Discovery Organization & Supplementation Protocol

To: Richard C. Litman / Scott D. Woller, Esq. Re: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 — how we organize furnishing of documents and add new evidence as discovery comes in Prepared: 2026-04-17 Status: Operational protocol — confirms and formalizes the current scheme

---

Uncle's Direction (4/17/2026)

"We should organize the discovery around are various examples of unauthorized use and as we supplement discovery, we just power on that subheading dealing with that particular type of use or publication."

The Organizational Scheme (6 Use-Type Categories)

Discovery production is currently organized into six use-type categories. Every exhibit belongs to exactly one category; every category accepts supplementation. New evidence for any category goes directly into that category's section without reorganizing the rest.

Category	Use Type	Exhibits	Where
A	USPTO Patent Filings (POA, assignment, filing receipt, IFEE)	Ex. 1–3	Batch 01 Binder
B	Patent Front-Page Republication (Line 74)	Ex. 4	Batch 01 Binder
C	Client-Facing Correspondence via 4patent.com / NGM	Ex. 5	Batch 01 Binder
D	Trademark Filings with Litman as Counsel	Ex. 6–7	Batch 01 Binder
E	Firm Website / Web Republication	Ex. 8–9	Batch 01 Binder
F	Internal Billing / Accounting-System Attribution	Ex. 10–15	Batch 02 Supplement

Each category is designed to accept further exhibits in sequence — Ex. 10, Ex. 11, Ex. 12 continue numbering as new items come in.

The Supplementation Protocol

When new evidence arrives — whether from a client production, a demand response, an internal file search, a grievance proceeding, a deposition, or an independent investigation — we route it as follows:

Step 1 — Classify into Category A–F

If the evidence is…	Route to…
A USPTO filing (POA, assignment, filing receipt, IFEE, office action, NOA, etc.) with Litman's name in correspondence block	Category A
An issued patent face page with Litman on Line 74	Category B
An NGM-to-client email or client-facing document from NGM	Category C
A trademark office filing where Litman is listed as counsel	Category D
A web page or archive capture showing Litman on firm website	Category E
An internal NGM billing / accounting / trust document identifying Litman by name or attorney role	Category F

If a single document spans two categories, we pick the stronger category and note the cross-reference in the exhibit metadata (e.g., a USPTO email that's both "Category A" and "Category C" — classify under A, cross-reference to C).

Step 2 — Add to that category's sequence

• Files land at: evidence/<source>/<document> with Bates-number preservation where possible
• Exhibit number assigned: next available number in that category's batch (Ex. 16, Ex. 17, …)
• Metadata captured: exhibit title, date, Bates, linked service (if any — for Track 1 mapping), use-type category, cross-references to any related exhibits
• Build script run: the relevant build_*.py script is updated to include the new exhibit, PDF regenerated

Step 3 — Update the use-date clusters

The use-date-clustered binder (KFU + 5 others) is regenerated weekly or on-demand. New exhibits' dates propagate automatically into the weekly-peak clusters if the new exhibits' dates fall within a top-20 peak week for that client.

Step 4 — Update the saturation decks

• Email additions: any new Bates-anchored client email appends to the {slug}_emails_litman_name_dataset_v2.csv and the decks regenerate
• Attachment additions: new attachments get text-extracted and keyword-scanned; Tier 4 counts update
• Semantic index additions: new email bodies are embedded and added to output/embeddings/email_index.faiss

Step 5 — Track 1 / Track 2 cross-linking

If the new evidence has both a § 51 use-of-name dimension (Track 2) AND a contract/accounting dimension (Track 1), we:

• File it under the appropriate use-category (A–F)
• Also reference it in the Track 1 ledger if it's a billing / trust / reconciliation document
• Never conflate the two tracks in a single exhibit's framing

Practical Examples of Supplementation

Example 1 — An additional 4patent.com alias discovered

• Category: C (client-facing correspondence)
• Action: add a new exhibit in Batch 01's Category C section (Ex. 5b); add the alias's email pattern to scripts/build_multi_client_datasets.py; regenerate per-client CSVs and decks

Example 2 — A new grievance from a USPTO OED proceeding

• Category: A (USPTO-related) or a new Category G (regulatory action) if we want to keep regulatory matters separate
• Action: decide category placement; add as next numbered exhibit

Example 3 — The Martha daily sheet analysis (just built)

• Category: C (client-facing correspondence)
• Form: supplemental exhibit under Category C — one volume containing the analysis memo + per-email CSV + top-day exemplar attachments
• Action: add to Batch 01 as Ex. 5 supplement, or keep as a standalone analytical companion for the saturation decks

Example 4 — Response to ROR letter v2 reconciliation demands

• Category: F (internal billing)
• Action: add each produced document (bank statements, transaction journal, reassignment log, etc.) as additional exhibits Ex. 16, 17, 18… in Batch 02's Category F sequence

The Daily-Saturation "Spine"

Per uncle's 4/17 metaphor: the Martha daily sheets are the spine of the KFU section. The structural layout is:

KFU § 51 Presentation
├── Spine: daily saturation pattern (Martha daily sheets — per-day docket lists)
│     → output/MARTHA_DAILY_SHEET_ANALYSIS.md (quantified)
│     → output/saturation_v2/kfu_SATURATION.pdf (visualized)
│     → output/KFU_USE_DATE_CLUSTERED_BINDER.pdf (weekly clusters of the spine)
│
├── Ribs (use-type exhibits hanging off the spine):
│     ├── Category A exhibits — USPTO filings
│     ├── Category B exhibits — patent front pages
│     ├── Category C exhibits — client emails / daily sheets
│     ├── Category D exhibits — trademark filings
│     ├── Category E exhibits — website captures
│     └── Category F exhibits — internal billing attribution
│
└── Damages framework:
      ├── Track 1: contract/arbitration shortfall (fee schedule + ROR letter)
      └── Track 2: § 51 tort damages (this organization + 20% memo)

The Supplementation Index (Running List)

Maintained at output/SUPPLEMENTATION_INDEX.csv:

Date received	Category	Description	Exhibit #	Source	Disposition

(One row per new production or discovery event. The running list is the audit trail so nothing gets lost between batches.)

What Counsel and Uncle Do When New Evidence Arrives

1. Forward to Claude pipeline (this project) with a brief note: "From X, received on Y. Evidence of Z."
2. Claude classifies into Category A–F and produces:
3. The exhibit-level packet (PDF, CSV, or text extraction)
4. An updated Batch 01 or Batch 02 PDF with the new exhibit appended
5. A cross-reference line in the Supplementation Index
6. An updated saturation deck (if the evidence moves client-day counts)
7. Counsel reviews and either accepts (new PDF is the updated binder) or revises (exhibit moves to a different category or is rejected with a note)

No reorganization is ever required. The file structure of output/, scripts/, and evidence/ is already stable and survives arbitrary supplementation.

Cross-Reference Summary

All current Track 2 deliverables live together and cross-reference each other:

Document	Category it serves
DISCOVERY_BATCH_01_EXHIBIT_BINDER.pdf	A–E (the canonical use-type catalog)
DISCOVERY_BATCH_02_SUPPLEMENT.pdf	F (internal accounting attribution)
{slug}_SATURATION.pdf (6 × saturation_v2/)	full-window view per client
MULTI_CLIENT_SATURATION_DECK.pdf	6-client combined scale
{CLIENT}_USE_DATE_CLUSTERED_BINDER.pdf (6 files)	weekly narrative per client
MARTHA_DAILY_SHEET_ANALYSIS.md	docket-level spine for KFU
SATURATION_TO_RETENTION_MEMO.md	causation narrative
SECTION_51_DAMAGES_BEYOND_20PCT_MEMO.md	damages framework
SEMANTIC_SEARCH_UPLIFT_REPORT.pdf	infrastructure / review pool
SEMANTIC_TOP100_CURATION_SHEET.pdf	pending-review candidate exhibits
Q1_2026_PAYMENT_BACKUP_ANALYSIS.pdf	Track 1
TRACK1_FEE_SCHEDULE.pdf	Track 1
RESERVATION_OF_RIGHTS_LETTER_Q1_2026_v2.pdf	Track 1 demand letter

---

This protocol will scale through the Bill of Particulars deadline, discovery supplementation, MSJ briefing, and trial exhibit preparation without restructuring.