Purpose: Document three explicit defense-counsel admissions made in a short 9/3/2025 email from Aaron H. Gould (Partner, Connell Foley LLP, lead counsel for Defendants) to Richard Litman. These admissions create independent leverage for discovery demands, undercut multiple anticipated affirmative defenses, and — particularly the "proposed use agreement" reference — operate as a kill-shot against every consent-based defense theory.
Per Richard Litman (04/16/2026): "Attorney admissions/inconsistencies in briefs and communications can be basis to get to evidence." Memory: feedback_counsel_admissions.md.
Case captions: - Litman v. Goldberg, Sup. Ct. N.Y., Kings County, Index No. 524343/2025 (Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C.) - Litman v. Nath, E.D.N.Y., 1:25-cv-04048 (voluntarily dismissed)
From: "Aaron H. Gould" <agould@connellfoley.com>
Date: September 3, 2025 at 14:16:14 EDT
To: Richard Litman <rclitman@gmail.com>
Cc: Cherylyn Tanner <CTanner@connellfoley.com>,
Matt Ramin <MRamin@connellfoley.com>,
"Leo J. Hurley, Jr." <LHurley@connellfoley.com>
Subject: RE: Litman v Goldberg (Kings County) and Litman v. Nath (EDNY)
Richard:
Understood. I just wanted verify with you that filing second amended
complaints remained your intention because of forthcoming response
deadlines on the existing amended complaints.
We will be back to you on the 2024 accounting, litman@4patent.com
e-mail domain issue, and proposed use agreement after discussion with
our clients.
Regards,
Aaron
Aaron H. Gould
Partner
Connell Foley LLP
Harborside 5 | 185 Hudson Street, Suite 2510 | Jersey City, NJ 07311
Phone 201.521.1000
Direct 201.631.7803
Fax 201.521.0100
Defense counsel expressly acknowledges that, as of 9/3/2025 — more than eight months after year-end 2024 — "the 2024 accounting" remained an open item owed to Plaintiff. Gould's promise that Connell Foley "will be back to you … after discussion with our clients" is itself an admission that (a) the 2024 accounting had not been produced, (b) Plaintiff had demanded it, and (c) Defendants retained control over whether to produce it. This admission stacks directly with Finding #50 (8-month suppression of the July 2025 Payment Allocation Report), Finding #99 (Freedom Bank trust account concealment and the 7/28/2025 "Close Account" wire), and the surviving unpaid-share picture reflected in the Demand Letter series. Defense counsel calling the 2024 accounting a live item without producing it — and then, on information and belief, never delivering the promised follow-up — furnishes textbook adverse-inference fuel under CPLR § 3126 and the Stark v. Fry line of cases. Pair with output/DISCOVERY_DEMAND_FEE_SCHEDULES_20260416.md Request Nos. 1–5 (institutional fee schedules) and output/DISCOVERY_DEMAND_QUARTERLY_REPORTS_GAPS_20260416.md (missing quarterly reports) — the 2024 accounting request is the umbrella that covers both.
Defense counsel characterizes the 4patent.com email-domain dispute as an "issue" — i.e., a genuine, open, contested matter requiring client consultation before counsel can respond. That characterization is itself the admission. A defendant that later moves for summary judgment on the theory that "there is no genuine dispute" concerning Amendment § 3's royalty-free email license to litman@4patent.com will be impeached by its own lead counsel's contemporaneous characterization of the matter as an "issue" requiring internal consultation. Cross-references: Finding #43 (4patent.com DKIM → nathlaw.onmicrosoft.com; NGM controls the tenant); Finding #94 (Amendment § 3 email license grant); Finding #106 (8,024+ emails continued landing in "eliminated" accounts through December 2025); project_4patent_domain_ownership.md (uncle confirms NGM purchased 4patent.com but Litman's license covers personal emails and archive); feedback_domain_framing_correction.md. The 7/18/2025 email elimination is the conduct; Gould's 9/3/2025 concession that the domain is a live dispute is the contemporaneous acknowledgment.
This is the dispositive phrase in the email, and it is worth isolating as a standalone exhibit at dispositive-motion briefing. Defense counsel, writing on behalf of Defendants, represented in writing that a "proposed use agreement" was under consideration and awaiting "discussion with our clients" as of September 3, 2025.
The legal logic is unavoidable: a party that proposes a new agreement to govern a given use is necessarily conceding, sub silentio, that no existing agreement covers that use. If the Combination Agreement (3/29/2017), the Amendment (5/6/2017), or any other instrument already authorized Defendants' use of Plaintiff's name after 6/15/2020, there would be nothing left to "agree" to; the existing document would govern. The act of proposing a new use agreement is therefore an admission against interest under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2) / CPLR § 4514 that Defendants' counsel did not believe any existing instrument authorized the ongoing name use.
This single phrase defeats, at the contractual level, every consent-based defense in Defendants' arsenal:
Discovery targets generated by this admission:
The 9/3/2025 date sits squarely inside the post-litigation-threat sequence: (a) litigation trigger 6/26/2025; (b) Schaefer/Kren report 6/26/2025; (c) email elimination 7/18/2025; (d) suit filed 7/21/2025 (state) / 7/22/2025 (federal); (e) Freedom Bank "Close Account" wire 7/22/2025; (f) Freedom Bank account closure by transfer 7/28/2025. Six weeks after suit, Defendants' lead counsel is simultaneously (i) negotiating a post-hoc "use agreement" and (ii) acknowledging the 2024 accounting is outstanding — in the same window as the documented spoliation acts.
Gould's reference to "filing second amended complaints" confirms that, as of 9/3/2025, each action's original complaint had already been amended once and Plaintiff had signaled intent to amend a second time in both the Kings County state case and the EDNY federal case. This bears on (a) the pleading history shown on the dockets, (b) whether later-filed complaints incorporate the three admissions above (they should), and (c) which affirmative defenses Defendants preserved against which complaint. Verify current pleading status against court_filings/ and the NYSCEF docket.
output/DISCOVERY_DEMAND_FEE_SCHEDULES_20260416.md and output/DISCOVERY_DEMAND_QUARTERLY_REPORTS_GAPS_20260416.md).feedback_counsel_admissions.md (uncle's framing principle, 04/16/2026).output/COUNSEL_ADMISSIONS_CATALOG.md — parallel deliverable building the broader inventory of defense-counsel admissions across briefs, letters, and email.output/DISCOVERY_DEMAND_FEE_SCHEDULES_20260416.md, output/DISCOVERY_DEMAND_QUARTERLY_REPORTS_GAPS_20260416.md.court_filings/ (verify second-amendment filings and whether the three admissions are pleaded).court_filings/ whether the second amended complaints were filed in Kings County and EDNY, and confirm each of the three Gould admissions is pleaded or otherwise preserved on the record.