DISCOVERY DEMAND LETTER

Date: April 7, 2026

To: Aaron Gould, Esq. Connell Foley LLP Counsel for Defendants Joshua B. Goldberg and Nath, Goldberg & Meyer

Scott Woller, Esq. Counsel for Defendants

From: Counsel for Plaintiff Richard C. Litman

Re: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 (Sup. Ct. Kings Cty.) Demand for Production of Missing Monthly Payment Allocation Reports (Q3 2023; August and September 2025; and Q4 2025)

I. Demand

Plaintiff is presently in possession of 21 of the 24 monthly Payment Allocation Reports from October 2023 through June 2025, each produced by Defendants and transmitted by Joshua B. Goldberg as an email attachment in the ordinary course of business. The three-month gap within that series (July, August, and September 2023), combined with the proven eight-month suppression of the July 2025 report (see Section II below), establishes a pattern of selective production of a document series that is otherwise generated monthly and maintained in the ordinary course.

A 21-month time-series analysis of the produced reports confirms that NGM operated on the 20%-of-collected-fees formula with mechanical precision for Plaintiff's Fees-only fee-credit each month, yielding a mean ratio of 1.009 against the 20% baseline with a standard deviation of 0.025 — i.e., essentially exact adherence month after month. This validates the 20% rule as NGM's operational baseline, not an aspirational target. The missing months (Q3 2023 quarterly and August/September 2025 monthly) almost certainly continue this same pattern, and Defendants' selective non-production of those specific months — against the backdrop of the eight-month suppression of the July 2025 report — independently supports an adverse-inference instruction at trial under CPLR 3126.

Plaintiff accordingly demands that Defendants produce, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this letter, the following categories of documents:

The Q3 2023 Payment Allocation Listing (July, August, and September 2023), in either the quarterly format produced for 3Q2022 and 4Q2022 or, in the alternative, as three separate monthly Payment Allocation Reports in the same form and format as those produced for October 2023 forward.
The August 2025 Monthly Payment Allocation Report generated by NGM (or any successor or related entity) in the same form and format as the July 2025 Monthly Payment Allocation Report previously produced.
The September 2025 Monthly Payment Allocation Report, in the same form and format.
All monthly Payment Allocation Reports for Q4 2025 (October, November, and December 2025), in the same form and format.
All drafts, predecessor versions, and revisions of the foregoing reports.
All transmittal communications (email, memoranda, or otherwise) attaching, referencing, or discussing any of the foregoing reports.

Each report must be produced in native electronic format with all original metadata preserved, including without limitation: file creation date, last-modified date, last-accessed date, author, last-saved-by user, and full revision history. PDF or print-image-only productions are not acceptable and will be treated as non-responsive.

II. Basis for the Demand

On or about April 7, 2026, Defendants produced — for the first time — a July 2025 Monthly Payment Allocation Report that, on its face, was generated by NGM on August 11, 2025. That document was therefore in Defendants' possession, custody, and control for approximately eight (8) months before production, notwithstanding Plaintiff's standing discovery requests, the parties' Preliminary Conference Order, and Defendants' continuing duty to supplement.

The July 2025 report reflects a $40,768.39 fee-credit allocation to Plaintiff — the largest single-attorney allocation in the document — against $66,335.23 in collected fees and $31,958.55 in fees earned for the month. That $40,768.39 figure is approximately 6.4 times larger than the figure produced by the 20%-of-collected-fees formula Defendants have asserted governs Plaintiff's compensation. The discrepancy is material, recurring, and inconsistent with Defendants' prior representations about the scope and magnitude of amounts associated with Plaintiff's book of business.

Because the July 2025 report is a monthly recurring report generated in the ordinary course of NGM's business, the August 2025 and September 2025 reports — and the analogous Q4 2025 reports — necessarily exist (or existed) in Defendants' systems. The same is true of the Q3 2023 (July–September 2023) reports, which sit within a period for which quarterly Payment Allocation Listings were produced for the immediately preceding quarters (3Q2022 and 4Q2022) and for which monthly reports were produced beginning October 2023. Their non-production to date, in light of the eight-month suppression of the July 2025 report, raises a substantial concern of ongoing and selective concealment of materially responsive financial records.

III. Bad-Faith Concerns

The following circumstances inform this demand and Plaintiff's reservation of rights:

The July 2025 report was generated after Plaintiff's June 26, 2025 litigation-trigger correspondence and after the July 18, 2025 elimination of Plaintiff's NGM email accounts.
The report was withheld for approximately eight months despite multiple discovery requests reasonably calling for its production.
The fee-credit allocation it discloses is an order of magnitude larger than the figure Defendants' formula-based representations would have suggested.
The reports requested herein cover the period during which Plaintiff's name continued to appear on NGM's website, on USPTO trademark correspondence (including Serial No. 99034636, August 20, 2025), and on issued patent and trademark dockets.

The pattern reflects, at a minimum, a serious lapse in Defendants' discovery obligations and, at worst, active concealment of documents directly relevant to damages on the surviving Count V claim.

IV. Reservation of Rights

Plaintiff expressly reserves all rights, including without limitation the right to:

Move to compel production of the demanded reports under CPLR 3124;
Seek sanctions under CPLR 3126, including adverse-inference and preclusion relief, based on the eight-month suppression of the July 2025 report and any further delay as to the Q3 2023, August 2025, September 2025, and Q4 2025 reports;
Seek costs and fees associated with this demand and any motion practice it necessitates;
Use the timing and circumstances of any further delayed or non-production at trial as evidence of consciousness of liability and spoliation; and
Supplement this demand as additional facts emerge.

Nothing in this letter waives any prior discovery demand, any objection to Defendants' prior productions, or any claim for additional categories of financial records.

V. Response

Please confirm in writing within seven (7) days that Defendants will comply with this demand, and produce the responsive materials in full within fourteen (14) days. Absent such confirmation and production, Plaintiff will proceed by motion without further notice.

Sincerely,

Counsel for Plaintiff Richard C. Litman