Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited et al., Plaintiffs, v. The Trizetto Group, Inc. et al., Defendants 1:15-cv-00211 (LGS) (SDA) United States District Court, S.D. New York Signed April 17, 2018 Counsel Jaren Elizabeth Janghorbani, Nicholas Groombridge, Kripa Anand Raman, Paul Weiss, New York, NY, Louis M. Solomon, Harold S. Shaftel, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY, Peter Neil Wang, Anne Berkowitz Sekel, Robert S. Weisbein, Todd C. Norbitz, Foley & Lardner, LLP, New York, NY, Cecilia Copperman, Foley Hoag LLP, New York, NY, Crystal Lohmann Parker, Joshua D. Reich, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, Yonaton Aronoff, Harris St. Laurent & Wechsler LLP, New York, NY, Jon Steven Baughman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, Norman C. Ankers, Pro Hac Vice, Foley & Lardner, Detroit, MI, Victor De Gyarfas, William Robinson, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Limited. Jaren Elizabeth Janghorbani, Nicholas Groombridge, Paul Weiss, New York, NY, Peter Neil Wang, Anne Berkowitz Sekel, Robert S. Weisbein, Todd C. Norbitz, Foley & Lardner, LLP, New York, NY, Harold S. Shaftel, Louis M. Solomon, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY, Yonaton Aronoff, Harris St. Laurent & Wechsler LLP, New York, NY, Jon Steven Baughman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, Norman C. Ankers, Foley & Lardner, Detroit, MI, Victor De Gyarfas, William Robinson, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff Syntel, Inc. Adam R. Alper, Jacob Cristian Rambeau, Gianni L. Cutri, Kyle Michael Kantarek, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL, Andrew John Morrill, Los Angeles, CA, Benjamin Herbert, Gavin Moler, Justin Singh, Michael W. De Vries, Samuel Francis Blake, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Joshua Levicoff Simmons, Leslie Marie Schmidt, Patricia Ann Carson, Ryan Patrick Kane, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY, for Defendants. Aaron, Stewart D., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Before the Court are numerous discovery disputes between Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, Syntel Best Shores Mauritius Limited and Syntel, Inc. (collectively, “Syntel”), and Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs, The TriZetto Group (“TriZetto”) and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. (“Cognizant,” and, collectively, “Defendants”), of which there have been many. Discovery proceedings in this case have been lengthy and hotly contested, generating multiple motions to compel and for sanctions. Now, the deadline for fact discovery has passed. After the discovery authorized by this Order is concluded, fact discovery will come to an end. The Court's decision on the discovery issues addressed herein is guided by four principles. First, the parties must adhere to prior Orders of the Court. Second, Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the rules “should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. Third, Rule 26(b)(1) provides that “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Fourth, “[a] district court has broad latitude to determine the scope of discovery and to manage the discovery process.” EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 695 F.3d 201, 207 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 517 F.3d 76, 103 (2d Cir. 2008)). Based upon the Court's review of the parties’ submissions,[1] as well as the oral argument held on April 10, 2018 via telephone, the Court rules on the discovery issues raised as set forth herein. I. Syntel Rule 30(b)(6) Testimony on Defendants’ Topics 1(a), 3 and 4 By Order dated January 30, 2018, this Court directed Syntel to provide a witness on Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) Topic 1(a) and Topics 3 and 4, as narrowed by the Court. (1/30/18 Order, ECF No. 324, at 3-4, 8.) Syntel designated Ankur Chadha to testify on Topic 1(a) and Daniel Moore to testify on Topics 3 and 4. Defendants now contend that these witnesses were unprepared to testify adequately on the topics for which they were designated. (Defs.’ 3/30/18 Letter, ECF No. 376, at 1-5.) *2 With respect to Topic 1(a), the Court finds that Syntel has not complied with the January 30, 2018 Order. Topic 1(a) relates to the number of search term hits on certain of Mr. Chadha's computers and USB devices that were referenced in the forensic report. (Defs.’ 3/30/18 Letter, ECF No. 376, at 4.) Mr. Chadha testified that he “[does not] have the specific information about the number of search term hits[.]” (Chadha Tr. 137-38, Defs.’ 3/30/18 Letter Ex. B, ECF No. 376-2.) Syntel now claims that the number of search term hits is not within Mr. Chadha's, or any other Syntel employee's, knowledge and instead is in the unique knowledge of counsel and should be protected under the work product doctrine. (Pls.’ 4/5/18 Letter, ECF No. 378, at 3.) The Court finds that the number of search term hits is not subject to work product protection, as it goes to the underlying facts of what documents are responsive to Defendants’ document requests, rather than the thought processes of Plaintiffs’ counsel. Cf. FormFactor, Inc. v. Micro-Probe, Inc., No. C-10-03095 (PJH) (JCS), 2012 WL 1575093, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2012) (search terms not subject to work product protection on same ground) (citing cases). During oral argument, Syntel also argued that Defendants’ will simply use this information to compare the number of search term hits to the number of documents produced in an attempt to undermine Syntel's counsel's work product. However, the Court has already determined that the requested discovery is relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. (See 1/30/18 Order,[2] ECF No. 324, at 3-4.) Specifically, the Court is persuaded that the discovery sought is relevant to Trizetto's counterclaim regarding the alleged downloading of Trizetto's intellectual property. Further, the history in this case shows that some skepticism regarding the thoroughness of Syntel's document production is warranted. However, given the nature of the inquiries and the burdens on Syntel's Rule 30(b)(6) designee, the Court will not require additional deposition testimony on this Topic. Instead, within seven days of the date of this Order, Syntel is Ordered to provide Defendants with the number of hits for each search term on each of the seven devices listed in Topic 1(a). With respect to Topics 3 and 4, Defendants argue that Mr. Moore was not adequately prepared to testify regarding at least fourteen items that Defendants contend are properly within the scope of Topics 3 and 4. (Defs.’ 3/30/18 Letter Ex. C, ECF No. 376-3.) Topic 3, as narrowed by the Court's January 30, 2018 Order, pertains to the facts and circumstances relating to Syntel's document collection and production in this action, including the custodians and locations from which documents were searched. Topic 4, similarly narrowed, pertains to facts and circumstances related to Syntel's document preservation efforts, including the distribution of preservation notices. A party responding to a 30(b)(6) deposition, “is required to make a conscientious good-faith endeavor to designate the persons having knowledge of the matters sought by [the party noticing the deposition] and to prepare those persons in order that they can answer fully, completely, unevasively, the questions posed ... as to the relevant subject matters.” Soroof Trading Dev. Co. v. GE Fuel Cell Sys., LLC, No. 10-CV-1391 (LGS) (JCF), 2013 WL 1286078, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2013) (citation omitted). The Court finds that Mr. Moore was not adequately prepared on Topics 3 and 4. Therefore, Syntel shall, no later than fourteen days of the date of this Order, make its Rule 30(b)(6) designee, Daniel Moore, available to testify regarding those topics for two hours. Syntel shall comply with its obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) and adequately prepare Mr. Moore to testify, including (but not limited to) having him review Exhibit C to the March 30, 2018 letter from Mr. Cutri to the Court (ECF No. 376-3), as well as the Court's January 30, 2018 Order (ECF No. 324). II. Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) Testimony and Syntel's Topics 1, 3 and 6 *3 Syntel exhausted the seven hours allotted for it to take the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) designee, Charles Sanders, and seeks an enlargement of time, which Defendants oppose. Given the importance of the testimony sought from Mr. Sanders as TriZetto's 30(b)(6) designee, and the fact that Mr. Sanders is the only designee for a large number of topics, the Court, in its discretion, hereby Orders that Mr. Sanders shall be made available for an additional four hours of testimony regarding only the topics that were not previously covered (Topics 2, 4, 5, 7 and 11-19). In addition, Syntel asserts that Mr. Sanders was not adequately prepared to provide information responsive to Syntel's Topics 1, 3 and 6. As set forth below, the Court finds that Mr. Sanders was adequately prepared on Topic 6. While the Court finds that Defendants made a good faith effort to prepare Mr. Sanders on Topic 1 and 3, the Court will permit limited additional discovery in the form of written questions on Topics 1 and 3, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(4), as set forth below. Topic 1 refers to “Defendants’ direct or indirect efforts or knowledge of efforts to identify, recruit, solicit and hire Syntel and/or Syntel Mauritius employees or service providers, including but not limited to communications or sharing of information between TriZetto and Cognizant about Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ work with and on behalf of TriZetto, Plaintiffs’ employees, Project Koala and any related documents or communications.” (Sanders Tr. 5, Defs.’ 4/5/18 Letter Ex. 8, ECF No. 379-8.) Mr. Sanders testified that he prepared for the deposition over more than three full days of meeting with counsel and reviewing documents. (Sanders Tr. 6.) With respect to Topic 1, in particular, Mr. Sanders testified that he prepared by speaking with the person responsible for recruitment at Cognizant and a TriZetto human resources representative. (Id.) In arguing that Mr. Sanders was not prepared, Syntel primarily refers to questions regarding Syntel's employees, including those hired by Defendants. (Pls.’ 3/30/18 Letter, ECF No. 377, 4.) While Mr. Sanders testified that TriZetto did not hire any employees from Syntel Mauritius, which was the only “service provider” referred to in the Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) at issue (Sanders Tr. 7-8), he did answer general questions regarding Syntel employees hired by Cognizant, including referring to a document identifying 24 Syntel employees hired by Cognizant. (Sanders Tr. 9.) However, Mr. Sanders was unable to answer particular questions regarding offers made to Syntel employees or the terms of those offers, in part because he did not have access to Cognizant's employee files. (Sanders Tr. 18.) The Court agrees with Defendants that Mr. Sanders is not required to memorize the employment details for a large number of individual employees. However, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to some additional discovery on this Topic, which is best be obtained through the use of a deposition by written questions. Thus, Plaintiff may seek additional discovery on Topic 1, as set forth below. Topic 3 deals with TriZetto's copyrighted works. Syntel argues that Mr. Sanders was not prepared to provide information regarding the scope of protection for two PowerPoint presentations, and the version of software applicable to a third registration. (Pls.’ 3/30/18 Letter, ECF No. 377, at 3.) Defendants contend that Mr. Sanders did provide sufficient answers to Syntel's questions, except as limited by his inability to review certain materials related to Syntel's alleged copying and distribution of the copyrights. (Defs.’ 4/5/18 Letter, ECF No. 379, at 3.) As with Topic 1, the Court finds that additional discovery on this Topic is best obtained through a deposition by written questions, rather than from the testimony of Mr. Sanders. Thus, Plaintiff may seek additional discovery on Topic 3, as set forth below. *4 Topic 6 seeks information regarding Cognizant's use of confidential information during the time it had a service provider relationship with TriZetto. Syntel contends that if TriZetto let Cognizant improperly use confidential information, it would “compromise” TriZetto's misappropriation claim against Syntel. (Pls.’ 3/30/18 Letter, ECF No. 377, at 4.) The Court is skeptical as to the relevance of the information sought. In any event, the Court finds that Mr. Sanders was adequately prepared on this Topic. Mr. Sanders prepared by speaking with senior Cognizant employees (former TriZetto employees) who had been employed by TriZetto since 2000 and had previously been employed, going back to the early 1990s, by a company that was acquired by TriZetto. (Sanders Tr. 74-75.) Based on those conversations, Mr. Sanders testified that he was unaware of any dispute with Cognizant. (Sanders Tr. 77.) Syntel now argues that Mr. Sanders was unprepared because he could not testify to any possible disputes prior to 2000. (Pls,’ 3/3/30/18 Letter, ECF No. 377, at 4-5.) The Court finds that any relevance of a pre-2000 dispute is minimal and therefore, at this late date and weighing proportionality concerns, additional discovery is not warranted on this Topic. The Court, in its discretion, finds that additional discovery on Topics 1 and 3 should be obtained through the use of a deposition on written questions, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 31(a)(4). Thus, Syntel may serve Defendants with no more than ten written questions related to Topics 1 and 3 within seven days of the date of this Order. Defendants shall respond to such written questions within fourteen days after receipt. Syntel may serve five follow-up questions within three days of receipt of responses, and Defendants shall respond to any follow-up questions within seven days of receipt. III. Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) Topics 20, 22-23, 25-27 and 48 Defendants timely served a Rule 30(b)(6) notice regarding Topics 20, 22-23, 25-27 and 48. Plaintiffs now seek to have these topics “vacated.” (Pls.’ 3/30/18 Letter, ECF No. 377, at 5.) In response, Defendants argue that, because Syntel never moved for a protective order, it should be precluded from offering evidence regarding their subject matter. (Defs.’ 4/5/18 Letter, ECF No. 379, at 4.) Topic 20 refers to “All facts, circumstances, and documents regarding SYNTEL's acquisition, retention, and use of the documents and software identified in the Excel document bearing the Bates stamp TZCG-00000095 as well as the reasons for such acquisition, retention, and use.” (Defs.’ 3/30/18 Letter, ECF No. 376, at 5.) The Court finds that, given the importance of this topic, Defendants are entitled to testimony from a Syntel corporate designee. However, the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that it would be almost impossible for a corporate designee to prepare to testify with respect to the hundreds of documents referenced in the spreadsheet. (See Pls.’ 3/30/18 Letter Ex. 17, ECF No. 377-17.) Syntel offered to prepare a corporate designee to testify regarding the “general circumstances of Syntel's use of the documents” (3/26/18 Email from A. Sekel, Pls.’ 3/30/18 Letter Ex. 16, ECF No. 377-16.) The Court accepts that limitation, in part. Syntel's witness must testify to the general circumstances of Syntel's acquisition, retention and use of the documents and software listed in TZCG-00000095, and not just the general circumstances of Syntel's use. Further, Syntel's witness must prepare to testify in more detail regarding Syntel's acquisition, retention and use of fifteen of the files listed in TZCG-00000095 that Defendants may select. Such testimony shall be circumscribed as follows: Syntel's witness shall testify as to reasonably particularized, but not exhaustive, facts and circumstances regarding the acquisition, retention and use of the fifteen selected files. Defendants shall provide Syntel with a list of Defendants’ fifteen selected files within seven days of the date of this Order. Topic 22 and 23 refers to “All facts, circumstances, and documents regarding SYNTEL'S acquisition, retention, and use of the ‘Identified Files’ [and the ‘Identified Emails’] listed in Exhibit F ... of the Forensic Report” as well as the reasons for such acquisition, retention, and use.” (Defs.’ 3/30/18 Letter, ECF No. 376, at 5.) The Court finds that, given the importance of these topics, Defendants are entitled to testimony from a Syntel corporate designee on Topics 22 and 23. However, the Court will limit such testimony to reasonably particularized, but not exhaustive, facts and circumstances regarding the acquisition, retention and use of the Identified Files and Identified Emails, instead of “all facts, circumstances and documents.” *5 Topic 25 refers to “All information, documents, or files related to FACETS, QNXT, NetworX, Care Advance, or any other TriZetto product that SYNTEL acquired from or disclosed to any THIRD PARTY, including but not limited to, UnitedHealth Group, Anthem, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Solutions, Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan (CDPHP), CVS Pharmacy, GEHA, Inc., Presbyterian Health Systems, Optum, Inc., Topaz Shared Services, LLC, WellPoint Inc., and Wisconsin Physicians Service, as well as the facts, circumstances, and documents relating to such acquisition or disclosure.” (Defs.’ 3/30/18 Letter Ex. A, ECF No. 376-1.) The Court finds that, given the importance of Topic 25, Defendants are entitled to testimony from a Syntel corporate designee relating to this topic. However, the Court finds that the topic, as written, is overbroad and unduly burdensome. The Court thus modifies this topic, as follows, and Syntel shall produce a witness to testify on the topic as modified: “The acquisition by SYNTEL from, or disclosure by SYNTEL to any THIRD PARTY (including but not limited to, UnitedHealth Group, Anthem, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Solutions, Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan (CDPHP), CVS Pharmacy, GEHA, Inc., Presbyterian Health Systems, Optum, Inc., Topaz Shared Services, LLC, WellPoint Inc., and Wisconsin Physicians Service) of information, documents, or files related to FACETS, QNXT, NetworX, Care Advance, or any other TriZetto product.” Topic 26 refers to “All facts, circumstances, and documents relating to any agreements pursuant to which SYNTEL obtained, disclosed, or used information, documents, or files, in whole or in part, that were acquired directly or indirectly from TriZetto.” The Court finds that, given the importance of this topic, Defendants are entitled to testimony from a Syntel corporate designee on Topic 26. However, the Court will limit such testimony to reasonably particularized, but not exhaustive, facts and circumstances regarding these agreements, instead of “all facts, circumstances and documents.” Topic 27 refers to “All facts, circumstances, and documents relating to SYNTEL's communications and relationship with DEFENDANTS’ customers, including but not limited to UnitedHealth Group, Anthem, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Solutions, Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan (CDPHP), CVS Pharmacy, GEHA, Inc., Presbyterian Health Systems, Optum, Inc., Topaz Shared Services, LLC, WellPoint Inc., and Wisconsin Physicians Service, regarding SYNTEL's provision or potential provision of products or services relating to FACETS, QNXT, NetworX, Care Advance, or any other TriZetto products.” The Court finds Topic 27 to be overbroad and unduly burdensome, and that testimony regarding this topic need not be given. In that regard, the Court notes that the salient part of the information sought by this topic already should be covered by modified Topic 25. Topic 48 refers to “All facts and circumstances regarding the documents produced by SYNTEL in this ACTION, including, but not limited to, the following: SYNT00046004; SYNT00048107; SYNT00049460; SYNT00054871; SYNT00058126; SYNT00059010; SYNT00067346; SYNT00067442; SYNT00068196; SYNT00068498; SYNT00083865; SYNT00084398; SYNT00084608; SYNT00086663; SYNT00103979; SYNT00118469; SYNT00139663; SYNT00145825; SYNT00146556; SYNT00147203; SYNT00147727; SYNT00147988; SYNT00149958; SYNT00164127; SYNT00164455.” Syntel is correct that Topic 48, as written, covers Sytnel's entire document production (Pl. 3/30/18 Ltr. at 6) and, as such, is overbroad and unduly burdensome. However, the topic can be narrowed in order for Defendants to obtain important information. The Court thus modifies this topic, as follows, and Syntel shall produce a witness to testify on this topic as modified: “Reasonably particularized, but not exhaustive, facts and circumstances regarding the following documents produced by SYNTEL in this ACTION: SYNT00046004; SYNT00048107; SYNT00049460; SYNT00054871; SYNT00058126; SYNT00059010; SYNT00067346; SYNT00067442; SYNT00068196; SYNT00068498; SYNT00083865; SYNT00084398; SYNT00084608; SYNT00086663; SYNT00103979; SYNT00118469; SYNT00139663; SYNT00145825; SYNT00146556; SYNT00147203; SYNT00147727; SYNT00147988; SYNT00149958; SYNT00164127; SYNT00164455.” *6 Accordingly, it is Ordered that Syntel shall within thirty days produce a corporate designee or desginees who shall testify regarding Topics 20, 22, 25, 26 and 48, all as modified, and that Defendants shall have four hours to take testimony from such designee or designees. IV. Source Code On January 30, 2018, the Court ordered Plaintiff to inspect source code-related information in TriZetto's office in Colorado, but also ordered Defendants to make a knowledgeable employee available to assist Syntel in understanding and querying any information from the TriZetto databases and to produce any such information. (1/30/18 Order, ECF No. 324.) Further, the Court ordered Defendants to identify for Syntel the source code-related information that Defendants deem to be relevant. Syntel sent an associate from Foley & Lardner to conduct the inspection who is not among the seven Foley & Lardner attorneys who have appeared as counsel of record in the case. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that Syntel did not meaningfully participate in the court-ordered inspection. Instead, after a presentation by TriZetto employees, Syntel's counsel provided a thumb drive and asked TriZetto to download all of the materials that had been presented.[3] Syntel now claims that Defendants have failed to identify the relevant source code and moves to compel production of “specific source code and related files” that are relevant to Defendants’ claims. (Pls.’ 3/30/18 Letter, ECF No. 377, at 7.) Defendants respond that they fully complied with the Court's Order, including by proving ten knowledgeable employees to assist Syntel in understanding and querying TriZetto's repositories, but that Syntel simply demanded electronic production of all of Defendants’ source code. (Defs.’ 4/5/18 Letter at 5.) The Court is satisfied that Defendants met their obligations with respect to the January 30, 2018 Order. However, the Court is concerned about potential prejudice to Plaintiffs. Therefore, any source code or related files that Defendants intend to affirmatively use at trial (if not contained on the laptop previously produced to Syntel) shall be produced within thirty days of the date of this Order. Defendants may not introduce as evidence at trial any source code or related files that have not been produced to Plaintiffs. Further, any source code or related files upon which any defense expert relies in forming his or her opinion must be produced or made available for inspection by Syntel's expert (if not contained on the laptop previously produced to Syntel). V. Defendants’ February 23, 2018 Production Finally, Syntel seeks additional information regarding Defendants’ February 23, 2018 production of documents regarding TriZetto's physical safeguards and certain financial systems data, as Ordered by the Court on January 30, 2018. Syntel contends that the documents produced in response to the Order do not appear to be the type of information sought. (Pls.’ 3/30/18 Letter, ECF No. 377, at 8.) During the telephone conference on April 10, 2018, Mr. Cutri, as an officer of the Court, made a representation to the Court that Defendants had fully complied with the Court's Order. Thus, the Court finds that Syntel is not entitled to the relief sought. VI. Additional Relief *7 To the extent the parties seek additional relief, including preclusion, such relief is denied. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Within seven days of the date of this Order, Syntel shall provide Defendants with the number of hits for each search term on each of the seven devices listed in Topic 1(a). 2. Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Syntel shall make Mr. Moore available for two hours of additional testimony regarding Topics 3 and 4. 3. Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall make Mr. Sanders available for an additional four hours of testimony regarding Topics 2, 4, 5, 7, and 11-19. 4. Syntel may serve Defendants with no more than ten written questions related to Topics 1 and 3 within seven days of the date of this Order. Defendants shall respond to such written questions within fourteen days after receipt. Syntel may serve five follow-up questions within three days of receipt of responses, and Defendants shall respond to any follow-up questions within seven days of receipt. 5. Within seven days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall provide Syntel with a list of the fifteen files Defendants have selected from TZCG-00000095 that will be part of Syntel's 30(b)(6) testimony, as set forth above. 6. Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Syntel shall produce a corporate designee or designees who shall testify for up to four hours regarding Topics 20, 22, 25, 26 and 48, as modified by the Court. 7. Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall produce any source code or related files that Defendants intend to affirmatively use at trial (if not contained on the laptop previously produced to Syntel). 8. Following the exchange of expert reports, and at least two weeks prior to the deadline for rebuttal reports, Defendants shall make available for inspection by Plaintiffs’ expert(s) any source code or related files upon which Defendants’ expert(s) relied in forming his or her opinion (if not contained on the laptop previously produced to Syntel). 9. The deadline for the close of expert discovery is Friday, August 31, 2018. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the Letter-Motions at ECF Nos. 376 and 377. SO ORDERED. Footnotes [1] See Joint letter from the parties, dated March 26, 2018 (ECF No. 374); Letter from Ms. Sekel, dated March 30, 2018 (ECF No. 377); Letter from Mr. Cutri, dated March 30, 2018 (ECF No. 376); Letter from Ms. Sekel, dated April 5, 2018 (ECF No. 378); Letter from Mr. Cutri, dated April 5, 2018. (ECF No. 379.) Redacted versions of these letters (and their exhibits) were filed on ECF, and the unredacted versions will be filed under seal. [2] Syntel did not object to the Order, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). [3] In addition, Syntel waited until late in the evening on Friday, March 23, 2018, long after the fact-discovery cut-off, to raise an issue with the inspection. (See 3/23/18 Email from A. Sekel, Defs.’ 4/5/18 Letter Ex. 23, ECF No. 379-23.)