Date: 2026-03-15
Re: First Request for Production responses and Bill of Particulars — compliance and theory alignment
The RFP responses and BOP are pointed in the right direction (surviving NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50–51 claim; misappropriation/privacy) but are not fully compliant as drafted and do not strongly frame the personal-liability theory the judge preserved. Several procedural and substantive fixes are required.
| Issue | Required Fix |
|---|---|
| Completion affidavit | Add affidavit/affirmation of completeness or no responsive documents at end of RFP response |
| Request-by-request withholding | Each response must clearly state what is being withheld and on what basis |
| Scope of objection | State whether objection applies to all or only part of each request |
| Production limits | Explain how production is being limited |
| Issue | Required Fix |
|---|---|
| Privilege log | If privileged documents are withheld, provide notice/log for each withheld document (unless doing so would disclose the privilege) |
| Broad privilege assertions | Replace with specific 3122(b)-compliant privilege notice |
| Current (problematic) | Correct NY formulation |
|---|---|
| "Not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible evidence" | Full disclosure of matter "material and necessary" (interpreted liberally) |
| Limiting to documents "upon which Plaintiff intends to rely" | Too narrow — disclosure is broader than trial exhibits |
| Current | Safer |
|---|---|
| "December 5, 2025 Order" | Cite the December 5, 2025 bench ruling/oral decision unless a signed short-form order was later entered and served. Maslow's Part Rules require counsel to settle or submit a short-form order after a bench ruling. |
| Issue | Fix |
|---|---|
| Unfinished placeholders in RFP response | Remove all placeholders |
| Stray Bill of Particulars footer in RFP | Remove |
| RFP cross-references BOP with blank patent numbers | Fill in patent list |
| Blank date/address fields in BOP | Fill in |
| "Next Step" drafting note in BOP | Remove |
| Result | Set is not service-ready until all placeholders and drafts are removed |
| Authority | Role |
|---|---|
| Civil Rights Law § 50 | Bars use of name for advertising or trade without written consent |
| Civil Rights Law § 51 | Authorizes suit against "person, firm or corporation" doing the use; damages + exemplary damages for knowing use |
| LLC Law § 609 | Correct statutory title (not "Limited Liability Company Law"). LLC member not liable solely because of LLC status |
| Turane v. MGN, LLC, 171 A.D.3d 835 | LLC members may still be personally liable when they personally participate in the tort |
The judge said there was enough, at this stage, to show a potential triable issue as to whether Goldberg acted in his personal capacity. The theory is direct personal participation, not generic veil-piercing.
Facts from transcript that Litman emphasized: - Goldberg personally handled the client relationship and billing - Goldberg caused the continued use of Litman's name on patent matters and the website after June 15, 2020 - Goldberg later substituted his own name
These are the kinds of facts that fit § 609 + Turane.
The current RFP responses mention patents and website use but do not sharply state that Goldberg personally directed, approved, or carried out those acts. That is why the responses do not, by themselves, advance the judge's personal-liability framework.
The evidence we have gathered supports the theory that Goldberg personally participated in the use of Litman's name:
| Evidence | How It Supports Personal Participation |
|---|---|
| Goldberg's signature on POA forms (4 patents) | Goldberg personally signed prosecution documents — not the firm generically |
| Goldberg as submitter/signatory on assignments (18/392,663; 18/383,448) | Goldberg personally submitted and signed; Litman in correspondent block |
| IFEE forms — Goldberg in 4/4 (OCR) | Goldberg's name appears on Issue Fee Payment forms — he personally filed or directed these |
| Line 74 control inference | Goldberg had control over whose name went on Line 74; he chose to use Litman's name |
| 212 KFU patents with Goldberg on Line 74 (since 2024-01-01) | Goldberg's name on Line 74 = he personally exercised control over attorney designation |
| Website — Litman as "PATENT ATTORNEY" through June 2025 | Goldberg (as Co-Managing Partner) controlled firm website; he personally directed or permitted the use |
| Client relationships (KFU, KSU, Kuwait University, UAEU) | Goldberg personally handled client relationships and billing per transcript |
Framing for RFP / discovery: Documents showing that Goldberg personally signed, submitted, directed, or approved the use of Litman's name on patents, assignments, and the website after June 15, 2020.