief, EPAM had an obligation to\n\nconfer meaningfully to narrow the dispute. It did not do so. In its August 26 letter, for example,\n\nEPAM singled out RFA 60, complaining that as drafted, it would require searching every file\n\nacross public databases. ECF No. 70 at 1\u20133. But I had already addressed that exact concern: in\n\nSchedule A, I proposed narrowing RFA 60 to a single, straightforward question\u2014whether\n\nEPAM claims intellectual property rights in six specific repositories. ECF No. 72-2 at 3. That\n\nconcrete revision eliminated the need for any broad public search. Yet EPAM ignored that\n\nproposal entirely and ignores it again in this emergency motion. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 3, 5\u20138.\n\n That pattern defined the entire meet-and-confer process. Schedule A contained 25\n\nproposed revisions across 13 numbered requests. ECF No. 72-2 at 2\u20136. When I raised these\n\ncompromises during our August 24 conference, counsel for EPAM refused to discuss the\n\nsubstance of any individual request. Instead, counsel questioned how I had prepared the requests\n\nand insisted that I withdraw all 471 propositions and reissue just 25. ECF No. 72 at 4; ECF No.\n\n72-3 at 2. EPAM\u2019s position was an ultimatum, not a meet-and-confer.\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 12 of 17\n\n\n\n\n Nor did EPAM ever confer about the specific emergency relief it now requests. On\n\nAugust 19, I proposed a mutual extension to September 25, which EPAM rejected with unilateral\n\ndemands. ECF No. 70-8 at 5, 8\u201310. In its emergency motion, EPAM points to that earlier\n\nexchange and to our brief September 9 email string where it raised tolling and I objected. ECF\n\nNo. 76 \u00b6 3; ECF No. 76-1 at 2\u20134. But at no point did EPAM ever discuss the duration of a\n\nsuspension, propose an interim schedule, or explore answering subsets of requests on their due\n\ndates. Rule 26(c)(1), Local Civil Rule 26.1(f), and this Court\u2019s policies (\u00a7 III.C.5) require\n\nsubstantive, good-faith conferral on the actual relief sought\u2014not an unyielding demand followed\n\nby an emergency motion for an indefinite stay.\n\n\n\u00a7 XIII. EPAM has not shown that its estimated workload exceeds the time and resources\navailable.\n To justify an emergency suspension, EPAM offers a back-of-the-envelope calculation:\n\nmultiplying 471 propositions by five minutes to claim it faces more than 39 attorney hours of\n\nwork. ECF No. 76 \u00b6 7. But that rough arithmetic is just a theoretical floor. EPAM never provides\n\nan actual estimate of the hours required, never discloses how many hours its team has already\n\nspent answering requests since August 15, and never states how many additional hours it\n\ngenuinely needs. Nor does EPAM explain why its three attorneys of record from Seyfarth Shaw\n\ncould not divide 39 hours of work over the 30-day response period. ECF No. 76 at 4, \u00b6\u00b6 1\u20132, 5\u2013\n\n8.\n\n Under Rule 26(b)(1), proportionality requires considering the parties\u2019 resources. I have\n\nhad no employment income since October 2025 and handle this litigation entirely pro se. ECF\n\nNo. 72 at 1\u20132. EPAM is a global corporation with $5.457 billion in annual revenue and over $1.3\n\nbillion in cash reserves, represented by an Am Law 100 law firm. Ex. 3 \u00a7\u00a7 I\u2013II; ECF No. 76 at 4.\n\nI answered all 104 requests EPAM served on me: 18 RFAs, 16 interrogatories, and 70 document\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 13 of 17\n\n\n\n\nrequests. ECF No. 72-4 at 5, 13, 35; Ex. 4 \u00a7 I.A\u2013C. I also made a substantial document\n\nproduction and served supplements, all while preparing for the September 16 hearing. Ex. 1,\n\nEmail \u00b6\u00b6 3, 5\u20136; Ex. 4 \u00a7 III.A. EPAM does not identify a single missed deadline on my part.\n\nECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 1\u201314.\n\n EPAM cites Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. v. Peninsula Components, Inc.,\n\n2021 WL 4037857 (E.D. Pa. 2021), where the court credited a 31\u201346 hour estimate and granted\n\nprotection against 185 RFAs. Id. at *4, *8, *10. I recognize that a party\u2019s financial resources do\n\nnot automatically disqualify it from obtaining protective relief against genuinely abusive\n\ndiscovery. But Penn Engineering involved a fully briefed, final protective order motion, not an\n\nemergency bid for an indefinite suspension on unsworn attorney assertions. Even if 39 hours of\n\nwork were credited, that alone does not justify freezing every response indefinitely without\n\nproposing a date certain. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20138, 12\u201313; ECF No. 76-2 at 1.\n\n Furthermore, EPAM\u2019s workload argument ignores the structure of the requests. Sets 1\n\nand 2 contain 119 straightforward, numbered requests without subparts. ECF Nos. 70-1, 70-2;\n\nECF No. 72-1 at 2. While EPAM points to a handful of contested examples from other sets, it\n\nnever explains why it cannot answer these 119 initial requests on time. ECF No. 70 at 2\u20133; ECF\n\nNo. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20138, 11\u201313. Similarly, while EPAM\u2019s letter cited Martin Marietta as allowing only 27\n\nrequests (ECF No. 70 at 2), that court actually allowed 91 requests while trimming others.\n\nMartin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Bedford Reinforced Plastics, Inc., 2007 WL 1300772, at *3,\n\n*5 (W.D. Pa. 2007). Courts regularly distinguish between requests that must be answered and\n\nthose that warrant protection; EPAM has offered no justification for treating all 471 propositions\n\nas an undifferentiated emergency.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 14 of 17\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 XIV. EPAM has not shown why RFA fact gathering must displace hearing preparation.\n EPAM also claims an emergency because its hearing preparation overlaps with lead\n\ncounsel\u2019s religious observance over the upcoming weekend. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 7\u20138. I fully respect\n\ncounsel\u2019s religious observance. But EPAM never explains why responding to RFAs must\n\nconflict with hearing preparation, or why the work cannot be handled by the other attorneys on\n\nthe team. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20138.\n\n Answering requests for admission is fundamentally an exercise in consulting the client\n\nand its witnesses to ascertain facts. EPAM does not identify which inquiries require lead counsel,\n\nwhat factual questions require employee input, or why consulting its forensic examiner would\n\ninterfere with hearing preparation. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20138.\n\n For example, RFAs 137 and 139 (quoted in Part One, \u00a7 VI) focus squarely on EPAM\u2019s\n\nown actions: what the forensic protocol required, what its forensic review uncovered, and what\n\nsearch terms it ran. ECF No. 70-3 at 10\u201311. Under Rule 36(a)(4), EPAM must make a reasonable\n\ninquiry into information readily obtainable within its organization before answering. EPAM\n\nnever explains which inquiries remain incomplete, or why answering them now would disrupt\n\nhearing preparation rather than complement it. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 7\u201310.\n\n Under Rule 36(a)(4)\u2013(5), EPAM remains entirely free to admit, deny, qualify its answers,\n\nor state specific legal objections. While counsel must review those responses, conducting that\n\nreview is standard litigation work under ordinary deadlines. EPAM has shown no reason why all\n\nreview must grind to a halt while it pursues a motion to quash. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 5\u20138, 11\u201313.\n\n\n\u00a7 XV. EPAM has not shown that its proposed suspension accounts for prejudice to my\npreparation and the discovery cutoff.\n Finally, EPAM\u2019s requested stay does not account for the prejudice to me. EPAM already\n\nhas my full set of discovery responses and is reviewing my documents to prepare hearing\n\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 15 of 17\n\n\n\n\nexhibits and impeachment. Ex. 1, Email \u00b6 3; Ex. 4 \u00a7 III.B. Meanwhile, EPAM seeks to freeze its\n\nown deadlines so that I receive zero answers before the September 16 hearing. ECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 9\u2013\n\n13. As I explained to Chambers on September 8, I urgently need EPAM\u2019s formal admissions or\n\ndenials on deletion and forensic methodology to know what factual disputes remain for the\n\nhearing. ECF No. 72-1 at 29; Ex. 1, Email \u00b6\u00b6 3, 6. Granting EPAM\u2019s motion would create a one-\n\nsided playing field: EPAM would walk into court armed with my discovery, while I am deprived\n\nof theirs.\n\n EPAM argues that many of my requests\u2014such as RFA 138 regarding its preservation\n\ntrigger date\u2014relate to broader claims rather than the September 16 hearing. ECF No. 70-3 at 10;\n\nECF No. 76 \u00b6\u00b6 9\u201310. But under Rule 36(a)(3), discovery deadlines do not vanish simply because\n\na request serves general litigation purposes rather than a specific upcoming motion. To obtain an\n\nextension on those broader requests, EPAM still must demonstrate good cause.\n\n Moreover, suspending deadlines indefinitely threatens the entire case schedule. Back in\n\nFebruary, EPAM agreed to a September 30 fact-discovery cutoff, which the Court ordered in\n\nMarch. ECF No. 25 at 9; ECF No. 27 at 1 \u00b6 1. Barely twenty days remain before discovery\n\ncloses. Yet EPAM\u2019s proposed order sets no replacement date for its responses\u2014either before or\n\nafter September 30. ECF No. 76-2 at 1. Freezing responses indefinitely would derail the close of\n\nfact discovery and prejudice my ability to follow up on admissions or prepare dispositive\n\nmotions.\n\n The straightforward solution is to deny this emergency motion on the papers. EPAM\u2019s\n\nresponses should remain due on September 14\u201316, the spoliation hearing should proceed on\n\nSeptember 16, and fact discovery should close on September 30. ECF No. 76 \u00b6 2; ECF No. 52 at\n\n1; ECF No. 27 at 1 \u00b6 1. If EPAM believes particular requests warrant protection, it can file its\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 16 of 17\n\n\n\n\nplanned motion by September 18 as promised. The Court can then address those specific issues\n\non an expedited briefing schedule under Local Civil Rule 7.1(c). ECF No. 76 \u00b6 13.\n\n\n CONCLUSION\n I request that the Court:\n\n1. Deny EPAM\u2019s Emergency Motion (ECF No. 76) on the papers under Local Civil Rule 7.1(f);\n\n2. Maintain the existing RFA response deadlines of September 14\u201316, 2026, as acknowledged in\n\n ECF No. 76 \u00b6 2;\n\n3. Confirm that Rule 36(a)(3) applies to any matter for which EPAM fails to serve a timely\n\n signed answer or objection, subject to an applicable order or stipulation changing the\n\n response period and to Rule 36(b); and\n\n4. Preserve the September 16, 2026 evidentiary hearing and the September 30, 2026 fact-\n\n discovery cutoff.\n\n I seek a ruling on ECF No. 76 only. I preserve my positions on the merits of the RFAs,\n\nthe sufficiency of any future response, and EPAM\u2019s separate request in ECF No. 70 to extend\n\nfact discovery, which I also oppose.\n\n When the Court declined to extend my deadline in August, I worked through the\n\nschedule, met my deadline, and served all my discovery responses. ECF No. 59 at 1; ECF No. 62\n\nat 1; Ex. 4 \u00a7 I.A\u2013C. I respectfully ask the Court to hold EPAM to that same schedule.\n\nDated: September 10, 2026\nRespectfully submitted,\n/s/ Gowtham Rao\n _________________________\n Gowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\n Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n 184 Mansgrove Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540\n (803) 386-7890\n gowthamrao@gmail.com\n gowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77 Filed 09/10/26 Page 17 of 17\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n I certify that on September 10, 2026, I served this response, Exhibits 1\u20134, and the\n\nproposed order by ______________________________ on Jacob Oslick\n\n(joslick@seyfarth.com), James S. Yu (jyu@seyfarth.com), and Brooke Gary\n\n(brgary@seyfarth.com), counsel for EPAM.\n\n/s/ Gowtham Rao\n ______________________________\n Gowtham A. Rao\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T09:14:46.170560-07:00","document_number":"77","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024172662","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response in Opposition to Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493106009/","id":493106009,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/77/1/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-10T09:14:27.630014-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T09:14:27.630027-07:00","sha1":"9d52a5b07f038f1233613d9962f9fbdacd8b3cd5","page_count":1,"file_size":161429,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.77.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77-1 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n Civil Action No.\n v.\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n GOWTHAM RAO,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER\nAND NOW, this ___ day of September, 2026, upon consideration of EPAM's Emergency\nMotion to Toll Requests for Admission Deadline, ECF No. 76, and the response, it is\nORDERED:\n1. ECF No. 76 is DENIED.\n2. The existing deadlines for EPAM to serve signed written answers or objections to Rao's\n requests for admission remain in effect. Those deadlines fall on September 14\u201316, 2026, as\n EPAM acknowledges in paragraph 2 of its motion.\n3. Under Rule 36(a)(3), a matter is admitted if EPAM fails to serve a timely signed written\n answer or objection addressed to it, subject to an applicable court order or stipulation\n changing the response period. Withdrawal or amendment of an admission remains governed\n by Rule 36(b).\n4. The September 16, 2026 evidentiary hearing and September 30, 2026 fact-discovery cutoff\n remain as previously ordered.\n5. This Order resolves ECF No. 76 only. It makes no determination of the merits of any RFA, the\n sufficiency of an answer or objection, or the separate request in ECF No. 70 to extend fact\n discovery.\nBY THE COURT:\n______________________________\n WENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T09:14:27.629518-07:00","document_number":"77","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"153024172663","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493106043/","id":493106043,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/77/2/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-10T09:14:55.505779-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T09:14:55.505804-07:00","sha1":"537758952f128d1deec02c8e0239bd70498100e7","page_count":2,"file_size":117799,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.77.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77-2 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n Civil Action No.\n v.\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n GOWTHAM RAO,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1 \u2014 SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 EMAIL TEXT\nDate: September 8, 2026, 11:45:44 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time\nFrom: Gowtham Rao \nSubject: Re: EPAM v. Rao, 25-cv-6260: Follow-Up on ECF #70\nIdentifier in the source export: 1a081b2a143aca04\nReproduction note. This exhibit reproduces Rao's message text from a retained email export,\nreformatted for ease of reference. The reproduced wording and punctuation are unchanged.\nParagraph numbers are editorial; line wrapping, spacing, and the sequence table are reformatted.\nQuoted earlier messages are omitted. The source email export is retained for comparison.\nMr. Beck,\nEmail \u00b6 1\nWould you please forward this response to Judge Beetlestone for consideration with EPAM\u2019s\nSeptember 8 follow-up regarding ECF No. 70.\nEmail \u00b6 2\nI respectfully ask the Court to deny EPAM\u2019s requested deadline extensions and maintain the\nexisting discovery response deadlines and September 30 fact-discovery cutoff. Consistent with\nRule 1\u2019s direction to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination, I ask the Court to\nconsider the prejudice and additional hardship those extensions would cause me.\nEmail \u00b6 3\nI have served my responses to EPAM\u2019s requests for admission, interrogatories, and requests for\nproduction, and made my productions available to EPAM. EPAM\u2019s need to prepare for the\nSeptember 16 hearing should not, by itself, justify postponing responses I need for my own\npreparation. Extending EPAM\u2019s September 14\u201316 RFA response deadlines beyond the hearing\nwould impair my ability to use those responses to identify EPAM\u2019s positions, narrow factual\ndisputes, and prepare for the hearing, while EPAM already has my discovery responses.\nEmail \u00b6 4\nFurther delay would also prolong the financial and health burdens described in ECF No. 72 at\npages 1\u20132.\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 1 \u2014 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77-2 Filed 09/10/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\nEmail \u00b6 5\nThe relevant sequence is:\nDate Event\nAugust 4 The Court denied my requested extension and maintained the spoliation-\n response deadline. (ECF No. 59.)\nAugust 10 EPAM initiated written discovery while I was preparing my spoliation\n response, due August 19. (ECF No. 70 at 3; ECF No. 52.)\nAugust 15\u201319 I served my RFAs on August 15\u201317 and filed my spoliation opposition\n on August 19. (ECF No. 72 at 2; ECF No. 62.)\nAugust 28\u2013 I served RFA responses, then interrogatory answers, then document\nSeptember 7 responses and productions, with supplements. (My August 28 and\n September 1, 5, and 7 service emails.)\nSeptember 14\u201316 EPAM\u2019s RFA responses are due September 14\u201316; the hearing is\n September 16. (ECF No. 70 at 1; ECF No. 52.)\nEmail \u00b6 6\nI worked within the Court\u2019s existing schedule while responding to the discovery EPAM initiated.\nI respectfully ask the Court to consider the parties\u2019 relative resources and the prejudice to my\nhearing preparation alongside EPAM\u2019s asserted burden.\nEmail \u00b6 7\nI also served requests for production on August 25 and interrogatories on August 27. (My service\nemails on those dates.) I request that the existing response deadlines for those requests also\nremain in place, together with the September 30 fact-discovery cutoff established in ECF No. 27.\nEmail \u00b6 8\nMy opposition at ECF No. 72, including its request-by-request appendix, remains unchanged. I\nwill participate in any discovery conference the Court schedules and can attend in person.\nEmail \u00b6 9\nIf the Court prefers or requires a docketed submission, I am prepared to submit this\ncorrespondence on the public docket, subject to applicable redaction requirements and Court\norders.\nRespectfully,\nGowtham Rao MD, PhD\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 1 \u2014 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T09:14:55.504787-07:00","document_number":"77","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"153024172664","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493106044/","id":493106044,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/77/3/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-10T09:15:06.023510-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T09:15:06.023529-07:00","sha1":"11bee4caa8f411ec0ab5aea43944c9806333dbd1","page_count":2,"file_size":116211,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.77.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77-3 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n Civil Action No.\n v.\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n GOWTHAM RAO,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n\n EXHIBIT 2\n\nJacob Oslick's July 31, 2026 scheduling email\nReproduction note. This exhibit reproduces the body of Jacob Oslick's message from the\nretained July 31 forwarded-email export, reformatted for ease of reference. The reproduced\nwording, punctuation, and party labels are unchanged. Paragraph numbers are editorial; line\nwrapping, spacing, and email-formatting marks are normalized. Earlier quoted correspondence,\nthe contact-signature block, and the confidentiality footer are omitted. The source email export is\nretained for comparison.\nFrom: Oslick, Jacob \nDate shown: July 31, 2026, 10:14 a.m.\nTo: Gowtham Rao ; Mike Beck \nCc: Yu, James ; Christoff, Matthew \nSubject: RE: EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB \u2013 Request to Establish\nBriefing Schedule (ECF No. 58)\nMr. Beck,\nEmail \u00b6 1\nWe represent Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc. in this matter. For purposes of\nclarity, Mr. Rao contacted us at 3:52 p.m. yesterday regarding his extension request, and\ndemanded a response by 11:00 a.m. this morning (see the attached). While there was no reason\nfor such a rush, we fully intended to respond by that time. But Mr. Rao then jumped the gun by\nwriting you this morning, before his own self-imposed deadline. Thus, while Mr. Rao writes that\nwe had \u201cnot indicated a position\u201d (which could be interpreted as us neither consenting nor\nopposing), it is more accurate to state that we had not yet responded at all. Pursuant to Judge\nBeetlestone\u2019s Policies and Procedures, Mr. Rao should have contacted us, provided us with\nsufficient time to indicate whether we consented to his request, and then filed his application as a\nmotion, or, if the parties reached an agreement of some kind, as a letter or a stipulation. (See\nPolicies and Procedures, Civil Cases, Sec. II.)\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 2 \u2014 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77-3 Filed 09/10/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\nEmail \u00b6 2\nIn terms of his request, Mr. Rao is mistaken when he contends that the Court\u2019s prior order did\nnot set an opposition deadline or a page limit. In fact, the Court\u2019s order stated that Mr. Rao\u2019s\nopposition was due August 19, and that he would have the same 30 pages for his opposition that\nwe had for our opening brief. (ECF #52). Plaintiff appears to have known this, as he asked us\nyesterday for a two-week extension \u2013 a request that does not make sense if Mr. Rao did not know\nhis opposition deadline.\nEmail \u00b6 3\nAll that said, we do not oppose a reasonable extension, so long as we are not prejudiced. But Mr.\nRao\u2019s proposal would prejudice us. If EPAM received the same one-week to reply as the current\nschedule, that would make its reply due September 8. This would place much of our reply time\nover Labor Day Weekend. I am EPAM\u2019s primary attorney on this matter, and already have plans\nto take my son camping on a Cub Scouts trip that weekend. As a result, I will be unavailable\nfrom Friday, September 4 through Monday, September 7. Further, the hearing on EPAM\u2019s\nmotion is currently set for September 16. Because this hearing will require extension preparation,\npresumably by all parties, pushing back our reply date further is not much of an option so long as\nthe current hearing date sticks.\nEmail \u00b6 4\nIn order to accommodate Plaintiff\u2019s requested date, we suggest that the Court adjourn the\nSeptember 16 hearing date, with the Court providing a list of alternative dates in late-September\nor early-October, and the parties\u2019 reporting back on a date after confirming the availability of\ntheir witnesses. The Court could then set Mr. Rao\u2019s opposition deadline for September 1, and\ngive us until September 15 to reply.\nEmail \u00b6 5\nAlternatively, if the Court prefers to stick with the current September 16 hearing date, then we\nask that Plaintiff\u2019s request be granted only in part, with his opposition due August 26 (a one-\nweek extension). Under this approach, EPAM would still have only one week to reply, making\nits reply due September 2. That would give the parties two weeks after the motion is fully briefed\nto prepare for the September 16 hearing.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJacob Oslick\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 2 \u2014 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T09:15:06.022699-07:00","document_number":"77","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"153024172665","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493106047/","id":493106047,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/77/4/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-10T09:15:14.860542-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T09:15:14.860563-07:00","sha1":"c3160bce69ad78d06928fbde2e0688b1849564b1","page_count":1,"file_size":266308,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.77.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77-4 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n Civil Action No.\n v.\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n GOWTHAM RAO,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n EXHIBIT 3\nSummary of EPAM's published financial results and Seyfarth's firm information\nThis exhibit summarizes the two public sources identified below. It is a compilation of selected\nreported facts, rather than a reproduction of either source. The links identify the complete\npublications.\n\u00a7 I. EPAM's 2025 financial results\nEPAM's February 19, 2026 results announcement reports revenue of $5.457 billion for the year\nended December 31, 2025. The announcement also reports $1.301 billion in cash, cash\nequivalents, and restricted cash at December 31, 2025. These are historical figures for the stated\nperiod and date.\nSource: EPAM Systems, Inc., EPAM Reports Results for Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2025\n(February 19, 2026), PDF pages 1 and 5. Publisher's complete results announcement.\n\u00a7 II. Seyfarth's published Am Law 100 information\nSeyfarth's May 1, 2025 announcement reports its appearance in The American Lawyer's annual\nAm Law 100 profile. Its announcement also reports approximately $932 million in firm revenue\nfor 2024.\nSource: Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Seyfarth's Ongoing Growth Spotlighted by The American Lawyer\n(May 1, 2025). Seyfarth's published announcement.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T09:15:14.859842-07:00","document_number":"77","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"153024172666","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493106048/","id":493106048,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/77/5/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-10T09:15:23.939290-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T09:15:23.939305-07:00","sha1":"fe6e62ae8659c9e5661524c6d4d2d49bcb541f54","page_count":3,"file_size":125970,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.77.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77-5 Filed 09/10/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n Civil Action No.\n v.\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n GOWTHAM RAO,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n\n EXHIBIT 4\nDiscovery responses, production, and iDS correspondence\nReproduction note. These excerpts are reformatted for ease of reference from retained email\nexports and the served RFP-response PDF. The reproduced wording and punctuation are\nunchanged. Section labels are editorial; line wrapping, spacing, and typeface are normalized.\nEmail times are Eastern Daylight Time. Unrelated passages, signatures, and quoted earlier chains\nare omitted except where identified below. The source email exports and served PDF are\nretained for comparison.\n\u00a7 I. Rao's service emails\nA. August 28, 2026, 5:30:29 p.m. \u2014 Rao; RFA responses\nAttached please find Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao's Responses and\nObjections to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Admission (Nos. 1\u201318), served today, August\n28, 2026, by electronic mail pursuant to Rule 5(b)(2)(E) and the parties' consent to electronic\nservice.\nB. September 1, 2026, 1:20:25 p.m. \u2014 Rao; interrogatory answers\nAttached please find Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao\u2019s Answers and\nObjections to Plaintiff\u2019s First Set of Interrogatories and the accompanying privilege log, served\ntoday, September 1, 2026, by electronic mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n5(b)(2)(E) and the parties\u2019 written consent to electronic service.\nC. September 5, 2026, 5:01:30 p.m. \u2014 Rao; RFP responses and production\nAttached please find Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao\u2019s Responses and\nObjections to Plaintiff EPAM Systems, Inc.\u2019s First Request for the Production of Documents\n(Nos. 1\u201370), together with the redaction log those Responses describe, served today, September\n5, 2026, by electronic mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E) and the\nparties\u2019 written consent to electronic service.\nAt 5:03:45 p.m., Rao sent the follow-up attaching the response and redaction-log PDFs:\nThese PDFs are uploaded to Kiteworks. I'm attaching them here for your additional convenience.\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 4 \u2014 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77-5 Filed 09/10/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n\u00a7 II. Correspondence about the iDS collection and production format\nA. August 20, 2026, 4:18:18 p.m. \u2014 Counsel for EPAM; iDS-production proposal\nRegarding the documents housed in the iDS space, we currently have limited control over those\ndocuments. If you give consent for iDS to prepare a production of all documents within the\ndatabase in native format, along with all extracted text and available metadata fields, to Seyfarth,\nwe will consider your production obligations satisfied for the documents that are presently\navailable to Seyfarth within the database. Similarly, we will consider your production obligations\nsatisfied for any additional documents processed into that database by iDS (such as the 79,000\ndocuments that you have represented you have released, and that we ask iDS to make available\nto us if, in fact, those documents are made available), as long as those documents are also\nproduced to Seyfarth in the same manner. Obviously, there are a significant number of other\nsources that may contain responsive documents and information that are not within the iDS\ndatabase available to Seyfarth, including documents collected by iDS in December 2025 that\nwere not identified for processing at the time, any documents or information that were created,\nmodified, or sent after the iDS collections in December 2025, or documents and information\nfrom sources that were not previously identified or collected (such as Generative AI platforms).\nB. September 2, 2026, 11:22:04 a.m. \u2014 Rao; format and iDS proposals\nFormat. I cannot afford the vendors you named. I have prepared the production in the form you\nasked for \u2014 searchable Bates-stamped PDFs, natives for spreadsheets and media, extracted text,\nand DAT/CSV load files with your Instruction 7 fields plus SHA-256 \u2014 using my own software\n(prefix GRAO, to avoid confusion with iDS's RAO numbers). If you find a discrepancy once you\nhave it, tell me and I will adjust it; I ask for reasonable accommodation as a pro se party\nproducing without a vendor.\niDS. I do not consent to iDS delivering \"all documents within the database.\" That population is\noverwhelmingly false-positive and nonresponsive, and EPAM already has in Relativity\neverything it chose to promote. What I will consent to is targeted extraction from the forensic\nimages under criteria I define, which my responses will describe; I will share the criteria with\nyou before iDS runs them, and iDS's fees are EPAM's under Protocol \u00a7 V(a). If EPAM prefers\nnot to use that route for any category, tell me and I will confer.\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 4 \u2014 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 77-5 Filed 09/10/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\nC. September 4, 2026, 10:10:48 a.m. \u2014 Counsel for EPAM; inline replies\nReply to the format paragraph:\nThis should be fine, but if we have difficulty reading the materials you sent us, or certain data is\nnot accessible, we may need to reassess. We won\u2019t know this until we get your production.\nBoth reply paragraphs concerning iDS:\nPlease send us your responses and objections. If materials are responsive, they must be produced\nto EPAM in a manner which enables us to have full access to all documents subject to discovery,\nnot the partial access that we currently have to certain documents. Further, the subset of\ndocuments that we originally sought to promote is not coextensive with what is discoverable. We\nfurther note that, although you represented to the Court, under penalty of perjury, that you\nreleased 84,000 documents to us, those representations were false \u2013 you have refused to release\nanything beyond the initial set we sought to promote.\nWe proposed a production from iDS as a cost-effective way to produce documents that are\nalready in the database, but are open to other ways. What we oppose is you, unilaterally,\nimposing \u201ccriteria\u201d which will decide what documents we will obtain and under what format we\nreceive them. If material is discoverable, we are entitled to it \u2013 it cannot be unilaterally withheld.\nBut, without seeing your criteria, we cannot say more right now.\n\u00a7 III. Production method and EPAM's acknowledgment\nA. September 5, 2026 served RFP responses, Production Method and the December 12\nImage, pages 7\u20139 (selected passages)\nVolume and form. With these responses I am producing volume GRAO_PROD_000, Bates-\nnumbered GRAO000001 through GRAO007203 (7,203 pages; 1,956 documents), as text-\nsearchable Bates-stamped PDFs, with natives for spreadsheets, messages, audio, git bundles, and\nmedia, document-level extracted text, DAT/CSV load files carrying the fields in Instruction No.\n7 and SHA-256 values, and a request-to-Bates map (REQUEST_PRODUCTION_MAP.csv) that\nidentifies the Request or Requests to which each document responds (Instruction No. 4; Rule\n34(b)(2)(E)(i)).\nWhat I produce. For these Requests the iDS collection is not the source of production. I respond\nto these Requests from what I hold. For each Request I have identified responsive documents\nfrom my recollection and a reasonable search of the sources I now have, whatever their date, and\nI produce them under GRAO numbers in the form stated in paragraph 1.\nWhich copy controls. A document produced from my sources today is the copy as I now keep it;\nthe copy that existed on December 12, 2025 is in the December 12 image, and where the two\ndiffer the copy in the December 12 image controls.\nB. September 8, 2026, 10:16:31 p.m. \u2014 Counsel for EPAM; second body paragraph of the\nhearing-exhibit email\nThat said, you produced over 7500 pages of documents, including several hours of alleged\nrecordings, over the weekend. We did not know about these documents when we exchanged\nemails on Friday, and we have not fully gone through them. We are reviewing them, and reserve\nthe right to add additional exhibits to the extent they are germane to the question of spoliation\nand/or to use these documents for impeachment purposes.\n\n\n\n Exhibit 4 \u2014 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T09:15:23.938695-07:00","document_number":"77","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"153024172667","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-10T09:14:16.427307-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T09:53:13.898539-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-10","time_filed":"12:09:02","entry_number":77,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":210,"description":"Response in Opposition to EPAMS Emergency Motion to Toll Requests for Admission Deadline (ECF No. 76) (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Cover Page) (mbh) (Entered: 09/10/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477458972/","id":477458972,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493053619/","id":493053619,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/76/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-09T17:40:00.077835-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T05:56:54.072084-07:00","sha1":"b751106ddaaf229ade95dc7ec572613212d95141","page_count":5,"file_size":175314,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.76.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76 Filed 09/09/26 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n - against - Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n\nGOWTHAM RAO,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.\u2019S\n EMERGENCY MOTION TO TOLL REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION DEADLINE\n\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc. (\u201cEPAM\u201d), by its attorneys,\n\nsubmits this Emergency Motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and/or this Court\u2019s Individual\n\nPolicies and Procedures regarding extensions of time (see Civil Cases \u00a7 II), seeking to toll its\n\ndeadline to respond to Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao\u2019s requests for admission\n\n(\u201cRFAs\u201d). As grounds for this motion, EPAM states as follows:\n\n 1. Between August 15-17, 2026, Rao served EPAM with approximately 471 RFAs\n\n(styled as 211 RFAs, but really 471 RFAs including purported subparts, each of which Rao\n\nacknowledged seek admission of a \u201cseparate, discrete factual proposition\u201d). (See ECF #70 at 1.)\n\n 2. EPAM\u2019s deadlines to serve responses and objections to the RFAs fall on September\n\n14-16, 2026. Those deadlines are next week, on the two days before and the day of the September\n\n16, 2026 evidentiary hearing on EPAM\u2019s sanctions motion.\n\n 3. EPAM immediately sought to meet-and-confer with Rao regarding his RFAs.\n\nThen, on August 26, 2026, at the earliest practical opportunity after meet-and-confer efforts were\n\nexhausted, EPAM requested a discovery conference, pursuant to this Court\u2019s Individual Policies\n\nand Procedures (see Civil Cases \u00a7 III(c)(2)), in advance of an anticipated motion for a protective\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76 Filed 09/09/26 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\norder. (See ECF #70.) The relief it sought was quashing the RFAs, and entering a protective order\n\nrestricting Rao to no more than 25 RFAs (including subparts). (Id.) EPAM also sought an\n\nextension of the discovery schedule.\n\n 4. On September 9, 2026, through correspondence with the Court\u2019s deputy, the Court\n\ngranted EPAM leave to file a motion for a protective order. However, this correspondence did not\n\naddress whether EPAM\u2019s deadline to serve objections and responses to the RFAs was tolled,\n\npending its forthcoming motion.\n\n 5. If EPAM\u2019s deadline to serve objections and responses to the RFAs is not tolled\n\npending a Court decision on a protective order, any motion for protective order would essentially\n\nbe moot. Even if EPAM filed its motion for a protective order tomorrow, the motion would not\n\nbe decided before the Monday deadline for EPAM to begin serving responses and objections. And,\n\nEPAM would need time before the deadline to prepare those responses and objections. Once\n\nEPAM expends the enormous amount of time needed to prepare objections and responses to the\n\nRFAs, the question of whether the RFAs should be quashed to save EPAM that burden is moot.\n\nInstead, any future discovery motion practice would focus on different questions entirely, such as\n\nthe merits of any objections that EPAM asserted.\n\n 6. Further, RFAs work differently than other discovery devices. Under Fed. R. Civ.\n\nP. 36(a)(3), a \u201cmatter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the\n\nrequest is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the\n\nmatter.\u201d Thus, if the Court does not toll EPAM\u2019s response deadline, and EPAM does not manage\n\nto serve responses and objections to all 471 RFAs, EPAM could be deemed to admit the RFAs \u2013\n\nirrespective of whether the RFAs are even proper.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76 Filed 09/09/26 Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\n 7. The timing further warrants granting EPAM\u2019s requested tolling. The evidentiary\n\nhearing is scheduled for September 16. EPAM needs time to prepare for that hearing. As EPAM\n\npreviously noted, even if it spent just five minutes responding to each RFA (and certain RFAs\n\nwould assuredly take much longer), that would be over 39 hours of attorney time. The Court\n\nshould not permit Rao to \u201cdeluge EPAM with discovery in the critical preparation time for the\n\nevidentiary hearing.\u201d (See ECF #70 at 3.)\n\n 8. Further, this Saturday and Sunday is Rosh HaShanah (the first of the Jewish High\n\nHolidays). EPAM\u2019s lead counsel will be out-of-pocket attending to religious obligations the entire\n\nweekend, and will be unable to work on RFA responses (or evidentiary hearing preparation) during\n\nthat time.\n\n 9. Rao refuses to consent to tolling, claiming that he needs EPAM\u2019s RFA responses\n\nto \u201cuse them for the hearing.\u201d (See Ex. 1.) But, by even Rao\u2019s telling, only \u201cRFAs 137, 138, and\n\n139\u201d relate to either \u201cspoliation, preservation, or hearing-related purposes.\u201d (Id.) And, of those,\n\nonly RFAs 137(a) and 137(b) appear to even remotely relate to Rao\u2019s spoliation of evidence, the\n\nsubject of the September 16 hearing. (See ECF #70-3, PDF pages 10-11.)\n\n 10. Aside from Rao\u2019s claims regarding RFAs 137-139, he supplies no reason for why\n\nhe supposedly needs responses to 471 RFAs before the evidentiary hearing.\n\n 11. Before the Court even decides the merits of EPAM\u2019s motion for a protective order,\n\nthe Court should not permit this forthcoming motion to become moot, or force EPAM to incur the\n\ninjury that its motion seeks to avoid, particularly in the days before the evidentiary hearing and\n\nwith the Jewish High Holidays looming.\n\n 12. Accordingly, EPAM respectfully requests that the Court toll EPAM\u2019s deadline to\n\nrespond to the RFAs, pending further order of the Court.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76 Filed 09/09/26 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\n 13. EPAM intends to file its motion for a protective order on or before September 18,\n\n2026 (i.e., two days after the evidentiary hearing), or at some other time ordered by the Court.\n\n 14. THEREFORE, EPAM respectfully requests that the Court toll its obligation to\n\nrespond to Rao\u2019s RFAs, pending further order of the Court.\n\nDated: September 9, 2026\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n\n By its attorneys,\n\n\n By: /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick (Pa. Bar No. 311028)\n joslick@seyfarth.com\n James S. Yu (pro hac vice admitted)\n jyu@seyfarth.com\n Brooke Gary (admitted pro hac vice)\n brgary@seyfarth.com\n 620 Eighth Avenue\n New York, New York 10018-1405\n (212) 218-5500\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76 Filed 09/09/26 Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on September 9, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing\n\nPlaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc.\u2019s Emergency Motion To Toll Requests\n\nFor Admission Deadline with the Clerk of the District Court using the CM/ECF system, and that\n\na copy of the foregoing was served to Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao via\n\nelectronic mail to the following:\n\n GOWTHAM ADAMANE RAO\n 184 Mansgrove Rd.\n Princeton, NJ 08540\n gowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n gowthamrao@gmail.com\n\n\n /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T05:56:54.068011-07:00","document_number":"76","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024170388","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493074429/","id":493074429,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/76/1/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-10T05:56:05.100307-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T05:56:36.889149-07:00","sha1":"d1d04187122f4b29e599175d533b67448360f01f","page_count":8,"file_size":433339,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.76.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76-1 Filed 09/09/26 Page 1 of 8\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76-1 Filed 09/09/26 Page 2 of 8\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Gowtham Rao \nSent: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 12:30 PM\nTo: Oslick, Jacob\nCc: Mike Beck; Gowtham Rao\nSubject: Re: EPAM v. Rao, 25-cv-6260: Follow-Up on ECF #70\n\n\n\n External Email \u2013 Do Not Click Links or Attachments Unless You Know They Are Safe\n\nMr. Beck,\n\nPlease forward this brief clarification to Judge Beetlestone.\n\nI am representing myself and have put substantial work into preparing my RFAs and explaining the\npurpose of each request in ECF No. 72-1.\n\nThese requests are important to how I plan to establish the facts supporting my defenses and\ncounterclaims. I ask that their purposes be considered together and in the context of my overall\ndiscovery plan.\n\nECF No. 72-1 at page 29 already explains the spoliation, preservation and hearing-related purposes of\nRFAs 137, 138, and 139. I have now written to Mr. Oslick separately to bringing those entries to EPAM's\nattention.\n\nI apologize for the additional correspondence and appreciate the Court\u2019s time. My opposition to tolling\nremains unchanged, and I will address the RFA issues further in the briefing the Court has requested.\n\nRespectfully,\nDr. Gowtham A. Rao\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, Pro Se\n\n\nOn Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 11:56 AM Oslick, Jacob wrote:\n\n Mr. Beck,\n\n\n\n Please forward this response to Dr. Rao\u2019s email below to Judge Beetlestone.\n\n\n\n In brief, Dr. Rao\u2019s response exemplifies why tolling of EPAM\u2019s response deadline is required.\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76-1 Filed 09/09/26 Page 3 of 8\n\nDr. Rao claims that he needs EPAM\u2019s responses to \u201cidentify its positions and narrow factual disputes\u201d in order\nto \u201cuse them for the hearing.\u201d But the hearing concerns his spoliation of evidence. Dr. Rao does not identify\nwhich (if any) of the 471 RFAs supposedly require responses that relate to the limited issues at stake next\nweek. He simply wants EPAM to respond to all of them by Sep. 14-16 (Mon-Wed of next week), frustrating\nits ability to prepare for the September 16 hearing, and effectively denying the Court even the ability to\naddress the merits of a protective order motion that will almost assuredly not be fully-briefed much less\ndecided by Monday.\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n\nJacob Oslick\n\n\n\n\nJacob Oslick | Counsel | Seyfarth Shaw LLP\n620 Eighth Avenue | New York, New York 10018-1405 [google.com]\nDirect: +1-212-218-6480 | Mobile: +1-917-613-2523\nN.Y. Bar No. 4275699; Pa. Bar No. 311028\nJOslick@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com\n\n\n\n\nCONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any\nunauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender\nimmediately and delete it from your system.\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Gowtham Rao \nSent: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 11:00 AM\nTo: Oslick, Jacob \nCc: Mike Beck ; Gowtham Rao \nSubject: Re: EPAM v. Rao, 25-cv-6260: Follow-Up on ECF #70\n\n\n\nMr. Beck , Would you please forward this brief response to Judge Beetlestone for consider ation with EPAM\u2019s 10: 50 a . m. email . I oppose EPAM\u2019s request to toll its September 14\u201316 RFA response deadlines pending a decisi on on its forthcomi ng motion.\n\n\n\n\nMr. Beck,\n\n\n\n\nWould you please forward this brief response to Judge Beetlestone for consideration with EPAM\u2019s 10:50 a.m.\nemail.\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76-1 Filed 09/09/26 Page 4 of 8\nI oppose EPAM\u2019s request to toll its September 14\u201316 RFA response deadlines pending a decision on its\nforthcoming motion. In my September 8 email, I asked the Court to maintain the existing discovery response\ndeadlines and September 30 fact-discovery cutoff, consistent with my opposition at ECF No. 72. My position\nremains unchanged.\n\n\n\n\nI have planned and conducted my discovery work under the Court\u2019s existing schedule. As summarized in\nyesterday\u2019s email, between August 28 and September 7, I served my RFA responses, interrogatory answers,\ndocument responses, productions, and supplements. I am now preparing subpoenas and arranging\ndepositions within the September 30 discovery period while also preparing for the September 16 hearing.\n\n\n\n\nTolling would postpone EPAM\u2019s obligation to provide responses that I need to identify its positions and narrow\nfactual disputes. If those responses are delayed, I will lose the opportunity to use them for the hearing, while\nmy responses and productions are already available to EPAM. Yesterday\u2019s email explained that prejudice and\nthe additional hardship that delay would cause.\n\n\n\n\nI respectfully ask the Court to maintain the existing deadlines while briefing proceeds and to consider this\nprejudice before granting any interim suspension. I will address the merits of EPAM\u2019s motion in the briefing\nthe Court directs.\n\n\n\n\nRespectfully,\nDr. Gowtham A. Rao\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, Pro Se\n\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 10:50 AM Oslick, Jacob wrote:\n\n Mr. Beck,\n\n\n\n Can EPAM consider its obligation to respond to the RFAs tolled, pending a decision on the motion for a\n protective order? Otherwise, EPAM\u2019s motion would effectively be mooted by the pending September 14-16\n RFA deadlines to respond to the RFAs. If so, is there a time by which EPAM should file its motion?\n\n\n\n Relatedly, can EPAM\u2019s forthcoming motion for a protective order also address its pending request for a\n discovery extension (addressed already in ECF #70)? The parties have had a large amount of back-and-forth\n relating to the current September 30 deadline, and I believe having this issue addressed now may help to\n\n 3\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76-1 Filed 09/09/26 Page 5 of 8\n\navoid the need for EPAM (or Defendant) to seek urgent relief from the Court regarding other discovery\nmatters.\n\n\n\nI apologize for the flurry of questions, but I want to make sure that we provide Judge Beetlestone what she\nis requesting, and further ensure that we not exceed the scope of the leave that she has granted for us to\nfile the motion.\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n\nJacob Oslick\n\n\n\n\nJacob Oslick | Counsel | Seyfarth Shaw LLP\n620 Eighth Avenue | New York, New York 10018-1405 [google.com]\nDirect: +1-212-218-6480 | Mobile: +1-917-613-2523\nN.Y. Bar No. 4275699; Pa. Bar No. 311028\nJOslick@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com\n\n\n\n\n CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any\n unauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender\n immediately and delete it from your system.\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Mike Beck \nSent: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 9:31 AM\nTo: Oslick, Jacob \nCc: Gowtham Rao ; Gowtham Rao \nSubject: RE: EPAM v. Rao, 25-cv-6260: Follow-Up on ECF #70\n\n\n\nYes. As Judge lays out in the Rule 16 confere nce and as refle cted in her poli cies a nd procedures, fili ng a letter on the doc ket is the best way to bring a discovery issue to her attention. If s he beli eves she can resolve it with a ca ll, she\n\n\n\n\nYes. As Judge lays out in the Rule 16 conference and as reflected in her policies and procedures, filing a\nletter on the docket is the best way to bring a discovery issue to her attention. If she believes she can\nresolve it with a call, she will schedule that conversation. If, however, it is a legal issue where she\nneeds briefing, she will ask for a motion, as she has done here. Specifically she wants briefing on the\nRFA issue.\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76-1 Filed 09/09/26 Page 6 of 8\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Oslick, Jacob \nSent: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 9:16 AM\nTo: Mike Beck \nCc: Gowtham Rao ; Gowtham Rao \nSubject: RE: EPAM v. Rao, 25-cv-6260: Follow-Up on ECF #70\n\n\n\n\nCAUTION - EXTERNAL:\n\n\n\n\nMr. Beck,\n\n\n\nMy apologies, but I\u2019m not sure exactly what Judge Beetlestone is requesting. EPAM already filed a discovery\nletter request on the docket, pursuant to Judge Beetlestone\u2019s polices (see ECF #70). Is she now requesting\nbriefing on a formal motion for a protective order? Or is she asking that the below correspondence be filed\non the docket?\n\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n\nJacob Oslick\n\n\n\nJacob Oslick | Counsel | Seyfarth Shaw LLP\n620 Eighth Avenue | New York, New York 10018-1405 [google.com]\nDirect: +1-212-218-6480 | Mobile: +1-917-613-2523\nN.Y. Bar No. 4275699; Pa. Bar No. 311028\nJOslick@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com\n\n\n\n\nCONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any\nunauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender\nimmediately and delete it from your system.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76-1 Filed 09/09/26 Page 7 of 8\n\nFrom: Mike Beck \nSent: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 9:10 AM\nTo: Oslick, Jacob \nCc: Gowtham Rao ; Gowtham Rao \nSubject: RE: EPAM v. Rao, 25-cv-6260: Follow-Up on ECF #70\n\n\n\nJudge Beetlestone said she wants briefing on the RFA issues filed on the doc ket as well Fr om: Osli ck, Jacob Se nt: Tuesday, September 8, 20 26 10: 17 AM To: Mike Beck Cc: Gowt ham\n\n\n\n\nJudge Beetlestone said she wants briefing on the RFA issues filed on the docket as well\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Oslick, Jacob \nSent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 10:17 AM\nTo: Mike Beck \nCc: Gowtham Rao ; Gowtham Rao \nSubject: EPAM v. Rao, 25-cv-6260: Follow-Up on ECF #70\n\n\n\n\n CAUTION - EXTERNAL:\n\n\n\n\nMr. Beck,\n\n\n\nWe represent Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant EPAM in this matter. We write to follow-up regarding\nEPAM\u2019s August 26, 2026 letter (ECF #70), requesting a discovery conference in connection with: (a) an\nintended motion for a protective order in connection with Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao\u2019s\nservice of 471 requests for admission (styled as 211 requests for admission, but really 471 separate\nrequests including subparts); and (b) an extension of the discovery deadline.\n\n\n\nEPAM\u2019s responses to the requests for admission are due September 14-16. That is not only next week,\nbut also falls on the days before and on the September 16 hearing on EPAM\u2019s motion concerning\nspoliation of evidence, when EPAM should be preparing for and attending the hearing. If the Court does\nnot act on EPAM\u2019s letter promptly, its request for relief as to the 471 requests for admission will\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76-1 Filed 09/09/26 Page 8 of 8\n\neffectively be mooted by the pending deadlines. EPAM can be broadly available this week for a\ndiscovery conference, with the exception of between 2-3 p.m. today.\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n\nJacob Oslick\n\nJacob Oslick | Counsel | Seyfarth Shaw LLP\n620 Eighth Avenue | New York, New York 10018-1405 [google.com]\nDirect: +1-212-218-6480 | Mobile: +1-917-613-2523\nN.Y. Bar No. 4275699; Pa. Bar No. 311028\nJOslick@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com\n\n\n\n\nCONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any\nunauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender\nimmediately and delete it from your system.\n\n\n\n\nCAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening\nattachments or clicking on links.\n\n\n\n\nCAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution when opening\nattachments or clicking on links.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T05:56:36.888827-07:00","document_number":"76","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"153024170389","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 1","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493074430/","id":493074430,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/76/2/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-10T05:56:05.667026-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T05:57:04.914952-07:00","sha1":"73e6ca91191bfdffec8227246ba9020ee7dbe53c","page_count":1,"file_size":105119,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.76.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 76-2 Filed 09/09/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n - against - Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n\nGOWTHAM RAO,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n Upon consideration of Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc.\u2019s\n\nEmergency Motion to toll its deadline to respond to Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Gowtham\n\nRao\u2019s requests for admission, it is hereby ORDERED that this motion is GRANTED. EPAM\u2019s\n\ndeadline to respond to Rao\u2019s requests for admission is TOLLED, pending further order of the\n\nCourt.\n\nDated: September __, 2026\n\n SO ORDERED:\n\n\n\n _______________________________________\n Hon. Wendy Beetlestone, U.S.D.J.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T05:57:04.914648-07:00","document_number":"76","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"153024170390","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-09T17:40:00.018211-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T05:55:44.239352-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-09","time_filed":"19:57:17","entry_number":76,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-09.002","pacer_sequence_number":208,"description":"Emergency MOTION to Toll Requests for Admissions Deadline filed by EPAM SYSTEMS, INC... (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(OSLICK, JACOB) (Entered: 09/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477365408/","id":477365408,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492958215/","id":492958215,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/75/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-09T09:29:19.679388-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T05:55:53.072920-07:00","sha1":"d4ef40d5e3a35f4ebf4496cd7b528427370d646b","page_count":2,"file_size":75206,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.75.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 75 Filed 09/09/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc., CIVIL ACTION\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n\n v.\n NO. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nGOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n ORDER\n\n AND NOW, this 9 t h day of September, 2026, upon consideration of the\n\nUncontested Motion of Defendant Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD (pro se), for Leave to Bring\n\nElectronic Devices into the Courthouse for the September 16, 2026 Evidentiary Hearing and All\n\nProceedings in this Action, and Plaintiff having consented, it is hereby ORDERED that the\n\nMotion is GRANTED, as follows:\n\n 1. Notwithstanding the Standing Order of May 16, 2019 regarding cameras and personal\n\nelectronic devices, Defendant Gowtham Rao may bring up to two laptop computers (one\n\npresentation laptop and one work-product/defense workstation), one cellular telephone, and\n\nassociated charging cords, connection cables, and external storage media into the James A.\n\nByrne United States Courthouse (601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), into\n\nCourtroom 10-A, and into any other courtroom or conference room designated for proceedings in\n\nthis action, for the evidentiary hearing scheduled for September 16, 2026 at 2:00 PM, for any\n\ncontinued or rescheduled session thereof, for any pre-hearing technology setup or playback test\n\narranged with the Courtroom Deputy, and for all future in-person hearings, conferences, oral\n\narguments, and trial proceedings in Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB;\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 75 Filed 09/09/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n 2. The United States Marshals Service and Court Security Officers shall permit\n\nDefendant to pass through courthouse security screening with these authorized devices and\n\naccessories upon presentation of a copy of this Order and government-issued photo\n\nidentification;\n\n 3. Defendant is authorized to access available courthouse or courtroom wireless internet\n\nconnectivity or, if unavailable, operate the cellular telephone in silent mode solely as a wireless\n\nhotspot/data tether for the laptop computers;\n\n 4. The devices shall be used exclusively for case-related purposes at counsel table and,\n\nfor the presentation of exhibits and any video or demonstrative the Court permits, at the lectern\n\nor evidence presentation station. All device audio must remain muted except during Court-\n\npermitted playback through the courtroom system. No audio recording, video recording,\n\ntranscription, photography, or broadcasting of any kind may be made inside the courthouse or\n\ncourtroom; and\n\n 5. The Court may modify or revoke this Order at any time in the interest of justice, and\n\nany violation of the foregoing terms may result in immediate confiscation of the devices and\n\nfurther sanctions.\n\n\n BY THE COURT:\n S/ WENDY BEETLESTONE\n ______________________________\n WENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T05:55:53.067414-07:00","document_number":"75","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024167603","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-09T09:29:19.657296-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T10:38:14.044583-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-09","time_filed":"11:30:25","entry_number":75,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-09.001","pacer_sequence_number":206,"description":"ORDER THAT DEFENDANT GOWTHAM RAO'S UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO BRING ELECTRONIC DEVICES INTO THE COURTHOUSE FOR THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY CHIEF JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE ON 9/9/26. 9/9/26 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (mbh) (Entered: 09/09/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477262461/","id":477262461,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492852131/","id":492852131,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-08T14:13:15.249308-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:13:15.249339-07:00","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":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-08T14:13:12.628102-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:13:12.628130-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-08","time_filed":null,"entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"NOTICE of Hearing: Evidentiary hearing on the spoliation motion shall be rescheduled for September 16, 2026, at 10:00 AM IN Courtroom 10A BEFORE CHIEF JUDGE WENDY BEETLESTONE.(mb)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477201423/","id":477201423,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492789792/","id":492789792,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-09-08T09:18:17.962399-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T09:18:17.962411-07:00","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":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-08T09:18:17.951096-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T09:18:17.951108-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-08","time_filed":"11:16:50","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477179962/","id":477179962,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492768047/","id":492768047,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/74/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-08T07:53:52.466528-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T14:01:18.881555-07:00","sha1":"7b2d3c40d5c52f33f6659d58dceb88da2ad53e29","page_count":7,"file_size":79917,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.74.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":1,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 74 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc., CIVIL ACTION\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n\n v.\n NO. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nGOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n DEFENDANT GOWTHAM RAO'S UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO\nBRING ELECTRONIC DEVICES INTO THE COURTHOUSE FOR THE SEPTEMBER\n 16, 2026 EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION\n (PRO SE)\n\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Dr. Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD, proceeding pro se,\n\nrespectfully moves for an order permitting him to bring two laptop computers (a presentation\n\nlaptop and a work-product/defense workstation), one cellular telephone, and necessary peripheral\n\naccessories (charging adapters, connection cables, and external storage media) into the James A.\n\nByrne United States Courthouse (601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), into\n\nCourtroom 10-A, and into any other designated courtroom or conference room, for the\n\nevidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's spoliation motion scheduled for September 16, 2026 at 2:00\n\nPM (ECF 52), for any rescheduled, continued, or multi-day sessions thereof, for any pre-hearing\n\ntechnology setup or playback test coordinated with the Courtroom Deputy, and for all future in-\n\nperson hearings, conferences, arguments, and trial proceedings in this action. Plaintiff consents.\n\nIn support, Defendant states:\n\n 1. A Court order is required for a pro se litigant to bring devices past security.\n\nUnder the Court's Standing Order of May 16, 2019 (effective June 3, 2019) regarding cameras\n\nand personal electronic devices, all visitors must place laptops, phones, and similar devices in a\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 74 Filed 09/04/26 Page 2 of 7\n\n\n\n\nlocked pouch at the security checkpoint, \"[u]nless otherwise ordered by the Chief Judge, or the\n\npresiding judge in a specific case.\" Standing Order \u00b6\u00b6 2, 4. Attorneys with bar credentials are\n\nexempt (\u00b6 4(a)); a pro se litigant is not. Without an order, Defendant cannot bring a laptop into\n\nCourtroom 10-A at all.\n\n 2. The Court has indicated a video would be helpful, and playback requires a\n\nlaptop. At the May 20, 2026 status conference, the Court indicated that it would find a short\n\nvideo helpful in following the technical sequence at issue in Plaintiff's motion for sanctions (ECF\n\n58). Defendant intends to present a video of approximately five minutes at the September 16\n\nhearing. Courtroom 10-A is one of the Court's full electronic courtrooms, and its evidence\n\npresentation station accepts a laptop connection by HDMI or VGA at the lectern and at counsel\n\ntable. Playback from Defendant's presentation laptop is the most reliable method, and that laptop\n\nalso carries the file for delivery to the Court's own system as a backup. On September 2, 2026,\n\nDefendant wrote to the Courtroom Deputy, copying Plaintiff's counsel, to request the Court's\n\nguidance on the video's format and delivery and to ask whether he may arrive early on\n\nSeptember 16 to test playback.\n\n 3. Need for laptops at counsel table alongside paper records. Defendant represents\n\nhimself pro se in this litigation. The case record Defendant must navigate, display, and cite\n\nduring hearings and trial is predominantly digital\u2014encompassing tens of thousands of pages of\n\nECF filings, forensic expert reports, database extracts, source code repositories, and electronic\n\ncommunications\u2014supplemented by voluminous paper binders and exhibits. Functional laptop\n\ncomputers at counsel table are indispensable for Defendant to present digital evidence, cross-\n\nexamine witnesses, review the electronic record, and conduct legal argument on equal footing.\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 74 Filed 09/04/26 Page 3 of 7\n\n\n\n\n 4. The devices and the necessity of two laptops. Defendant seeks permission to bring:\n\n(a) two laptop computers (one dedicated to courtroom evidence presentation and display, and a\n\nsecond dedicated to private review of work-product outlines, defense notes, and real-time record\n\nsearching); (b) one cellular telephone; and (c) necessary power adapters, connection cables, and\n\nexternal storage drives containing local copies of the case record. Having two laptops is\n\noperationally essential: when one laptop is connected to the courtroom display monitors or\n\nevidence presentation system to exhibit public documents to the Court and witnesses, the second\n\nlaptop allows Defendant at counsel table to privately review trial outlines, work-product\n\nannotations, and legal research without risking inadvertent public projection or disclosure to\n\nopposing counsel or the gallery. In addition, the second laptop provides immediate hardware\n\nredundancy in the event of equipment malfunction or battery depletion.\n\n 5. Internet access, courtroom connectivity, and silent cellular hotspot. Defendant\n\nrequires active internet connectivity during proceedings to access the Court's CM/ECF docket in\n\nreal time, review newly served filings or exhibits, and conduct legal research. Defendant requests\n\nauthorization to access the courthouse or courtroom wireless network (if made available to\n\nlitigants) or, in the alternative, permission to operate the cellular telephone in silent mode solely\n\nas a wireless hotspot/data tether for the laptop computers. Defendant will ensure that all ringer,\n\nnotification, vibration, and call functions on the cellular phone remain strictly disabled at all\n\ntimes inside the courtroom.\n\n 6. Standing authorization for all case proceedings. To avoid administrative\n\ninconvenience to the Court, Chambers, and the Clerk of Court resulting from repeated, event-\n\nspecific motions, Defendant respectfully requests that the authorization apply not only to the\n\nSeptember 16, 2026 evidentiary hearing (and any continued or rescheduled sessions thereof), but\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 74 Filed 09/04/26 Page 4 of 7\n\n\n\n\nas a standing authorization for all future in-person hearings, pretrial conferences, oral arguments,\n\nand trial sessions in this action (Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB), as well as any advance\n\ntechnology walkthroughs or playback tests coordinated with the Courtroom Deputy.\n\n 7. Strict adherence to courtroom decorum and prohibition on recording. Defendant\n\nis fully cognizant of the Court's strict rules regarding courtroom decorum and electronic devices.\n\n(Policies and Procedures of Judge Beetlestone, Preliminary General Matters \u00a7 VIII.F; Local Civil\n\nRule 83.3; Standing Order \u00b6\u00b6 1, 5.) Defendant explicitly affirms and commits that: (a) all devices\n\nwill be used strictly at counsel table and, for presentation of exhibits and the video, at the lectern\n\nor evidence presentation station, and only for case-related purposes; (b) no audio recording,\n\nvideo recording, photography, screen capture, live broadcasting, transcription, or social media\n\ntransmissions of any kind will occur; (c) no telephone calls will be placed or received, and no\n\npersonal messaging will occur in the courtroom; and (d) all audio output on all devices will\n\nremain muted except during Court-permitted playback of the video through the courtroom\n\nsystem. Defendant understands that any violation of these conditions will subject the devices to\n\nimmediate confiscation and the user to sanctions.\n\n 8. Advance coordination with Courtroom Deputy. Consistent with Judge Beetlestone's\n\nPolicies and Procedures (Preliminary General Matters \u00a7 III.B.3; Trial Procedure \u00a7 X.E),\n\nDefendant has contacted the Courtroom Deputy, as described in Paragraph 2, and will continue\n\nto coordinate on courtroom evidence-presentation equipment, display connectivity\n\n(HDMI/VGA), delivery of the video file, and setup timing.\n\n 9. Position of Plaintiff. Defendant conferred with Plaintiff's counsel on August 18, 2026\n\nregarding this administrative and logistical motion. On August 19, 2026, Plaintiff's counsel\n\nconfirmed that Plaintiff consents to the relief requested with the proviso that Defendant agrees\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 74 Filed 09/04/26 Page 5 of 7\n\n\n\n\nnot to use electronic devices to record or transcribe anything without express Court approval.\n\nDefendant has expressly agreed to and incorporated this condition into Paragraph 7 and the\n\naccompanying Proposed Order. The relief requested is unchanged from that to which Plaintiff\n\nconsented; Plaintiff's counsel was copied on Defendant's September 2, 2026 correspondence with\n\nthe Courtroom Deputy regarding the video.\n\n WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court enter the accompanying\n\nproposed order granting Defendant leave to bring the designated electronic devices and\n\naccessories into the courthouse for the September 16, 2026 evidentiary hearing, any pre-hearing\n\nplayback test arranged with the Courtroom Deputy, and all subsequent proceedings in this action.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n/s/ Gowtham A. Rao\nGowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n184 Mansgrove Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540\ngowthamrao@gmail.com\nSeptember 2, 2026\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n I hereby certify that on September 2, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing\n\nDefendant's Uncontested Motion for Leave to Bring Electronic Devices into the Courthouse for\n\nthe September 16, 2026 Evidentiary Hearing and All Proceedings in this Action and [Proposed]\n\nOrder was served via electronic mail upon Plaintiff's counsel of record pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.\n\nP. 5(b)(2)(E) and the parties' established course of electronic service:\n\n\uf0b7 Jacob Oslick, Esq. (joslick@seyfarth.com)\n\uf0b7 James S. Yu, Esq. (jyu@seyfarth.com)\n\uf0b7 Matthew Christoff, Esq. (MChristoff@seyfarth.com)\n\uf0b7 Brooke Gary, Esq. (brgary@seyfarth.com)\n/s/ Dr. Gowtham A. Rao\nDr. Gowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD (Defendant Pro Se)\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 74 Filed 09/04/26 Page 6 of 7\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM Systems, Inc., CIVIL ACTION\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,\n\n v.\n NO. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nGOWTHAM RAO, MD, PhD,\n Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.\n\n [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LEAVE TO BRING ELECTRONIC\n DEVICES INTO THE COURTHOUSE\n\n AND NOW, this ____ day of ____________, 2026, upon consideration of the\n\nUncontested Motion of Defendant Gowtham Rao, MD, PhD (pro se), for Leave to Bring\n\nElectronic Devices into the Courthouse for the September 16, 2026 Evidentiary Hearing and All\n\nProceedings in this Action, and Plaintiff having consented, it is hereby ORDERED that the\n\nMotion is GRANTED, as follows:\n\n 1. Notwithstanding the Standing Order of May 16, 2019 regarding cameras and personal\n\nelectronic devices, Defendant Gowtham Rao may bring up to two laptop computers (one\n\npresentation laptop and one work-product/defense workstation), one cellular telephone, and\n\nassociated charging cords, connection cables, and external storage media into the James A.\n\nByrne United States Courthouse (601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), into\n\nCourtroom 10-A, and into any other courtroom or conference room designated for proceedings in\n\nthis action, for the evidentiary hearing scheduled for September 16, 2026 at 2:00 PM, for any\n\ncontinued or rescheduled session thereof, for any pre-hearing technology setup or playback test\n\narranged with the Courtroom Deputy, and for all future in-person hearings, conferences, oral\n\narguments, and trial proceedings in Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB;\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 74 Filed 09/04/26 Page 7 of 7\n\n\n\n\n 2. The United States Marshals Service and Court Security Officers shall permit\n\nDefendant to pass through courthouse security screening with these authorized devices and\n\naccessories upon presentation of a copy of this Order and government-issued photo\n\nidentification;\n\n 3. Defendant is authorized to access available courthouse or courtroom wireless internet\n\nconnectivity or, if unavailable, operate the cellular telephone in silent mode solely as a wireless\n\nhotspot/data tether for the laptop computers;\n\n 4. The devices shall be used exclusively for case-related purposes at counsel table and,\n\nfor the presentation of exhibits and any video or demonstrative the Court permits, at the lectern\n\nor evidence presentation station. All device audio must remain muted except during Court-\n\npermitted playback through the courtroom system. No audio recording, video recording,\n\ntranscription, photography, or broadcasting of any kind may be made inside the courthouse or\n\ncourtroom; and\n\n 5. The Court may modify or revoke this Order at any time in the interest of justice, and\n\nany violation of the foregoing terms may result in immediate confiscation of the devices and\n\nfurther sanctions.\n\n\n BY THE COURT:\n ______________________________\n WENDY BEETLESTONE, C.J.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-08T07:54:09.533277-07:00","document_number":"74","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024162487","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492768048/","id":492768048,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/74/1/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-09-08T07:54:02.052395-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T14:04:05.871773-07:00","sha1":"8d9bd5d9209f1084a6ac90415567ac5e11f4f1d0","page_count":1,"file_size":44452,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.74.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":1,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Name: Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 74-1 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 1\nGowtham Rao\n\nEmail Address:\ngowthamrao@gmail.com\n\nPhone Number\n8033867890\n\nAre you filing a new case?\nNo, I'm not filing a new case.\n\nCase Caption\nEPAM Systems vs Gowtham Rao\n\nCase Number\n2:25-cv-06260-wb\n\nDescription of Document(s)\nMotion for Permission to Bring Electronic Devices (Pro Se)\n\nDo you have a mailing address?\nYes\n\nMailing Address Line 1\n184 Mansgrove Road\n\nCity:\nPrinceton\n\nState:\nNJ\n\nZip Code:\n08540\n\nTerms of Submission\nYes\n\n\n Show empty values\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-08T07:54:09.916193-07:00","document_number":"74","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"153024162488","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Cover Page","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-08T07:53:52.431567-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:13:04.441218-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-04","time_filed":null,"entry_number":74,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":202,"description":"DEFENDANT GOWTHAM RAO'S UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO BRING ELECTRONIC DEVICES INTO THE COURTHOUSE FOR THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION (PRO SE), CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Cover Page) (mbh) (Entered: 09/08/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476093886/","id":476093886,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491646332/","id":491646332,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/73/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-27T15:55:02.354724-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T21:08:19.800340-07:00","sha1":"263ce0e81aa3e77cbbafee6d4e1e7c2dc8d31908","page_count":15,"file_size":325565,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.73.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.73.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af\u00af X\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., )\n ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim- )\n Defendant )\n )\n v. )\n )\nGOWTHAM RAO, )\n )\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n )\n Plaintiff\n )\n____________________________________\n X\n\n\n PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.\u2019S\n REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEAL\n\f TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1\n\nARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 2\n\nI. Exhibits 9 And 10 Must Be Sealed To Protect Highly Sensitive Technical\n Information Concerning Epam\u2019s Synapse Platform ........................................................... 2\n\nII. Exhibit 13 Must Be Sealed To Protect Confidential Business Information ....................... 5\n\nIII. Rao\u2019s Suggestion of In Camera Review Does Not Work .................................................. 6\n\nIV. Rao\u2019s Proposed Framework For Executives #1-3 Is Unworkable ...................................... 7\n\nV. The Public Interest in Open Courts is Not Meaningfully Impeded By Closing The\n Courtroom During Any Testimony Regarding The Sealed Information ............................ 8\n\nCONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 10\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nAetna, Inc. v. Mednax, Inc.,\n 2021 WL 5987205 (E.D. Pa. 2021) ...........................................................................................6\n\nKatz v. Katz,\n 356 Pa. Super. 461 (Pa. Super. 1986) ........................................................................................8\n\nLittlejohn v. BIC Corp.,\n 851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988).......................................................................................................5\n\nMallet & Co. Inc. v. Lacayo,\n 16 F.4th 364 (3d Cir. 2021) .......................................................................................................4\n\nPrior v. IntegriChain, Inc.,\n 2026 WL 561046 (E.D. Pa. 2026) .............................................................................................4\n\nPublicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen,\n 733 F.2d 1059(3d Cir. 1984)..................................................................................................8, 9\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao\u2019s (\u201cRao\u201d) Opposition to EPAM\u2019s Motion to\n\nSeal confirms there is no basis to deny EPAM\u2019s motion, and that EPAM\u2019s limited sealing and\n\ncourtroom-closure requests should be granted.\n\n At the outset, it is notable what Rao does not assert. Specifically, Rao does not claim any\n\nrecognizable legal interest in the documents becoming public, or in EPAM being unable to use\n\nunredacted copies at the spoilation hearing. For a good reason: at least as to Exhibits 9, 10, and 13,\n\nRao\u2019s position is that these are EPAM documents which he supposedly created as part of his EPAM\n\nduties. (See ECF #66-1 at 1.) The fact that Rao claims \u201cno confidentiality\u201d in these documents and\n\n\u201cdo[es] not want them sealed\u201d is irrelevant. (Id.) While the Court must consider the public interests,\n\nRao\u2019s only plausible reasons for opposing sealing would be inflicting competitive harm on EPAM,\n\nimpeding EPAM\u2019s ability to adduce testimony at the September 16, 2026 hearing on its spoliation\n\nmotion, or simply being obstructive. None of these reasons warrants denying EPAM\u2019s motion.\n\n As for what Rao does argue, he devotes substantial portions of his briefing to disputing\n\nwhether the exhibits contain source code, specific pricing figures, or other details that EPAM never\n\ncontended were required for sealing. But Rao never meaningfully rebuts EPAM\u2019s central showing:\n\nthat disclosure of the information at issue would cause substantial competitive harm to EPAM and\n\nsignificant reputational harm to non-parties. (See ECF #60-1 at 4-11.)\n\n At bottom, Rao\u2019s Opposition elevates immaterial distinctions over substance. Rao\n\nrepeatedly argues that Exhibits 9 and 10 do not contain executable source code and that Exhibit 13\n\ndoes not disclose specific pricing figures. The question is not whether the exhibits reveal every\n\naspect of EPAM\u2019s proprietary information, it is whether disclosing the information they do contain\n\nwould injure EPAM by providing competitors with valuable insight into EPAM\u2019s proprietary\n\ninformation and business strategy. They do.\n\n\n 1\n\f Similarly unpersuasive is Rao\u2019s contention that EPAM failed to identify a specific\n\ncompetitor that might exploit the information at issue. EPAM is not required to identify a precise\n\nfuture competitor. Once disclosed in a public judicial proceeding, the information would be\n\navailable to all competitors, current and future alike. The harm arises from the disclosure itself.\n\n Rao\u2019s remaining arguments fare no better. For instance, EPAM\u2019s public filing of redacted\n\nversions of the exhibits, and its descriptions of what the documents contain (i.e., a \u201ccomprehensive,\n\nstep-by-step\u201d guide to rebuilding Synapse) does not waive protection for the specific information\n\nEPAM withheld (i.e., the actual details that would permit facilitate rebuilding Synapse).\n\n Nor does Rao offer a viable alternative to protect the interests at stake. For example, Rao\n\nacknowledges the need to protect the identities of Executives #1, #2, and #3 (collectively, \u201cthe\n\nExecutives\u201d). Yet he opposes the only measures that would ensure that protection. His proposed\n\nalternative, which requires compliance with a complicated seven-step protocol, is not workable.\n\nAny \u201cslip up\u201d would publicly reveal the identities of Executives #1, #2, and #3 to whomever was\n\nsitting in court that day, rendering any future transcript redaction futile.\n\n Because Rao fails to rebut EPAM\u2019s showing of concrete competitive harm, non-party\n\nprivacy concerns, and the need for narrowly tailored protections, the Court should grant EPAM\u2019s\n\nMotion in its entirety.\n\n ARGUMENT\n\nI. Exhibits 9 And 10 Must Be Sealed To Protect Highly Sensitive Technical\n Information Concerning Epam\u2019s Synapse Platform\n\n Rao does not meaningfully dispute the sensitivity of the information contained in Exhibits\n\n9 and 10. Instead, he focuses almost entirely on what those documents purportedly do not contain,\n\nrepeatedly emphasizing that they do not include executable source code, function definitions,\n\nalgorithms, or other technical details. (See ECF #66-1 at 9-11.) That argument misses the point.\n\n\n\n -2-\n\f EPAM did not argue that Exhibits 9 and 10 must be sealed because they contain the specific\n\ndetails Rao mentions. Rather, EPAM demonstrated through the declarations of Dmitrii Ilin and\n\nGregory Klebanov that Exhibit 9 contains a \u201ccomprehensive, step-by-step plan\u201d for recreating\n\nSynapse and that Exhibit 10 reveals highly detailed information concerning Synapse\u2019s architecture,\n\nfunctionality, governance, and internal processes. (ECF #58-25 \u00b6\u00b6 8-14, 16-20; ECF #60-3 \u00b6\u00b6 3-\n\n6.) These are precisely the types of confidential technical materials that would provide competitors\n\nwith a roadmap for understanding, replicating, or improving upon EPAM\u2019s proprietary technology.\n\n Rao quibbles that, in his view, Exhibit 9 would not permit a \u201ccompetent coder to create a\n\nSynapse copycat,\u201d but instead contains \u201cprompts directing an artificial-intelligence assistant to\n\nwrite code later.\u201d (ECF #66-1 at 9.) And he similarly nitpicks that Exhibit 9 would not permit the\n\nrecreation of Synapse \u201cas it exists today,\u201d but rather a version that EPAM did not build. (Id. at 10.)\n\nThese are alleged distinctions without a difference. What matters is that, by Rao\u2019s very admission,\n\nan unredacted copy of Exhibit 9 would enable a competitor to recreate a version of Synapse.\n\nWhether the competitor could use this document to recreate Synapse by hiring a human coder or\n\nutilizing an artificial intelligence program to do the coding is irrelevant. Similarly, whether Exhibit\n\n9 would facilitate recreating Synapse precisely as it exists today, or a highly similar product based\n\non work product that EPAM developed (and thus is EPAM\u2019s intellectual property) but has chosen\n\nto not yet include in Synapse is irrelevant. All of these possibilities would result in the\n\nmisappropriation of EPAM\u2019s trade secrets and/or confidential information.\n\n Notably, Rao never actually disputes that disclosure of these materials would be valuable\n\nto a competitor. Instead, he argues that EPAM failed to identify a particular competitor. (See ECF\n\n#66-1 at 8-9, 14.) The law imposes no such requirement. The relevant inquiry is whether public\n\ndisclosure would cause a clearly defined and serious competitive injury, not whether EPAM can\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n\fidentify the particular competitor who would exploit that information. See generally Prior v.\n\nIntegriChain, Inc., 2026 WL 561046, at *4 (E.D. Pa. 2026) (finding it sufficient that public\n\ndisclosure would place party at \u201ccompetitive disadvantage\u201d; there is no indication that the party\n\nidentified specific competitors). Once such information is disclosed in open court, it becomes\n\navailable to all. Rao\u2019s argument would create an impossible standard under which a company could\n\nnot protect commercially sensitive information unless it first identified the precise competitor\n\npoised to misuse it. Indeed, the use of this very information is at the center of this litigation \u2013 and\n\nif Rao is permitted disclose this information in open court then he is able to freely continue\n\nmisappropriating it in his competitive company \u2013 which cannot be a benefit bestowed upon him.\n\n Nor is it significant that Exhibits 9 and 10 may not contain complete source code. A\n\ncompetitor does not need the precise \u201crecipe\u201d down to the last milligram of each ingredient to gain\n\na substantial competitive advantage. A detailed blueprint explaining how a product is structured,\n\nhow it functions, and how it may be recreated can be equally valuable. See Mallet & Co. Inc. v.\n\nLacayo, 16 F.4th 364, 386 (3d Cir. 2021) (recognizing a confidential compilation and organization\n\nof information may constitute a trade secret where the combination affords a competitive\n\nadvantage). Exhibit 9 is a self-described \u201ccomprehensive, step-by-step plan\u201d for recreating\n\nSynapse, while Exhibit 10 explains how Synapse and MedRag were designed to achieve their\n\nfunctionality and competitive advantages. (ECF #58-12 at 8; ECF #58-25 \u00b6\u00b6 8-14, 16-20; ECF #60\n\n\u00b6\u00b6 3-6.) Disclosure of this information would permit competitors to shortcut years of development\n\neffort by leveraging EPAM\u2019s work, as well as gain valuable insight on how to improve their own\n\nproducts to compete with Synapse. (See ECF #58-25 \u00b6 14, ECF #60-3 \u00b6\u00b6 3, 4, 6.)\n\n Contrary to Rao\u2019s suggestion, these are not \u201cbroad,\u201d \u201cvague,\u201d or \u201cconclusory\u201d allegations\n\nof harm. (See ECF #66-1 at 6) (citing In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 924\n\n\n\n\n -4-\n\fF.3d 662, 678 (3d Cir. 2019)). The Ilin and Klebanov declarations establish precisely why EPAM\n\nwould suffer concrete, competitive injuries (i.e., Exhibit 9 would enable a competitor to literally\n\nrecreate Synapse, while Exhibit 10 would give a competitor invaluable insight into how to better\n\ncompete with Synapse).\n\n Rao\u2019s waiver argument fares no better. Rao argues that EPAM waived any right to seal the\n\nexhibits by quoting from them in a public filing. See ECF #66-1 at 15. This argument is mistaken.\n\nEPAM\u2019s brief quoted highly-limited, selected passages for the purpose of framing its sanctions\n\nmotion. The present sealing motion concerns the unredacted, full-text versions of those documents\n\nthat contain substantially more information. The case Rao cites addresses situations where a party\n\nreleases information \u201cin open court\u201d and makes \u201cno effort \u2026 to limit its disclosure.\u201d Littlejohn v.\n\nBIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 680 (3d Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). Here, EPAM made such an \u201ceffort.\u201d\n\nIt quoted limited excerpts, appropriately redacted what it publicly filed, and now seeks to admit\n\nunredacted versions only under seal.\n\n Rao further argues that EPAM contradicts itself by calling the redacted exhibits both\n\n\"insufficient\" for the hearing and \"sufficient\" for public understanding. (See ECF #66-1 at 15-16.)\n\nThere is no contradiction. A document can be redacted enough to give the public an understanding\n\nof the case and the document, while still being too redacted for the Court to conduct a maximally\n\neffective evidentiary hearing. For example, Exhibit 9, as redacted, still provides a general outline\n\nof the \u201ccomprehensive, step-by-step plan\u201d for rebuilding Synapse (ECF #58-12 at 8), which is\n\nmore than sufficient for the public to understand what the document is. (See generally ECF #58-\n\n12.) But it is redacted of all the details that would actually enable a competitor to rebuild Synapse.\n\n Accordingly, the Court should permit EPAM to introduce unredacted versions of Exhibits\n\n9 and 10 under seal during the September 16 hearing.\n\nII. Exhibit 13 Must Be Sealed To Protect Confidential Business Information\n\n\n -5-\n\f Rao similarly fails to rebut EPAM\u2019s showing that Exhibit 13 warrants protection. Exhibit\n\n13 is EPAM\u2019s Synapse \u201cSales Battle Card,\u201d which contains confidential information as to EPAM\u2019s\n\nsales strategy, competitive positioning, product differentiation, marketing, and commercialization\n\nefforts. As EPAM\u2019s opening brief explained, the document serves as a playbook detailing how\n\nEPAM markets and sells Synapse and the related MedRag program. (ECF #60-1 at 6-8.)\n\n Rather than addressing the substance of that showing, Rao focuses on the lack of specific\n\npricing figures. (See ECF #66-1 at 10.) But confidential commercial information is not limited to\n\npricing data. Competitive positioning, go-to-market strategies, and sales approaches all constitute\n\ncommercially sensitive information that competitors could use to their advantage if publicly\n\ndisclosed. Courts routinely recognize that disclosure of such strategic business information may\n\ncause the precise competitive injury that warrants sealing. (See ECF #60-1 at 7-8.) Once again,\n\nthese are not \u201cbroad,\u201d \u201cvague,\u201d or \u201cconclusory\u201d allegations of harm. (See ECF #66-1 at 6.) They\n\nare facts which show that EPAM would suffer a concrete injury \u2013 the disclosure of its competitive\n\nstrategy for Synapse and MedRag, to the entire universe of potential competitors. See Aetna, Inc.\n\nv. Mednax, Inc., 2021 WL 5987205, at *5 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (permanently sealing \u201csensitive\n\ncommercial information\u201d).\n\n Rao also repeats his argument that EPAM failed to identify a specific competitor who\n\nwould seek to exploit the information. (See ECF #66-1 at 14.) But, once again, EPAM is not\n\nrequired to identify a particular competitor.\n\n For these reasons, the Court should permit Exhibit 13 to be introduced under seal during\n\nthe September 16 hearing.\n\nIII. Rao\u2019s Suggestion of In Camera Review Does Not Work\n\n Rao appears to suggest that the Court inspect unredacted copies of Exhibits 9-10, and 13\n\nin camera, in lieu of admitting them under seal. (ECF #66-1 at 16.) This proposal achieves nothing.\n\n\n -6-\n\fThe public would have no greater access to in camera documents than to sealed documents. But\n\nRao\u2019s alternative proposal would frustrate EPAM\u2019s and Rao\u2019s ability to question witnesses about\n\nthe documents, as they could not direct witnesses to portions of the documents that had been\n\nredacted from the publicly-filed version. The Court should reject this alternative.\n\n To be clear, if the Court wishes to review Exhibits 9-10, and 13 in camera in order to assess\n\nEPAM\u2019s motion to seal, then EPAM is happy to provide unredacted in camera copies for that\n\npurpose. But the Court\u2019s in camera review is not a substitute for EPAM and Rao being able to\n\nfreely question witnesses about the documents at the hearing, including by referencing text that\n\nEPAM redacted from the publicly-filed version.\n\nIV. Rao\u2019s Proposed Framework For Executives #1-3 Is Unworkable\n\n Rao acknowledges the need to protect the identities of the Executives in Exhibits 6-8 but\n\nobjects to EPAM admitting, under seal, less redacted 1 copies of the documents containing the\n\nidentities of the Executives. (See ECF #66 at 1.) Rao instead proposes using a complicated seven-\n\nstep protocol that involves pseudonyms, cipher keys, providing unredacted copes to the witness\n\nand court, and striking mistakes from the public transcript. (See ECF #66-1 at 20.) Rao\u2019s proposal\n\nsuffers from two central defects.\n\n First, it requires EPAM\u2019s attorneys and Rao as a witness to comply perfectly with a highly-\n\ncomplex series of steps that simply does not reflect how ordinary people talk or testify. The\n\nlikelihood that EPAM\u2019s attorneys or Rao will make a mistake and disclose the identities of\n\nExecutives #1-3 is significant. And, if members of the public are in court that day, including the\n\n\n\n\n1\n As noted in EPAM\u2019s opening papers, EPAM would still redact a small amount of confidential\nbusiness information and references to other non-parties that are not germane to its sanctions\nmotion. (See ECF #60-1 at 2 n.1)\n\n\n -7-\n\fmedia, redacting a subsequent transcript cannot erase their memories or delete news stories about\n\nthe court testimony.\n\n Second, while EPAM believes its spoliation motion should result in case ending sanctions,\n\nEPAM admits this result is not guaranteed. And, if EPAM, Rao, this Court, or the Third Circuit\n\n(on any potential appeal) needs to rely on the September 16 transcript for any future proceeding,\n\nthe use of pseudonyms, cipher keys, in camera documents not formally admitted as exhibits, and\n\nother measures may hinder the useability of the transcript and related materials. Entering the\n\nexhibits under seal ensures an appropriate record for future proceedings.\n\n Conversely, the public interest in open court proceedings is only minimally impacted by\n\nclosing the courtroom while permitting a lightly-redacted transcript to be filed later. Under\n\nEPAM\u2019s proposal, the general public and news media would be freely permitted to know precisely\n\nwhat transpired, with minimal redactions to protect the privacy and reputation of non-parties.\n\nMeanwhile, the parties and Court would maintain a clear record for future proceedings. For these\n\nreasons, the Court should grant EPAM's motion to seal less redacted versions of Exhibits 6\u20138, and\n\nclose the courtroom.\n\nV. The Public Interest in Open Courts is Not Meaningfully Impeded By Closing The\n Courtroom During Any Testimony Regarding The Sealed Information\n\n Turning more generally to EPAM\u2019s request to close the courtroom, Rao muddles EPAM\u2019s\n\nposition. EPAM asks that the courtroom be closed in two distinct circumstances: (i) when any\n\nwitness is discussing the trade secrets or confidential information that belongs to EPAM; and (ii)\n\nwhen any witness is discussing the identities of the Executives. The Court has authority to close\n\nthe courtroom in either instance. See Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 10772(3d Cir.\n\n1984) (\u201cthe district court acted properly in excluding the public\u201d from portion of hearing about\n\nwhether \u201c\u2018sensitive\u2019 information should be kept confidential\u201d); Katz v. Katz, 356 Pa. Super. 461,\n\n\n\n -8-\n\f468 (Pa. Super. 1986) (\u201cthe public may be excluded, temporarily or permanently, from court\n\nproceedings\u201d to \u201cprotect private as well as public interests: to protect trade secrets, or the privacy\n\nand reputations\u201d of third-parties) (cleaned up). Further, as EPAM explained, the public\u2019s right of\n\naccess can be largely protected by making a lightly redacted transcript available.\n\n Rao argues that \u201csealing a document and excluding the public\u201d are not the same, and that\n\ncourts should not \u201crelax\u201d the applicable standards. (See ECF #66-1 at 19.) But the presumption of\n\nopen judicial proceedings yields where necessary to protect \u201ca party's interest in confidential\n\ncommercial information, such as a trade secret, where there is a sufficient threat of irreparable\n\nharm.\u201d Publicker, 733 F.2d at 1071. That standard is met here, because testimony that will reveal\n\nEPAM\u2019s trade secrets and confidential information will inflict a severe competitive injury on\n\nEPAM, while testimony that will identify the non-parties would harm their privacy and\n\nreputational interests.\n\n Rao also argues that \u201cClosing the courtroom does not prevent a name from being spoken;\n\nit changes who is in the room when it is spoken. And the transcript exists either way.\u201d (ECF #66-\n\n1 at 19.) That is EPAM\u2019s point. The public should not be in the room when witnesses are discussing\n\ntrade secrets, confidential information, or information that will unjustifiably damage non-parties.\n\nConversely, the transcript \u201cexists either way,\u201d and can be lightly redacted to inform the public\n\nabout virtually all of what went on, with minimal details redacted.\n\n Rao further argues that EPAM\u2019s interest is \u201cqualified\u201d because EPAM does not currently\n\nknow if Exhibits 6-8 are entirely accurate. (Id. at 19-20.) But, again, that is essentially EPAM\u2019s\n\npoint. While EPAM has no interest in inflicting a privacy or reputational interest on non-parties,\n\nit especially does not want to do so if it later turns out that it inflicted this injury based upon\n\ninaccurate information attributed to those non-parties. That is why the courtroom should be sealed.\n\n\n\n\n -9-\n\f Rao additionally claims that EPAM failed to propose a duration or portion of the hearing\n\nit expects to be closed. (Id. at 18.) In fact, EPAM laid out the circumstances in which the courtroom\n\nwould need to be closed to the public, i.e., when any witness is discussing EPAM\u2019s trade secrets,\n\nconfidential information, or the identities of the Executives. (ECF #60-1 at 1, 8.) Rao also notes\n\nEPAM did not propose excluding its own personnel. (ECF #66-1 at 18.) But EPAM does not have\n\nto exclude its own employees from the courtroom when discussing its own trade secrets or\n\nconfidential information. If Rao wishes to have EPAM\u2019s employees (other than EPAM\u2019s in-house\n\ncounsel, Sarah Lugar) excused during testimony about the identities of Executives #1-3, then\n\nEPAM has no objection. Rao similarly claims that EPAM has not spelled out every last detail\n\nregarding transcript redactions. (See ECF #66-1 at 18.) But suggesting redactions from transcripts\n\nis fairly commonplace, and a procedure could surely be agreed to or ordered (such as EPAM\n\nproposes redactions, Rao serves any objections, and the Court decides).\n\n Accordingly, the Court should grant EPAM\u2019s request to close the courtroom during limited\n\nportions of the September 16, 2026 proceedings.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons and the reasons stated in EPAM\u2019s opening brief, the Court\n\nshould grant EPAM\u2019s Motion to Seal.\n\n\n\n\n - 10 -\n\fDated: August 27, 2026\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick (Pa. Bar No. 311028)\n joslick@seyfarth.com\n James S. Yu (admitted pro hac vice)\n jyu@seyfarth.com\n Brooke K. Gary (admitted pro hac vice)\n brgary@seyfarth.com\n SEYFARTH SHAW LLP\n 620 Eighth Avenue,\n New York, New York 10018\n (212) 218-5500\n\n Matthew Christoff (admitted pro hac vice)\n mchristoff@seyfarth.com\n SEYFARTH SHAW LLP\n 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000\n Chicago, IL 60606\n (312) 460-5000\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant\n EPAM Systems, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n - 11 -\n\f CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on August 27, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing\n\nPlaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant EPAM Systems Inc.\u2019s Reply in Support of Its Motion to Seal,\n\nwith the Clerk of the District Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such\n\nfiling to all counsel of record, and a courtesy copy sent via electronic mail to the following:\n\n\n\n GOWTHAM ADAMANE RAO\n 184 Mansgrove Rd\n Princeton, NJ 08540\n gowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n gowthamrao@gmail.com\n\n\n\n\n /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick\n\n\n\n\n - 12 -\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-31T13:54:51.833331-07:00","document_number":"73","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024136563","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T15:55:02.319030-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T08:56:25.190265-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-27","time_filed":"18:00:10","entry_number":73,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-27.002","pacer_sequence_number":199,"description":"REPLY to Response to Motion re 60 MOTION to Seal filed by EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.. (OSLICK, JACOB) (Entered: 08/27/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476033820/","id":476033820,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491583918/","id":491583918,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/72/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-27T10:53:18.797698-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:39:38.384037-07:00","sha1":"c8ae46f34b241882126403c7f37c50f543904d60","page_count":8,"file_size":60073,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.0_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 8\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., :\n Plaintiff, :\n v. : Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nGOWTHAM RAO, : Hon. Wendy Beetlestone, C.J.\n Defendant. :\n\n DEFENDANT'S LETTER IN RESPONSE TO ECF NO. 70\n\n\nDear Chief Judge Beetlestone:\n\nI respectfully ask the Court to deny EPAM's request for a six-month discovery extension and\nkeep the September 30, 2026 fact discovery deadline.\n\nI ask the Court to deny EPAM's\n\na) request to quash all of my requests for admission,\nb) request to cap them at twenty-five.\n\nI also renew my July 20 request that further discovery disputes be referred to a United States\nMagistrate Judge.\n\nI am proceeding pro se. I have had no employment income since October 2025. CoReason, Inc.\nhas generated no revenue and has lost all of its employees because it could not meet payroll. I\ncannot sustain another six months of this litigation.\n\nIn ECF No. 54, I told the Court that I was experiencing \"severe hardship from EPAM's strategy\nof litigation by attrition\" and asked for swift intervention under Rule 1. (ECF No. 54 at 5.) Since\nthen I have responded to EPAM's sanctions, sealing, and remote testimony motions and filed the\nrelated correction papers. (ECF Nos. 62, 63, 65\u201367.) I have managed hundreds of litigation\nemails and repeated discovery disputes. I have prepared responses to EPAM's seventy document\nrequests, sixteen interrogatories, and eighteen requests for admission. (Ex. C.) I am working to\n\n\n\n\n EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 1 of 8\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72 Filed 08/27/26 Page 2 of 8\n\n\n\n\nserve those responses and my document production before each deadline. I am doing this work\n\nmyself while looking for employment.\n\nIn the past month, I submitted more than fifty job applications and received one interview. I am\npaying litigation expenses from savings. My personal life and family relationships are under\nsignificant strain, and I now take more medications than I ever have before.\n\nI have met the deadlines so far and intend to meet the September 30 discovery deadline. I ask the\nCourt not to add six months to a burden I am already struggling to carry.\n\n\nI. EPAM has not explained why it needs six more months\n\nEPAM asks to extend fact discovery through March 30, 2027, but its letter identifies no\nparticular deposition, subpoena, document category, or other discovery that requires six months.\nEPAM did not serve its first written discovery until August 10, 2026, fewer than eight weeks\nbefore the September 30 deadline. (ECF No. 70 at 3.)\n\nAs a pro se litigant, I understood that the pleading issues would be addressed before substantial\nwritten discovery because the parties' motions to dismiss had been deferred until after the\nspoliation ruling. (ECF No. 49 at 1.) EPAM's August 10 service surprised me, but I treated the\nexisting schedule as controlling and served my five sets between August 15 and 17. (ECF Nos.\n70-1 to 70-5.) I accept responsibility for complying with the Scheduling Order. EPAM has not\n\nexplained why discovery it chose to begin in August could not have begun earlier.\n\nEPAM states that the Court acknowledged at the May 20 case management hearing that the\ndeadline would need to be extended unless the spoliation motion disposes of the case. (ECF No.\n70 at 3.) I recall the Court recognizing that the schedule might need attention after the spoliation\nruling, not ruling that an extension was inevitable or setting its length. The docket entry for that\nconference records no discovery ruling, and the May 21 order left the September 30 deadline in\nplace. (ECF No. 48 at 1; ECF No. 49 at 1.) I therefore understand the Scheduling Order to\nremain in effect.\n\n\n\n\n EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 2 of 8\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72 Filed 08/27/26 Page 3 of 8\n\n\n\n\nRule 16(b)(4) permits a scheduling-order modification only for good cause, and good cause\n\ndepends in part on the diligence of the party seeking the change. Premier Comp Solutions, LLC v.\n\nUPMC, 970 F.3d 316, 319 (3d Cir. 2020). Banks v. City of Philadelphia denied a discovery\nextension on exactly that ground. 309 F.R.D. 287, 290\u201391 (E.D. Pa. 2015). Your Honor's Policies\nlikewise require an opposed extension request to be made by motion and supported by a specific\nneed for a time certain. EPAM presented its request in a discovery letter and identified no\nspecific purpose requiring six months.\n\nThe extension would also move more than one deadline. The Scheduling Order sets expert\ndeadlines for October and November, expert depositions for January 15, 2027, and summary\njudgment motions for February 12, 2027. (ECF No. 27 at 1.) EPAM's proposed March 30 fact\ndiscovery deadline falls after the summary judgment deadline, so EPAM is asking, in practical\neffect, to postpone every remaining stage of the case.\n\nEPAM's ECF No. 71 asks for terminating sanctions so that EPAM will not have to continue\nbearing the costs of this litigation; ECF No. 70 asks for six more months of it. (ECF No. 71 at\n13.) I ask the Court to consider what that time costs me as well.\n\nRule 1 requires the Court and the parties to secure a just, speedy, and inexpensive determination.\nEPAM is represented by Seyfarth Shaw and in-house counsel; I am unemployed and represent\nmyself. (ECF No. 64 at 2.) EPAM controls the employment records, system logs, repository\n\nrecords, and litigation-hold information at issue, while my access ended when EPAM terminated\nme on October 15, 2025. (ECF No. 30 \u00b6 69.) Delay increases my expense without improving my\naccess to the evidence. Penn Engineering recognizes that a resource disparity does not justify\nunlimited discovery and that the rules must be applied evenhandedly so discovery does not\nbecome a war of attrition. Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. v. Peninsula Components,\nInc., No. 19-513, 2021 WL 4037857, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 3, 2021).\n\nThis case also includes my claim under the New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act\nthat EPAM terminated me in retaliation. (ECF No. 33 \u00b6\u00b6 401\u2013409.) I do not ask the Court to\n\n\n\n\n EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 3 of 8\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72 Filed 08/27/26 Page 4 of 8\n\n\n\n\ndecide that claim in this letter or to treat EPAM's litigation conduct as additional retaliation. I\n\nnote only that each month of delay prolongs the unemployment and financial loss that form part\n\nof the CEPA claim awaiting resolution.\n\n\nII. I tried to resolve the RFA dispute before seeking the Court's help\n\nOn August 19 I asked EPAM to identify the requests or subparts it most wanted withdrawn,\nnarrowed, or rephrased. EPAM responded, \"We are not going to play your game.\" (ECF No. 70-8\nat 8.)\n\nAfter that response, I reviewed all 211 requests again. On August 22, I sent EPAM Schedule A,\nwhich shows proposed corrections to twenty-five requests side by side, proposes withdrawing\ntwo subparts, and offers to withdraw Instruction No. 5 if both parties accept the same definition\nof reasonable inquiry. I also explained how I would prioritize the requests if the Court required a\nsmaller set. (ECF No. 70-8 at 2\u20136.) Schedule A was a draft for discussion and did not amend the\n\nserved requests. EPAM filed my transmitting email but did not provide Schedule A to the Court,\nso I attach it as Exhibit A.\n\nMr. Oslick and I conferred by telephone on August 24. We did not discuss the substance of any\nindividual request. He said that I had fed case documents into artificial-intelligence software and\nasked it to generate the maximum number of requests without regard to relevance or burden.\n\nEPAM continued to insist that I withdraw all 211 requests and reissue twenty-five. I\nmemorialized the conference by email that afternoon. That email is Exhibit B.\n\nI understand why 211 requests, counted by EPAM as 471 propositions with the lettered subparts,\nrequire scrutiny. Rule 36 contains no numerical cap, but I do not dispute the Court's authority to\nimpose a proportional limit under Rule 26. I ask only that the requests be evaluated by what each\none seeks and what answering it requires, not by the count alone.\n\nThe requests address fifteen claims and counterclaims, technical records, source-code history,\nemployment events, and documents EPAM placed on the docket. I plan to take only three\n\n\n\n\n EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 4 of 8\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72 Filed 08/27/26 Page 5 of 8\n\n\n\n\ndepositions: Gregory Klebanov, my former manager and one of EPAM's principal declarants;\n\nRam Varma, a Gilead witness whose testimony relates to my whistleblower claim; and EPAM's\n\nRule 30(b)(6) designee. I have no counsel and have never taken a deposition. I cannot afford\ndepositions of every EPAM employee with relevant knowledge. Requests for admission are the\nleast expensive way to identify undisputed facts and narrow what remains for summary judgment\nor trial.\n\nEPAM's authorities support examining the requests, not quashing all of them. Penn Engineering\n\nrelieved a party from answering 185 RFAs, but only after the requesting party had already taken\nsubstantial discovery \u2014 including 89 earlier RFAs \u2014 and gave the court no basis to decide\nwhich requests should survive. 2021 WL 4037857, at *1, *8\u201310 & n.9. These are my only RFAs,\nI plan three depositions, and the Request-by-Request Appendix identifies, for each request as\nserved, the answering source, the legal issue, and the proof an admission would displace.\nFleming, which Penn Engineering cited, found 216 RFAs excessive but still required answers to\n\nthe 75 that had been served instead of two depositions to save expense. Fleming v. Escort, Inc.,\nNo. 09-105, 2011 WL 573599, at *2 (D. Idaho Feb. 13, 2011).\n\nEPAM estimates more than thirty-nine hours at five minutes per proposition. (ECF No. 70 at 2.) I\ndo not dismiss thirty-nine hours of attorney work. But the estimate treats every proposition alike:\nit does not identify which requests require investigation, which can be answered from a filed\ndocument or EPAM's own records, or which present any unusual burden. It also assigns no value\nto the depositions, authentication disputes, and trial proof that admissions would eliminate. Rule\n\n26 requires that comparison and expressly includes the parties' relative access to information and\nresources. EPAM controls the relevant corporate records; I can reach them only through\ndiscovery. A twenty-five-request cap would push the same evidence into depositions I cannot\nafford.\n\n\n\n\n EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 5 of 8\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72 Filed 08/27/26 Page 6 of 8\n\n\n\n\nThe Third Circuit requires a party seeking a protective order to show a particular need supported\n\nby specific examples or articulated reasoning. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108,\n\n1121 (3d Cir. 1986). EPAM has not made that request-specific showing.\n\nIf the Court concludes that some limitation is necessary, I will promptly provide the prioritized\ndesignation I offered EPAM, preserving the requests that replace depositions I cannot afford and\nthose that ask EPAM to confirm its own filed documents and records.\n\n\nIII. I use AI assistance carefully and accept responsibility for my work\n\nI used artificial-intelligence software to assist with research, organization, source retrieval, and\n\nlanguage. I disclose that use directly. The positions, arguments, and requests are mine. I selected\nthe issues and sources, reviewed and substantially revised every request, and checked the\nunderlying authorities and record citations myself. What I submit is not machine output filed\nwithout human scrutiny; it reflects weeks of my own review, reasoning, and revision, and I take\nfull ownership of it. I know these systems can make errors, which is why I verify against the\nprimary sources. My pro se status does not excuse an inaccurate representation and I am careful\nabout it.\n\nEPAM's sanctions reply says my opposition contains falsehoods \"some of which may be AI-\ngenerated hallucinations\" and cites Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 168 F.4th\n\n231, 238\u201340 (5th Cir. 2026). (ECF No. 71 at 13.) Fletcher concerned a brief containing\nfabricated quotations and misstatements that counsel had not verified, followed by a response the\ncourt found misleading. Id. at 235\u201340. The Fifth Circuit did not impose sanctions merely because\ncounsel used artificial intelligence. The court recognized that AI can be helpful when used\nproperly and carefully. Id. at 235.\n\nAI assistance is what allows an unemployed pro se defendant to review this record, meet every\ndeadline, and respond to a represented corporate party. My research notes, source selections, and\nrevisions contain my mental impressions and strategy. Disclosing software assistance does not\n\n\n\n\n EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 6 of 8\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72 Filed 08/27/26 Page 7 of 8\n\n\n\n\nwaive any privilege or work-product protection otherwise applicable to those materials. The\n\nsame standards of factual and legal accuracy apply to me, and I accept responsibility for\n\ncompliance.\n\n\nIV. I ask the Court for prompt, proportionate relief\n\nI ask the Court to:\n\n 1. deny EPAM's request to extend fact discovery and keep the September 30, 2026 deadline;\n 2. deny EPAM's requests to quash all of my requests for admission or to impose a twenty-five-\n request cap;\n 3. if some limitation is warranted, permit me to submit promptly a prioritized designation\n based on deposition substitution and confirmation of EPAM's own documents and records;\n 4. refer further discovery disputes to a United States Magistrate Judge, as I requested in ECF\n No. 54 at 5; and\n\n 5. hold a telephone conference if the Court would find one useful.\n\nI am prepared to comply with the schedule already entered. I respectfully ask the Court to let this\ncase reach the merits before the cost of the process makes it impossible for me to continue.\n\nDated: August 27, 2026\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Gowtham A. Rao\n\nGowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\n\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, Pro Se\n184 Mansgrove Rd, Princeton, NJ 08540\n(803) 386-7890 | gowthamrao@gmail.com\n\ncc: All counsel of record (via CM/ECF)\n\n\n\n\n EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 7 of 8\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72 Filed 08/27/26 Page 8 of 8\n\n\n\n\nEnclosures\n\n \u2022 Request-by-Request Appendix \u2014 Source, Legal Theory, and Judicial Utility\n\n \u2022 Exhibit A \u2014 Schedule A (Draft), Proposed Corrections to Requests for Admission, Sets 1\u2013\n 5, provided to EPAM August 22, 2026\n \u2022 Exhibit B \u2014 Email from Dr. Rao to Jacob Oslick, August 24, 2026, 3:14 p.m. Eastern,\n memorializing the meet-and-confer conference\n \u2022 Exhibit C \u2014 EPAM's First Set of Requests for Admission, First Set of Interrogatories, and\n\n First Requests for Production, served August 10, 2026\n\n\n\n\n EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 8 of 8\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T11:13:32.419558-07:00","document_number":"72","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024134909","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Letter","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491588030/","id":491588030,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/72/1/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-27T11:10:03.746921-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:39:44.684524-07:00","sha1":"8a53eea00a0ba76a0600790da65e5511e02741da","page_count":44,"file_size":211161,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.1_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 44\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC. v. GOWTHAM RAO\n Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n\n\n\n\nREQUEST-BY-REQUEST APPENDIX\n Source, Legal Theory, and Judicial Utility\n\n Requests for Admission Nos. 1\u2013211 (of record as ECF Nos. 70-1 to 70-5)\n\n\n\n\n Enclosure to Dr. Rao's Response to ECF No. 70\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 2 of 44\n\n\n\n\n REQUEST-BY-REQUEST APPENDIX\n Source, Legal Theory, and Judicial Utility\nMatter: EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB (E.D. Pa.)\nSubmitted with: Defendant's response to ECF No. 70\nPrepared by: Dr. Gowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD, Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, Pro Se\n\n\nHow to read this appendix\nThe requests are not restated in this appendix. The served requests control, and all five sets are\nalready of record as ECF Nos. 70-1 through 70-5, filed by EPAM with its letter. Each\nnumbered entry gives three short points: the source from which EPAM can answer, the legal\nissue the request affects, and what an admission would narrow. Headings group related\nrequests. The appendix does not ask the Court to accept any proposition as true. Schedule A\n(Exhibit A to the letter) states my proposed corrections, and entries note where it applies.\nAn admission conclusively establishes the matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). A specific denial also\nnarrows the case, because it shows exactly what remains disputed. Rule 36(a)(1) reaches facts,\nthe application of law to fact, and the genuineness of documents; entries say plainly when a\nrequest applies a contract term or a legal standard.\nRFAs 1\u2013119 contain no subparts. In RFAs 120\u2013211, lettered subparts break a single episode\ninto separately answerable steps, so EPAM can admit what it does not dispute. Counting\nsubparts measures drafting style, not burden.\nI plan three depositions: Gregory Klebanov, my former manager; Ram Varma, a Gilead\nSciences witness; and EPAM's Rule 30(b)(6) designee. I cannot afford to depose the other\npeople named below. For most of these facts, the alternative to a Rule 36 answer is a\ndeposition I cannot take or a contested foundation at trial.\n\nSET 1 \u2014 IT policy, authorization, and corporate systems\nRFAs 1\u20137 \u2014 the governing IT policy and EPAM's pleaded access model. Each is answerable from a\ndocument EPAM itself filed, and together they frame authorization under the CFAA and reasonable\nsecrecy measures under the DTSA and PUTSA.\n\nRFA No. 1\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-3\n \u2022 Issue: CFAA authorization and DTSA/PUTSA reasonable secrecy measures: what EPAM's\n own Acceptable Use Policy authorized for personally owned devices.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission fixes the policy text that governs whether BYOD access was\n authorized, removing any need for a policy-custodian witness or cross-examination on \u00a7\n 3.21 at summary judgment or trial.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 1 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 3 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 2\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-3; EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: CFAA authorization and secrecy measures: the policy provision requiring\n confidential data to sync automatically to EPAM online storage.\n \u2022 Narrows: The quoted sync requirement is the innocent mechanism behind the events\n EPAM counts as downloads. An admission anchors the OneDrive requests (RFAs 28\u201335,\n 198\u2013199) in EPAM's own policy and spares policy-custodian testimony.\n\nRFA No. 3\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-3; EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: CFAA authorization and secrecy measures: whether BYOD use was a routine,\n policy-consistent practice across EPAM in 2024\u20132025.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes course-of-conduct authorization without deposing\n EPAM IT operations personnel or sampling employee witnesses I cannot economically\n reach. A denial would identify a real dispute about EPAM's own practice, which targeted\n document discovery can then resolve.\n\nRFA No. 4\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: CFAA and DTSA/PUTSA: EPAM's need-based access model for its source code.\n Schedule A rewrites this request to ask the underlying fact rather than what the pleading\n says.\n \u2022 Narrows: As corrected, an admission establishes the access model against which\n authorization is judged and eliminates testimony about who could reach the code and why.\n\nRFA No. 5\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: Role and authorization: EPAM's designation of me as a client-facing executive.\n Schedule A rewrites the request to the underlying fact.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission fixes my executive, client-facing role \u2014 the role that carried the\n broad access EPAM's complaint describes \u2014 and shortens both the authorization analysis\n and any fiduciary-duty testimony about my responsibilities.\n\nRFA No. 6\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: Role scope: my responsibility for the data science unit. Schedule A rewrites the\n request to the underlying fact.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission settles the scope of the position, a foundation fact for\n authorization, fiduciary-duty, and damages issues, without examining Mr. Klebanov or an\n HR designee about the organization chart.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 2 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 4 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 7\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: Authorization by role: trusted senior executives were given access to confidential\n information to develop solutions and expand the business. Schedule A rewrites the request\n to the underlying fact.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes that access of exactly the kind at issue was granted for\n business purposes, narrowing the CFAA and improper-means disputes to whatever, if\n anything, exceeded that grant.\nRFAs 8\u201324 \u2014 how my access actually occurred and what EPAM management knew and permitted.\nThese requests substitute for testimony from EPAM's IT administrators, its identity-management\ndesignee, and Mr. Klebanov.\n\nRFA No. 8\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: CFAA authorization and forensic attribution: whether every access ran through\n EPAM-provisioned single sign-on credentials.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission eliminates any intrusion or credential-misuse theory and the\n identity-management testimony needed to rebut one. Whatever remains contested is then a\n defined set of events rather than an open accusation.\n\nRFA No. 9\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: CFAA circumvention and DTSA improper means: the absence of any bypass of\n passwords, encryption, firewalls, or access restrictions.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission removes the aggravated form of both claims and the security-\n operations testimony and expert reconstruction otherwise needed. A denial obliges EPAM\n to say which control was circumvented, which its own monitoring records will show.\n\nRFA No. 10\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Authorization provenance: access permissions were configured and granted by\n EPAM's own administrators.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes that whatever I could reach, EPAM gave me, confining\n the dispute to use rather than acquisition of access. It substitutes for a systems-\n administration designee.\n\nRFA No. 11\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: DTSA/PUTSA acquisition and CFAA authorization as to the ETL Conversion Kit:\n whether I was ever provisioned repository access at all.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 3 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 5 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: The ETL Kit is one of the three named secrets. An admission that I had no\n repository access to it removes the acquisition element for that asset.\n\nRFA No. 12\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Forensic attribution: whether EPAM's own logs contain any record of access to or\n cloning of ETL Kit repositories.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission fixes the absence of server-side acquisition evidence for the ETL\n Kit and spares a telemetry designee and log authentication. A denial identifies the log entry\n EPAM relies on, and discovery narrows to that entry.\n\nRFA No. 13\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: The central acquisition fact for the ETL Kit misappropriation claim.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission resolves an entire branch of Counts I and II without expert\n analysis, repository discovery, or trial time. If EPAM cannot admit or deny, Rule 36(a)(4)\n requires it to say so after reasonable inquiry, and that response itself defines the state of its\n records.\n\nRFA No. 14\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Scope of authorized duties under ECA \u00a7 1(d): evaluating, developing, and presenting\n the AI tools now at issue.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes that working with the accused AI materials was my\n assignment, the predicate for authorized access and use. It substitutes for examination of\n Mr. Klebanov on job duties.\n\nRFA No. 15\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Express authorization: EPAM granted access to the AI project materials for business\n development on the Company's behalf.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission that access to the very materials in suit was granted for EPAM's\n benefit confines the misappropriation dispute to post-access conduct.\n\nRFA No. 16\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Forensic attribution and authorization: the identity and work use of the personal\n workstation the neutral examiner designated Device A0001.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission ties the examined device to the work history without a foundation\n fight, so the iDS results (RFAs 69, 144) attach to an undisputed object. EPAM's own filings\n already assume this fact.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 4 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 6 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 17\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Supporting fact: the workstation's capacity exceeded the issued laptop.\n \u2022 Narrows: A modest foundation fact that explains why a personal workstation was used for\n computational work. It is inexpensive to answer \u2014 a specification comparison \u2014 and I\n rank it as supporting, not core.\n\nRFA No. 18\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Management knowledge and acquiescence: no written instruction to stop using the\n workstation before termination.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes eleven months of acquiescence bearing on\n authorization and on pretext, and eliminates an HR-records dispute.\n\nRFA No. 19\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Pre-employment disclosure: the November 12, 2024 bring-your-own-laptop inquiry\n to Mr. Klebanov.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission fixes that the practice was disclosed before employment began,\n shortening the Klebanov deposition I plan to take.\n\nRFA No. 20\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Management knowledge: Mr. Klebanov's awareness of the workstation's use for\n EPAM deliverables.\n \u2022 Narrows: Knowledge by the supervisor who later recommended termination bears on\n authorization and on the credibility of the for-cause narrative. An admission removes a\n contested topic from the Klebanov deposition.\n\nRFA No. 21\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Acquiescence: no supervisor directed cessation between November 2024 and\n October 2025.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission completes the authorization-by-conduct record and avoids serial\n supervisor depositions to prove a negative each of them controls.\n\nRFA No. 22\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: EPAM's own control decisions: management never directed IT to block the device.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 5 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 7 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes that EPAM's access-control systems permitted the\n device throughout \u2014 a secrecy-measures and authorization fact provable only from\n EPAM's side. It substitutes for network-administration testimony.\n\nRFA No. 23\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request; EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Forensic attribution: EPAM's identity systems openly recorded the device's recurring\n authentications for eleven months.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission negates concealment \u2014 the device was visible to EPAM's\n telemetry the entire time \u2014 and establishes the log foundation for both sides without\n authentication witnesses.\n\nRFA No. 24\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request; EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Post-termination conduct: no remote wipe or MDM command was issued at\n offboarding.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission explains why synced corporate data remained on the device after\n October 15 \u2014 EPAM's own offboarding choice \u2014 which reframes the retention allegations\n and bears on secrecy measures.\nRFAs 25\u201327 \u2014 policy text and authenticity. Rule 36(a)(1)(B) genuineness and verbatim-text\nrequests that remove foundation witnesses for EPAM's own exhibit.\n\nRFA No. 25\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-3; EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Policy text: the same \u00a7 3.14 sentence quoted in RFA 2.\n \u2022 Narrows: This request repeats RFA 2's quotation as a standalone text confirmation and can\n be answered identically; I will accept a single admission as answering both. The marginal\n burden is zero.\n\nRFA No. 26\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-3\n \u2022 Issue: Rule 36(a)(1)(B) genuineness: Exhibit C to the Amended Complaint is an authentic\n copy of the operative policy.\n \u2022 Narrows: Authenticating a document EPAM itself filed costs nothing and eliminates a\n records-custodian witness under Fed. R. Evid. 901 and 902(11) for every later use of the\n policy at summary judgment, the hearing, or trial.\n\nRFA No. 27\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-3\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 6 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 8 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Issue: Policy applicability: \u00a7 1.1 makes the policy govern all employees, including me, in\n 2025.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission applies EPAM's own scope clause to me \u2014 an application of a\n document to fact within Rule 36(a)(1)(A) \u2014 so the policy's coverage never has to be\n litigated.\nRFAs 28\u201343 \u2014 OneDrive synchronization, EPAM's audit export, and repository logs. These address\nforensic attribution: whether server-side records show automated syncing or intentional acquisition\nof source code. The answers sit in EPAM's Microsoft 365 tenant, its version-control systems, and the\nexport it produced.\n\nRFA No. 28\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Forensic attribution: OneDrive synchronization runs automatically, without per-file\n user initiation.\n \u2022 Narrows: This is the technical premise for reinterpreting EPAM's download counts. An\n admission from the party that administers the tenant narrows, and may eliminate, dueling\n expert testimony on sync mechanics.\n\nRFA No. 29\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Forensic attribution: EPAM's tenant permitted the Always-keep-on-this-device\n feature in October 2025.\n \u2022 Narrows: Only EPAM can state its own tenant configuration. An admission establishes that\n bulk local retention was an enabled, ordinary feature, and spares a Microsoft 365\n administration designee.\n\nRFA No. 30\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Forensic attribution: EPAM's audit logs record automated hydration as server-side\n download events under the user's account.\n \u2022 Narrows: This is the log-semantics fact on which the 44,960-file narrative rests. An\n admission converts a forensic-expert dispute into an undisputed record property; a denial\n isolates precisely what EPAM contends its logs mean.\n\nRFA No. 31\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Forensic attribution: sync produces hydration metadata and cache artifacts rather\n than browser download artifacts.\n \u2022 Narrows: A technical opinion within Rule 36(a)(1)(A) that EPAM's IT function can\n confirm. An admission lets device-side evidence be read consistently with the server-side\n records without a second expert round.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 7 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 9 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 32\n \u2022 Source: Forensic Protocol Exhibit B (Microsoft 365 audit export); EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Composition of EPAM's own produced export: over 80% of entries are\n FileSyncDownloadedFull operations by the OneDrive client.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission fixes the composition of EPAM's central forensic exhibit and\n forecloses summary-exhibit disputes under Fed. R. Evid. 1006.\n\nRFA No. 33\n \u2022 Source: Forensic Protocol Exhibit B (Microsoft 365 audit export); EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Attribution by user-agent: at least 44,000 entries record the sync engine; fewer than\n 100 record a web browser.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission attributes the overwhelming mass of events to background\n software rather than human browsing \u2014 the central inference in the acquisition story.\n\nRFA No. 34\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 43-2; EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Record statement: EPAM counsel's declaration quotes Microsoft's definition of\n FileSyncDownloadedFull.\n \u2022 Narrows: Confirming a footnote EPAM's own declarant placed in the record removes any\n later dispute over Purview event definitions.\n\nRFA No. 35\n \u2022 Source: Forensic Protocol Exhibit B (Microsoft 365 audit export); EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Content of the synchronized libraries: none held source code for the three named\n tools.\n \u2022 Narrows: This request separates 44,960 files from the trade-secret claims: if the libraries\n contained no accused code, the sync events cannot be code acquisition. EPAM controls the\n libraries and can answer from content inventories; a denial must locate code in a named\n library, which becomes the single follow-up target.\n\nRFA No. 36\n \u2022 Source: Forensic Protocol Exhibit B (Microsoft 365 audit export); EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Content of the export: entries record me retrieving my own personnel-records\n archive from HR's folder.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission illustrates the innocuous character of logged FileDownloaded\n events and corroborates the personnel-records request that is part of the CEPA chronology.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 8 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 10 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 37\n \u2022 Source: Forensic Protocol Exhibit B (Microsoft 365 audit export); EPAM communications\n and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Content of the export: FileDownloaded entries include ordinary work files shared by\n named colleagues over Teams.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission converts the anonymous log rows into ordinary collaboration,\n without deposing Mr. Sen, Mr. Ghate, or Mr. Salim.\n\nRFA No. 38\n \u2022 Source: Forensic Protocol Exhibit B (Microsoft 365 audit export); EPAM communications\n and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Negative content fact: no browser or Teams entry in the export contains source code\n or repository archives.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission closes the last route from the export to code acquisition.\n\nRFA No. 39\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request; EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Production-state fact: no server-side version-control log showing acquisition in\n September\u2013October 2025 has been produced.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission fixes the state of the record for summary judgment; a denial\n identifies a production that should already exist, and one targeted request replaces motion\n practice.\n\nRFA No. 40\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Possession fact: EPAM holds no server-side clone log showing that I acquired the\n three named codebases in 2025.\n \u2022 Narrows: This is the decisive acquisition record for the repository-based theory. Either\n answer is valuable: an admission removes direct acquisition evidence from the case; a\n denial identifies the specific log, and the dispute collapses to one document.\n\nRFA No. 41\n \u2022 Source: Forensic Protocol Exhibit B (Microsoft 365 audit export); EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Scope of the forensic record: the produced export is the only server-side download\n telemetry supporting the acquisition allegations.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission defines the evidentiary universe the parties and the Court are\n working with and prevents late expansion without production.\n\nRFA No. 42\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 9 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 11 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Issue: Secrecy measures, stated conditionally: if no clone logs were kept, EPAM lacked\n technical means to track code acquisition.\n \u2022 Narrows: I acknowledge that this request is conditional in form. It presents an application\n of fact to the reasonable-measures element, and a qualified answer under Rule 36(a)(4)\n would serve its purpose: either answer states EPAM's position on its own logging.\n\nRFA No. 43\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request; EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Access-control fact: none of my credentials was provisioned read, write, or clone\n permissions to ETL Kit repositories in 2025.\n \u2022 Narrows: With RFA 11 it forecloses the repository-access route to the ETL Kit; it adds the\n named systems and the year scope so the admission is precise enough to use at summary\n judgment.\nRFAs 44\u201357 \u2014 EPAM's actual information-handling practices: personal accounts, external tools,\nexpense approvals, and infrastructure decisions. These bear on reasonable secrecy measures and on\nwhether the conduct alleged against me was consistent with practices EPAM permitted, and they\nsubstitute for depositions of the named employees and approvers.\n\nRFA No. 44\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Trade-secret existence: the ETL Kit's transformation logic derives at least in part\n from public OHDSI tools and OMOP vocabularies.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission \u2014 even a qualified one \u2014 performs the identification work the\n DTSA requires: it separates the public foundation from whatever EPAM claims as its\n proprietary remainder, and the case then concerns only the remainder.\n\nRFA No. 45\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Reasonable secrecy measures and comparator practice: routine employee use of\n personal email and Google tools for EPAM work.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes the practice without deposing a sample of EPAM\n employees, which I cannot fund. It bears both on the DTSA measures element and on\n whether conduct alleged against me was condoned when others did it.\n\nRFA No. 46\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-10\n \u2022 Issue: A documented instance of that practice: the September 24, 2025 Google-document\n share to personal accounts, reflected in a filed exhibit (ECF No. 33-10).\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission authenticates and fixes one concrete, dated instance, converting\n the comparator practice from generality to record fact; the underlying invitation is already\n filed. Without it, proof requires examining Mr. Iaroshovets.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 10 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 12 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 47\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-10\n \u2022 Issue: A second documented instance: the July 2, 2025 Google-spreadsheet share (ECF No.\n 33-10 at 2).\n \u2022 Narrows: The same function as RFA 46 for a different sender and date, showing the\n practice was not isolated.\n\nRFA No. 48\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Selective enforcement: no discipline of the three named employees for personal-\n account sharing.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission supplies the comparator half of the CEPA pretext analysis \u2014 the\n same conduct, tolerated \u2014 and simultaneously bears on secrecy measures.\n\nRFA No. 49\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33\n \u2022 Issue: Authorized practice with client knowledge: the Takeda POC deliverables were\n drafted on personal Google Docs with the client representative's knowledge.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission removes improper-means significance from the very workflow\n EPAM now characterizes as misconduct, and avoids third-party discovery of Takeda's\n representative on a point EPAM's own communications can settle.\n\nRFA No. 50\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: A fixed communication: my corporate email to the Takeda representative confirming\n an open-source methodology.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes contemporaneous transparency about the open-science\n approach \u2014 relevant to secrecy, ownership, and later to the CEPA ownership escalation \u2014\n without authentication testimony.\n\nRFA No. 51\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Secrecy measures as implemented: no DLP or gateway controls blocked external\n personal-account sharing in September\u2013October 2025.\n \u2022 Narrows: The measures element turns on what EPAM actually did, not what its policies\n recite. An admission fixes the technical posture from EPAM's own security configuration\n and substitutes for security-operations testimony.\n\nRFA No. 52\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 11 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 13 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Issue: Secrecy measures: no recall, wipe, or audit mechanism existed for documents once\n shared to personal accounts.\n \u2022 Narrows: Completes the implemented-measures picture and spares the same security-\n operations testimony.\n\nRFA No. 53\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Authorization and consistent practice: EPAM reviewed, approved, and reimbursed\n my personal-account AI subscriptions.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes institutional approval of the AI tooling now cast as\n suspect, without an expense-system designee.\n\nRFA No. 54\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Managerial knowledge: Mr. Klebanov approved those reimbursements month over\n month.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission attributes the approvals to the supervisor central to the case,\n narrowing his deposition and the pretext inquiry.\n\nRFA No. 55\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Consistency of practice, post-filing: an EPAM in-house lawyer used a personal\n account to request access to a cloud document in June 2026.\n \u2022 Narrows: I acknowledge that this concerns a post-suit event and involves EPAM's\n counsel's office. It is included solely because the access request is logged and shows the\n personal-account channel remained ordinary, and I identify it as a natural candidate for the\n prioritization offered in the letter.\n\nRFA No. 56\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Development chronology and knowledge: my December 10, 2024 planning with Mr.\n Klebanov on LLM integration.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes that LLM work was collaborative and known from the\n outset, undermining any later suggestion that the AI work was covert. It shortens the\n Klebanov deposition.\n\nRFA No. 57\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Infrastructure history: Mr. Klebanov declined dedicated servers for vector databases\n in December 2024.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 12 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 14 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission explains why development ran on external and public\n infrastructure \u2014 EPAM's own resourcing decision \u2014 bearing on authorization and on the\n origin of the accused tools.\n\nSET 2 \u2014 public sources, prior work, and ownership\nRFAs 58\u201370 \u2014 public OHDSI and OMOP material, and what the neutral examination found. These\nseparate public, openly licensed components from anything EPAM can claim as a secret, and they\nfix the results of the iDS inspection.\n\nRFA No. 58\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Public availability: OHDSI repositories are distributed under open-source licenses.\n \u2022 Narrows: The licenses are on the public repositories the request names. An admission\n removes the entire OHDSI ecosystem from any secrecy claim and gives the \u00a7 1(b) carve-\n out its factual footing; no witness is needed to prove what the license files say.\n\nRFA No. 59\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Public availability: OMOP Common Data Model specifications are freely published.\n \u2022 Narrows: The same function as RFA 58, for the data model at the core of the ETL domain.\n\nRFA No. 60\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Ownership boundary: EPAM claims no proprietary rights in OHDSI-organization\n repositories. Schedule A narrows the wording of this request.\n \u2022 Narrows: As narrowed, an admission draws the line between community property and\n anything EPAM can assert, shrinking the identification dispute at the threshold. A denial\n would have to name the OHDSI repository EPAM claims, which is itself clarifying.\n\nRFA No. 61\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Pre-existing role: my OHDSI working-group leadership before and during\n employment.\n \u2022 Narrows: Foundation for the \u00a7 1(b) community-work exclusion and for the recruitment\n narrative; publicly verifiable, and EPAM's recruitment records show it knew. An admission\n avoids proving professional history through testimony.\n\nRFA No. 62\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Prior expertise: pre-employment publications and public software packages.\n \u2022 Narrows: This establishes the knowledge-and-skills baseline that \u00a7 1(b) excludes from\n Confidential Information, without a resume trial.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 13 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 15 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 63\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Recruitment fact: hired at a $250,000 base salary for verified credentials.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission ties compensation to pre-existing expertise \u2014 relevant to the\n general-knowledge carve-out and to inducement damages \u2014 and comes straight from\n EPAM's offer and payroll records.\n\nRFA No. 64\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Composition: the ETL Kit uses public OHDSI SQL transformation scripts.\n \u2022 Narrows: Like RFA 44, the answer performs DTSA identification: admit the public\n componentry and the claim narrows to the remainder; deny it and the dispute becomes a\n concrete code comparison instead of an abstraction.\n\nRFA No. 65\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Public availability: OMOP mapping specifications and transformation rules are\n published.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission forecloses secrecy claims over the mapping layer.\n\nRFA No. 66\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: EPAM's own disclosure: public marketing and client training on the OMOP ETL\n workflow.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes voluntary disclosure of the functional workflow \u2014\n fatal to secrecy over that workflow \u2014 from EPAM's marketing materials and training\n records, without deposing marketing personnel.\n\nRFA No. 67\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Independent public art: Johnson & Johnson publishes its own open-source OMOP\n ETL codebase.\n \u2022 Narrows: A public-record fact that undercuts independent economic value from secrecy for\n OMOP ETL generally.\n\nRFA No. 68\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Access architecture: the ETL engineering team was managed separately from my\n unit.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission supports the no-access showing for the ETL Kit organizationally,\n complementing the log-based requests, and substitutes for organization-chart testimony.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 14 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 16 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 69\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Neutral-examiner result: iDS found zero ETL Kit source files on the workstation.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission converts the neutral inspection result into an established fact,\n eliminating examiner testimony on the point and anchoring summary judgment on the\n possession element for the ETL Kit.\n\nRFA No. 70\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Post-inspection identification: EPAM has identified no ETL Kit file among the\n 80,000-plus extracted files it can access.\n \u2022 Narrows: This fixes the state of the record after months of Relativity access. An admission\n supports absence-of-identification arguments; a denial must identify the file, ending the\n search.\nRFAs 71\u201381 \u2014 the LlmPromptBuilders repository and the Employment Covenants Agreement \u00a7 1(b)\nexclusions. The repository's commit history is public and cryptographically fixed; the contract is\nEPAM's own filed exhibit.\n\nRFA No. 71\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request; EPAM\n communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Public provenance and chronology: the May 8, 2025 root commit and releases of\n LlmPromptBuilders under OHDSI and Apache 2.0.\n \u2022 Narrows: Git metadata is public and cryptographically fixed; the request quotes the hashes.\n An admission authenticates the development chronology of the one repository EPAM's\n papers single out, with no forensic witness.\n\nRFA No. 72\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1\n \u2022 Issue: Contract text: the \u00a7 1(b) exclusion of community and professional work from\n Confidential Information.\n \u2022 Narrows: The clause is quoted from EPAM's own filed contract. An admission establishes\n the governing text for the central contract-interpretation issue and removes any custodian or\n authenticity dispute.\n\nRFA No. 73\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1\n \u2022 Issue: Absence of a term: \u00a7 1(b) imposes no advance-permission requirement for\n community software work.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 15 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 17 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: A document-comparison answer. An admission forecloses EPAM's no-\n permission theory as a textual matter and tees the interpretation up for summary judgment\n on an agreed text.\n\nRFA No. 74\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1; public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Formation knowledge: EPAM and Odysseus leadership knew of my open-source\n activity before I signed the ECA.\n \u2022 Narrows: Knowledge at formation frames \u00a7 1(b)'s application and any acquiescence\n argument. An admission removes a Klebanov examination topic.\n\nRFA No. 75\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1; public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Application of the contract to fact: OHDSI software built without EPAM confidential\n information falls within \u00a7 1(b).\n \u2022 Narrows: Rule 36(a)(1)(A) expressly reaches this. An admission resolves the category; a\n denial defines the interpretive dispute for briefing rather than testimony. Either answer\n shortens summary judgment.\n\nRFA No. 76\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1; public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: The same application to the specific repository: LlmPromptBuilders is within \u00a7 1(b).\n \u2022 Narrows: This moves RFA 75 from category to the accused repository itself. An answer\n either removes the repository from the case or isolates exactly why EPAM contends the\n carve-out fails.\n\nRFA No. 77\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Content fact: the repository contains no code copied or derived from EPAM internal\n repositories.\n \u2022 Narrows: EPAM can compare a public repository against its own private code \u2014 an\n exercise entirely within its means. A denial must rest on identified code, which is the\n identification the DTSA demands anyway; an admission ends the derivation theory for this\n repository.\n\nRFA No. 78\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Content fact: the repository contains no client confidential data, including Takeda's.\n \u2022 Narrows: The same structure as RFA 77 for client material. The repository is public; the\n comparison set is EPAM's own client data.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 16 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 18 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 79\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Identification-state fact: EPAM has identified no class, method, or line in the\n repository as its trade secret.\n \u2022 Narrows: This fixes the as-of-today record for summary judgment. If EPAM has since\n made an identification, the answer will say so and discovery narrows to it.\n\nRFA No. 80\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Composition: the repository depends only on public libraries and public LLM APIs.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission forecloses any argument that the package embeds EPAM internals.\n\nRFA No. 81\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Descriptive foundation: what the repository is and does.\n \u2022 Narrows: A foundation admission that lets later filings describe the repository without a\n characterization dispute. I rank it as supporting.\nRFAs 82\u201391 \u2014 the origin of the Takeda proof-of-concept and ownership of Takeda deliverables.\nThese fix the development chronology and the contractual allocation of ownership, the two facts on\nwhich EPAM's claim to the accused AI work depends.\n\nRFA No. 82\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Origin of the accused AI work: the first Takeda orexin POC was an advisory\n demonstration on public Gemini with public data.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission fixes what existed at the origin \u2014 no proprietary platform \u2014 and\n reframes everything later built on it. It substitutes for examining Mr. Yezhkov and Mr.\n Klebanov about demonstrations they attended.\n\nRFA No. 83\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Chronology: the POC predated any assignment of EPAM developers.\n \u2022 Narrows: Sequencing matters to derivation and ownership: what I made before developers\n arrived cannot be their work. Project records answer it.\n\nRFA No. 84\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Negative development fact: no proprietary application, backend, or repository was\n built for the initial POC.\n \u2022 Narrows: This confines the proprietary-development claim to later phases, if any, and is\n answerable from EPAM's project and repository records.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 17 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 19 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 85\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Public inputs: the initial simulation ran on public scientific data and consumer LLM\n accounts.\n \u2022 Narrows: This completes the origin picture; an admission removes the initial phase from\n any secrecy claim.\n\nRFA No. 86\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: The written client communication confirming the open-source methodology for the\n Takeda GenAI work.\n \u2022 Narrows: This substantially overlaps RFA 50, and I expect one answer to serve both; it is\n retained because this sequence frames the Takeda engagement specifically.\n\nRFA No. 87\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Content fact: the repository holds generic prompt-engineering classes and no Takeda\n data.\n \u2022 Narrows: This overlaps RFA 78 in part; the addition is the affirmative characterization of\n what the code is. A single qualified answer covering both is acceptable to me.\n\nRFA No. 88\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Contract ownership: under MSA CW2719230, Takeda owns the deliverables.\n \u2022 Narrows: This is the ownership allocation at the heart of the trade-secret, conversion, and\n replevin claims. An admission removes any need to draw Takeda into ownership discovery\n and frames summary judgment on EPAM's right to claim the deliverables.\n\nRFA No. 89\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Chronology: the public root commit predates EPAM's internal Synapse architecture\n documentation.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes independent, prior creation of the public work \u2014 a\n complete answer to derivation as to that code \u2014 from dated records both public and\n internal to EPAM.\n\nRFA No. 90\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Repository inactivity: final commit July 4, 2025; no commits in September\u2013\n November 2025.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 18 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 20 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission detaches the repository from the termination-period narrative:\n nothing was published to it during the events at issue.\n\nRFA No. 91\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1\n \u2022 Issue: Textual contrast: \u00a7 5(c)(1) contains an express written-consent requirement; \u00a7 1(b)\n contains none.\n \u2022 Narrows: A drafting-contrast fact that guides interpretation \u2014 where the parties required\n consent, they said so. It is answerable by reading the filed contract and useful at summary\n judgment without extrinsic evidence.\nRFAs 92\u201396 \u2014 EPAM's own use and classification of OHDSI open-source packages, including in\nits filed architecture exhibits.\n\nRFA No. 92\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request; EPAM\n communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: EPAM's own use: its teams used the named OHDSI packages for Amgen client\n work.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes that EPAM itself treated these packages as ordinary\n open-source tools in commercial work \u2014 inconsistent with secrecy claims over them \u2014\n without deposing the team members involved.\n\nRFA No. 93\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: The same use fact for kala and cohortalgebra in client pipelines.\n \u2022 Narrows: Narrower and concrete; an admission forecloses re-characterizing those packages\n later.\n\nRFA No. 94\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Knowledge: leadership knew by May 2025 that I authored public OHDSI\n repositories.\n \u2022 Narrows: Contemporaneous knowledge defeats surprise and supports acquiescence; it is\n provable from EPAM's own communications, and an admission spares that examination.\n\nRFA No. 95\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Public availability of the eight named packages.\n \u2022 Narrows: The admission fixes the public status of every package the later requests rely on\n \u2014 once \u2014 instead of through eight separate foundation disputes.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 19 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 21 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 96\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 58-9; ECF No. 58-10; public repositories or publications identified in the\n request\n \u2022 Issue: EPAM's own classification: its filed architecture exhibits list LlmPromptBuilders\n and OHDSI tools as external third-party dependencies.\n \u2022 Narrows: EPAM's engineering documents, already on the docket, call the accused\n repository external. An admission aligns the case with EPAM's own records and can be\n answered by reading ECF Nos. 58-9 and 58-10.\nRFAs 97\u2013109 \u2014 the \u00a7 1(b) carve-outs, my pre-existing expertise, and general industry knowledge.\nSeveral expressly apply contract language to identified categories; Rule 36(a)(1)(A) reaches that\napplication, and the answers define the interpretive dispute for summary judgment.\n\nRFA No. 97\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1\n \u2022 Issue: Contract text: \u00a7 1(b) excludes prior-known and publicly available information.\n \u2022 Narrows: Together with RFAs 72\u201373, this fixes the full text of the operative exclusions; a\n reading exercise on EPAM's own exhibit.\n\nRFA No. 98\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1\n \u2022 Issue: Contract text: \u00a7 1(b) excludes general industry knowledge and skills.\n \u2022 Narrows: The same as RFA 97, for the clause that carries the general-knowledge defense.\n\nRFA No. 99\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Prior possession: I lawfully held archives of public codebases and literature before\n employment.\n \u2022 Narrows: I acknowledge EPAM may need to qualify its answer from the forensic inventory\n rather than personal knowledge; even a qualified admission distinguishes pre-employment\n material on my devices from EPAM material, narrowing the forensic-attribution dispute.\n\nRFA No. 100\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Prior relationship: my years of technical correspondence with Mr. Klebanov before\n hire.\n \u2022 Narrows: This frames what expertise predated EPAM \u2014 the \u00a7 1(b) baseline \u2014 and\n shortens the planned Klebanov deposition.\n\nRFA No. 101\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 20 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 22 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Issue: Formation representation: Mr. Klebanov's assurance that the covenants would not\n restrict independent scientific and open-source work.\n \u2022 Narrows: This bears on \u00a7 1(b) interpretation and inducement. If admitted, a central\n formation fact is settled; if denied, the dispute is confined to one conversation with a\n witness I am already deposing.\n\nRFA No. 102\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Documented corporate support: the December 4, 2024 written authorization to\n assign EPAM personnel to OHDSI work.\n \u2022 Narrows: A dated writing in EPAM's systems. An admission shows institutional\n endorsement of the OHDSI channel, inconsistent with later treating that channel as\n diversion.\n\nRFA No. 103\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Credentials foundation: licensure and board certifications.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission removes any need to prove qualifications at trial and supports the\n general-expertise and damages baselines. I rank it foundational and low-cost.\n\nRFA No. 104\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Prior career expertise at named employers.\n \u2022 Narrows: The same function, from EPAM's own hiring file; it forecloses re-litigating\n where my domain knowledge came from.\n\nRFA No. 105\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Corporate-status foundation: EPAM is an IT consultancy, not a pharmaceutical\n company, provider, or insurer.\n \u2022 Narrows: A one-line admission that frames the general-industry-knowledge analysis;\n effectively cost-free.\n\nRFA No. 106\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1\n \u2022 Issue: Application of \u00a7 1(b) to a category: pharmaceutical-industry concepts as general\n industry knowledge.\n \u2022 Narrows: Rule 36(a)(1)(A) reaches the application of contract language to fact. An\n admission removes the category from the Confidential Information dispute; a reasoned\n denial or qualification defines the interpretive question for summary-judgment briefing\n instead of witness time. I accept that qualification is a legitimate answer here.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 21 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 23 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 107\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1\n \u2022 Issue: The same application for OMOP methods and cohort-definition logic.\n \u2022 Narrows: As with RFA 106, either a concession or a crisply framed dispute results; both\n are progress compared with litigating the category through experts.\n\nRFA No. 108\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1\n \u2022 Issue: The same application for foundational AI and LLM concepts.\n \u2022 Narrows: This is the category most central to the accused AI tools. The answer determines\n whether EPAM claims proprietary rights in concepts the industry publishes, or concedes the\n fight is only about specific implementations.\n\nRFA No. 109\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Negative provenance: EPAM provided no proprietary algorithms or models not\n derived from public sources.\n \u2022 Narrows: I acknowledge the breadth of this request; a partial admission with identified\n exceptions is a fully useful answer, because each exception performs the identification the\n DTSA requires.\nRFAs 110\u2013119 \u2014 my designated Synapse role, internal circulation, external disclosure, and trade-\nsecret governance. These test secrecy measures and independent economic value from records and\nevents EPAM controls.\n\nRFA No. 110\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Designated role: Product Owner and Lead Architect for Synapse.\n \u2022 Narrows: EPAM's own designation makes me the authorized creator of the material later\n claimed against me. An admission fixes the role from personnel records and removes an\n executive-testimony topic.\n\nRFA No. 111\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Role scope: roadmap, architecture decks, and commercial positioning.\n \u2022 Narrows: This completes RFA 110 and establishes that authoring and presenting the\n accused materials was the assignment itself.\n\nRFA No. 112\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request; EPAM communications and\n calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Provisioned access: enterprise-wide read-write access to Synapse workspaces.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 22 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 24 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: The access grant is recorded in EPAM's permission systems. An admission ends\n the unauthorized-access theory for the Synapse materials specifically.\n\nRFA No. 113\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Openness of development: continuous collaboration with six named executives.\n \u2022 Narrows: One admission substitutes for six executive depositions I cannot fund; it\n establishes that the work proceeded in the open, inconsistent with improper means.\n\nRFA No. 114\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Internal secrecy practice: decks and workflows circulated on open channels without\n access restrictions.\n \u2022 Narrows: This bears directly on reasonable measures for the very materials at issue;\n\nRFA No. 115\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: External secrecy practice: client presentations without bespoke NDAs beyond\n standard terms.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission fixes EPAM's disclosure posture toward prospects, narrowing the\n measures element; sales records answer it.\n\nRFA No. 116\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Trade-secret governance: no register or inventory named the three tools before\n termination.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes that the claimed secrets were never identified as such\n in EPAM's own governance \u2014 probative on identification and measures \u2014 and replaces a\n Rule 30(b)(6) IP-governance deposition.\n\nRFA No. 117\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Named executive disclosures to AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, and Roche\n without NDAs or markings.\n \u2022 Narrows: Concrete instances of RFA 115's practice; an admission avoids examining Dr.\n Waller and Mr. Klebanov on their own presentations.\n\nRFA No. 118\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Public disclosure by EPAM: the Prometheus architecture presented at a public\n symposium and published on YouTube.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 23 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 25 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission ends secrecy claims over what the presentation disclosed, with no\n subpoena to the symposium and no witness.\n\nRFA No. 119\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Public availability: MedRAG is an open-source public toolkit.\n \u2022 Narrows: Because EPAM's declarant defines the AI Accelerator as Synapse plus MedRAG,\n the public status of MedRAG halves that composite claim.\n\nSET 3 \u2014 development history, funding, and forensic records\nRFAs 120\u2013127 \u2014 development history and funding of the accused tools, and the October 12, 2025\nlicense commit EPAM cites as a termination reason. Lettered subparts trace single episodes step by\nstep.\n\nRFA No. 120\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Development history: the May 2025 demonstrations were consumer-Gemini prompt\n experiments presented to seek internal R&D funding.\n \u2022 Narrows: The subparts walk one episode \u2014 the events, their nature, their purpose, their\n setting. Admissions fix the origin of the Accelerator effort as authorized, public-tool\n experimentation, sparing examination of Mr. Yezhkov and the other attendees.\n\nRFA No. 121\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Funding provenance: internal investment codes, corporate-overhead funding, and\n their exclusion from Odysseus revenue targets.\n \u2022 Narrows: The answers matter twice: to ownership (what was EPAM-funded versus client-\n funded) and to Mr. Klebanov's financial motive in the CEPA chronology, otherwise\n provable only through a finance designee.\n\nRFA No. 122\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Commercialization record: the team, the pricing framework, and the revenue\n projection for the Accelerator.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission fixes EPAM's internal valuation posture \u2014 projections without\n realized sales \u2014 which disciplines any later damages theory, and establishes the\n collaborative, management-approved character of the commercialization work without\n deposing the people named.\n\nRFA No. 123\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 24 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 26 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Issue: Collaborative creation and custody of the Synapse architecture artifacts, and their\n absence from my inspected devices.\n \u2022 Narrows: Subparts (a)\u2013(c) fix authorship and custody from EPAM's systems; subpart (d)\n fixes a neutral-examiner result. Together they answer both ownership and possession for the\n architecture materials without examiner or developer testimony.\n\nRFA No. 124\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Authorized funding initiatives: the AWS sponsorship pitch and the Johnson &\n Johnson go-to-market proposal.\n \u2022 Narrows: Approved, documented business initiatives negate any covert-diversion\n characterization of the same activity and set the damages context. EPAM's records and the\n named executives can answer.\n\nRFA No. 125\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Public availability of OMOP ETL concepts across workshops, academies, and\n repositories, and their functional implementability from public sources.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes that the domain knowledge is public at the level the\n request states, narrowing any ETL secret to specific implementations if EPAM identifies\n them.\n\nRFA No. 126\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Fraudulent-inducement elements: the recruitment representations about autonomy,\n resources, and mandate, and the post-hire reality.\n \u2022 Narrows: The subparts pair representation with outcome \u2014 the structure of the inducement\n counterclaim. Admissions would resolve the representation element without deposition;\n denials isolate which representation EPAM disputes, focusing the Klebanov examination.\n\nRFA No. 127\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 3-6; EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: The October 12, 2025 license commit: GitLab's auto-populated header, EPAM's\n written acknowledgment that the attachment may not have been intentional, and its citation\n of the event as a termination reason.\n \u2022 Narrows: This single episode carries much of the for-cause narrative. Admissions fix the\n mechanics (a template artifact), EPAM's own written concession, and the reliance on the\n event \u2014 after which the pretext question is briefed on an agreed record instead of through\n examiner and HR testimony.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 25 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 27 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFAs 128\u2013135 \u2014 what EPAM's operative pleading does and does not assert. Schedule A rewrites\nmost of these to ask the underlying fact or EPAM's present contention; either form defines the\nclaims that actually require proof.\n\nRFA No. 128\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: Claim definition: the aggregated defined term, the 44,960-file allegation under it,\n and the absence of an itemizing schedule. Schedule A rewrites these subparts to ask the\n underlying facts and contentions.\n \u2022 Narrows: As corrected, the answers establish what EPAM actually asserts was taken,\n which controls the scope of every downstream element. The alternative \u2014 motion practice\n or a contention-style deposition \u2014 costs far more than reading the operative pleading\n against its own record.\n\nRFA No. 129\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30; ECF No. 30-1\n \u2022 Issue: Pleaded authorization: EPAM's allegations of granted access and \u00a7 1(d)'s permission\n to use confidential information in authorized duties. Schedule A corrects subpart (a);\n subpart (b) asks what the filed contract says.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions align the CFAA and fiduciary theories with EPAM's own pleading\n and contract, eliminating the access-authorization dispute at its source.\n\nRFA No. 130\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: Trade-secret identification: functional descriptions, and the absence of any allegation\n identifying a specific algorithm or structure. Schedule A corrects subparts (b) and (c).\n \u2022 Narrows: The answers frame the identification question that precedes everything else in a\n trade-secret case. An admission narrows discovery to whatever EPAM later particularizes; a\n denial must point to the identifying allegation.\n\nRFA No. 131\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: Composition of the defined term: client contracts and compensation data swept into\n the trade-secret counts.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission concedes that the defined term includes categories that are not\n plausibly statutory trade secrets, trimming Counts I and II to a reviewable core.\n\nRFA No. 132\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: Use and disclosure: the pleading identifies no post-termination disclosure and no\n commercialization. Schedule A rewrites both subparts to present-contention form.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 26 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 28 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: As corrected, admissions confine the misappropriation theory to acquisition and\n retention \u2014 a decisive narrowing for summary judgment and for the scope of remaining\n discovery.\n\nRFA No. 133\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: Ownership pleading: client-developed material, no differentiation of client property,\n and no pleaded assignment or license authority. Schedule A corrects three of the four\n subparts.\n \u2022 Narrows: The answers fix whether EPAM has pleaded \u2014 or now asserts \u2014 a right to claim\n client deliverables as its own secrets, the standing question underlying the Takeda cluster.\n\nRFA No. 134\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: Derivative counts: Counts IV\u2013VII incorporate the same facts and the same defined\n property. Schedule A corrects all three subparts.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions establish that the tort counts stand or fall with the same property\n definition, so preemption and duplication can be briefed without separate discovery for\n each count.\n\nRFA No. 135\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30; ECF No. 3-13\n \u2022 Issue: Contract damages and pre-suit notice: no named lost client, no pleaded quantum, and\n no pre-suit identification of specific files. Schedule A corrects (a) and (b); (c) asks about\n EPAM's own correspondence.\n \u2022 Narrows: The answers fix the damages-and-notice posture of Count III from EPAM's own\n pleading and letters, informing both summary judgment and proportionality.\nRFAs 136\u2013146 \u2014 the stipulated forensic protocol: what it required, what the neutral examiner\nfound, and what EPAM designated. These confine examiner and expert testimony to actually\ndisputed points.\n\nRFA No. 136\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 20; ECF No. 55; iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request;\n public repositories or publications identified in the request; EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Forensic-process history: surrender of the five devices under the Consent Order and\n completion of imaging and collections.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions establish the neutral-process foundation both sides rely on,\n eliminating process testimony from iDS and any authentication dispute about the\n inspection's scope.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 27 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 29 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 137\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 55; iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Protocol requirements, and the absence of any identified post-notice deletion by me.\n \u2022 Narrows: This fixes what the protocol mandated and the current state of EPAM's deletion\n allegations, answerable from the protocol text and EPAM's own review. It confines the\n preservation dispute to specifics, if EPAM has any.\n\nRFA No. 138\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request; EPAM communications and\n calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Preservation trigger: when EPAM reasonably anticipated litigation and what its own\n duty covered.\n \u2022 Narrows: This applies a legal standard to dates in EPAM's control \u2014 a use Rule 36(a)(1)\n (A) permits. I acknowledge that EPAM may qualify its answer; even so, the response fixes\n EPAM's position on the trigger date, which governs both sides' Rule 37(e) arguments and\n would otherwise consume a Rule 30(b)(6) preservation deposition.\n\nRFA No. 139\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Forensic-methodology history: the April 2026 de-NISTing proposal, EPAM's\n declination, and search terms that included open-source and generic strings.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions establish why the hit counts are inflated, from correspondence and\n the protocol exhibits, disciplining how the forensic numbers can be characterized at the\n hearing and afterward \u2014 without a methodology expert on each side.\n\nRFA No. 140\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Control and production state: EPAM controls the server-side logs, produced\n spreadsheets, and has produced no raw version-control logs.\n \u2022 Narrows: The answers fix what exists, who holds it, and what has been produced \u2014\n converting a potential motion-to-compel fight into one targeted request or a clean\n summary-judgment record.\n\nRFA No. 141\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 58-12 and 58-13\n \u2022 Issue: Custody of forensic materials: unredacted extractions provided to a non-attorney\n developer abroad, over objection.\n \u2022 Narrows: These are stated as record facts, not accusation: who received what, and when I\n objected. Admissions fix the handling record so any later dispute about protocol\n compliance is narrow and documentary.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 28 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 30 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 142\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 3-4; EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Foundation of EPAM's lead declaration: the declarant's credentials as disclosed, the\n log-row source of the 44,960 figure, and the absence of content examination before signing.\n \u2022 Narrows: These are the cross-examination points that would otherwise require deposing\n EPAM's CISO. Admissions establish the basis and limits of the declaration EPAM filed to\n seek emergency relief; denials identify exactly what EPAM claims its declarant did.\n\nRFA No. 143\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 43-3; ECF No. 55; ECF No. 54-6; iDS neutral-forensic records identified\n in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Record statements and protocol duties: counsel's on-the-record statement, the five-\n day designation obligation, and the undesignated files.\n \u2022 Narrows: Each subpart is fixed by a transcript, the protocol text, or the iDS reports.\n Admissions carry the designation history into summary judgment without witnesses.\n\nRFA No. 144\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Neutral-examiner results: the targeted search list and the zero hits on the\n workstation.\n \u2022 Narrows: This is the possession element for the Cohort Generator and ETL Kit, answered\n by the examiner's own report. An admission makes the inspection result usable at summary\n judgment without testimony; no cheaper proof exists for either side.\n\nRFA No. 145\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request; public repositories or\n publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Forensic methodology: de-NISTing as standard practice, and hash-list entries\n matching empty files and Git templates.\n \u2022 Narrows: Subpart (a) is a methodology opinion Rule 36(a)(1)(A) reaches, and I accept a\n qualified answer; subpart (b) is arithmetic on EPAM's own exhibit. Together they calibrate\n the weight of the hash-match evidence without competing experts.\n\nRFA No. 146\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 55; iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Composition of the global review listings: keyword and filename matches\n predominate; exact-hash matches are a small fraction and include collisions.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions prevent the raw hit totals from being presented as more than they\n are, narrowing the forensic dispute to any specific, substantive match EPAM identifies.\n\nRFA No. 147\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-1\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 29 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 31 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Issue: Recruitment representations: the financial baseline, team, and infrastructure\n described to induce the ECA.\n \u2022 Narrows: This is the representation element of inducement, fixed in one answer instead of\n examination; EPAM's recruitment communications and Mr. Klebanov can answer. Denials\n would identify which representation EPAM disputes, focusing the Klebanov deposition.\n\nSET 4 \u2014 whistleblower chronology, ownership, and third-party effects\nRFAs 148\u2013153 \u2014 CEPA background: managerial motive, the contemporaneous performance\nrecord, and the systems that record employee locations.\n\nRFA No. 148\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-2; ECF No. 43-7\n \u2022 Issue: CEPA background: the prior Roche business loss over background IP and the in-\n house legal advice relayed in a filed chat.\n \u2022 Narrows: Both sides filed the chat. Admissions fix the background against which the\n September 2025 ownership escalation occurred \u2014 EPAM already knew deliverable-IP\n problems could cost business \u2014 without deposing Ms. Barista.\n\nRFA No. 149\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 43-7\n \u2022 Issue: Genuineness and content of the filed September 23, 2025 chat, and the absence of\n any written correction to it.\n \u2022 Narrows: A Rule 36(a)(1)(B) authentication plus content facts for an exhibit EPAM itself\n filed; admissions remove every foundation dispute for one of the central CEPA documents.\n\nRFA No. 150\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Managerial motive: the Odysseus acquisition, Mr. Klebanov's earn-out structure, and\n the 2025 revenue decline.\n \u2022 Narrows: These are motive facts provable only from EPAM's finance and compensation\n records. Admissions establish the pressure on the decision-maker in the CEPA analysis;\n denials confine the dispute to identified figures a finance designee could otherwise spend a\n day on.\n\nRFA No. 151\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Inducement representations: P&L authority, a CMO trajectory, the growth mandate,\n and the undeployed data network.\n \u2022 Narrows: The subparts pair each representation with its status at signing. Admissions\n would resolve falsity for identified statements; the answers otherwise require examining the\n recruiting executives.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 30 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 32 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 152\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request; EPAM communications and\n calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Pretext record: the Star Magnet program and the clean contemporaneous\n performance file as of September 17, 2025.\n \u2022 Narrows: EPAM's HR system either contains discipline or it does not. An admission\n establishes the performance record on which the shifting-explanations analysis rests and\n replaces an HR-designee deposition.\n\nRFA No. 153\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-3; EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Systems foundation for the location facts: the work-location system of record,\n managed VPN and posture tooling, and the policy provision on device location.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions establish that EPAM's own systems recorded where people actually\n worked \u2014 the predicate making the Gilead location facts knowable to EPAM \u2014 so the\n later requests can be answered from records rather than recollection.\nRFAs 154\u2013158 \u2014 the Gilead staffing concern and my escalation: the protected-activity, employer-\nknowledge, and timing elements of the CEPA counterclaim, answerable from EPAM's contracts, HR\nsystems, telemetry, and named managers.\n\nRFA No. 154\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: The regulated context: Gilead engagements, licensed patient-level data, and location\n restrictions in the governing instruments.\n \u2022 Narrows: The objective-reasonableness element of CEPA turns on what the instruments\n required. EPAM holds the contracts; admissions fix the compliance framework without\n third-party discovery of Gilead.\n\nRFA No. 155\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: The core staffing facts: restricted-jurisdiction personnel on the Gilead account, and a\n location representation EPAM's own records could contradict.\n \u2022 Narrows: These are the facts I reasonably believed unlawful when I objected. Admissions\n would spare much of the planned Gilead deposition and avoid Rule 45 practice; specific\n denials would confine the dispute to named individuals and dates, which EPAM's telemetry\n can settle either way.\n\nRFA No. 156\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Mechanism facts: directed bypassing of protocols, session sharing, and routing\n through foreign gateways.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 31 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 33 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: Concrete, checkable practices recorded in EPAM's network infrastructure. Either\n answer disciplines the whistleblower narrative: admissions establish it; denials commit\n EPAM to positions its own network records can verify or refute in targeted production.\n\nRFA No. 157\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Protected activity and employer knowledge: the client's concern, my escalation to\n named managers, my refusal to participate, and the timing before the termination steps.\n \u2022 Narrows: The prima facie CEPA chain in four steps, each documented in EPAM's systems.\n Admissions replace examinations of Mr. Klebanov and Ms. McDermott on the escalation;\n the timing subpart fixes the causation window.\n\nRFA No. 158\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Employer response: no documented investigation, no outside review, no report, and\n no interview in the six weeks before termination.\n \u2022 Narrows: Causation and pretext evidence. An admission establishes institutional silence; a\n denial identifies the investigation, which then becomes a discrete discovery item.\nRFAs 159\u2013164 \u2014 Takeda contract ownership and what EPAM's own personnel said about it in\nSeptember 2025. These fix both the ownership defense to the trade-secret claims and the second\nprotected disclosure in the CEPA chronology.\n\nRFA No. 159\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-1\n \u2022 Issue: Contract ownership text: the Takeda MSA's work-for-hire and assignment\n provisions, as filed.\n \u2022 Narrows: A genuineness-and-text request on an exhibit already of record. An admission\n makes the ownership clause usable at summary judgment without foundation testimony\n from either side.\n\nRFA No. 160\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Ownership allocation in practice: accused functionality developed under Takeda\n work orders and billed to Takeda codes.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions connect the accused Cohort Generator and Prometheus work to\n client funding \u2014 the operative fact for who owns what the pleadings claim.\n\nRFA No. 161\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-2\n \u2022 Issue: Contemporaneous ownership statements: the ETL rewrite for Takeda and my\n September 20, 2025 email stating there was no pre-existing IP, received on EPAM systems.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 32 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 34 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions fix that EPAM heard the ownership problem stated plainly, in\n writing, before termination \u2014 feeding both the ownership defense and the protected-\n disclosure chronology \u2014 without testimony.\n\nRFA No. 162\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 3-6; ECF No. 58-2; ECF No. 58-28\n \u2022 Issue: Identification instability: the takeda-synapse-infra namespace, the not-final-\n tradename statement, the Synapse-plus-MedRAG gloss, and the absence of any pre-\n termination product release.\n \u2022 Narrows: Each subpart quotes or describes EPAM's own filings. Admissions pin down\n what the accused asset actually is \u2014 the question that must be answered before secrecy,\n value, or damages can be tried \u2014 and keep the definition from shifting between briefs.\n\nRFA No. 163\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-2\n \u2022 Issue: The second protected disclosure: written requests for legal review before any third-\n party demo, received on EPAM systems.\n \u2022 Narrows: These are filed writings; admissions establish protected activity and employer\n knowledge for the Takeda-IP escalation without examining the recipients.\n\nRFA No. 164\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: In-house knowledge: Legal's relayed conclusions that the MSA gives Takeda\n everything, and the absence of any produced contrary advice.\n \u2022 Narrows: The request fixes what was communicated to me \u2014 the basis of my belief, and\n EPAM's knowledge \u2014 not the correctness of legal advice. Admissions rest on the already-\n filed relay messages and avoid a privilege skirmish.\nRFAs 165\u2013173 \u2014 the separation chronology, September 17 through November 4, 2025, and the\nexplanation given at each step. The sequence frames causation and pretext; nearly every step is\nalready memorialized in writing.\n\nRFA No. 165\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Separation chronology, step one: the September 17 communication, its budgetary\n explanation, the transfer option, and the absence of any stated cause.\n \u2022 Narrows: The first stated reason is the benchmark against which the later explanations are\n judged. Admissions fix it from Mr. Klebanov's own communication, narrowing the planned\n deposition to actually contested ground.\n\nRFA No. 166\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 33 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 35 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Issue: Step two: the Killian meetings, the redeployment discussion, and the positive\n performance characterization.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission removes any need to examine Mr. Killian at all \u2014 testimony I\n have no practical means to obtain otherwise.\n\nRFA No. 167\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-7\n \u2022 Issue: Step three: the HR meetings, the refusal to resign, and the September 30\n memorializing email EPAM never disputed in writing.\n \u2022 Narrows: The email is filed; receipt and non-response are EPAM-side facts. Admissions\n establish the sequence without HR testimony.\n\nRFA No. 168\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Step four: the September 26 PIP with a $2.5 million target, the missed-targets\n assertion, the absence of prior documented targets, and the unit's actual peak revenue.\n \u2022 Narrows: The pretext arithmetic \u2014 a target several multiples of the unit's history, imposed\n after the fact \u2014 is answerable from EPAM's performance systems and finance records.\n Admissions replace an HR designee and a finance witness.\n\nRFA No. 169\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 20\n \u2022 Issue: Adverse action and inconsistent positions: involuntary termination, the\n unemployment-proceeding posture, and the consent-order concession.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions align EPAM's litigation position with what it told the State of New\n Jersey and stipulated in ECF No. 20, foreclosing a for-cause recharacterization at trial\n without agency subpoenas.\n\nRFA No. 170\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: The shifting-explanations core: budget on September 17, performance on September\n 26, for-cause in the pleading, and conduct grounds never communicated before October 12.\n \u2022 Narrows: This is the CEPA pretext case in one request. Admissions establish the sequence\n from EPAM's own communications; specific denials identify which step EPAM disputes,\n and only that step needs testimony.\n\nRFA No. 171\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 3-7; ECF No. 33-5\n \u2022 Issue: Exhibit provenance: the Teams exchange EPAM excerpted, the unredacted version I\n filed, and the undisclosed initiator.\n \u2022 Narrows: These are completeness facts, stated neutrally. Admissions fix the full exchange\n as the operative record, avoiding witness time on who wrote what first.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 34 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 36 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 172\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: The October 2 written record: the E01\u2013E04 emails, HR's written acknowledgment,\n and the later declarations.\n \u2022 Narrows: admissions fix receipt and acknowledgment, framing the declarations against the\n contemporaneous record without depositions.\n\nRFA No. 173\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 10\n \u2022 Issue: Timing of suit versus investigation: the cease-and-desist letter, and the absence of\n any completed internal investigation by November 4. Schedule A withdraws subparts (b)\n and (c) as docket facts.\n \u2022 Narrows: The remaining subparts fix the sequence \u2014 suit first, investigation not\n completed \u2014 which bears on retaliatory causation and on the weight of the emergency-\n relief narrative. EPAM's legal and compliance records answer them.\nRFAs 174\u2013180 \u2014 identification and commingling of the accused assets, and post-termination\nconduct affecting my professional standing.\n\nRFA No. 174\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 58-2; ECF No. 33-1\n \u2022 Issue: Commingling: accused tools stored in repositories alongside Takeda-funded code,\n and no EPAM-only repository.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions establish that the accused assets cannot be separated from client\n property as stored \u2014 central to ownership and identification \u2014 without a developer\n deposition.\n\nRFA No. 175\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 58-25\n \u2022 Issue: No independent product: no standalone Synapse without Takeda deliverables, no\n independent budget line, and no sales outside the Takeda context.\n \u2022 Narrows: Finance-record facts that carry ownership and damages consequences at once:\n what was never independently built or sold cannot anchor lost-sale damages. A finance\n designee is the only alternative source.\n\nRFA No. 176\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Rollup: public OMOP foundations, the ETL Kit's function, contemporaneous\n knowledge of the open-source work, and the absence of any instruction to stop.\n \u2022 Narrows: This consolidates points made piecemeal earlier (RFAs 58\u201359, 64, 94, 102) into\n the Takeda timeline; I am prepared to prioritize among them, and a single set of admissions\n here could substitute for several of the earlier requests.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 35 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 37 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 177\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 58-28\n \u2022 Issue: Component identification: Synapse and MedRAG as distinct codebases and\n functions, and the composite download allegation that does not distinguish them.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions resolve the composite AI Accelerator claim into components \u2014 one\n of which is public (RFA 119) \u2014 so secrecy, value, and damages are tried against a defined\n object. EPAM's declarant supplied the definitions; its engineering records supply the\n answers.\n\nRFA No. 178\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request; EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Compliance telemetry and the forensic chain: OPSWAT-compliant access, Entra-\n recorded sessions, surrender, examination, and the examiner's report.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions assemble the attribution-and-inspection foundation in one place from\n EPAM's systems and the neutral record, eliminating several small foundation disputes at the\n hearing and at trial.\n\nRFA No. 179\n \u2022 Source: iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Billing-to-repository linkage: project codes, time allocation, and iDS-inventoried\n paths matching those codes.\n \u2022 Narrows: This connects the accounting records to the artifacts \u2014 the documentary spine of\n the ownership defense. Without admissions it requires both a finance witness and examiner\n testimony.\n\nRFA No. 180\n \u2022 Source: public repositories or publications identified in the request; EPAM\n communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Post-termination conduct: withdrawal of OHDSI support, and later communications\n with Gilead personnel about me that referenced the suit or alleged misconduct.\n \u2022 Narrows: These are the continuing-retaliation and interference facts. Admissions establish\n them from EPAM's communications records; specific denials narrow third-party discovery\n to named custodians instead of a subpoena program I cannot run.\nRFAs 181\u2013186 \u2014 third-party effects, EPAM's damages record, and the litigation context relevant to\nRule 26(c) balancing.\n\nRFA No. 181\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-9; ECF No. 58-28\n \u2022 Issue: Interference timeline: CoReason's post-termination incorporation, the Johnson &\n Johnson negotiation, and J&J's client relationship with EPAM.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 36 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 38 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: Dated, documentary facts fixing the competitive landscape for the interference\n and CEPA-damages theories; the sources are filed exhibits and EPAM's own records.\n\nRFA No. 182\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-9\n \u2022 Issue: Causation timing: the November 3 pause email after weeks of negotiation, the next-\n day filing, and the scope of EPAM's contentions about the paused work.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions fix the sequence on which interference causation will be argued. The\n filing-date subpart is a docket fact, and I stand ready to establish it by stipulation; it is\n included only so the sequence can be answered in one place.\n\nRFA No. 183\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 37; ECF No. 37-4; ECF No. 43-1; ECF No. 37-1; ECF No. 20\n \u2022 Issue: Claim scope: the withdrawn noncompete count, the no-justiciable-controversy\n statement, \u00a7 5(c)'s voluntary-resignation trigger, and the absence of later enforcement\n efforts.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions conform the case to EPAM's own stated abandonment of\n noncompete enforcement, removing a shadow issue from discovery, from mitigation\n disputes, and from trial.\n\nRFA No. 184\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 43-1\n \u2022 Issue: Damages reality: the segment revenues EPAM cited, and the absence of any\n identified lost client, sale, or revenue stream.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes that no concrete loss has been identified against a half-\n billion-dollar segment \u2014 disciplining damages discovery and the proportionality analysis\n alike. EPAM's finance function can answer from its own records.\n\nRFA No. 185\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Disclosure state: no damages computation, no supplement, no damages expert, and\n no quantifying documents.\n \u2022 Narrows: Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) facts. Admissions fix the damages record entering expert\n discovery, so the expert phase \u2014 if any \u2014 starts from an agreed baseline.\n\nRFA No. 186\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Litigation-conduct record: the July 8 meet-and-confer notice, its receipt, and the\n unchanged demands.\n \u2022 Narrows: I acknowledge that this request is the least merits-central in the set. It fixes\n conferral history relevant to Rule 26(c) balancing and the Court's management of the\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 37 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 39 of 44\n\n\n\n\n discovery relationship, and I flag it as a candidate for prioritization if the Court limits the\n requests.\n\nSET 5 \u2014 preservation, forensic arithmetic, and damages\nRFAs 187\u2013197 \u2014 litigation holds and preservation of identified ESI in EPAM's control. These\nrequests mirror the preservation obligations EPAM has pressed against me and would otherwise\nrequire a Rule 30(b)(6) preservation deposition.\n\nRFA No. 187\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 58-4; ECF No. 1 and 3\n \u2022 Issue: Preservation: whether and when EPAM issued a litigation hold, measured at the\n three natural trigger dates.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions replace a Rule 30(b)(6) preservation deposition and give both sides a\n fixed baseline for any Rule 37(e) argument \u2014 the same information EPAM demanded of\n me from the outset.\n\nRFA No. 188\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Hold scope: transmission to the leadership, HR, legal, and account-team categories\n involved in the events at issue.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission establishes coverage of the relevant custodians; a denial identifies\n the gap. Either way, custodian-by-custodian discovery becomes unnecessary.\n\nRFA No. 189\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 1 and 3\n \u2022 Issue: Preservation mechanics: suspension of auto-deletion and preservation of local ESI\n for the identified categories.\n \u2022 Narrows: Fixes whether the ordinary destruction cycles were actually stopped.\n\nRFA No. 190\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30-3; ECF No. 30; iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request;\n EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Preservation of the specific logs both merits clusters need: Entra sign-in records for\n my accounts, and the VPN and gateway telemetry recording personnel locations.\n \u2022 Narrows: These logs are simultaneously the attribution evidence for EPAM's claims and\n the location evidence for the CEPA claim. An admission that they exist and are preserved\n makes them producible on request; any other answer surfaces a preservation issue now,\n while it can still be addressed.\n\nRFA No. 191\n \u2022 Source: EPAM system records identified in the request; EPAM communications and\n calendar records identified in the request\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 38 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 40 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Issue: Preservation of version-control audit logs and of my own mailbox and Teams\n archive as of termination.\n \u2022 Narrows: The clone logs are the acquisition evidence; the mailbox is the protected-activity\n evidence. One admission secures both for orderly production.\n\nRFA No. 192\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 3-6\n \u2022 Issue: Preservation of the accused repositories with full commit histories in native form.\n \u2022 Narrows: Commit histories date and attribute every line of the accused code \u2014 the best\n ownership and derivation evidence in the case. An admission fixes their integrity without a\n systems deposition.\n\nRFA No. 193\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33; EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Preservation of staffing rosters, location records for the named individuals, and the\n associated network records.\n \u2022 Narrows: The whistleblower facts are provable from these records if they exist.\n Admissions establish that, replacing a records-custodian examination and framing targeted\n production.\n\nRFA No. 194\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Preservation of the Serbia gateway records and the related IT communications.\n \u2022 Narrows: This is the routing infrastructure at the center of the location allegations; only\n EPAM can say whether its records survive. The subparts confine the question to identified\n systems and years.\n\nRFA No. 195\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Preservation of the decision-makers' communications about me and my separation.\n \u2022 Narrows: This is the termination-decision record. An admission secures the corpus from\n which pretext will be tested; a denial or qualification identifies now what no longer exists.\n\nRFA No. 196\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30; ECF No. 1; EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Negative-event state: no identified deletion of communications about me or this\n litigation, and no reports of any.\n \u2022 Narrows: Symmetrical to the representations EPAM has demanded of me. An admission\n establishes a clean record; anything else discloses an issue better known before the close of\n discovery.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 39 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 41 of 44\n\n\n\n\nRFA No. 197\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-2; ECF No. 43-7\n \u2022 Issue: Preservation of client location-commitment instruments and of client complaints or\n audits about staffing locations.\n \u2022 Narrows: These documents give the CEPA claim its objective footing. Admissions fix their\n existence and preservation, so production becomes a request rather than a fight, and no\n Gilead-side discovery is needed to locate them.\nRFAs 198\u2013204 \u2014 arithmetic and record-state facts: row counts in EPAM's own produced export,\nstatements in the hearing transcript, and what has and has not been identified after inspection.\n\nRFA No. 198\n \u2022 Source: Forensic Protocol Exhibit B (Microsoft 365 audit export); EPAM system records\n identified in the request; EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the\n request\n \u2022 Issue: Arithmetic of EPAM's export: 54,900 rows, a fourteen-day window, and the split\n between sync and manual operations.\n \u2022 Narrows: Every subpart is a count or date-range check in the spreadsheet EPAM produced.\n Admissions replace a summary witness and fix the quantitative frame: the entire download\n dataset spans two weeks and is dominated by automated sync events.\n\nRFA No. 199\n \u2022 Source: Forensic Protocol Exhibit B (Microsoft 365 audit export); EPAM system records\n identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Attribution arithmetic: the user-agent composition of the same export.\n \u2022 Narrows: An admission ends the characterization dispute over how many events a human\n initiated in a browser \u2014 fifty-three \u2014 versus background software.\n\nRFA No. 200\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Post-termination safeguards: the CoReason clean-room protocol EPAM received, its\n stated provisions, and the absence of any written critique of them.\n \u2022 Narrows: This bears on the use element and on any forward-looking relief: EPAM has the\n document and has identified no inadequacy in it. Admissions fix that record; a denial\n identifies the critique, which can then be litigated concretely.\n\nRFA No. 201\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 58-25; iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Inspection-state facts: months of Relativity access, and no identified CoReason file\n or line of code claimed as EPAM's.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 40 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 42 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: After full neutral collection and access, the absence of identification is the\n record. Admissions carry it into summary judgment on use and threatened use; a denial\n supplies the identification the claims have so far lacked.\n\nRFA No. 202\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 30\n \u2022 Issue: Markings: no pre-termination document designated the three tools as trade secrets on\n their face.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions bear on secrecy measures and on notice \u2014 what I could have\n understood to be claimed as secret while employed.\n\nRFA No. 203\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Value and performance context: EPAM's public GenAI marketing, the incoming\n CEO's recorded praise of my work, and preservation of the recording.\n \u2022 Narrows: The praise weeks before termination is both pretext evidence and context for the\n claimed secrecy of the same work. Admissions authenticate the event and secure the\n recording without executive depositions.\n\nRFA No. 204\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 58-6; iDS neutral-forensic records identified in the request; EPAM\n system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Hearing-record state: the undisputed OneDrive statement at the preliminary-\n injunction hearing, and the absence of contrary evidence or of any disabled-telemetry\n showing.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions prevent re-litigation of what happened at the November 5 hearing\n and confine any new theory to evidence EPAM actually offers.\nRFAs 205\u2013211 \u2014 the remaining pretext, interference, inducement, and damages records.\n\nRFA No. 205\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33; ECF No. 33-6; EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Contemporaneous performance record: the 2025 HEROES award, the announced\n backfill, and the empty expectations field in EPAM's own system.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions complete the pretext baseline alongside RFAs 152 and 168 and\n remove an HR-designee examination.\n\nRFA No. 206\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-7; ECF No. 33\n \u2022 Issue: The written PIP contradiction: the September 25 no-PIP confirmation and the\n September 26 PIP response.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 41 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 43 of 44\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 Narrows: Both writings are filed. Admissions fix the twenty-four-hour reversal that\n anchors the shifting-explanations analysis, without testimony.\n\nRFA No. 207\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33; ECF No. 33-6; EPAM system records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Performance-policy compliance: where expectations must be recorded, and the\n absence of recorded targets or a written PIP before the stated dates.\n \u2022 Narrows: EPAM's own policy plus its own system state. Admissions establish that the\n asserted performance grounds have no contemporaneous documentation \u2014 the cleanest\n pretext evidence available \u2014 from a bounded records check.\n\nRFA No. 208\n \u2022 Source: EPAM communications and calendar records identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Post-termination statements to Takeda: who spoke, what was conveyed, the absence\n of any retraction, and the absence of any identified statement by me to clients.\n \u2022 Narrows: This is the interference and continuing-retaliation core. Admissions establish the\n communications from EPAM's own records and forgo Takeda subpoenas; specific denials\n reduce third-party discovery to named custodians and dates.\n\nRFA No. 209\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33-5; ECF No. 3-7; ECF No. 3; ECF No. 33-3; ECF No. 58\n \u2022 Issue: Exhibit completeness: the full Teams thread versus the excerpt, and the omitted\n inbound messages.\n \u2022 Narrows: Document-comparison facts fixing the operative version of a key exhibit under\n the completeness principle, so the hearing and trial proceed on the whole exchange without\n witness time.\n\nRFA No. 210\n \u2022 Source: ECF No. 33\n \u2022 Issue: Inducement baseline and damages: the unit's pre-hire revenue, the Bayer delivery,\n and what I gave up to join.\n \u2022 Narrows: Admissions fix the baseline for both falsity (what was represented versus what\n existed) and damages (what leaving Johnson & Johnson cost), sparing a finance witness\n and part of the Klebanov examination.\n\nRFA No. 211\n \u2022 Source: EPAM records or personnel identified in the request\n \u2022 Issue: Damages computation state: no royalty model, no lost-profits ledger, no head-start or\n unjust-enrichment computation, and the public financial statements' silence.\n \u2022 Narrows: Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) and DTSA remedy facts. Admissions define what damages\n case, if any, remains for experts and summary judgment \u2014 the final proportionality datum:\n the burden of answering weighed against a monetary claim EPAM has yet to quantify.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 42 of 43\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 44 of 44\n\n\n\n\nWhat this appendix permits the Court to do\nThe Court can evaluate EPAM's request for protective relief the way Rule 26(b)(1) directs:\nrequest by request, comparing the burden of answering each proposition against the proof its\nanswer displaces. The sections distinguish requests that authenticate or quote documents\nEPAM filed, requests answerable from EPAM's own systems and records, requests that\nsubstitute for depositions of named personnel, and requests that fix the state of the record on\nidentification, preservation, and damages. A contention that a particular request is improper or\nunusually burdensome can be tested against the specific section rather than against the total.\nMy position remains that the requests should be answered as served. Schedule A is a proposal,\nnot an amendment: the requests stand as served unless I serve a notice of correction. I stand\nready to serve Schedule A's corrections and its withdrawal of RFA 173(b) and (c) without\nawaiting EPAM's agreement; only the withdrawal of Instruction No. 5 is conditioned on the\nmutual definition of reasonable inquiry offered there, or on the Court's direction. If the Court\nnonetheless concludes that some limitation is warranted, this appendix supplies a principled\nbasis for selection rather than an arbitrary cap: the letter offers a prompt, prioritized\ndesignation that would preserve, first, the requests that substitute for depositions I cannot take\nand, second, the requests that ask EPAM to confirm the text, authenticity, or arithmetic of its\nown filed documents and produced records.\n\n\n\n\n Request-by-Request Appendix - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 43 of 43\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T11:13:33.061139-07:00","document_number":"72","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"153024134910","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Appendix","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491588031/","id":491588031,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/72/2/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-27T11:10:04.270399-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:41:38.929286-07:00","sha1":"c6ccd8180b1204e60848ae7aff991a1fff93cf1a","page_count":7,"file_size":167346,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.2_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-2 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC. v. GOWTHAM RAO\n Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\nSchedule A (Draft): Proposed Corrections to Requests for Admission\n\n Provided to EPAM on August 22, 2026\n\n\n\n\n Enclosure to Dr. Rao's Response to ECF No. 70\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-2 Filed 08/27/26 Page 2 of 7\n\n \u26a0\ufe0f D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u2014 N O T S E R V E D \u26a0\ufe0f\n Provided to Plaintiff's counsel on August 22, 2026 in advance of the August 24, 2026 meet-and-confer conference.\n 1. Not served, and does not operate as service. Nothing here amends, supersedes, or withdraws any Request for Admission as served. The requests stand as served\n unless and until Defendant serves a Notice of Correction.\n 2. No new response period. If Defendant serves these corrections, they will be served as corrections to requests already served. They will not re-serve any request and\n will not restart any thirty-day period under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Every corrected request will remain due on the date already applicable to the set in which it was\n served. This Schedule does not alter, extend, or shorten any deadline.\n 3. Provided for discussion. Defendant provides the actual language so Plaintiff can evaluate it before the conference rather than a description of it. Defendant will\n consider alternative language Plaintiff proposes.\n 4. No waiver. Providing this draft waives no objection, no position, and no right, and is not an admission that any request as served is improper.\n 5. Part Three is conditional. The withdrawal of Instruction No. 5 is offered only against a mutual stipulation binding both parties equally.\n\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\nPlaintiff,\nv. Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\nGOWTHAM RAO, Hon. Wendy Beetlestone, C.J.\nDefendant.\n\n\n SCHEDULE A \u2014 PROPOSED CORRECTIONS TO REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION, SETS 1\u20135\nDefendant proposes the corrections below on his own initiative. Requests not listed are unchanged.\n\n PART ONE \u2014 PROPOSED CORRECTIONS\n RFA As served Proposed\n\n D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u2014 N O T S E R V E D\n\n 4 Admit that Paragraph 24 of EPAM's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30 at p. Admit that the underlying software code to EPAM's tools and products was\n 6) explicitly alleges that the underlying software code to EPAM's tools and accessible only to EPAM employees who work on the development of these\n products was 'accessible only to EPAM employees who work on the development products, are senior executives with broad access needs, or otherwise have\n of these products, are senior executives with broad access needs, or otherwise business need for access to such information.\n have business need for access to such information.'\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-2 Filed 08/27/26 Page 3 of 7\n\n 5 Admit that Paragraph 32 of EPAM's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30 at p. Admit that Dr. Rao was one of EPAM's executives who interface directly with\n 8) explicitly designates Dr. Rao as one of 'EPAM's executives... who interface existing and potential clients.\n directly with existing and potential clients.'\n\n 6 Admit that Paragraph 41 of EPAM's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30 at p. Admit that Dr. Rao was responsible for heading the data science business unit\n 10) explicitly alleges that Dr. Rao was 'responsible for heading the data science within EPAM's life sciences group and RWE business unit.\n business unit within EPAM's life sciences group and RWE business unit.'\n\n D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u2014 N O T S E R V E D\n\n 7 Admit that Paragraph 36 of EPAM's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30 at p. Admit that EPAM's trusted senior executives have access to EPAM Confidential\n 9) explicitly alleges that EPAM's 'trusted senior executives have access' to EPAM Information and IP to enable them to cultivate client relationships, engage on\n Confidential Information and IP 'to enable them to cultivate client relationships, projects, develop new solutions, and expand the business on EPAM's behalf.\n engage on projects, develop new solutions, and expand the business on the\n Company's behalf.'\n\n 60 Admit that EPAM does not own registered copyrights, exclusive commercial Admit that EPAM does not contend that it owns registered copyrights, exclusive\n licenses, or proprietary intellectual property rights in ANY software repository or commercial licenses, or proprietary intellectual property rights in Atlas, Achilles,\n codebase hosted under the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics WebAPI, CommonDataModel, DatabaseConnector, or the HADES package\n ('OHDSI') public GitHub organization (github.com/OHDSI, including but not ecosystem, each hosted under the Observational Health Data Sciences and\n limited to Atlas, Achilles, WebAPI, CommonDataModel, DatabaseConnector, and Informatics ('OHDSI') public GitHub organization at github.com/OHDSI.\n the HADES package ecosystem).\n Effect: the request no longer asks EPAM to search anything. It asks what EPAM\n contends as to six named repositories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)(A).\n\n128(a) in Paragraphs 1 and 33 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30), the category EPAM calls 'EPAM Confidential Information and IP' encompasses\n Plaintiff defined 'EPAM Confidential Information and IP' as an aggregated source code, RFP information, bid proposals, pricing information, client contracts,\n category encompassing source code, RFP information, bid proposals, pricing project data, P&L analysis, and employee compensation data;\n information, client contracts, project data, P&L analysis, and employee\n compensation data;\n\n D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u2014 N O T S E R V E D\n\n128(b) in Paragraph 74 of the First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Dr. Rao EPAM treats the entirety of the approximately 44,960 documents and data files at\n downloaded approximately 44,960 documents and data files and designated the issue as falling within the collective term 'EPAM Confidential Information and\n entirety of said files under the collective defined term 'EPAM Confidential IP';\n Information and IP';\n\n129(a) in Paragraphs 24, 32, and 41 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. by virtue of his employment with EPAM, Dr. Rao was granted authorized access\n 30), Plaintiff affirmatively pleaded that by virtue of his employment with EPAM, to EPAM's files, software tools, P&L data, and client materials;\n Dr. Rao was granted authorized access to EPAM's files, software tools, P&L data,\n and client materials;\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-2 Filed 08/27/26 Page 4 of 7\n\n130(a) in Paragraphs 21, 22, and 23 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF No. EPAM identifies the 'ETL Conversion Kit,' the 'AI Cohort Generator,' and the 'AI\n 30), Plaintiff describes the 'ETL Conversion Kit,' 'AI Cohort Generator,' and 'AI Accelerator' by their general operational functions;\n Accelerator' by their general operational functions;\n\n D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u2014 N O T S E R V E D\n\n133(a) in Paragraphs 2, 4, 35, 76, and 77 of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (ECF software code, clinical project data, and deliverables at issue in this action were\n No. 30), Plaintiff affirmatively pleaded that software code, clinical project data, developed for commercial clients;\n and deliverables at issue were developed for commercial clients;\n\n173(b) on November 4, 2025, EPAM filed its Complaint and an application for WITHDRAWN. The subpart asks Plaintiff to confirm an entry on this Court's\n emergency injunctive relief in this Court; docket. The docket proves it without an admission. Defendant will rely on ECF\n No. 1.\n\n173(c) by Order dated November 7, 2025 (ECF No. 10), the Court denied EPAM's WITHDRAWN. Same reason. Defendant will rely on ECF No. 10.\n Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Expedited Discovery and\n scheduled a preliminary-injunction hearing;\n\n128(c) the First Amended Complaint contains no itemized schedule, file manifest, or EPAM has not identified which individual files among the approximately 44,960\n paragraph specifying which individual files among the 44,960 downloaded files files at issue it contends are statutory trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1839(3), as\n constitute statutory trade secrets under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1839(3) as distinguished from distinguished from confidential information that is not a trade secret\n non-trade-secret confidential information\n\n130(b) the First Amended Complaint contains no factual allegation identifying any EPAM has not identified any specific proprietary algorithm, mathematical\n specific proprietary algorithm, mathematical formula, source code architecture, or formula, source code architecture, or data structure within the 'ETL Conversion\n data structure claimed as a trade secret within said tools Kit,' the 'AI Cohort Generator,' or the 'AI Accelerator' that it contends is a\n statutory trade secret\n\n130(c) Counts I and II of the First Amended Complaint assert trade secret EPAM asserts its trade secret claims in Counts I and II over the collective\n misappropriation over the collective defined term 'EPAM Confidential category it calls 'EPAM Confidential Information and IP,' and has not identified\n Information and IP' without identifying any individual algorithm, formula, code any individual algorithm, formula, code module, or data structure as a distinct\n module, or data structure as a distinct statutory trade secret statutory trade secret\n\n D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u2014 N O T S E R V E D\n\n132(a) the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30) alleges no specific instance where Dr. EPAM does not contend that Dr. Rao disclosed any EPAM document or data file\n Rao disclosed any EPAM document or data file to any third party following his to any third party after his October 15, 2025 termination\n October 15, 2025 termination\n\n132(b) the First Amended Complaint alleges no specific instance where Dr. Rao EPAM does not contend that Dr. Rao incorporated, deployed, or commercialized\n incorporated, deployed, or commercialized any EPAM trade secret into any any EPAM trade secret at issue in this action into any product, service, or\n product, service, or commercial deliverable commercial deliverable\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-2 Filed 08/27/26 Page 5 of 7\n\n 133(b) the First Amended Complaint does not differentiate between property allegedly EPAM has not identified which of the materials at issue in Counts I and II are\n owned by EPAM and property owned by said commercial clients within its trade owned by EPAM and which are owned by its commercial clients\n secret claims in Counts I and II\n\n D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u2014 N O T S E R V E D\n\n 133(c) the First Amended Complaint does not plead the terms of any client agreement EPAM holds no client agreement that assigns title to EPAM, grants EPAM an\n assigning title, granting an exclusive license, or conferring legal authority to exclusive license, or otherwise confers on EPAM the legal authority to assert\n EPAM to assert statutory trade secret claims over client-owned property statutory trade secret claims over the client-owned software code, clinical project\n data, or deliverables at issue in Counts I and II\n\n 133(d) the First Amended Complaint alleges zero facts regarding reasonable measures EPAM does not contend that its commercial clients took reasonable measures to\n taken by EPAM's commercial clients to maintain the secrecy of client-owned maintain the secrecy of the client-owned materials at issue in Counts I and II\n materials\n\n 134(a) in Paragraphs 126, 132, 139, and 146 of the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. the factual allegations on which EPAM relies for Counts IV, V, VI, and VII are the\n 30), Plaintiff realleged and incorporated by reference the identical factual same allegations on which it relies for Counts I and II\n allegations that support its trade secret claims in Counts I and II\n\n D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u2014 N O T S E R V E D\n\n 134(b) in each of Counts IV (Breach of Fiduciary Duty), Count V (Replevin), Count VI the property EPAM alleges was taken, retained, or converted in Counts IV, V, VI,\n (Conversion), and Count VII (Unjust Enrichment), Plaintiff identified the and VII is the same category it calls 'EPAM Confidential Information and IP' in\n property allegedly taken, retained, or converted as 'EPAM Confidential Counts I and II\n Information and IP'\n\n 134(c) the First Amended Complaint alleges no taking, detention, or conversion of any EPAM does not contend that Dr. Rao took, detained, or converted any physical\n physical property or non-confidential asset separate from the digital files and data property or non-confidential asset separate from the digital files and data within\n encompassed within the defined term 'EPAM Confidential Information and IP' the category it calls 'EPAM Confidential Information and IP'\n\n 135(a) in Count III (Breach of Contract, Paragraphs 118\u2013125) of the First Amended no commercial client terminated, reduced, or failed to renew a contract with\n Complaint (ECF No. 30), Plaintiff does not identify by name any commercial EPAM as a result of Dr. Rao's alleged conduct\n client that terminated, reduced, or failed to renew a contract with EPAM as a\n result of Dr. Rao's alleged conduct\n\n D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u2014 N O T S E R V E D\n\n 135(b) in Count III, Plaintiff does not set forth any specific dollar amount of lost profits as of November 4, 2025, EPAM had not calculated any specific dollar amount of\n or historical revenue incurred by EPAM prior to the filing of the complaint lost profits or lost revenue attributable to Dr. Rao's alleged conduct\n\n D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u2014 N O T S E R V E D\n\n\nSubparts (a) and (d) of Request No. 173 are unchanged.\n PART TWO \u2014 SUBPARTS THAT ARE NOT CHANGED, AND WHY\nDefendant states these on the record so Plaintiff need not infer his position.\n\n 4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-2 Filed 08/27/26 Page 6 of 7\n\n RFA Subject Why it stands as served\n\n 129(b) Section 1(d) of the Employment Covenants Agreement (ECF No. 30-1, Ex. A at p. This asks what a contract EPAM executed and filed actually says, not what EPAM\n 3), permitting access, use, and copying of confidential information 'as required in alleged. A statement of a document's text is a question of fact, and Fed. R. Civ. P.\n the performance of your authorized employment duties.' 36(a)(1)(A) reaches facts.\n\n 135(c) Whether, before filing on November 4, 2025 and including in the October 31, This already asks about EPAM's own conduct rather than about the pleading. No\n 2025 cease-and-desist letter (ECF No. 3-13), EPAM sent Dr. Rao any written correction is needed.\n communication identifying specific documents or data files by name or file path\n and demanding their return.\n\n D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u2014 N O T S E R V E D\n\n\n PART THREE \u2014 INSTRUCTION NO. 5, OFFERED CONDITIONALLY\nDefendant will withdraw Instruction No. 5 from all five sets on one condition: that the parties stipulate to a single definition of \"reasonable\ninquiry\" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4) binding both parties equally in this action.\nThe proposed definition includes a definition of control. A responding party controls information it has the practical ability or the legal right to\nobtain on request. Control is not limited to physical possession, and for both parties it includes information held by:\n any business unit, division, subsidiary, parent, or affiliate under common ownership or common management with the responding party;\n any vendor, consultant, contractor, or forensic examiner the responding party retained or engaged in connection with this action, or whose\n work product the responding party has filed or relied on in this action;\n the responding party's counsel of record; and\n any person whose employment or engagement the responding party directs, funds, or supervises.\nNeither party need canvass a genuinely independent third party over which it has no practical ability or legal right to obtain information. A party\ninvoking that carve-out shall identify the entity by name and state the basis for the assertion. Silence is not an invocation.\nAbsent that stipulation, Instruction No. 5 stands as served and Defendant will address it on the merits.\n\n\nDated: August 24, 2026\n/s/ Dr. Gowtham A. Rao\nDr. Gowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, Pro Se\n184 Mansgrove Rd, Princeton, NJ 08540\nPhone: (803) 386-7890\nEmail: gowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-2 Filed 08/27/26 Page 7 of 7\n\n \u26a0\ufe0f E N D O F D R A F T F O R D I S C U S S I O N \u26a0\ufe0f\nNot served. Not filed. The requests stand as served unless and until Defendant serves a Notice of Correction. Nothing above restarts any response period, and providing\nthis draft waives no objection or position. The signature block above is unexecuted.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T11:13:33.676725-07:00","document_number":"72","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"153024134911","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/491588029/","id":491588029,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/72/3/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-27T11:10:02.264290-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:38:57.510740-07:00","sha1":"a0946488127d56f58f449cc9b72cf654ef282749","page_count":2,"file_size":120643,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.3_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-3 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC. v. GOWTHAM RAO\n Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT B\n Email Memorializing the August 24, 2026 Meet and Confer\n\n Sent at 3:14 p.m. Eastern\n\n\n\n\n Enclosure to Dr. Rao's Response to ECF No. 70\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-3 Filed 08/27/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n Email from Dr. Gowtham Rao to Jacob Oslick, August 24, 2026\nMatter: EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB (E.D. Pa.) Source: Message-ID\n1a035320b276b5bb, sent Monday, August 24, 2026, 3:14:26 p.m. Eastern Subject: Re: EPAM v. Rao:\nMeet-and-Confer Request Regarding Defendant's 471 RFAs From: Gowtham Rao\n To: Oslick, Jacob \nThis email was sent at 3:14 p.m., forty-four minutes after the conference's scheduled 2:30 p.m. start.\nEPAM did not file it with its August 26, 2026 letter.\n\n\n Jacob,\n I am writing to document our meet and confer at 2:30 PM EDT today. We did not make\n substantive progress.\n During the call, you alleged that I fed case documents into an artificial intelligence program to\n generate 471 requests for admission without consideration of relevance or burden. I asked\n whether you had read my August 22 email. That email proposed corrections to twenty-five\n requests and offered to stipulate to a mutual definition of reasonable inquiry. You stated that\n you had read it. Your position on the call was that I must withdraw all requests and reissue\n twenty-five. I decline to do so.\n You stated that EPAM is moving for a protective order. I will oppose that motion.\n Respectfully,\n Dr. Gowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, Pro Se\n\n\n Preceding message in the same thread\nSent: Monday, August 24, 2026, 11:00:46 a.m. Eastern (Message-ID 1a03449cb9287749)\n\n Good morning, Jacob. I hope you had a good weekend. As agreed, I have scheduled 2:30 PM\n today for a meet and confer on this topic.\n Gowtham\n\n\nNote for the record: the August 22, 2026 email referenced above is EPAM's Exhibit 8 at pages 1 through\n4 (ECF No. 70-8 at 2\u20135). The Schedule A attachment to that email, which EPAM did not file, is Exhibit A\nto this letter.\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit B - EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Page 1 of 1\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T11:13:34.315460-07:00","document_number":"72","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"153024134912","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/491588032/","id":491588032,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/72/4/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-27T11:10:04.894466-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:40:35.147455-07:00","sha1":"0ac4e54c2d746f180e986f827f47d8e79f1dbd9c","page_count":36,"file_size":127708,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.4_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 36\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC. v. GOWTHAM RAO\n Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT C\n EPAM's First Written Discovery Requests\n\n Requests for Admission, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production\n Served August 10, 2026\n\n\n\n\n Names of three non-party individuals are redacted.\n An unredacted copy will be provided to the Court on request.\n\n\n\n\n Enclosure to Dr. Rao's Response to ECF No. 70\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 2 of 36\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- X\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., )\n ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim- )\n Defendant )\n )\n v. )\n )\nGOWTHAM RAO, )\n )\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n )\n Plaintiff\n )\n\n\n EPAM\u2019S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS TO GOWTHAM RAO\n\n Pursuant to Rules 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff/Counter-\n\nDefendant EPAM Systems, Inc., by and through its attorneys Seyfarth Shaw LLP, request that\n\nDefendant/Counter-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao make the following admissions, within thirty (30)\n\ndays after the date of service of this request.\n\n INSTRUCTIONS\n\n 1. This First Set of Requests for Admissions (the \u201cRFAs\u201d) is addressed to Rao, his\n\nrespective agents, representatives, or attorneys, if any, or any of them.\n\n 2. These RFAs use the same definitions and defined terms as set forth in EPAM\u2019s\n\nFirst Requests for Production of Documents (\u201cRFPs\u201d) and First Set of Interrogatories, in addition\n\nto any supplemental definitions and defined terms set forth herein.\n\n 3. The full text of the RFA to which the answer is intended to respond is to be\n\nrestated immediately preceding such answer.\n\n\n\n\n327665020v.2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 3 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 4. Rao shall answer each of the RFAs based on his current knowledge. If Rao later\n\nrealizes that any of his answers are incorrect, these RFAs are continuing, and Rao should serve\n\nsupplemental answers with corrected information.\n\n REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS\n\nRequest to Admit No. 1:\n\n Admit that you had conversations with on September 18-19, 2025.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 2:\n\n Admit that Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum prepared by a\n\ngenerative artificial intelligence program, summarizing conversations you had with\n\n on September 18-19, 2025.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 3:\n\n Admit that you had a conversation with on September 21, 2025.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 4:\n\n Admit that Exhibit B is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum prepared by a\n\ngenerative artificial intelligence program, summarizing a conversation you had with\n\non September 21, 2025.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 5:\n\n Admit that you had a conversation with on September 21, 2025.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 6:\n\n Admit that Exhibit C is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum prepared by a\n\ngenerative artificial intelligence program, summarizing a conversation you had with\n\non September 21, 2025.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n327665020v.2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 4 of 36\n\n\n\n\nRequest to Admit No. 7:\n\n Admit that you had a conversation with Gaurav Dravida on September 18, 2025.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 8:\n\n Admit that Exhibit D is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum prepared by a\n\ngenerative artificial intelligence program, summarizing a conversation you had with Gaurav\n\nDravida on September 18, 2025.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 9:\n\n Admit that Exhibit E is a true and accurate copy of a document that you generated, at\n\nleast in part, by inputting, into a generative AI program, documents relating to EPAM\u2019s Synapse\n\nsoftware.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 10:\n\n Admit that Exhibit F is a true and accurate copy of a document that you generated, at\n\nleast in part, by inputting, into a generative AI program, documents relating to EPAM\u2019s Synapse\n\nsoftware.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 11:\n\n Admit that the \u201cStrategic Recipes\u201d identified in Exhibit G originated with Recipes that\n\nwere circulated within EPAM while you were still employed at EPAM.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 12:\n\n Admit that you caused the domain name \u201ccoreason.ai\u201d to be registered on or about\n\nSeptember 18, 2025.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 13:\n\n Admit that you conduced a \u201crefresh\u201d of your MSI Codex R2 Desktop Computer on or\n\nabout November 14, 2025.\n\n\n\n 3\n327665020v.2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 5 of 36\n\n\n\n\nRequest to Admit No. 14:\n\n Admit that the \u201crefresh\u201d of your MSI Codex R2 Desktop Computer that you conducted\n\non or about November 14, 2025 involved reinstalling the Windows operating system on the\n\ndevice.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 15:\n\n Admit that you did not inform EPAM or its attorneys of the \u201crefresh\u201d until after it was\n\ndiscovered by iDS.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 16:\n\n Admit that you did not disclose the \u201crefresh\u201d to iDS until after iDS discovered it.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 17:\n\n Admit that, during and after your EPAM employment, you stored EPAM Confidential\n\nInformation and Work (as defined by your Employment Covenants Agreement) on your MSI\n\nCodex R2 Desktop, as well as your personal Google Drive account.\n\nRequest to Admit No. 18:\n\n Admit that, between the end of your EPAM employment and the court hearing on\n\nNovember 5, 2025, you deleted files from your MSI Codex R2 Desktop Computer.\n\n\n\nDated: August 10, 2026\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n\n By: /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick (Pa. Bar No. 311028)\n joslick@seyfarth.com\n James S. Yu (pro hac vice admitted)\n jyu@seyfarth.com\n Brooke Gary (admitted pro hac vice)\n brgary@seyfarth.com\n 620 Eighth Avenue\n New York, New York 10018-1405\n (212) 218-5500\n\n 4\n327665020v.2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 6 of 36\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on August 10, 2026, the foregoing was served upon the following pro\n\nse party via email, and a copy was also served via FedEx at the following:\n\n\n\n GOWTHAM ADAMANE ROA\n 184 Mansgrove Rd\n Princeton, NJ 08540\n gowthamrao@gmail.com\n\n\n\n /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick\n\n\n\n\n 5\n327665020v.2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 7 of 36\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- X\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., )\n ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim- )\n Defendant )\n )\n v. )\n )\nGOWTHAM RAO, )\n )\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n )\n Plaintiff\n )\n\n\n EPAM\u2019S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO GOWTHAM RAO\n\n Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff/Counter-\n\nDefendant EPAM Systems, Inc., by and through its attorneys Seyfarth Shaw LLP, request that\n\nDefendant/Counter-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao answer the following interrogatories separately and\n\nfully, in writing and under oath, within thirty (30) days after the date of service of these\n\ninterrogatories.\n\n DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS\n\n In addition to the rules set forth in Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,\n\nwhich are hereby incorporated by reference, the following definitions and instructions apply to\n\nthese interrogatories:\n\n 1. This First Set of Interrogatories (\u201cInterrogatories\u201d) is addressed to Rao, his\n\nrespective agents, representatives, or attorneys, if any, or any of them. If the requested information\n\nis known to Rao to exist, but is not presently in the possession, custody or control of Rao, his\n\nagents, representatives, attorneys, or any of them, Rao should confirm this fact and identify any\n\n\n\n\n327016925v.4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 8 of 36\n\n\n\n\nperson or entity that he believes possesses such information, and supplement his responses when\n\nsuch information comes into his or their possession, custody, or control.\n\n 2. These Interrogatories use the same definitions and defined terms as set forth in\n\nEPAM\u2019s First Requests for Production of Documents (\u201cRFPs\u201d), in addition to any supplemental\n\ndefinitions and defined terms set forth herein.\n\n 3. \u201cIdentify\u201d (with respect to persons) means to give, to the extent known, the person\u2019s\n\nfull name, present or last known address, and when referring to a natural person, additionally, the\n\npresent or last known place of employment. Once a person has been identified in response to one\n\nInterrogatory, only the name of that person need be listed in response to subsequent Interrogatories\n\nor other discovery requests.\n\n 4. Where the identification of an oral Communication is requested, the following\n\ninformation should be provided: (i) the substance of such Communication; (ii) the persons or\n\nentities who participated in such Communication; (iii) the date and place of such Communication;\n\nand (iv) the mode of such Communication (e.g., by telephone, videoconference, or face-to-face).\n\n 5. The full text of the Interrogatory to which the answer is intended to respond is to\n\nbe restated immediately preceding such answer.\n\n 6. These Interrogatories are deemed to be continuing, requiring Rao to provide\n\nverified supplemental answers setting forth any additional information within the scope of these\n\nInterrogatories as may be acquired by Rao and Rao\u2019s agents and attorneys after service of Rao\u2019s\n\ninitial responses. Such supplemental responses shall be served upon the undersigned counsel for\n\nEPAM promptly after receipt of such information.\n\n 7. To the extent that you believe that any of the Interrogatories herein call for any\n\ninformation that is subject to a privilege or immunity from disclosure, answer so much of each\n\n\n\n 2\n327016925v.4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 9 of 36\n\n\n\n\nInterrogatory and each part thereof that does not call for such information and set forth the basis\n\nfor your claim of privilege or immunity with respect to the information that you refuse to give.\n\n 8. With respect to any document or other Communication required to be identified\n\nthat you presently contend you are not required to disclose because of any privilege or immunity,\n\nstate the nature of the privilege or immunity asserted (e.g., attorney-client or work-product).\n\n 9. Unless otherwise instructed, Rao shall produce information concerning the time\n\nperiod from the beginning of Rao\u2019s employment with EPAM, through the date of Rao\u2019s responses\n\n(the \u201cRelevant Time Period\u201d), but with these Interrogatories being continuing, with\n\nsupplementation required if new information becomes available that is responsive to any\n\nInterrogatory for the duration of the lawsuit captioned above.\n\n INTERROGATORIES\n\nInterrogatory No. 1:\n\n Identify each and every individual who has knowledge of any facts concerning any\n\nallegation, claim, counterclaim or defense asserted by any Party in this litigation and, for each\n\nsuch individual, identify the subjects about which they have knowledge.\n\nInterrogatory No. 2:\n\n Identify any and all individuals, other than your attorney(s), with whom you have\n\ndiscussed or communicated regarding any allegation, claim, counterclaim, or defense asserted by\n\nany Party in this litigation, including, without limitation, any person with whom you have\n\ncorresponded about this matter via email, text message, instant message, chat message, social\n\nmedia, or by other electronic means and, for each such individual, identify the subjects relating\n\nto this matter that you discussed or communicated with them about. This request includes family\n\nmembers, current or former co-workers, friends, religious counselors, industry group colleagues,\n\n\n\n 3\n327016925v.4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 10 of 36\n\n\n\n\nemployees and other relations of CoReason, potential or actual investors in Rao\u2019s Companies,\n\nand any other individuals besides your attorneys.\n\nInterrogatory No. 3:\n\n Identify all individuals who have provided you or your counsel with a written statement\n\n(including both informal statements, such as responses to emails or text messages, and formal\n\nstatements such as declarations or affidavits) concerning any allegation, claim, or defense\n\nasserted by any Party in this litigation.\n\nInterrogatory No. 4:\n\n Identify each and every individual you expect to call at trial as a fact witness, expert\n\nwitness, or treating medical practitioner, and, for each such individual, set forth the subjects they\n\nwill testify about.\n\nInterrogatory No. 5:\n\n Identify all documents that you know exist and that are responsive to the RFPs, or are\n\notherwise relevant to any allegation, claim, counterclaim, or defense asserted by any Party in this\n\nlitigation, but are not within your possession, custody, and control and, for each document,\n\nidentify any person or entity whom you believe may have possession, custody, or control of such\n\ndocuments.\n\nInterrogatory No. 6:\n\n Identify the location(s) of all electronically stored information that concerns any\n\nallegation, claim, counterclaim or defense asserted by any Party in this litigation, including but\n\nnot limited to computers, hard drives, external storage devices (such as USB devices, CDs, or\n\nDVDs), smart phones, tablets, mobile devices, network storage locations, cloud storage\n\nplatforms, source code repositories, AI Platforms, etc.\n\n\n\n 4\n327016925v.4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 11 of 36\n\n\n\n\nInterrogatory No. 7:\n\n Identify all Communications you have had with non-parties concerning the development\n\nof CoReason, including but not limited to Communications concerning whether to form\n\nCoReason (or a company similar in purpose or offerings as compared to CoReason),\n\nCommunications concerning identifying and securing investors for CoReason or otherwise\n\nraising funding for CoReason, Communications concerning developing software, processes,\n\nworkflows, or technology for CoReason, Communications concerning locating potential\n\nclients/customers for CoReason, and/or Communications concerning recruiting or retaining\n\nemployees, independent contractors, consultants, or other service providers for CoReason.\n\nInterrogatory No. 8:\n\n Identify all Communications you have had with non-parties concerning the potential or\n\nactual sale, license, or other use of any software, processes, workflows, or technology, or other\n\nservices by CoReason.\n\nInterrogatory No. 9:\n\n Identify all investments in CoReason, including by identifying the investor and the\n\namount of the investment.\n\nInterrogatory No. 10:\n\n Identify all non-parties who have requested a \u201cdemo\u201d through CoReason\u2019s website.\n\nInterrogatory No. 11:\n\n Identify any current or former employee, consultant, independent contractor, or service\n\nprovider of EPAM who is now (or previously was) an employee, consultant, independent\n\ncontractor, or service provider of CoReason and, for each such individual, set forth their position\n\nat CoReason.\n\n\n\n 5\n327016925v.4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 12 of 36\n\n\n\n\nInterrogatory No. 12:\n\n Identify all personal email addresses and social and business networking accounts (e.g.\n\nLinkedIn, Snapchat, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, etc.), cloud-storage platform\n\naccounts, source code platform accounts, and AI Platform accounts you have created,\n\nmaintained, or used during the Relevant Time Period.\n\nInterrogatory No. 13:\n\n Identify all CoReason email addresses, and social and business networking accounts (e.g.\n\nLinkedIn, Snapchat, Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, etc.), cloud-storage platform\n\naccounts, source code platform accounts, and AI Platform accounts you have created,\n\nmaintained, used, or are aware of during the Relevant Time Period.\n\nInterrogatory No. 14:\n\n If you contend that you experienced any physical or mental health condition (or an\n\nexacerbation of such a condition) that is relevant to this litigation (such as emotional distress or\n\ndepression), identify each and every facility or person that you haves consulted with or been\n\ntreated by in connection with such conditions, including but not limited to, physicians, doctors,\n\nchiropractors, psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, social workers, counselors, clergy,\n\nreligious lay leaders, twelve-step program sponsors, and purported practitioners of the\n\nparanormal (such as purported psychics) and, for each such facility or person, identify the\n\ncondition(s) that this facility or person consulted on or treated.\n\nInterrogatory No. 15:\n\n Provide a detailed computation of all damages or other relief you believe you are entitled\n\nto recover through this lawsuit, and for each of the alleged items, identify the documents or other\n\nevidence supporting your computation.\n\n\n\n 6\n327016925v.4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 13 of 36\n\n\n\n\nInterrogatory No. 16:\n\n Provide the case name, parties, and case number of all other legal actions (including, but\n\nnot limited to, proceedings before a bankruptcy, civil, or criminal court, an arbitrator, civil\n\nservice or an administrative agency) to which you have been a party or in which you have\n\ntestified as a witness, and describe the nature of the action.\n\n\nDated: August 10, 2026\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n\n By: /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick (Pa. Bar No. 311028)\n joslick@seyfarth.com\n James S. Yu (pro hac vice admitted)\n jyu@seyfarth.com\n Brooke Gary (admitted pro hac vice)\n brgary@seyfarth.com\n 620 Eighth Avenue\n New York, New York 10018-1405\n (212) 218-5500\n\n\n\n\n 7\n327016925v.4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 14 of 36\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on August 10, 2026, the foregoing was served upon the following pro\n\nse party via email, and a copy was also served via FedEx at the following:\n\n\n\n GOWTHAM ADAMANE ROA\n 184 Mansgrove Rd\n Princeton, NJ 08540\n gowthamrao@gmail.com\n\n\n\n /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick\n\n\n\n\n 8\n327016925v.4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 15 of 36\n\n\n\n\n IUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n----------------------------------------------------------- X\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., )\n ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim- )\n Defendant )\n )\n v. )\n )\nGOWTHAM RAO, )\n )\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n )\n Plaintiff\n )\n\n\n EPAM\u2019S FIRST REQUEST FOR THE PRODUCTION\n OF DOCUMENTS TO GOWTHAM RAO\n\n Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff/Counter-\n\nDefendant EPAM Systems, Inc., by and through its attorneys Seyfarth Shaw LLP, request that\n\nDefendant/Counter-Plaintiff Gowtham Rao produce the following documents at the offices of\n\nSeyfarth Shaw LLP, 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10018, within thirty (30) days\n\nafter the date of service of this request.\n\n INSTRUCTIONS\n\n 1. This First Requests for Production of Documents (the \u201cRequests\u201d) is addressed to\n\nRao, his respective agents, representatives, or attorneys, if any, or any of them. If Rao knows that\n\nthe requested documents exist, but the documents are not presently in the possession, custody or\n\ncontrol of Rao, his agents, representatives, attorneys, or any of them, Rao should produce such\n\ndocuments when they do come into his or their possession, custody, or control.\n\n 2. If any document falling within the description contained in any of the following\n\nRequests is withheld under a claim of privilege, Rao shall serve upon the undersigned attorneys\n\nfor EPAM a written list of the withheld documents, including the following information as to each\n\n\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 16 of 36\n\n\n\n\nsuch item: (a) its date; (b) the name(s) of the person(s) or other entity(ies) who or which drafted,\n\nauthorized, or prepared it; (c) its title; (d) the type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum, notes\n\nof meetings, conversations); (e) the name(s) of each person(s) or other entity(ies) to whom it was\n\naddressed; (f) the name(s) of each person(s) or other entity(ies) to whom the item or any copy or\n\nreproduction thereof was ever directed, addressed, sent, delivered, mailed, given, or in any other\n\nmanner disclosed; (g) the subject matter of the document; and (h) a statement of the ground or\n\ngrounds on which each such document is considered to be privileged from production. All\n\nresponsive documents that are neither privileged nor otherwise protected from disclosure must be\n\nproduced, notwithstanding the fact that the Request(s) to which they are responsive may also call\n\nfor documents that are privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure.\n\n 3. In the event that any document called for by these Requests has been destroyed,\n\nlost, discarded or otherwise disposed of, any such document is to be identified as completely as\n\npossible including, without limitation, the following information: date of disposal, manner of\n\ndisposal, reason for disposal, person authorizing or directing the disposal and person disposing of\n\nthe document.\n\n 4. Any document responsive to any Request should be identified as being responsive\n\nto the specific request involved. If the same document is responsive to more than one Request, all\n\nRequests to which it is responsive should be identified.\n\n 5. Consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, these Requests shall be\n\ncontinuing so as to require Rao to supplement his responses when and if he obtains any further\n\ndocumentation subsequent to the service of his response to these Requests.\n\n 6. Documents produced in response to these Requests shall be produced as they are\n\nkept in the usual course of business or shall be organized and labeled to indicate the specific\n\n\n\n 2\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 17 of 36\n\n\n\n\nparagraph or paragraphs to which they respond. If multiple copies of a document were prepared or\n\nif additional copies were made after the original document was prepared, and if any such copies\n\nwere not or are no longer identical by reason of subsequent notation or modification of any kind,\n\nincluding notations on the front or back of the document, such non-identical copies must be\n\nproduced.\n\n 7. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, all responsive electronically stored\n\ninformation (\u201cESI\u201d) is to be produced in single-page TIFF format (300 DPI resolution), except that\n\nExcel spreadsheets (.xls, .xlsx), Comma delimited text files (.csv), and media files (e.g., video and\n\naudio files) should be produced in native format. Each file will be produced along with\n\ncorresponding document-level extracted text and a Concordance-delimited DAT file containing\n\nthe following metadata fields: BEGBATES (\"The beginning bates number for the document.\");\n\nENDBATES (\"The ending bates number for the document.\"); BEGATTACH (\"BEGBATES of the\n\n\"first\" child of a family.\"); ENDATTACH (\"ENDBATES of the last \"child\" of a family.\");\n\nCUSTODIAN (\"The name of any custodians of the file or email.\"); FROM (\"Contains text from\n\nthe FROM field of an email.\"); TO (\"Contains text from the TO field of an email, separated by\n\nsemi-colons.\"); CC (\"Contains text from the CC field of an email, separated by semi-colons.\");\n\nBCC (\"Contains text from the BCC field of an email, separated by semi-colons.\"); SUBJECT\n\n(\"Contains text from the SUBJECT of an email\"); DATETIME_SENT (\"Date and time an email\n\nwas sent.\"); FILENAME (\"The name of a file.\"); FILEEXT (\"The file extension of a document.\");\n\nMD5 HASH (\"The MD5 hash for the original native file\"); DATETIME_CREATED (\"Date and\n\ntime a document was created.\"); DATETIME_MODIFIED (\"Date and time a document was last\n\nmodified\"); FILEPATH (\"Path where the original document was collected. \"); NATIVELINK\n\n(\"Path to the native file as included in the production for any files produced in native format.\");\n\n\n\n 3\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 18 of 36\n\n\n\n\nTEXTPATH (\"Extracted text of the document. All documents in a family should be in sequential\n\norder with the parent document containing the lowest bates label of the family. To the extent that\n\na document contains visible revision or \u201ctracked changes\u201d information, those tracked changes are\n\nto be included in the TIFF production images. All ESI so produced shall be produced on a\n\ngenerally and mutually accepted encrypted electronic medium or secure file transfer site.\n\n 8. Unless otherwise instructed, Rao shall produce information concerning the time\n\nperiod from the beginning of his employment with EPAM, through the date of his responses (the\n\n\u201cRelevant Time Period\u201d), but with these Requests being continuing, with supplementation required\n\nif new information becomes available at any time during the course of the above-captioned\n\nlitigation.\n\n DEFINITIONS\n\n 1. In construing these Requests: (i) the singular shall include the plural and the plural\n\nshall include the singular; (ii) the masculine, feminine, or neutral pronouns, respectively, shall\n\ninclude the other genders; (iii) \u201cand\u201d as well as \u201cor\u201d shall be construed either disjunctively or\n\nconjunctively so as to bring within the scope of these Requests all documents that might otherwise\n\nbe construed to be outside their scope; and (iv) the present tense of a verb shall include its past\n\ntense and vice versa.\n\n 2. The word \u201call\u201d shall be construed to include the word \u201cany\u201d and the word \u201cany\u201d\n\nshall be construed to include the word \u201call.\u201d\n\n 3. \u201cAI Platform\u201d means any software, application, platform, program, service, tool,\n\nsystem, model, algorithm, product, feature, functionality, website, cloud-based service, application\n\nprogramming interface (\"API\"), chatbot, virtual assistant, large language model, machine learning\n\nsystem, generative artificial intelligence system, predictive analytics system, automated decision-\n\n\n\n 4\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 19 of 36\n\n\n\n\nmaking system, or other technology that utilizes artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep\n\nlearning, neural networks, natural language processing, computer vision, statistical modeling,\n\nalgorithmic processing, or any similar or successor technology to generate, create, analyze,\n\nsummarize, classify, predict, recommend, transform, modify, interpret, translate, retrieve,\n\nsynthesize, automate, or otherwise produce any output, content, communication, data, decision,\n\nrecommendation, response, image, audio, video, code, document, text, or other information based\n\non inputs provided by a user or obtained from any other source. Inexhaustive examples of AI\n\nPlatforms include, but are not limited to, ChatGPT (including OpenAI products and services),\n\nMicrosoft Copilot, DeepSeek, GitHub Copilot, Claude, Google Gemini, Grok, Harvey, Meta AI,\n\nPerplexity, Otter AI, as well as any non-commercial and/or personal or local generative AI\n\nplatforms or models.\n\n 4. \"Use\" of an AI Platform means accessing, consulting, querying, prompting,\n\ninteracting with, training, fine-tuning, testing, evaluating, deploying, integrating, relying upon,\n\nreceiving output from, uploading information to, inputting information into, processing\n\ninformation through, or otherwise employing an AI Platform for any purpose.\n\n 5. \u201cEPAM\u201d shall refer to EPAM Systems, Inc., including its affiliates, subsidiaries,\n\nparents, predecessors, successors, officers, directors, employees, representatives, agents, and\n\nattorneys, or other persons or entities acting on its behalf.\n\n 6. \u201cRao,\u201d \u201cYou,\u201d and \u201cYour\u201d shall mean and refer to Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff\n\nGowtham Rao, to whom these document requests are directed, and all employees, representatives,\n\nsuccessors, agents, investigators, attorneys, or other persons or entities acting on his behalf.\n\n 7. \u201cCoReason\u201d means CoReason Inc., along with any other entity that offers products\n\nor services through the CoReason.ai domain name or does business using the name CoReason,\n\n\n\n 5\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 20 of 36\n\n\n\n\ntogether with all of its or their employees, representatives, successors, agents, investigators,\n\nattorneys, or other persons or entities acting on its or their behalf.\n\n 8. The \u201cComplaint\u201d shall refer to the Complaint filed by EPAM in this action. The\n\n\u201cAmended Complaint\u201d shall refer to the Amended Complaint filed by EPAM in this action\n\n 9. \u201cPerson\u201d includes natural persons, proprietorships, corporations, partnerships,\n\nlimited liability companies, trusts, joint ventures, groups, associations, organizations, governments\n\n(including all instrumentalities, officers, agents, and subdivisions thereof), and all other business,\n\nlegal, or artificial entities.\n\n 10. \u201cConcerning\u201d means or relating to, referring to, describing, evidencing,\n\nconstituting, supporting, reflecting, mentioning, resulting from, impeaching, undermining,\n\nrefuting, or in any way pertaining to, in whole or in part.\n\n 11. \u201cDocument\u201d shall have the broadest meaning permitted under the Federal Rules of\n\nCivil Procedure and shall include, without limitation, the original and all non-identical copies of\n\nany handwritten, printed, typed, recorded, or other graphic material, or ESI (as defined below) in\n\nthe custody, possession, or control of Rao wherever held, or in the possession, control, or custody\n\nof any of Rao\u2019s employees, attorneys, accountants, or other representatives, of any kind and nature,\n\nincluding all drafts and transcriptions thereof, however produced or reproduced, and including but\n\nnot limited to text messages, accounting materials, accounts, agreements, analyses, appointment\n\nbooks, books of account, calendars, catalogs, checks, communications, computer data, computer\n\ndisks, contracts, correspondence, date books, diaries, diskettes, drawings, ESI (as defined below),\n\nemail messages, faxes, guidelines, instructions, Communications (as defined below), invoices,\n\nledgers, licenses, letters, logs, manuals, memoranda, microfilm, minutes, notes, opinions,\n\npayments, plans, receipts, records, regulations, reports, sound recordings, statements, studies,\n\n\n\n 6\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 21 of 36\n\n\n\n\nsurveys, telegrams, telexes, timesheets, vouchers, word processing materials (however stored or\n\nmaintained), and all other means by which information is stored for retrieval in fixed form.\n\n 12. \u201cCommunication\u201d shall have the broadest meaning permitted under the Federal\n\nRules of Civil Procedure, and for avoidance of doubt includes, but is not limited to, any utterance,\n\nnotation, depiction, or statement intended to convey information in any form and of any sort\n\nwhatsoever (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise), whether orally or in writing, or by\n\nany other means or medium including, but not limited to, ESI (as defined below), in the possession,\n\ncustody, or control of you wherever held, or in the possession, control, or custody of any of your\n\nemployees, attorneys, accountants, or other representatives, of any kind and nature. The term\n\n\u201cCommunication\u201d further includes all documents that concern any Communication, such as\n\ntranscripts, summaries, or memoranda based upon Communications.\n\n 13. \u201cEPAM Source\u201d means any physical device or electronic account where EPAM\n\nstored or stores \u201cESI\u201d (as defined herein), including but not limited to computers, hard drives,\n\nexternal storage devices (such as USB devices, CDs, or DVDs), smart phones, tablets, mobile\n\ndevices, network storage locations, cloud storage platforms (such as OneDrive), source code\n\nrepositories (such as GitHub), or AI Platforms.\n\n 14. \u201cRao Source\u201d means any physical device or electronic account where you stored or\n\nstore \u201cESI\u201d (as defined herein), irrespective of whether the ESI is stored on your own behalf, or\n\non behalf of a company where you are or were engaged in any capacity or have or had an equity\n\ninterest, including but not limited to computers, hard drives, external storage devices (such as USB\n\ndevices, CDs, or DVDs), smart phones, tablets, mobile devices, network storage locations, cloud\n\nstorage platforms (such as OneDrive), source code repositories (such as GitHub), or AI Platforms.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 22 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 15. \u201cESI\u201d shall mean information created, manipulated, communicated, stored, or\n\nutilized in digital form. ESI includes, without limitation, data stored on or in computer servers,\n\ncomputer hard drives, computer desktops, laptops, handheld or tablet computers, portable digital\n\nmedia, backup media, CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, floppy disks, non-volatile memory including\n\nflash memory devices, external hard drives, personal digital assistants (such as Palm, iPhone, or\n\nBlackberry devices), cell phones, electronic voicemail systems, text messages, instant messages,\n\ne-mails and attachments to e-mails, or any device or medium capable of storing data in any format.\n\nAll ESI produced shall include sufficient metadata fields to identify, at minimum, its author,\n\nrecipient, date and time of creation and modification, and where the document was located.\n\n 16. \u201cParty\u201d means either EPAM or Rao. If additional defendants (such as potentially\n\nCoReason) are later joined in this action, they will also be included within the definition of \u201cParty.\u201d\n\n DOCUMENTS REQUESTED\n\n 1. All documents you downloaded from any EPAM Source to any Rao Source.\n\n 2. All documents concerning your contention that EPAM authorized or permitted\n\nyou to download documents from an EPAM Source to a Rao Source.\n\n 3. All documents that EPAM identified through search terms in accordance with the\n\nStipulated Forensic Inspection Protocol Agreement, including but not limited to: (a) all\n\ndocuments made available to EPAM through the iDS document review platform; (b) all\n\ndocuments that you withheld from EPAM\u2019s review; and (c) all documents that EPAM identified\n\nthrough search terms but, during the process associated with the Stipulated Forensic Inspection\n\nProtocol Agreement, did not seek to promote for review.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 23 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 4. All documents concerning EPAM or CoReason stored on Rao Sources not\n\npreviously identified or produced for inspection in accordance with the Stipulated Forensic\n\nInspection Protocol Agreement.\n\n 5. All documents concerning your contention that the information you downloaded\n\nor transmitted from an EPAM Source to a Rao Source was not intentionally downloaded, such as\n\ndocuments that concern your contention that the documents were downloaded due to background\n\nsynchronization of routine data, system artifacts, and open-source libraries.\n\n 6. All documents concerning your employment with EPAM, work you performed for\n\nEPAM, or actions that you took in the course of your EPAM duties.\n\n 7. All documents concerning your Use of an AI Platform (for the sake of clarity,\n\nnote that here and in all requests hereinafter this shall include without limitation prompts,\n\nquestions, inputs, outputs, summaries, and other data regardless of subject matter that you\n\nexchanged with, transferred, inputted, or otherwise supplied to an AI Platform, and all data,\n\ndocuments, and information received from the AI Platform) where your Use of the AI Platform\n\nwas paid for or reimbursed by EPAM.\n\n 8. All documents concerning your Use of an AI Platform that relate to: (a) Real\n\nWorld Evidence, or to the life sciences; (b) any product or service offered by EPAM; (c) any\n\ndocument, data or materials which you either downloaded or received from EPAM, or\n\ndeveloped, generated, modified, or contributed to while employed at EPAM; (d) any product or\n\nservice you discussed in conversations with , Guarav Dravida, , or\n\n ; (e) any potential or existing product or service offered by CoReason.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 24 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 9. All audio or video recordings, transcripts, or other documents, data, or materials\n\nwhich were used to generate the documents attached hereto as Exhibits A-G, or which otherwise\n\nrelate to the documents attached hereto as Exhibits A-G.\n\n 10. All Communications with non-parties concerning: (a) your EPAM employment;\n\n(b) the possibility that your EPAM employment will end (voluntarily or involuntarily); (c) the\n\nend of your EPAM employment; (d) your contractual obligations to EPAM and/or potential ways\n\nto avoid those contractual obligations; (e) the possibility or actuality of starting a business\n\ncompetitive with EPAM; (f) whether you are a \u201cfree agent\u201d and/or an EPAM competitor; (g) the\n\ndevelopment, preview, or demo of any software, technology, or business that may be competitive\n\nwith EPAM; (h) hiring employees, contractors, or advisors or otherwise retaining persons to\n\nperform services for a business that is competitive with EPAM; and (i) any activity that is\n\ncompetitive with EPAM.\n\n 11. All documents concerning \u201cWork,\u201d as defined in your Employment Covenants\n\nAgreement, which you made, collected, developed, conceived, discovered, learned, or used\n\nduring your EPAM employment \u2013 irrespective of whether you believe EPAM has any property\n\ninterest in such \u201cWork,\u201d and/or whether you believe that such Work is open-source.\n\n 12. All documents concerning any actions you took in copying, printing, sharing,\n\ndisseminating, uploading, transmitting, altering, or otherwise using any \u201cConfidential\n\nInformation,\u201d as defined in your Employment Covenants Agreement, for any purpose other than\n\nas part of your former duties as an EPAM employee.\n\n 13. All documents concerning whether any software, program, source code, or other\n\ntechnology developed by you, any other EPAM employees, and/or with EPAM resources should\n\nbe designated as open-source.\n\n\n\n 10\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 25 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 14. All documents concerning whether any workflows, methodologies, or processes\n\ndeveloped by you, any other EPAM employees, and/or with EPAM resources should be\n\ndesignated as publicly available.\n\n 15. All documents concerning any \u201cAgentic AI\u201d technology or other software that\n\nyou discussed with . This request includes, but is not limited to: (a) the source\n\ncode, including any drafts thereof, for each version of the technology/software; (b) all documents\n\nregarding its development; (c) all documents regarding discussions with programmers or\n\ndevelopers (including offshore developers) regarding its development; (d) all documents\n\nconcerning raising funds for such development; (e) all documents regarding clients, potential\n\nclients, or seed clients and information sharing with such individuals.\n\n 16. All documents concerning any AI technology, other technology, or other software\n\nthat has been developed, marketed, or commercialized by CoReason Inc. and/or Scientific\n\nInformatics, LLC (collectively, \u201cRao\u2019s Companies\u201d). This request includes, but is not limited to:\n\n(a) the source code, including any drafts thereof, for each version of the technology/software; (b)\n\nall documents regarding its development; (c) all documents regarding discussions with\n\nprogrammers or developers (including offshore developers) regarding its development; (d) all\n\ndocuments concerning raising funds for such development; (e) all documents regarding clients,\n\npotential clients, or seed clients.\n\n 17. All documents concerning \u2019s direct or indirect role in any company\n\nin which you hold an equity interest, including but not limited to whether Dravida\u2019s role or\n\ninvestment was structured in such a way so as to hide Dravida\u2019s involvement.\n\n 18. All documents evidencing your ownership or interest in each of Rao\u2019s Companies.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 26 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 19. All documents concerning Communications with investors, funders, or other\n\nbackers of Rao\u2019s Companies, or any other company where you hold or held an equity interest,\n\nduring or after your EPAM employment.\n\n 20. All documents concerning Communications for the purpose of securing services\n\n(such as coding) in connection with developing technology/software for Rao\u2019s Companies, or\n\nany other company in which you hold an equity interest.\n\n 21. All documents concerning Communications, on or after June 1, 2025, with: (a)\n\n ; (b) Guarav Dravida; (c) ; (d) ; (e) Troy Sarich; (f) Trilok\n\nParkeh; (g) Amit Parikh; (h) Asha Mahesh; (i) David Youmans; (j) Ammar Shallal; (k) Johnson\n\n& Johnson; (l) Boehringer Ingelheim; or (m) Takeda Pharmaceuticals.\n\n 22. All documents concerning Communications with persons who are or were EPAM\n\nemployees, including but not limited to all Communications with Sudeep Ghate and/or Dhanush\n\nGhate, regarding the possibility that such employees would leave their EPAM employment,\n\nbegin employment with a business that is competitive with EPAM, or otherwise perform services\n\nfor a business that is competitive with EPAM.\n\n 23. All documents concerning any refactoring (or other editing/revisions) of Synapse\n\ncode, or representations that you were refactoring Synapse code (or otherwise editing/revising\n\nSynapse code).\n\n 24. All documents concerning any statement by you that you were a \u201cfree agent\u201d\n\nand/or a competitor with EPAM.\n\n 25. All documents, including Communications, concerning the actual or potential\n\ninvestment of anyone in Rao\u2019s Companies, or any other company in which you hold an equity\n\ninterest.\n\n\n\n 12\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 27 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 26. All documents, if not otherwise covered by other requests, concerning the\n\nformation and development of the company now called CoReason, including all documents and\n\nCommunications relating to any technology or software that it is marketing, and all documents\n\nand Communications regarding its incorporation as a legal entity or legal entities (including but\n\nnot limited to all drafts of incorporation-related documents, and all Communications regarding\n\nits incorporation).\n\n 27. All documents concerning the registration of the CoReason.ai domain name.\n\n 28. Your calendar, daily planner, smartphone calendar, outlook calendar, schedule,\n\nagendas, itineraries, and any other documents concerning your day-to-day business activities\n\nfrom March 1, 2025 to the present.\n\n 29. To the extent you claim that your termination of employment from EPAM was\n\nunlawful, all documents concerning such claim.\n\n 30. All telephone logs that you have used reflecting communications sent or received\n\nfrom July 1, 2025 to present, including text messages and calls.\n\n 31. All documents concerning Communications, including emails, text or chat\n\nmessages, audio recordings, video recordings, or communications over social media, as well as\n\ndocuments reflecting the Use of an AI Platform, that you sent or received concerning any\n\nallegation, claim, or defense asserted by any Party in this action. This request includes written\n\ncommunications with family members, current or former EPAM employees, current or former\n\nemployees of EPAM clients, potential investors in Rao\u2019s Companies, employees or other persons\n\naffiliated with Rao\u2019s Companies, and/or any individual besides your attorneys.\n\n 32. Any witness statements (including informal statements, such as those made over\n\nemail, text message, instant message, social media, or audio or video recording transcripts),\n\n\n\n 13\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 28 of 36\n\n\n\n\ndeclarations, affidavits, or testimony concerning the claims or allegations in this action, as well\n\nas statements that you claim are admissions or statements against interest.\n\n 33. All documents concerning any lawsuits, grievances, arbitrations, bankruptcy\n\nproceedings, or administrative proceedings, past or pending, other than the instant action, in\n\nwhich you are or were involved either as a party or a witness, including, but not limited to,\n\ndeposition and hearing transcripts, opinions, orders, settlement or release agreements in the last\n\nten (10) years.\n\n 34. All documents concerning any activity or conduct you engaged in, during or after\n\nyour EPAM employment, which you believe is protected by the New Jersey Conscientious\n\nEmployee Protection Act and/or the Defend Trade Secrets Act.\n\n 35. All documents concerning any allegedly retaliatory conduct by EPAM, or any\n\nother conduct by EPAM that you challenge in this action.\n\n 36. All documents reviewed, relied upon, or used in preparing your Answer,\n\nAffirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims to Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint (\u201cAnswer\u201d).\n\n 37. All documents you receive pursuant to any subpoena issued in this lawsuit.\n\n 38. All online profiles, postings, messages (including, without limitation, tweets,\n\nreplies, retweets, direct messages, status updates, wall comments, groups joined, activity streams,\n\nand blog entries), photographs, videos, and online communications, including communications\n\nthat are maintained or posted on any social or business networking account (e.g., Facebook,\n\nTwitter, X, Threads, Instagram, Yelp, Foursquare, Tumblr, Flickr, LinkedIn, MySpace, etc.),\n\nconcerning the allegations, claims, counterclaims, or defenses set forth in the Complaint, the\n\nAmended Complaint, or the Answer.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 29 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 39. All documents concerning any income that you received from any source,\n\nwhether as an employee, owner, partner, independent contractor, agency recipient or otherwise,\n\nbetween the end of your EPAM employment and the present, including, but not limited to,\n\nincome of any kind from Rao\u2019s Companies (including loans taken from such companies),\n\nunemployment insurance benefits, welfare or other government benefits, and all federal, state\n\nand local income tax returns and Internal Revenue Service W-2 and 1099 tax forms for 2022\n\nthrough the present. In addition to providing all documents that are responsive to this request,\n\nprovide EPAM\u2019s attorneys with fully executed authorization forms/releases permitting them to\n\nobtain your federal income tax records, and unemployment insurance benefits records.\n\nAuthorization forms are attached hereto as Exhibit H.\n\n 40. All documents concerning any \u201crefresh\u201d or \u201creset\u201d that you performed on your\n\nMSI Codex R2 Desktop Computer in or about November 2025.\n\n 41. All documents concerning any damages or remedies that you are seeking in this\n\naction, including, but not limited to, all documents that identify, specify, or describe the nature\n\nand type of actual damages allegedly incurred by you, documents which list, compute, analyze,\n\ncalculate, estimate, or describe the amount of actual damages allegedly incurred by you, and all\n\ndocuments concerning your efforts to mitigate damages. This requests includes, but is not\n\nlimited to, all documents concerning any allegation, claim, or counterclaim that you have\n\nincurred damages for intangible injuries such as emotional distress and reputational harm.\n\n 42. All documents (including emails, text messages, and social media posts)\n\nconcerning any treatment or counseling sought or received by you for any alleged physical,\n\nmental, psychological, or emotional condition or injury for which you seek damages in this\n\naction (including but not limited to any treatment or counseling you have received from non-\n\n\n\n 15\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 30 of 36\n\n\n\n\nhealthcare providers, such as treatment or counseling from clergy, religious lay leaders, twelve-\n\nstep programs, and purported psychics or other purported practitioners of the paranormal arts).\n\nThis request includes, but is not limited to, all documents concerning any alleged emotional\n\ndistress, reputational harm, or \u201cclinically documented psychiatric injury\u201d that you asserted in\n\nyour Answer. In addition to providing all documents that are responsive to this request, provide\n\nfully executed authorization forms and/or releases permitting EPAM\u2019s attorneys to obtain any\n\nand all confidential records or documents that might be responsive to this request. Authorization\n\nforms are attached hereto as Exhibit I.\n\n 43. All documents prepared or maintained by any physician, hospital, clinic, physical\n\ntherapist, psychologist, psychotherapist, counselor, social worker, any other healthcare provider,\n\nor any other person (e.g., clergy, religious lay leaders, twelve-step programs, and purported\n\npsychics or other purported practitioners of the paranormal arts) who evaluated or treated you\n\nfrom October 2022 to the present for any physical, medical, or mental health condition. This\n\nrequest includes but, is not limited to, medical records, reports, consultation notes, prescriptions,\n\nMRI records, X-rays, statements made for the purpose of obtaining or maintaining benefits, and\n\nstatements of charges for services, products or medications provided to you. In addition to\n\nproviding all documents that are responsive to this request, to the extent they were not previously\n\nproduced, provide EPAM\u2019s attorneys with fully-executed authorization forms or releases\n\npermitting EPAM\u2019s attorneys to obtain any and all confidential records or documents that might\n\nbe responsive to this request. Authorization forms are attached hereto as Exhibit I.\n\n 44. All documents concerning your contention that documents, data, or materials that\n\nEPAM claims as its Confidential Information and/or as its property is actually open source.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 31 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 45. All documents concerning your contention that documents, data, or materials that\n\nEPAM claims as its Confidential Information and/or as its property is publicly available.\n\n 46. All documents concerning whether you purposefully underperformed, or intended\n\nto underperform during your EPAM employment, with the hope that EPAM would involuntarily\n\nterminate your employment.\n\n 47. All documents concerning any act by you, during or after your EPAM\n\nemployment, to directly or indirectly solicit, contact, or attempt to solicit or contact, using any\n\nform of oral, written, or electronic communication (including but not limited to electronic or\n\nother mail, phone, fax, instant message, or social media) or otherwise meet with, or\n\nCommunications with, EPAM\u2019s current, former, or prospective clients, for purposes of offering\n\nservices on behalf of yourself, CoReason, or any of Rao\u2019s Companies. This request is binding,\n\nirrespective of whether you believe that your conduct violated your non-solicitation obligations\n\nto EPAM. This request further includes all documents concerning any act by you, during or after\n\nyour EPAM employment, to respond to any contact (even a contact which you claim was\n\nunsolicited and/or not initiated by you) from EPAM\u2019s current, former, or prospective clients, for\n\npurposes of you offering services similar to or competitive with those offered by EPAM.\n\n 48. All documents concerning the generation of the CoReason Proof of Concept and\n\nStatement of Work that was allegedly approved by Johnson & Johnson on October 20, 2025,\n\nincluding but not limited to all documents concerning your and/or CoReason\u2019s Communications\n\nand/or negotiations with Johnson & Johnson. (Answer \u00b6 396.)\n\n 49. All documents concerning your and/or CoReason\u2019s Communications and/or\n\nnegotiations with Boehringer Ingelheim regarding a potential business relationship. (Answer \u00b6\n\n398.)\n\n\n\n 17\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 32 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 50. All documents concerning your contentions regarding CoReason\u2019s potential\n\nannual revenue, valuation, and/or \u201cunicorn\u201d status. (Answer \u00b6 399.)\n\n 51. All documents concerning your contention that you have been unable or inhibited\n\nin your ability to commercially launch CoReason. (Answer \u00b6 399.)\n\n 52. All documents concerning your role in negotiating, drafting, or reviewing the\n\nMaster Services Agreement, or any amendment, annex, statement of work, project work order, or\n\nother document related thereto, between EPAM and Takeda Pharmaceuticals.\n\n 53. All documents concerning your recruitment and/or hiring by EPAM, including all\n\ndocuments regarding your negotiation of the Employment Covenants Agreement, and all\n\ndocuments concerning any alleged representations made to you by EPAM during the recruitment\n\nand/or hiring process.\n\n 54. All documents concerning your reliance upon alleged representations made to you\n\nby EPAM during the recruitment and/or hiring process.\n\n 55. All documents concerning your contention that EPAM misrepresented, masked, or\n\nconcealed the physical locations of its workforce.\n\n 56. All documents and data concerning supposedly \u201cindependent scientific\n\ninnovations\u201d that you created, ideated, and/or developed during your EPAM employment.\n\n(Answer \u00b6 328.)\n\n 57. All documents concerning the status of your employment at Johnson & Johnson\n\nas of the time of your recruitment and/or hiring by EPAM, including your last two formal\n\nperformance reviews, documents sufficient to identify compensation changes and/or bonuses\n\nover the preceding two years, and any documents concerning the possibility that your Johnson &\n\nJohnson employment may end involuntarily.\n\n\n\n 18\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 33 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 58. All documents concerning any effort by you to find employment outside of\n\nJohnson & Johnson during 2024, including all documents that reflect, relate to, concern, or\n\nconstitute correspondence with prospective employers, headhunters, recruiters, and/or executive\n\nsearch agencies.\n\n 59. All documents concerning the codebase that you allegedly \u201cindependently\n\nauthored and published\u201d under \u201cthe package name llmpromptbuilders,\u201d including all documents\n\nreflecting that you had EPAM\u2019s approval, authorization, and/or permission for such acts.\n\n(Answer \u00b6 339.)\n\n 60. A complete, current copy of your curriculum vitae.\n\n 61. With respect to any person expected to give expert testimony in this action,\n\nincluding but not limited to any financial, psychological or medical expert, a written report\n\ncontaining: (a) a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and\n\nreasons for them; (b) the facts or data considered by the witness in forming his or her expert\n\nopinion; (c) any exhibits that will be used to summarize or support his or her expert opinion; (d)\n\nthe witness\u2019 qualifications, including a list of all publications authored in the previous 10 years;\n\n(e) a list of all other cases in which, during the previous 4 years, the witness testified as an expert\n\nat trial or by deposition; and (f) a statement of the compensation to be paid for the study and\n\ntestimony in this action.\n\n 62. All documents identified or relied upon in your answers to EPAM\u2019s First Set of\n\nInterrogatories.\n\n 63. All patent or copyright applications that you and/or CoReason has filed.\n\n 64. All insurance policies that could potentially be used by you to satisfy a judgment\n\nin this matter.\n\n\n\n 19\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 34 of 36\n\n\n\n\n 65. All documents identified or relied upon in your Federal Rule Civil Procedure\n\n26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures, dated February 27, 2026.\n\n 66. All documents previously hosted on gowthamrao.com, including but not limited\n\nto screenshots or other documents regarding what the website displayed.\n\n 67. All documents and information associated with your personal cloud-based\n\naccounts whose primary purpose is to host source code, such as https://github.com/gowthamrao,\n\nincluding but not limited to all current and historical source code, repositories, and branches\n\n(regardless of whether those items have been, or are publicly available), all auditable events and\n\nhistory associated with the accounts (including any information related to uploading, cloning,\n\ntransferring, downloading, exporting, branching, using, accessing, synchronizing, committing,\n\nrevising, or deleting source code or documents from your accounts), all information regarding\n\nusers that have accessed, downloaded, or used information stored on your accounts, and all\n\ninformation related to development machines, systems, or platforms synchronizing with these\n\naccounts.\n\n 68. All documents and information associated with CoReason\u2019s cloud-based accounts\n\nwhose primary purpose is to host source code, such as https://github.com/CoReason-AI,\n\nincluding but not limited to all current and historical source code, repositories, and branches\n\n(regardless of whether those items have been, or are publicly available), all auditable events and\n\nhistory associated with the accounts (including any information related to uploading, cloning,\n\ntransferring, downloading, exporting, branching, using, accessing, synchronizing, committing,\n\nrevising, or deleting source code or documents from the accounts), all information regarding\n\nusers that have accessed, downloaded, or used information stored on the accounts, and all\n\n\n\n\n 20\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 35 of 36\n\n\n\n\ninformation related to development machines, systems, or platforms synchronizing with these\n\naccounts.\n\n 69. All documents concerning any allegation, claim, counterclaim, or defense asserted\n\nby any Party in this Litigation, that are not otherwise produced in response to these Requests.\n\n 70. All documents and/or other materials, not otherwise requested, that you intend to\n\nuse or offer into evidence at any deposition or proceeding in this matter, or that you otherwise\n\nbelieve are relevant to this matter.\n\n\n\nDated: August 10, 2026\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n\n By: /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick (Pa. Bar No. 311028)\n joslick@seyfarth.com\n James S. Yu (pro hac vice admitted)\n jyu@seyfarth.com\n Brooke Gary (admitted pro hac vice)\n brgary@seyfarth.com\n 620 Eighth Avenue\n New York, New York 10018-1405\n (212) 218-5500\n\n\n\n\n 21\n326738744v.7\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-4 Filed 08/27/26 Page 36 of 36\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on August 10, 2026, the foregoing was served upon the following pro\n\nse party via email, and a copy was also served via FedEx at the following:\n\n\n\n GOWTHAM ADAMANE ROA\n 184 Mansgrove Rd\n Princeton, NJ 08540\n gowthamrao@gmail.com\n\n\n\n /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick\n\n\n\n\n 22\n326738744v.7\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T11:13:35.025977-07:00","document_number":"72","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"153024134913","is_available":true,"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/491588033/","id":491588033,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/72/5/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-27T11:10:05.386598-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:41:51.646866-07:00","sha1":"917921b6719041e3d996a61464fb872b7e351b01","page_count":1,"file_size":378467,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.5_1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.72.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"8/27/26, 1:16 PM Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 72-5 Filed 08/27/26\n 05_Exhibit_C_EPAM_First_Discovery_Requests.pdf Page\n | Powered by Box1 of 1\n\n\n Files 05_Exhibit_C_EPAM_First_Discovery_Requests.pdf 99+\n Share ED\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Gowtham Rao | EPA\u2026 \u00b7 Updated Today b\u2026\n Recents\n Metadata\n Notes 2:25-cv-06260-WB | Gowtham \u2026\n \ueddb\n Sign\n Pro Se Electronic FilingUpdated\n Automate\n Name: 03_Exhibit_A_Schedule_A.pdf\n Integrations Today \u2022 147.3 KB\n Gowtham Rao\n 01_Rao_Response_to_ECF_70_Signed.pdf\n Email Address:\n Solutions\n Today \u2022 113.6 KB\n gowthamrao@gmail.com\n Canvas 02_Request_by_Request_Appendix.pdf\n Phone Number Today \u2022 774.8 KB\n Trash\n 8033867890\n 04_Exhibit_B_August_24_Email.pdf\n Are you filing a new case? Today \u2022 145.7 KB\n Collections\n No, I'm not filing a new case. 05_Exhibit_C_EPAM_First_Discovery_Requests.pdf\n Today \u2022 97.7 KB\n Case Caption\n EPAM Systems Inc. vs Gowtham Rao\n\n Case Number\n 2:25-cv-06260-WB\n\n Description of Document(s)\n DEFENDANT'S LETTER IN RESPONSE TO ECF NO. 70\n\n Do you have a mailing address?\n Yes\n\n Mailing Address Line 1\n 184 Mansgrove Rd\n\n City:\n Princeton\n\n State:\n NJ\n\n Zip Code:\n 08540\n\n Terms of Submission \ueddc\nhttps://paed-circ3-dcn.app.box.com/file/2430603179530?sb=/metadata 1/1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T11:13:35.674031-07:00","document_number":"72","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"153024134914","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"COVER PAGE","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T10:53:18.772579-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T12:01:06.763437-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-27","time_filed":"13:22:04","entry_number":72,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":197,"description":"Letter by GOWTHAM ADAMANE ROA. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 COVER PAGE)(dt) Modified on 8/27/2026 (lvj). (Entered: 08/27/2026)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475941700/","id":475941700,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71873171/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491489849/","id":491489849,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/71/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-26T17:50:38.568799-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:59:44.647610-07:00","sha1":"f313f048e1bf74e27851960ab618f07ce4dfed21","page_count":15,"file_size":69503,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 1 of 15\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\n--------------------------------------------------------- X\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC., )\n ) Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim- )\n Defendant )\n )\n v. )\n )\nGOWTHAM RAO, )\n )\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n )\n Plaintiff\n )\n--------------------------------------------------------- X\n\nPLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.\u2019S REPLY IN SUPPORT\n OF MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE\n\n\n\n\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 2 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Page\n\nARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 1\n\nA. The Undisputed Facts Warrant Severe, Dispositive Sanctions ........................................... 1\n\nB. Rao\u2019s Red Herrings and Misstatements Do Not Excuse Spoliation ................................... 3\n\nC. Rao\u2019s Shifting Explanations Further Support Terminating Sanctions ................................ 7\n\nD. Terminating Sanctions Are Warranted Because Rao\u2019s Spoliation Is Part of A\n Pattern of Bad Faith Litigation Conduct ............................................................................. 9\n\n\n\n\n i\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 3 of 15\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nFletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc.,\n 168 F.4th 231 (5th Cir. 2026) ..................................................................................................10\n\nGutman v. Klein,\n 2008 WL 4682208 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)..........................................................................................8\n\nOther Authorities\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 37 .............................................................................................................................9\n\n\n\n\n ii\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 4 of 15\n\n\n\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n Gowtham Rao\u2019s opposition supplies no grounds to excuse his spoliation. In fact, his\n\nshifting explanations for his conduct cements that he spoliated evidence in bad faith. Further,\n\nRao\u2019s recent litigation conduct, including his abusive discovery demands, and the falsities and/or\n\nAI-hallucinations in his opposition, only buttresses the bad faith nature of his actions. For these\n\nreasons, and as EPAM\u2019s opening brief set forth, the Court should award EPAM a default\n\njudgment, dismissal of the counterclaims, reimbursement of its forensic costs and attorneys\u2019 fees,\n\nand injunctive relief.\n\n A. The Undisputed Facts Warrant Severe, Dispositive Sanctions\n\n Rao\u2019s unwieldy opposition papers try their best to muddle the issues\u2014for good reason.\n\n The undisputed facts are these: on November 14, 2025, 14 days after receiving notice of\n\nthe imminent lawsuit and a preservation notice, 9 days after the TRO hearing and 7 days before\n\nthe scheduled preliminary injunction hearing, and while the parties were negotiating a forensic\n\ninspection, Rao spoliated evidence by conducting a \u201creset\u201d/\u201crefresh\u201d of his desktop computer.\n\n(Oslick Decl. Ex. 4 at 5; ECF #44-2.) The reset eradicated forensic evidence of USB devices,\n\nbrowsing activity, file and folder activity, user activity, and deleted files. (Oslick Decl. Exs. 4, 5,\n\n14, 15; Greenfield Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 17, 23-27, 31-33, 37.) This is the exact forensic evidence that would\n\nhave enabled EPAM to determine if Rao had transferred EPAM data to other sources (such as\n\nUSB drives or cloud storage accounts), or further misappropriated EPAM data by creating\n\nderivative works. (EPAM Br. at 7-9, 22-23.) Indeed, the destroyed evidence would have enabled\n\nEPAM to determine not only if Rao created \u201cnew\u201d documents feeding some of the 44,960 EPAM\n\nfiles he pilfered into AI to create derivative works, but which documents were derivatives.\n\n(EPAM Br. at 7-9, 22-23; Greenfield Decl. \u00b6 32.) And Rao knew EPAM needed this forensic\n\n\n\n 1\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 5 of 15\n\n\n\n\ndata. As EPAM explained at the TRO Hearing, it needed \u201cforensic discovery\u201d to learn if EPAM\u2019s\n\ndata had \u201cbeen misused or potentially transferred elsewhere.\u201d (ECF #58-6 at 52.)\n\n The undisputed facts further confirm that Rao had a motive for spoliating this evidence:\n\nhiding his misappropriation of EPAM trade secrets and confidential information to aid his\n\ncompeting company. For instance, Exhibit 9, a document that Rao now admits he generated\n\nthrough AI, is a \u201ccomprehensive, step-by-step plan\u201d for rebuilding an EPAM software program\n\nknown as Synapse. (ECF #58-12 at 8; #58-25 \u00b6\u00b6 8-14; Opp. at 24.) Rao later bragged to a friend\n\nthat he planned to take work he did for EPAM, i.e., Synapse, and \u201crebuild the system from\n\nscratch using his own code,\u201d which is exactly what Exhibit 9 enabled him to do. (Oslick Decl.\n\nEx. 7 at 3, 6.) Then, within 24 hours of EPAM ending his employment, Rao launched a\n\ncompeting company, whose signature product is a Synapse competitor. The fact that EPAM\n\nfortuitously discovered some of what Rao attempted to hide, and that Rao, after getting caught,\n\nnow partially admits what he did, does not erase the prejudice. EPAM has no idea what else Rao\n\nmisappropriated and has managed to successfully hide by destroying the forensics.\n\n Finally, even before his recent bad acts (see infra 4-5, 7, 9), the undisputed facts confirm\n\nRao\u2019s spoliation was not a \u201cone off.\u201d It was part of a pattern of bad faith conduct. After all, he\n\nfalsely stated in his Anwer that the \u201cevidentiary baseline is completely preserved\u201d (ECF #33 \u00b6\n\n231), and that the forensics not only \u201cyielded no evidence\u201d of his wrongdoing but provided\n\n\u201cdefinitive forensic clearance\u201d of his conduct, and were \u201cexculpatory.\u201d (See id. \u00b6\u00b6 231, 255, 256,\n\n386, 389, 453, 454.) His latest misrepresentations, some of which may be AI- hallucinations, fit\n\nthe same pattern. Bad faith litigation conduct warrants the most severe sanctions.\n\n For these reasons, EPAM is entitled to case ending sanctions and its other requested relief\n\n\u2013due to the prejudice it suffered, and the need to affirm litigation integrity. (EPAM Br. 23-29.)\n\n\n\n 2\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 6 of 15\n\n\n\n\n B. Rao\u2019s Red Herrings and Misstatements Do Not Excuse Spoliation\n\n Faced with the indisputable evidence, Rao resorts to red herrings and misstatements:\n\n 1. Rao proffers that Windows \u201cdoes not record the copying of files to a USB drive.\u201d\n\n(Opp. at 11.) EPAM never argued otherwise. But, as Dr. Greenfield explained and Rao cannot\n\ndispute, Windows generates forensic artifacts which provide strong forensic evidence of copying\n\nto USB devices, and his reset destroyed that evidence. (ECF #58-26 \u00b6\u00b6 23-26.)\n\n 2. Rao posits that he didn\u2019t destroy evidence of USB connections, because the only\n\ntwo entries on the USB report are \u201cthe computer's internal drive and the neutral examiner's\n\nimaging drive.\u201d (Opp. at 11.) He ignores that this report describes the computer\u2019s own hard drive\n\nas being \u201cFirst Connected\u201d on November 14, the date of the reset. (ECF #58-18.) That \u201cFirst\n\nConnected\u201d date shows spoliation. (See Greenfield Supp. Decl. \u00b6 2.)\n\n 3. Rao contends that his browsing history was not destroyed, but \u201crestored.\u201d (Opp. at\n\n7.) In fact, the \u201crestored\u201d data goes back only to November 3, eleven days before the reset. (Opp.\n\nat 7.) Once again, that data is not exculpatory, but instead reflects that Rao destroyed many\n\nmonths\u2019 worth of browsing history which may have shown him copying EPAM files to cloud\n\nstorage accounts, or inputting EPAM data into AI programs. (See Greenfield Supp. Decl. \u00b6 3.)\n\n 4. Rao remarks that \u201cEPAM has not identified a single search, a single site, or a\n\nsingle upload that it says is missing,\u201d \u201cone derivative work it says it cannot prove,\u201d or \u201cone file it\n\nsays went to a USB device.\u201d (Opp. at 13, 15, 20.) He similarly notes that EPAM can\u2019t prove what\n\nthe destroyed forensic evidence would have shown. (Opp. at 13, 16, 20.) But EPAM\u2019s inability\n\nto identify precisely what was destroyed is not a defense to spoliation. It is part of the prejudice\n\ncaused by spoliation. (See EPAM Br. at 22, citing cases).\n\n 5. Rao theorizes that EPAM is not prejudiced because he \u201creleased\u201d files, falsely\n\nclaiming that he \u201creleased\u201d 84,000 files to EPAM, and insisting that EPAM supposedly refused\n\n 3\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 7 of 15\n\n\n\n\nto review 79,000 of them. (Opp. at 8, 14, 20.) Rao also insists forensic evidence is unnecessary\n\nbecause derivative works can be proved by comparing side-by-side content. (Opp. at 14.) Yet\n\nRao ignores that he destroyed invaluable data that would have told EPAM what files to review.\n\n(ECF #58-26 at \u00b6\u00b6 32, 33, 37.) Rao\u2019s suggested content searches are no substitute for forensic\n\nevidence. They would require incredibly burdensome ESI searches, and can be defeated through\n\nsimple find-and-replace tricks. (See Greenfield Supp. Decl. \u00b6 4). For instance, if Rao replaced\n\nevery instance of \u201cSynapse\u201d in a document with \u201cSpiderman,\u201d a word search for \u201cSynapse\u201d\n\nwould reveal nothing. (Id.) Even if possible derivates were located based on a manual search of\n\nthe 84,000 documents, EPAM witnesses would need to opine document-by-document about why\n\nthey believed the content indicated a derivate work, and would face cross-examination on their\n\ncredibility without forensic evidence to back up their assertions. Put simply, asking EPAM to\n\n\u201cgo fish\u201d in an ocean of 84,000 files (even if Rao \u201creleased\u201d them\u2014and he did not) is no\n\nsubstitute for destroying data that would have told EPAM where the fish are swimming, i.e.,\n\nwhat \u201cspecific files, not originally downloaded from EPAM, it should review\u201d because they\n\nlikely contain EPAM confidential information. (ECF #58-26 \u00b6 32.) Further, the destroyed data\n\nwould also forensically confirm if documents that EPAM found were, in fact, \u201cfish.\u201d\n\n Beyond the above, Rao destroyed forensic evidence of his admitted file deletions. (Id. \u00b6\n\n33.) Thus, EPAM cannot know how many \u201cfish\u201d Rao removed from the ocean \u2013 by deleting\n\ndocuments, or transferring them to unknown USB devices and cloud storage accounts.\n\n Further, Rao\u2019s claim that he released 84,000 files to EPAM is false. In fact, when EPAM\n\n\u2013 relying on Rao\u2019s representation under penalty of perjury that he \u201creleased\u201d these files \u2013 asked\n\nthe parties\u2019 forensic neutral to make them available to EPAM, Rao instructed \u201cHold.\u201d (See Oslick\n\nSupp. Decl. Exs. 1, 2; Opp. at 8; Rao Decl. \u00b6 65.) Then, in retaliation for EPAM\u2019s request to\n\n\n\n 4\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 8 of 15\n\n\n\n\nmake the files available, Rao began stripping EPAM attorneys and employees of the right to\n\nview the tiny subset of documents EPAM actually had access to. (Oslick Supp. Decl. Exs. 2, 3.)1\n\n 6. Rao also insists that EPAM can run its desired forensic comparison, because\n\nmetadata with \u201ccreation and modification timestamps\u201d is preserved. (Opp. at 14.) He is wrong.\n\nOpening a document and copying text from it, or feeding it to an AI program to create a new\n\ndocument, does not affect a document\u2019s creation or modified date. (Greenfield Supp. Decl. \u00b6 5.)\n\nWhile those actions create other forensic artifacts, those artifacts are what Rao destroyed. (Id.)\n\n 7. Rao additionally argues that EPAM\u2019s need for additional forensic examinations is\n\nsomehow an \u201cadmission\u201d that the lost ESI is replaceable. (Opp. at 16.) This is nonsense. EPAM\n\nneeds further forensic examinations because Rao destroyed evidence of where he transferred\n\nfiles, so EPAM does not even know which ocean to fish in. That is why it needs forensic\n\nexaminations of CoReason, because it now cannot know where Rao transferred EPAM data.\n\n 8. Rao bizarrely contends that he had no duty to preserve forensic evidence because\n\nEPAM\u2019s preservation notice did not specifically mention \u201cregistry hives\u201d or \u201cLNK files,\u201d and the\n\nCourt refused to compel a forensic inspection at the TRO hearing. (Opp. at 17-18.) In fact,\n\nEPAM told him to preserve \u201celectronically stored information,\u201d and expressly sought a forensic\n\ninspection at the TRO hearing. (ECF #58-4, #58-6.) If Rao spoliated evidence because the Court\n\ndidn\u2019t immediately order a forensic inspection, that is further evidence of bad faith.\n\n\n\n1\n Rao otherwise asks the Court to infer that EPAM acted with ill motive based on his\ninterpretation of the parties\u2019 forensic protocol. (Opp. at 29-31.) While the Court already\nconcluded that it lacked jurisdiction over interpreting the forensic protocol, Rao\u2019s contentions are\nfactually frivolous. The forensic protocol permits EPAM to use the data for any litigation\npurpose. (ECF #55 \u00a7 VI(c).) Further, Rao admits that \u201cNo protective order has been entered in\nthis case, and no attorneys'-eyes-only designation governs these materials.\u201d (Oslick Supp. Decl.\nEx. 4.) And Rao contends that the documents at issue are EPAM documents that he generated for\nEPAM. Rao\u2019s insistence that EPAM was somehow prohibited from sharing such documents with\nEPAM employees is a further example of his bad faith, obstructive litigation activity.\n\n 5\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 9 of 15\n\n\n\n\n 9. In an act of pure gall, Rao praises his supposed \u201cvoluntary disclosure\u201d of the\n\nspoliation. (Opp. at 5.) But Rao admitted to the reset only after iDS discovered it. Rao fessing up\n\nafter he got caught is not a \u201cvoluntary disclosure,\u201d and does not mitigate against a bad faith\n\nfinding.\n\n 10. Outrageously, Rao even implies that EPAM is somehow at fault for him spoliating\n\nevidence, because it did not resolve the case in exchange for him wiping his computer. (Opp. at\n\n6, 19.) He ignores that any such remediation would have been worthless if Rao had already\n\ncopied EPAM data to other sources, such as USB devices or cloud storage accounts. As EPAM\n\nexplained at the TRO hearing, that is why it needed a forensic examination: to \u201cget sufficient\n\ncomfort that data hasn\u2019t been misused or potentially transferred elsewhere.\u201d (ECF #58-6 at 52.)\n\nThen, nine days later, knowing precisely why EPAM needed forensic evidence that would\n\nindicate file transfers, Rao destroyed that very forensic evidence.\n\n As for Rao\u2019s remaining arguments, many bear the hallmarks of senseless AI \u201cstaccato\u201d\n\nstyle-writing,2, or are otherwise factually baseless.\n\n Most egregiously, Rao claims that EPAM \u201cauthorize[d] a curative analysis five days\n\nbefore calling the loss incurable.\u201d (Opp. at 21.) This claim is false. Tellingly, Rao identifies no\n\n\u201ccurative analysis\u201d that he discussed with Seyfarth or asked iDS to perform. His claims about a\n\n\u201ccurative analysis\u201d are pure fiction \u2013 and, quite possibly, an AI-generated hallucination. All\n\nthe documents show, and all that actually happened, is that Rao asked for Seyfarth\u2019s permission\n\nto contract with iDS for additional work, and Seyfarth agreed to this possibility. (See Ex. P.)\n\nRao\u2019s descriptions to Seyfarth of the iDS work he wanted would not address, let alone \u201ccure,\u201d\n\n\n\n\n2\n See Te-Ping Chen, Writers Are Going to Extremes to Prove They Didn't Use AI, Wall St. J.\n(May 6, 2026) (noting that AI writes in a \u201cdistinctive staccato sentence cadence\u201d).\n\n 6\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 10 of 15\n\n\n\n\nspoliation issues such as derivative documents. (Oslick Supp. Decl. \u00b6 4.) And Rao never copied\n\nSeyfarth on any follow ups with iDS. (Id. \u00b6 6.) Further, while Rao claims that \u201cEPAM has not\n\nconsented to any specific request under that supplemental-analysis mechanism,\u201d Rao, in fact,\n\nnever made any such requests. (Rao Decl. \u00b6 71; Oslick Suppl. Decl. \u00b6 6.) Rao\u2019s misstatements in\n\nhis opposition papers are further evidence of bad faith, and, in any event, are not justifications\n\nfor spoliation.\n\n Rao\u2019s other nonsensical \u201cstaccato\u201d-like statements go nowhere:\n\n 1. Rao argues that \u201cEPAM calls unreasonable the very step it told the Court I could\n\nhave taken.\u201d (Opp. at 19.) He does not explain what he means, and EPAM is baffled.\n\n 2. Rao argues that \u201cEPAM cannot fault the action for an objective it endorses.\u201d\n\n(Opp. at 19.) That proposition is frivolous. The \u201caction\u201d that EPAM faults is Rao\u2019s destruction of\n\nforensic evidence. That action must be \u201cfaulted\u201d regardless of Rao\u2019s motive (hiding evidence).\n\n 3. Rao, referring to Exhibit 9, insists that \u201cWork performed for EPAM does not\n\nsupply a motive to destroy evidence.\u201d (Opp. at 24, describing Ex. 9.) But Ilin confirmed that Rao\n\nhad no legitimate reason to create this document, a self-described \u201cstep-by-step\u201d guide for\n\nrebuilding Synapse. (ECF #58-25 \u00b6 13.) And nowhere in Rao\u2019s brief, or his 30 page declaration,\n\nor his 11 page \u201cScope Appendix\u201d does Rao supply such a reason. Clearly, Rao had a motive for\n\ndestroying evidence that he created a document which, as he plotted to do, would enable him to\n\n\u201crebuild\u201d Synapse from \u201cscratch,\u201d and then launch a competing company. (ECF #58-10 at 6.)\n\n C. Rao\u2019s Shifting Explanations Further Support Terminating Sanctions\n\n Rao originally claimed he spoliated evidence because he lost his passwords twice, and\n\nneeded to \u201crefresh\u201d his computer (i.e., reinstall the Windows operating system) to recover them.\n\n(See ECF #44-3.) This explanation was incredulous. He did not search the web for how to reset a\n\npassword (a Google search would have told him), but for how to \u201creset\u201d his computer due to\n\n 7\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 11 of 15\n\n\n\n\npurported \u201ccorrupt[ion].\u201d (See ECF #44 at 1.) While Rao is a computer-savvy CEO of an AI\n\ntechnology company, even \u201ca novice computer user\u201d would not reinstall an operating system to\n\nrecover a password. Gutman v. Klein, 2008 WL 4682208, at *9-10 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). Further, Rao\n\nhad ample alternatives to destroying evidence, such as buying a new hard drive (for about $200),\n\nbuying a new computer for his new company (to avoid comingling EPAM data), using one of his\n\nother computers, or alerting EPAM so EPAM could ensure preservation. (EPAM Br. at 2, 16-17.)\n\n Aware of these flaws, Rao now amplifies his story with an extended discussion of how\n\nhis sign-on screen supposedly didn\u2019t display all of his accounts. (Rao Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 37-43.) But if that\n\nwas the issue, Rao doesn\u2019t explain why he searched for \u201chow to reset\u201d a \u201ccorrupted\u201d Windows,\n\ninstead of seeking help about signing into the account he wanted. Had he done the latter, a\n\nMicrosoft webpage would have given him easy solutions. (Greenfield Supp. Decl. \u00b6 6.)3\n\n Next, Rao feigns ignorance, portraying himself as unsophisticated with computers. (See\n\nOpp. at 19-24.) This is incredulous. While Rao is also a physician, he\u2019s made his living in data\n\nscience, and serves as the CEO of an AI technology company. He\u2019s savvy enough to know how\n\nto reset a password, and that a \u201crefresh\u201d/\u201creset\u201d is not the right way. And the fact that Rao did not\n\ndestroy even more evidence\u2014such as by wiping his hard drive\u2014does not show \u201csophistication\n\nand incompetence . . . in the same act.\u201d (Opp. at 24.) It proves only that Rao had forethought\n\nenough not to make his spoliation blindingly obvious. Further, while Rao is computer savvy, he\n\nis not litigation savvy. He may not have grasped that this litigation would enable EPAM to locate\n\ndocuments he stored elsewhere, such as his personal Google drive.\n\n\n\n\n3\n (See also https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/identity-signin/troubleshoot-\nproblems-signing-in-to-windows ; last visited August 26, 2026.)\n\n 8\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 12 of 15\n\n\n\n\n Rao implies that he lacked the money to purchase a new hard drive or new computer.\n\n(See Opp. at 19.) This contention is also false. Rao was highly compensated at EPAM (earning\n\n$250,000 a year) and already secured funding for CoReason, which was incorporated on October\n\n16 by its \u201cFounding Investor,\u201d Ammar Shallal. (ECF #58-15; https://www.coreason.ai/) And not\n\nlong after his spoliation, Rao began advertising to hire a \u201cLead Systems & Infrastructure\n\nEngineer\u201d in India. (See Oslick Supp. Decl. Ex. 5.) He plainly had a few hundred dollars to buy a\n\nnew hard drive, or a few thousand dollars for a new computer, to use for CoReason so he didn\u2019t\n\ncomingle EPAM data. In fact, given these readily available alternatives, the most plausible\n\nexplanation for Rao\u2019s use of his EPAM computer is that he intended to use EPAM data on\n\nCoReason\u2019s behalf.\n\n D. Terminating Sanctions Are Warranted Because Rao\u2019s Spoliation Is Part of A\n Pattern of Bad Faith Litigation Conduct\n\n Turning to Rao\u2019s legal argument, he contends that the Court must rely on Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n37, rather than its inherent power, because his conduct was not \u201cmuch more serious\u201d than \u201ca\n\npreservation failure.\u201d (Opp. at 26.) While terminating sanctions are warranted under both Rule\n\n37 and the Court\u2019s inherent authority, his belief that this dispute involves just a \u201cpreservation\n\nfailure\u201d is mistaken. Already, before EPAM filed this motion, Rao sought to affirmatively use his\n\nspoliation against EPAM, and even accused EPAM of litigating in \u201cbad faith,\u201d by asserting\n\ndefenses and counterclaims based upon his own false contentions that the \u201cevidentiary baseline\n\nis completely preserved\u201d and the forensics were \u201cexculpatory.\u201d (See ECF #33 \u00b6\u00b6 231, 255, 256,\n\n386, 389, 453, 454.) Further, Rao publicly filed EPAM attorney-client privilege information with\n\nhis Answer, without even giving EPAM prior notice or seeking to seal the information, thereby\n\nbreaching his duty to EPAM to keep this information confidential. (See ECF #33-2; see also ECF\n\n\n\n\n 9\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 13 of 15\n\n\n\n\n#33 \u00b6\u00b6 219-221.) And since EPAM filed its spoliation motion, Rao has only doubled-down on his\n\nbad faith litigation conduct.\n\n As noted above, Rao peppers his opposition with falsehoods (some of which may be AI-\n\ngenerated hallucinations), and groundless \u201cstaccato\u201d arguments, including false claims about a\n\n\u201ccurative analysis\u201d and about supposedly \u201creleas[ing]\u201d 84,000 documents to EPAM. See supra 4-\n\n5, 6-7; Fletcher v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 168 F.4th 231, 238-40 (5th Cir. 2026) (sanctioning\n\nattorney for AI-hallucinated case citations and factual assertions). He also makes frivolous\n\narguments about how it was somehow improper for EPAM to share what he contends are EPAM\n\ndocuments with EPAM witnesses. See supra at 5 n.1. Aside from his opposition, Rao has served\n\nabusive, bad faith discovery\u2014flooding EPAM with 471 separate requests for admission\n\n(disguised as 211 requests, but with numerous independent subparts), seemingly issued them\n\nwithout any good faith thought into proportionality or relevance, and timed so that responses\n\nwould fall due on September 14-16, the days before and the day of the spoliation hearing (in\n\norder to swamp EPAM with paperwork during critical hearing preparation time). (See ECF #70.)\n\n If Rao\u2019s spoliation did not itself warrant the most severe sanctions (and it did), his false\n\nstatements in his pleadings, false statements in his opposition, and other continuing bad faith\n\nlitigation conduct confirms the need for such sanctions now. The alternative is that EPAM will\n\nhave to continue incurring the costs of Rao\u2019s burdensome and vexatious abuses of the litigation\n\nprocess, while Rao continues to use EPAM\u2019s trade secrets and confidential information to\n\ncompete against it. For these reasons, and as set forth in EPAM\u2019s original papers, the Court\n\nshould award EPAM a default judgment, dismiss Rao\u2019s counterclaims, award EPAM its forensic\n\ncosts and attorneys\u2019 fees, and enjoin Rao from competing against EPAM pending a hearing on\n\ndamages and final relief.\n\n\n\n 10\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 14 of 15\n\n\n\n\nDated: August 26, 2026\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick (Pa. Bar No. 311028)\n joslick@seyfarth.com\n James S. Yu (admitted pro hac vice)\n jyu@seyfarth.com\n Brooke K. Gary (admitted pro hac vice)\n brgary@seyfarth.com\n SEYFARTH SHAW LLP\n 620 Eighth Avenue\n New York, New York 10018\n (212) 218-5500\n\n Matthew Christoff (admitted pro hac vice)\n mchristoff@seyfarth.com\n SEYFARTH SHAW LLP\n 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000\n Chicago, IL 60606\n (312) 460-5000\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant\n EPAM Systems, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n328223213v.1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71 Filed 08/26/26 Page 15 of 15\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on August 26, 2026, I electronically filed the foregoing Reply\n\ntogether with the Supplement Declaration of Jacob Oslick with Exhibits thereto with the Clerk of\n\nthe District Court using the CM/ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to all counsel\n\nof record, and a courtesy copy sent via electronic mail to the following:\n\n GOWTHAM ADAMANE ROA\n 184 Mansgrove Rd.\n Princeton, NJ 08540\n gowthamrao.litigation@gmail.com\n gowthamrao@gmail.com\n\n /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick\n\n\n\n\n328223213v.1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T17:50:43.483864-07:00","document_number":"71","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"153024132794","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491489890/","id":491489890,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/71/1/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-26T17:50:43.950584-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:54:22.630370-07:00","sha1":"0ff8211e9a112200866328014feb7bb07100cc3c","page_count":3,"file_size":31233,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-1 Filed 08/26/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n\nEPAM SYSTEMS, INC.,\n\n Plaintiff/Counterclaim- Civil Action No. 2:25-cv-06260\n Defendant,\n\n v.\n\nGOWTHAM RAO,\n\n Defendant/Counterclaim-\n Plaintiff.\n\n\n SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JACOB OSLICK, ESQ. IN SUPPORT OF\n PLAINTIFF/COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANT EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.\u2019S\n MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE\n\n I, JACOB OSLICK, hereby declare under the penalty of perjury as follows:\n\n 1. I am an attorney with the law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP, attorneys for\n\nPlaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc. (\u201cEPAM\u201d) in the above-captioned action.\n\nI submit this Declaration in support of EPAM\u2019s Motion for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence.\n\nI know the facts in this Supplemental Declaration to be true based upon my own personal\n\nknowledge, information provided to me, and/or a review of the documents associated with this\n\naction.\n\n 2. In his opposition brief, Rao asserts that he offered to pay for a \u201csupplemental\n\nanalysis by the neutral,\u201d which Seyfarth authorized. (Opp. at 20-21.) Rao describes this proposed\n\n\u201csupplemental analysis\u201d as a \u201ccurative analysis.\u201d (Opp. at 21) Rao\u2019s assertions are not true.\n\n 3. In brief, as Rao\u2019s declaration hints at, he suggested during discussions with EPAM\n\nthat he would retain iDS for some kind of supplemental analysis, which would compare a listing\n\nof files downloaded from EPAM by Rao to the files on his desktop computer. (Rao Decl. \u00b6\u00b6 68-\n\n70.)\n\n\n328212567v.2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-1 Filed 08/26/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 4. Rao\u2019s proposed comparison of download logs to the files on his desktop computer\n\nwould not address, much less \u201ccure,\u201d any of the spoliation issues. This kind of analysis would\n\nprovide no information about which documents are derivatives of files that Rao downloaded from\n\nEPAM. Nor would this analysis provide EPAM with information about whether Rao copied files\n\nto USB devices (or which devices files might have been copied to), uploaded files to cloud storage\n\naccounts that had not already been identified, collected, and searched pursuant to the forensic\n\nprotocol, or inputted EPAM files into generative artificial intelligence platforms. Nor, in any other\n\ndiscussions with EPAM, did Rao propose any kind of analysis that would have addressed those\n\nissues.\n\n 5. Addressing or \u201ccuring\u201d spoliation was not the point of the proposed supplemental\n\nanalysis that Rao discussed with Seyfarth. Rather, Rao expressed that that he hoped this work\n\nwould enable him to narrow the scope of his potential liability to EPAM. EPAM agreed to permit\n\nRao to contract with iDS for targeted requests, subject to certain conditions, such as the parties\u2019\n\nmeet-and-conferring and agreeing on Rao\u2019s requests. (See Rao Decl. Ex. P. at 14.)\n\n 6. After reaching this agreement that would have enabled him to retain iDS for\n\nsupplemental work, Rao never followed up with EPAM. He did not propose any requests for\n\nEPAM to consent to and, if he followed up with iDS on this issue, did not copy EPAM on those\n\ncommunications (as was a condition of the parties\u2019 agreement).\n\n 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of email chain between the\n\nparties, and the parties\u2019 forensic neutral, iDS, regarding Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff\n\nGowtham Rao\u2019s instruction to the parties\u2019 forensic neutral, iDS, to \u201cHold,\u201d rather than release files\n\nto EPAM.\n\n\n\n\n -2-\n328212567v.2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-1 Filed 08/26/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of email chain between the\n\nparties, and the parties\u2019 forensic neutral, iDS, regarding Rao\u2019s refusal to release files to EPAM,\n\nand well as his withdrawal of consent for EPAM\u2019s in-house attorney (Sarah Lugar) and two EPAM\n\nemployees, to access the iDS database.\n\n 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 true and correct copy of email chain between the\n\nparties, and the parties\u2019 forensic neutral, iDS, regarding Rao\u2019s additional withdrawals of consent\n\nto access the iDS database.\n\n 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of email between Rao and\n\nSeyfarth dated August, 14, 2026.\n\n 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is document located through the parties\u2019 forensic\n\nprotocol. The document has metadata indicating that it was created on December 3, 2025\n\n I declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746, under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is\n\ntrue and correct.\n\nDATED: August 26, 2026\n\n\n\n /s/ Jacob Oslick\n Jacob Oslick\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n328212567v.2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T17:50:43.950044-07:00","document_number":"71","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491489891/","id":491489891,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/71/2/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-26T17:50:44.468260-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:49:21.386019-07:00","sha1":"9aa68c9113d0ddd00d5d8d95119ff8c16ac34605","page_count":7,"file_size":406860,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-2 Filed 08/26/26 Page 1 of 7\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-2 Filed 08/26/26 Page 2 of 7\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Oslick, Jacob\nSent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 2:16 PM\nTo: Gowtham Rao\nCc: Mike Perelman; Christoff, Matthew; Jim Vaughn; iDS EPAMR-06448; Gowtham Rao;\n Sarah Lugar\nSubject: RE: EPAM v. Rao - Supplemental Forensic Requests\n\n\n\nGowtham,\n\nWhat is the basis for your \u201chold\u201d? You represented to the Court, and under penalty of perjury (Rao Decl.\nPara. 65), that the files have been \u201creleased\u201d to us.\n\nEither they are released, or they are not. If they are released, then iDS must grant us full access now. If\nthey are not released, then you have perjured yourself.\n\n\nFrom: Gowtham Rao \nSent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 1:03 PM\nTo: Oslick, Jacob \nCc: Mike Perelman ; Christoff, Matthew ; Jim Vaughn\n; iDS EPAMR-06448 ; Gowtham Rao\n; Sarah Lugar \nSubject: Re: EPAM v. Rao - Supplemental Forensic Requests\nHold please . On Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 12: 53 PM Osli ck, Jacob wr ote: All, Dr. Rao has repres ented to the Court that he has \u201creleased\u201d the approximately 79,000 files to us that EPAM did not previously seek to promot e\nZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nnerStart\n\n\n\n\n External Email \u2013 Do Not Click Links or Attachments Unless You Know They Are Safe\n\nZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nner End\n\n\n\n\nHold please.\n\nOn Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 12:53 PM Oslick, Jacob wrote:\n\n All,\n\n Dr. Rao has represented to the Court that he has \u201creleased\u201d the approximately 79,000 files to us that\n EPAM did not previously seek to promote for review, and that Dr. Rao did not claim as withheld.\n\n\n Please arrange for all document matching any of the parties\u2019 agreed search criteria to be processed into\n the EPAMR-06448_Seyfarth Relativity database for EPAM\u2019s review. In other words, the only\n documents that should be withheld from processing to the EPAMR-06448_Seyfarth database would be\n (1) documents that already exist within the EPAMR-06448_Seyfarth database, and (2) documents that\n were loaded to Dr. Rao\u2019s instance of Relativity that he has withheld from transfer to the EPAMR-\n 06448_Seyfarth database. Our understanding is that collectively, those two exclusionary categories\n should match the documents that presently exist within Dr. Rao\u2019s instance of Relativity.\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-2 Filed 08/26/26 Page 3 of 7\n\nAs these documents were collected from numerous accounts and devices, please proceed with\nprocessing these documents on a rolling basis, as well as providing Seyfarth with an anticipated timeline\nfor this request.\n\n\n\nThank you.\n\n\n\nJacob\n\n\n\n\nJacob Oslick | Counsel | Seyfarth Shaw LLP\n620 Eighth Avenue | New York, New York 10018-1405\nDirect: +1-212-218-6480 | Mobile: +1-917-613-2523\nN.Y. Bar No. 4275699; Pa. Bar No. 311028\nJOslick@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com\n\n\n\n\nCONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any\nunauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender\nimmediately and delete it from your system.\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Mike Perelman \nSent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 11:21 AM\nTo: Oslick, Jacob ; Gowtham Rao \nCc: Christoff, Matthew ; Jim Vaughn ; iDS EPAMR-06448\n; Gowtham Rao ; Sarah Lugar \nSubject: Re: EPAM v. Rao - Supplemental Forensic Requests\n\n\n\nHi Jacob, I\u2019ll accept service via email. Mike Perelm an Direct or Direct: +1. 202. 597. 2 004 | mperelm an@ idsinc. com US : +1 . 800. 813. 4832 | UK/EEA: +44 (0)20 824 2 41 30 iDSinc. com [idsinc. com] From: Oslick , Jac ob Sent:\n\n\n\n\nHi Jacob,\n\n\n\nI\u2019ll accept service via email.\n\n\n\nMike Perelman\n 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-2 Filed 08/26/26 Page 4 of 7\nDirector\nDirect: +1. 202.597.2004 | mperelman@idsinc.com\nUS: +1.800.813.4832 | UK/EEA: +44 (0)20 8242 4130\niDSinc.com [idsinc.com]\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Oslick, Jacob \nSent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 10:25 AM\nTo: Gowtham Rao ; Mike Perelman \nCc: Christoff, Matthew ; Jim Vaughn ; iDS EPAMR-06448\n; Gowtham Rao ; Sarah Lugar\n\nSubject: RE: EPAM v. Rao - Supplemental Forensic Requests\n\n\n\nMike \u2013\n\n\n\nThere is another court hearing on September 16, at 2 p.m., where we anticipate needing your testimony. We\nplan on issuing you a subpoena, similar to last time. Will you agree to accept service of a subpoena via\nemail?\n\n\nWe will be seeking testimony only, not documents.\n\n\n\nJacob Oslick | Counsel | Seyfarth Shaw LLP\n620 Eighth Avenue | New York, New York 10018-1405\nDirect: +1-212-218-6480 | Mobile: +1-917-613-2523\nN.Y. Bar No. 4275699; Pa. Bar No. 311028\nJOslick@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com\n\n\n\n\nCONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any\nunauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender\nimmediately and delete it from your system.\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Gowtham Rao \nSent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 8:11 AM\nTo: Mike Perelman \nCc: Christoff, Matthew ; Jim Vaughn ; iDS EPAMR-06448\n 3\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-2 Filed 08/26/26 Page 5 of 7\n; Oslick, Jacob ; Gowtham Rao ;\nSarah Lugar \nSubject: Re: EPAM v. Rao - Supplemental Forensic Requests\n\n\n\nDear Mike and the iDS Team, I want ed to foll ow up on this matter and bring it back to your attention. We l ook forward to hearing from you soon a nd hope to execute a n addendum agreem ent. Be st regards, Gowtham O n Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 8: 0 4 AM Mik e\n\n\n\n\nDear Mike and the iDS Team,\n\nI wanted to follow up on this matter and bring it back to your attention. We look forward to hearing from\nyou soon and hope to execute an addendum agreement.\n\nBest regards,\nGowtham\n\n\n\nOn Mon, Jul 6, 2026 at 8:04 AM Mike Perelman wrote:\n\n Good morning Matt,\n\n This is received. Please let us review and we\u2019ll let you know if there are any questions.\n\n Mike\n\n\n\n Mike Perelman\n\n Director\n\n Direct: +1. 202.597.2004 | mperelman@idsinc.com\n\n US: +1.800.813.4832 | UK/EEA: +44 (0)20 8242 4130\n\n iDSinc.com [idsinc.com]\n\n\n\n\n From: Christoff, Matthew \n Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2026 5:23 PM\n To: Mike Perelman ; Jim Vaughn \n Cc: iDS EPAMR-06448 ; Oslick, Jacob ; Gowtham\n Rao ; Gowtham Rao ; Sarah Lugar\n \n Subject: EPAM v. Rao - Supplemental Forensic Requests\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-2 Filed 08/26/26 Page 6 of 7\n\nHi iDS Team,\n\nPursuant to Section VI(b) of the Forensic Protocol, the parties have met and conferred regarding Dr.\nRao's request for additional reports or analysis beyond those referenced within the Forensic Protocol.\n\nThese requests are conditioned upon the following requirements:\n\n \uf0b7 The parties will meet and confer on the specific language for any supplemental requests to iDS\n pursuant to the forensic protocol and only requests agreed by both parties may be responded\n to. Direct consent from both parties to iDS per new information or report request is required and\n email consent is sufficient.\n \uf0b7 All communications, reports, and information related to any supplemental requests must include\n both Dr. Rao, Matt Christoff, and Jacob Oslick\n \uf0b7 All communications, reports, and information related to any supplemental requests can be\n shared and reviewed by EPAM.\n \uf0b7 The requesting party is responsible for all of iDS\u2019 fees associated with the request.\n\nAs you are aware, all prior work pursuant to the Forensic Protocol has been billed to EPAM, but any\nwork pursuant to requests from Dr. Rao must be billed to him. As such, we anticipate that a separate\nSOW including Dr. Rao and iDS will be necessary. Can you please advise on the appropriate scope in\norder to ensure that the scope of work performed by iDS is appropriately tailored to the above\nconditions?\n\nPlease let the parties know if you have any questions or would like to schedule a call to discuss.\n\nThanks,\nMatt\n\nMatthew Christoff | Partner | Seyfarth Shaw LLP\neDiscovery and Information Governance, EnCE\n233 S. Wacker Drive | Suite 8000 | Chicago, Illinois 60606-6448\nDirect: +1-312-460-5315\nMChristoff@seyfarth.com | www.seyfarth.com\n\n\n\n\nCONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any\nunauthorized use or disclosure of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender\nimmediately and delete it from your system.\n\n\n\n\nINFORMATION CLASSIFICATION NOTICE: This electronic communication (including any attachments)\nis intended to be viewed only by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information\nthat is privileged, proprietary, confidential and/or protected from disclosure by applicable law. Any\ndisclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, exporting or other use of this communication or any\n 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-2 Filed 08/26/26 Page 7 of 7\n\nattached document(s) other than for the purpose intended by the sender is strictly prohibited without\nprior written permission from the sender. If you have received this communication in error, please\nnotify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of\nthis communication and any attached documents.\n\nINFORMATION CLASSIFICATION NOTICE: This electronic communication (including any attachments)\nis intended to be viewed only by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information\nthat is privileged, proprietary, confidential and/or protected from disclosure by applicable law. Any\ndisclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, exporting or other use of this communication or any\nattached document(s) other than for the purpose intended by the sender is strictly prohibited without\nprior written permission from the sender. If you have received this communication in error, please notify\nthe sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of this\ncommunication and any attached documents.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T17:50:44.467548-07:00","document_number":"71","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491489892/","id":491489892,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/71/3/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-26T17:50:44.987237-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:52:28.168195-07:00","sha1":"3ebc7c6f2271c1b9bc8ee7fbc1c65a9f6e698aa0","page_count":4,"file_size":318892,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-3 Filed 08/26/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-3 Filed 08/26/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Oslick, Jacob\nSent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 3:25 PM\nTo: Gowtham Rao; Jim Vaughn\nCc: iDS EPAMR-06448; Christoff, Matthew; Sarah Lugar\nSubject: RE: EPAM vs Rao - withdrawal of consent to Relativity Access\n\n\n\nGowtham,\n\nI am confused. The documents are either \u201creleased,\u201d as you represented to the Court and affirmed under\npenalty of perjury, or they are not. There is nothing further to \u201cagree[]\u201d upon. Either give us full and\nunrestricted access to all of those documents, or we will inform the Court of your perjury. It is that\nsimple.\n\n\nFrom: Gowtham Rao \nSent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 3:06 PM\nTo: Jim Vaughn \nCc: iDS EPAMR-06448 ; Oslick, Jacob \nSubject: Re: EPAM vs Rao - withdrawal of consent to Relativity Access\nThank you Jim. I saw Rami alre ady did that, which is excell ent. T hank you. Regarding Jacob, I will talk to him. Till the n, do not load any fil es or cre ate new searc h criteria. W e are still foll owing the same prior rules: no chang es until both\nZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nnerStart\n\n\n\n\n External Email \u2013 Do Not Click Links or Attachments Unless You Know They Are Safe\n\nZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nner End\n\n\n\n\nThank you Jim. I saw Rami already did that, which is excellent. Thank you.\n\nRegarding Jacob, I will talk to him. Till then, do not load any files or create new search criteria. We are still\nfollowing the same prior rules: no changes until both parties have met and agreed.\n\nGowtham\n\nOn Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 1:59 PM Jim Vaughn wrote:\n\n Gowtham,\n\n\n\n Understood, Rami will confirm when complete for any of the named people that may still have an active\n account. What about the release of documents Jacob described? We need you to let us know which 79,000\n documents those are. Do you need Rami to put these into a saved search for just you in the first instance,\n following the workflow Jacob described? You can then look at green light them for release to just Seyfarth?\n\n\n\n ----\n\n Jim Vaughn, GCFE, EnCE\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-3 Filed 08/26/26 Page 3 of 4\n\nSenior Managing Director\n\n535 Anton Blvd., Suite 860 | Costa Mesa, CA. 92626\n\nDirect: 714.261.0348 | jvaughn@idsinc.com\n\niDSinc.com [idsinc.com]\n\n\n\nASK THE EXPERT: Are you following the device or the data? Remember alternative sources for the\nevidence you want to preserve. Ask me how.\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Gowtham Rao \nDate: Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 10:42 AM\nTo: Jim Vaughn , iDS EPAMR-06448 , \"Oslick, Jacob\"\n\nSubject: EPAM vs Rao - withdrawal of consent to Relativity Access\n\n\n\nHi Jim,\n\nI withdraw my consent to Relativity workspace access for Ms. Sarah Lugar, Ms. Lucy McDermott and Mr.\nGregory Klebanov, effective immediately. Please disable those accounts.\n\nI base this on my interpretation of the protocol that restricts access to Counsel for EPAM, which I\ninterpret as Counsel of record for EPAM. They currently are Jacob Oslick, James S. Yu, Brooke K. Gary,\nand Matthew Christoff. All other accounts have to be immediately terminated.\n\nMs. Lugar, Ms. McDermott, and Mr. Klebanov are EPAM personnel and the Forensic Protocol did not\nrequire them to have access. The access for the Counsel for EPAM listed above is unaffected by this\nnotice.\n\nMy reasons, if needed, are set out at ECF 62-1, pages 29 through 31. I do not ask iDS to resolve anything\nstated there.\n\nPlease confirm when the accounts have been disabled.\n\nI reserve all rights.\n\nRespectfully,\n\nGowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-3 Filed 08/26/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n184 Mansgrove Rd.\nPrinceton, NJ 08540\ngowthamrao@gmail.com\n\nINFORMATION CLASSIFICATION NOTICE: This electronic communication (including any attachments)\nis intended to be viewed only by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information\nthat is privileged, proprietary, confidential and/or protected from disclosure by applicable law. Any\ndisclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, exporting or other use of this communication or any\nattached document(s) other than for the purpose intended by the sender is strictly prohibited without\nprior written permission from the sender. If you have received this communication in error, please notify\nthe sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of this\ncommunication and any attached documents.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T17:50:44.986496-07:00","document_number":"71","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491489893/","id":491489893,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/71/4/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-26T17:50:45.490871-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:52:06.029651-07:00","sha1":"a633e9cabef4ed56d9dfa9683b9d1430e9f98424","page_count":4,"file_size":324258,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-4 Filed 08/26/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 3\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-4 Filed 08/26/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Oslick, Jacob\nSent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 3:21 PM\nTo: Gowtham Rao; Rami Burbar\nCc: Jim Vaughn; iDS EPAMR-06448; Christoff, Matthew; Sarah Lugar; Comer, Madeline\nSubject: RE: EPAM vs Rao - withdrawal of consent to Relativity Access\n\n\n\nGowtham,\n\nMadeline Comer is a Seyfarth attorney who is working on this matter. Further, Sarah Lugar, as you know,\nis also Counsel for EPAM. She is EPAM\u2019s in-house attorney. By even your own knowingly obstructive and\nfrivolous limitations on accessing the iDS database (which we will address separately, in due time), both\nare entitled to access.\n\n\nFrom: Gowtham Rao \nSent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 2:48 PM\nTo: Rami Burbar \nCc: Jim Vaughn ; iDS EPAMR-06448 ; Oslick, Jacob\n\nSubject: Re: EPAM vs Rao - withdrawal of consent to Relativity Access\nThanks Rami. Since Madeli ne Com er is not Counsel for EPAM, please rem ove that accou nt too. Tha nk you! Gowtham On Thu, Aug 20 , 2026 at 2: 44 PM Rami Burbar wrote: Team , Only Matt Christoff and Madeli ne Comer hav e access\nZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nnerStart\n\n\n\n\n External Email \u2013 Do Not Click Links or Attachments Unless You Know They Are Safe\n\nZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nner End\n\n\n\n\nThanks Rami. Since Madeline Comer is not Counsel for EPAM, please remove that account too.\n\nThank you!\n\nGowtham\n\nOn Thu, Aug 20, 2026 at 2:44 PM Rami Burbar wrote:\n Team,\n\n Only Matt Christoff and Madeline Comer have access to the database now.\n\n\n Thank you,\n\n\n\n Rami Burbar\n Consultant, Discovery Services\n Direct: +1.480.229.6025 | rburbar@idsinc.com\n US: +1.800.813.4832 | UK/EEA: +44 (0)20 8242 4130\n iDSinc.com [idsinc.com]\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-4 Filed 08/26/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Jim Vaughn \nSent: Thursday, August 20, 2026 10:59 AM\nTo: Gowtham Rao ; iDS EPAMR-06448 ; Oslick,\nJacob \nSubject: Re: EPAM vs Rao - withdrawal of consent to Relativity Access\n\n\nGowtham,\n\n\n\nUnderstood, Rami will confirm when complete for any of the named people that may still have an active\naccount. What about the release of documents Jacob described? We need you to let us know which 79,000\ndocuments those are. Do you need Rami to put these into a saved search for just you in the first instance,\nfollowing the workflow Jacob described? You can then look at green light them for release to just Seyfarth?\n\n\n\n----\n\nJim Vaughn, GCFE, EnCE\n\nSenior Managing Director\n\n535 Anton Blvd., Suite 860 | Costa Mesa, CA. 92626\n\nDirect: 714.261.0348 | jvaughn@idsinc.com\n\niDSinc.com [idsinc.com]\n\n\n\nASK THE EXPERT: Are you following the device or the data? Remember alternative sources for the\nevidence you want to preserve. Ask me how.\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Gowtham Rao \nDate: Thursday, August 20, 2026 at 10:42 AM\nTo: Jim Vaughn , iDS EPAMR-06448 , \"Oslick, Jacob\"\n\nSubject: EPAM vs Rao - withdrawal of consent to Relativity Access\n 2\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-4 Filed 08/26/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\nHi Jim,\n\nI withdraw my consent to Relativity workspace access for Ms. Sarah Lugar, Ms. Lucy McDermott and Mr.\nGregory Klebanov, effective immediately. Please disable those accounts.\n\nI base this on my interpretation of the protocol that restricts access to Counsel for EPAM, which I\ninterpret as Counsel of record for EPAM. They currently are Jacob Oslick, James S. Yu, Brooke K. Gary,\nand Matthew Christoff. All other accounts have to be immediately terminated.\n\nMs. Lugar, Ms. McDermott, and Mr. Klebanov are EPAM personnel and the Forensic Protocol did not\nrequire them to have access. The access for the Counsel for EPAM listed above is unaffected by this\nnotice.\n\nMy reasons, if needed, are set out at ECF 62-1, pages 29 through 31. I do not ask iDS to resolve anything\nstated there.\n\nPlease confirm when the accounts have been disabled.\n\nI reserve all rights.\n\nRespectfully,\n\nGowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD\nDefendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n184 Mansgrove Rd.\nPrinceton, NJ 08540\ngowthamrao@gmail.com\n\nINFORMATION CLASSIFICATION NOTICE: This electronic communication (including any attachments)\nis intended to be viewed only by the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. It may contain information\nthat is privileged, proprietary, confidential and/or protected from disclosure by applicable law. Any\ndisclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying, exporting or other use of this communication or any\nattached document(s) other than for the purpose intended by the sender is strictly prohibited without\nprior written permission from the sender. If you have received this communication in error, please notify\nthe sender immediately by reply e-mail and promptly destroy all electronic and printed copies of this\ncommunication and any attached documents.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T17:50:45.490263-07:00","document_number":"71","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491489894/","id":491489894,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/71/5/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-26T17:50:45.967244-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:55:27.864560-07:00","sha1":"ee4f3bc52aaa0ff34e61df8c797d6976411f02e1","page_count":3,"file_size":119101,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-5 Filed 08/26/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 4\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-5 Filed 08/26/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nFrom: Gowtham Rao \nSent: Friday, August 14, 2026 1:43 PM\nTo: Oslick, Jacob\nCc: Gowtham Rao; Sarah Lugar; Christoff, Matthew; Etwaru, Simone; Gary, Brooke; Yu, James\nSubject: EPAM Systems, Inc. v. Rao, No. 2:25-cv-06260-WB (E.D. Pa.) \u2014 Meet and Confer:\n Handling of Protocol-Derived Materials\n\n\n\n This Message Is From an External Sender\n This message came from outside your organization.\n\n\nJacob,\n\nI write to meet and confer about the handling of materials collected under the Stipulated Forensic Inspection\nProtocol (ECF 55, the \"Protocol\"). Rather than characterize anything, let me set out the facts I am working from\nand ask a few questions.\n\n 1. The Protocol provides that all Protocol-derived materials \"shall be used for the purposes of this\n Litigation only and for no other purpose\" (\u00a7 VI(c)); that the parties will meet and confer on any\n \"additional reports or analysis beyond that which is specifically authorized\" (\u00a7 VI(b)); and that extracted\n materials are produced \"to counsel for EPAM\" (\u00a7 III(b)).\n 2. On July 17, EPAM asked the Court to direct that its employees receive access to the review platform.\n (ECF 53.) No order granting that access appears on the docket.\n 3. On July 22, I asked iDS in writing, copying your team, to issue no access \"until both parties have met.\"\n iDS replied: \"Acknowledged.\" (Attachment A.)\n 4. On July 24, your office transmitted signed confidentiality acknowledgments for three EPAM employees\n and wrote that, absent my agreement, EPAM would \"provide access to any critical documents to Mr.\n Ilin without him requiring Relativity access, such as via screen share for example.\" I replied the same\n day that I did not agree. Mr. Vaughn confirmed that iDS \"will not do anything unless both parties agree,\n or unless ordered by the court.\" (Attachment B.)\n 5. On July 29, EPAM filed the declaration of Dmitrii Ilin, an engineering employee of an EPAM subsidiary,\n stating that he \"reviewed an unredacted version\" of Exhibits 9 and 10 to your declaration and\n presenting his analysis of them. (ECF 58-25 \u00b6\u00b6 1, 6, 8, 11, 16.) The parties did not meet and confer\n regarding that analysis.\n 6. Ownership of the content of the exhibits to your declaration is contested in this litigation. The collection\n also includes the CoReason, Inc. GitHub repository and email account (ECF 55 \u00a7 I(e)) and other\n material from the period of my work at CoReason, a company that competes with EPAM. No protective\n order has been entered in this case, and no attorneys'-eyes-only designation governs these materials.\n\nRead together, these facts raise the possibility that material belonging to a non-party company has been\ndistributed, through this litigation's forensic process, to employees of its competitor. Before I draw any\nconclusion or raise anything with the Court, please answer three questions:\n\n 1. For any material obtained through the Protocol or otherwise discovered in this litigation \u2014 whether or\n not filed as an exhibit, and including any material in the Relativity workspace and any content reached\n through a hyperlink embedded in a collected document (content that would otherwise have been\n available only to counsel via the review platform): who provided it (redacted or unredacted) to Mr. Ilin or\n any other EPAM employee, contractor, or agent; on what date; and in what form (platform access, file\n transmission, screen share, hyperlink, or otherwise)? Please answer specifically for each of Exhibits 6\n through 10 and 13 to your declaration.\n 1\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-5 Filed 08/26/26 Page 3 of 3\n 2. Has any EPAM employee, contractor, or agent other than outside counsel of record been given access\n to, or credentials for, the Relativity workspace at any time? If so, who, when, and on what authority?\n 3. Has any material from the CoReason repository or email collection \u2014 or any other Protocol-collected\n material created after October 15, 2025 \u2014 been shown to any EPAM employee, contractor, or agent\n other than outside counsel of record?\n\nWhatever the answers, please confirm in writing: (a) that, except as identified in your response to Question 1,\nEPAM has not provided Protocol-derived material to any EPAM employee, contractor, or agent other than\noutside counsel of record, and that, absent agreement of the parties or an order of the Court, it will not do so;\n(b) that no material obtained in this litigation has been or will be used for any purpose other than this Litigation\n\u2014 including that none has been or will be used to access, acquire, develop from, or otherwise exploit the trade\nsecrets or confidential business information of CoReason, Inc. or any other person; and (c) that EPAM and its\ncounsel will preserve all communications and records concerning any transmission of Protocol-derived\nmaterials to non-counsel personnel, including the July 2026 correspondence.\n\nPlease respond by Friday, August 28, 2026. I am available to confer by phone, and I would ask that any\nsubstantive position also be confirmed in writing. I reserve all rights, and I note that any rights of CoReason,\nInc. \u2014 which I do not represent in this action \u2014 are not mine to waive.\n\nRespectfully,\n\nGowtham A. Rao, MD, PhD Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff, pro se\n\nAttachments: A (July 22, 2026 correspondence with iDS); B (July 24, 2026 correspondence)\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T17:50:45.966666-07:00","document_number":"71","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491489895/","id":491489895,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/71/6/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-26T17:50:46.571551-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:55:22.430320-07:00","sha1":"5ba8094ce2fb006cc62bb806d5f6f717435402f4","page_count":3,"file_size":96991,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-6 Filed 08/26/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n Exhibit 5\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-6 Filed 08/26/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nLead Systems & Infrastructure Engineer\nLocation: Mangalore, Karnataka (Onsite)\n\nAbout the Job\n\nAbout the Job CoReason.ai is seeking a highly experienced Lead Systems & Infrastructure\nEngineer to architect and maintain the backbone of our secure, high-performance cloud\nplatform. This is not a standard DevOps role; it requires a deep understanding of system-level\nperformance, Linux internals, and secure cloud infrastructure.\n\nYou will bridge the gap between low-latency application development and scalable cloud\noperations, ensuring our infrastructure is robust enough to handle complex data processing\nworkloads while meeting the strict security and reliability standards of the regulated\nbiopharmaceutical industry.\n\nKey Responsibilities\n \u25cf Infrastructure as Code (IaC): Architect and maintain a cloud-agnostic infrastructure\n using OpenTofu. You will build modular, reusable blueprints for secure VPCs,\n Kubernetes clusters, and data persistence layers.\n \u25cf Kubernetes & Container Orchestration: Manage secure EKS/Kubernetes clusters,\n implementing strict node isolation (taints/tolerations), private API endpoints, and\n auto-scaling capabilities.\n \u25cf Immutable Infrastructure: Implement \"immutable infrastructure\" patterns using Docker\n and Kubernetes to ensure that every deployment is identical, verifiable, and audit-ready.\n \u25cf GitOps & CI/CD: Design and manage self-hosted CI/CD pipelines (e.g., GitLab CI) and\n GitOps workflows (e.g., ArgoCD) to ensure declarative, auditable deployments.\n \u25cf Security & Identity: Implement Zero Trust security models using IAM roles, VPC\n endpoints, and strict access controls suitable for a regulated environment.\n \u25cf Containerization & Orchestration: Manage containerized application workflows using\n Docker and orchestration services (ECS/EKS) to ensure consistent environments\n across development and production.\n \u25cf Compliance & Security: Implement robust Identity and Access Management (IAM)\n roles, security groups, and access controls suitable for a GxP-regulated environment.\n \u25cf Mentorship: Provide technical leadership and mentorship to junior engineers,\n establishing best practices for code deployment, version control (Git), and system\n monitoring.\n\nRequirements\n \u25cf Experience: 10+ years in Software Engineering with a focus on Backend Systems,\n Infrastructure, or Embedded Systems.\n \u25cf Systems Proficiency: Expert-level knowledge of Linux, C/C++, and Bash scripting for\n performance optimization.\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-6 Filed 08/26/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n \u25cf Cloud & K8s: Deep expertise in AWS (EKS, S3, RDS, KMS) and Kubernetes\n administration (RBAC, Network Policies, CNI).\n \u25cf Performance Optimization: Demonstrated history of optimizing code and infrastructure\n for speed, latency reduction, and memory management.\n \u25cf Regulatory Awareness: Familiarity with or interest in learning GxP, HIPAA, or SOC2\n compliance frameworks.\n \u25cf Database Knowledge: Experience with SQL (MySQL) and data integration/ETL\n processes.\n \u25cf Security Mindset: Experience working in regulated environments (GxP, HIPAA) or with\n Zero Trust architectures (Istio, OPA/Kyverno) is highly desirable.\n \u25cf Tools: Experience with ArgoCD, Helm, and container build tools (Kaniko/Buildah).\n\nPreferred Skills (Nice to Have)\n\n \u25cf Experience with GPU-accelerated infrastructure (CUDA, Nvidia) or high-performance\n computing.\n \u25cf Background in processing multimedia data (FFMPEG, Gstreamer) or large-scale data\n streams.\n \u25cf Familiarity with Regulatory/GxP compliance frameworks (or a strong willingness to\n learn).\n \u25cf Experience in a startup environment, comfortable wearing multiple hats.\n\nWhy Join Us?\n\n \u25cf Work on cutting-edge technology that directly impacts the life sciences industry.\n \u25cf Collaborative, high-performance culture based in Mangalore.\n \u25cf Opportunity to lead the infrastructure strategy for a growing tech company.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T17:50:46.570997-07:00","document_number":"71","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491489896/","id":491489896,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71873171/71/7/epam-systems-inc-v-rao/","date_created":"2026-08-26T17:50:47.073700-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:55:25.364563-07:00","sha1":"c96f647cfbb0aecf7ddcad33fbab66a0c0612c91","page_count":4,"file_size":304843,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.7.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.paed.645799/gov.uscourts.paed.645799.71.7.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-7 Filed 08/26/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA\n -----------------------------------------------------------------x\n :\n EPAM SYSTEMS, INC., : Civ. A. No. 2:25-cv-06260\n :\n Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, :\n :\n - against - :\n :\n GOWTHAM RAO, :\n :\n Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff. :\n :\n -----------------------------------------------------------------x\n SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF JOSEPH GREENFIELD\n\n I, Joseph Greenfield, declare and state as follows:\n\n 1. I am over the age of 18, have personal knowledge of matters set forth herein, and\n\ncould testify competently thereto if called to do so. I submit this declaration as a supplement to\n\nmy July 29, 2026 declaration, in order to respond to a few points that Gowtham Rao raised in his\n\npapers submitted in opposition to Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant EPAM Systems, Inc.\u2019s motion.\n\n 2. The iDS report identified two USB devices as having been connected to Rao\u2019s\n\ndesktop computer. One was the iDS hard drive used to image the computer, the other was the\ncomputer\u2019s own hard drive. (See Oslick Decl. Ex. 4 at 6.) The report indicated that the computer\u2019s\n\nhard drive was \u201cFirst Connected\u201d on November 14, 2025, the date of the refresh/reset. (See Oslick\n\nDecl. Ex. 15.) The hard drive was obviously connected before that date, given Rao\u2019s\n\nacknowledgment that he used the computer to perform work for EPAM during his EPAM\n\nemployment. The only plausible explanation for the November 14, 2025 \u201cFirst Connected\u201d date\n\nis that the refresh/reset by Rao deleted, and subsequently determined to be unrecoverable by iDS,\n\nthe registry files containing historical USB and other device connections. In other words, this\n\n\u201cFirst Connected\u201d date shows that forensic artifacts were deleted and subsequently determined to\nbe unrecoverable by iDS.\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-7 Filed 08/26/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n 3. The iDS report determined that, through synchronization, Microsoft Edge browsing\n\nactivity was available on the desktop computer from November 3, 2025, while Google Chrome\n\ndata was synchronized from November 4, 2025 forward. (See Oslick Decl. Ex. 14 at 6.) This was\n\neleven and ten days before the refresh/reset event, respectively. That means that browsing data\n\nbefore those synchronization dates was deleted, and subsequently determined to be unrecoverable\n\nby iDS. If, as I have been informed, Rao used this computer to perform EPAM work for many\n\nmonths, that means that several months of browsing history was deleted, and subsequently\n\ndetermined to be unrecoverable by iDS, by the refresh/reset performed by Rao. If Rao used\n\nMicrosoft Edge or Google Chrome to upload EPAM files to cloud storage accounts, or to input\n\nEPAM data into artificial intelligence websites (such as Google Gemini), that browsing history\n\nappears to have been permanently deleted, and subsequently determined to be unrecoverable by\n\niDS, by the refresh/reset.\n\n 4. I have been informed that Rao has suggested that content searches, such as through\n\nthe use of keywords, can be used to locate derivative documents in lieu of forensics. There are a\n\nfew issues with his approach. For example, using keywords to locate documents can be incredibly\n\ntime-consuming to identify all potential keywords that may capture derivative works, keywords\nmay return documents containing false positives, and keywords may return documents containing\n\nattorney-client privileged and/or information protected by the work product doctrine that may\n\nwarrant special consideration. Meanwhile, forensic analysis can pinpoint the documents that are\n\nhighly likely, due to forensic artifacts, to be derivatives of other documents. Another issue is that\n\nkeyword searches can result in false negatives due to replacement of relevant keywords. For\n\nexample, if Rao asked an AI program to create a derivative of a Synapse document, but to replace\n\nevery instance of the word \u201cSynapse\u201d with the word \u201cSpiderman,\u201d a search for documents with\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-7 Filed 08/26/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\nthe word \u201cSynapse\u201d would not locate the derivative document. In my work, I have seen an\n\nincreased use of AI in anti-forensics, such as through keyword replacement\n\n 5. I have also been informed that Rao has suggested that EPAM can use creation and\n\nmodification dates in document metadata in lieu of the missing forensic artifacts. This approach\n\nis not feasible. Opening a document and copying text from it, or uploading a document to an AI\n\nprogram to create a new derivative document, does not affect the original document\u2019s creation or\n\nmodified date. While the new derivative document would acquire a creation or modified date, it\n\nwould be unrelated to the original file\u2019s creation or modified date. As such, there would be no way\n\nthrough creation/modification metadata to link it to the original document. To be sure, in my\n\nexperience, opening a document to copy text, and uploading a document to an internet website\n\n(such as Google Gemini\u2019s generative AI site) creates certain forensic artifacts. But, as I discussed\n\nin my original declaration, those artifacts are what Rao\u2019s refresh/reset appears to have deleted and\n\nsubsequently determined to be unrecoverable by iDS.\n\n 6. I have also been informed that Rao is contending that he refreshed/reset his\n\ncomputer because the Widows sign-on screen supposedly did not display all of his accounts.\n\nMicrosoft maintains resources, to assist users with troubleshooting problems signing into\nWindows. (See https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/security/identity-\n\nsignin/troubleshoot-problems-signing-in-to-windows, last visited August 26, 2026). Had Rao\n\nsearched for this kind of assistance (such as through Google), I would expect that these resources\n\nwould have likely been returned as search results. The recommended steps include suggestions\n\nsuch as clicking the \u201cOther user\u201d button and entering the accounts credentials. They do not include\n\nrefreshing or resetting a computer. To the contrary, refreshing or resetting a computer will not\n\nresolve the sign-on issue. Instead, the act reinstalls the Windows operating system, which deletes\n\f Case 2:25-cv-06260-WB Document 71-7 Filed 08/26/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\nall Windows account information, registry files, and other relevant forensic artifacts stored on the\n\nsystem.\n\n\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing\n\nis true and correct.\n\n\n\n ______________________________________________\n\n Executed on August 26, 2026 in Los Angeles, California.\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T17:50:47.073117-07:00","document_number":"71","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-26T17:50:38.521683-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T07:20:23.646166-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-26","time_filed":"19:52:23","entry_number":71,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-26.002","pacer_sequence_number":194,"description":"REPLY to Response to Motion re 58 MOTION for Sanctions for Spoliation of Evidence filed by EPAM SYSTEMS, INC.. (Attachments: # 1 Supplemental Declaration of Jacob Oslick, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Supplemental Declaration of Joseph Greenfield)(OSLICK, JACOB) (Entered: 08/26/2026)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=71873171&page_size=40"}