Overview
Three depositions must be completed by June 2, 2026. Each outline is organized around the Four Categories of unauthorized name use established in the Burden of Proof: (1) Patent Prosecution, (2) Client Solicitation, (3) Trademark/IP Services, and (4) Website Republication. Every question is designed to establish one or more elements of the NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51 claim.
Updated March 28, 2026: Added 30 RFA Confrontation Questions for Goldberg deposition (read-back-and-confront technique using his own sworn responses). Added "purely as a courtesy" deposition bomb and PI Opposition admissions. Total questions increased from 147 to 177.
14
Hours Total
177
Questions
3
Witnesses
| Witness |
Time |
Priority |
Key Topics |
| Joshua B. Goldberg |
7 hours |
Critical |
KNPC control, solicitation awareness, trademark, republication, RFA confrontation (30 Qs), "purely as a courtesy" bomb, PI Opposition admissions |
| Martha Long |
4 hours |
High |
"27 years" template, document forwarding, October 2025 meeting |
| Howard Kline |
3 hours |
Important |
91% CC rate, Nicola Pizza, "new arrangement" concerns |
Strategic Order of Depositions
Depose Martha Long BEFORE Goldberg. She is not a defendant and may be sympathetic to Litman. Her testimony about Goldberg's directives, the "27 years" solicitation template, and the October 8, 2025 meeting will lock in facts that Goldberg cannot then deny. Her answers become impeachment ammunition.
Suggested order: (1) Kline (lowest stakes, establishes trademark/CC patterns) → (2) Long (mid-stakes, locks in Goldberg directives) → (3) Goldberg (confront with everything).
Duration: 7 hours
Topics: 6
Questions: 77
Priority: Critical
Deposition Goal
Establish that Goldberg personally caused Litman's name to appear on patent documents, client solicitations, trademark filings, and the firm website after 6/15/2020 — contradicting his Answer (Doc #65, ¶33) where he DENIES causing the use. His own 16 POA signatures (Reg. 44126) are the smoking gun.
Topic A: KNPC Control Proof (Q1–16)
Purpose: Demonstrate Goldberg controlled whose name appeared on patent documents by showing the 3 KNPC patents where he chose to put his own name instead of Litman's on Line 74 — proving the choice was deliberate, not automatic.
Q1. Mr. Goldberg, you are a registered patent attorney with the USPTO, registration number 44126, correct? Exhibit: USPTO OED records
Q2. And you have been associated with Nath, Goldberg & Meyer since what date?
Q3. Are you familiar with Kuwait National Petroleum Company as a client of the firm?
Q4. Who was the primary attorney responsible for KNPC patent matters before June 15, 2020?
Q5. I'm showing you U.S. Patent No. 12,227,748. Can you identify whose name appears on Line 74 as attorney of record? Exhibit: Patent 12,227,748 front page
Q6. That's your name — Joshua B. Goldberg — on Line 74, correct?
Q7. Now I'm showing you U.S. Patent No. 12,303,254. Whose name appears on Line 74? Exhibit: Patent 12,303,254 front page
Q8. And the third KNPC patent — can you confirm you also appear as attorney of record? Exhibit: Third KNPC patent front page
Q9. So for KNPC patents, you chose to put your own name on Line 74 rather than Mr. Litman's name. Is that accurate?
Q10. Who made the decision about which attorney's name would appear on Line 74 of issued patents?
Follow-Up Trap
If Goldberg says "the USPTO decides" or "it's automatic": Show the POA for a Litman-named patent and a Goldberg-named KNPC patent side by side. The only difference is whose name is on the POA filed with the application — proving the attorney name on Line 74 flows from the POA, which Goldberg signed.
Q11. I'm showing you the Power of Attorney filed in Application No. 18/392,663. That's your signature, correct? Exhibit: POA for App. 18/392,663 (Dec. 21, 2023)
Q12. And on this POA, the attorney listed is "Richard Litman," not Joshua Goldberg, correct?
Q13. So when you signed a POA listing Richard Litman as attorney, his name appeared on the patent. When you signed a POA listing yourself, your name appeared. Is that your understanding?
Q14. You billed time on KNPC matters under the billing code "RL" — Richard Litman's initials, correct? Exhibit: Billing records showing "RL" code on KNPC matters
Q15. Were KNPC matters originally Richard Litman's client relationships?
Q16. So you had the ability to choose whose name went on any given patent, and for KNPC you chose your own name, but for hundreds of other patents you chose Mr. Litman's name. Is that a fair summary?
Follow-Up Trap
If he admits choosing, liability is established. If he denies choosing, confront with the 16 POAs bearing his personal signature. Either answer advances the case.
Topic B: Martha Solicitation Awareness (Q17–25)
Purpose: Establish Goldberg knew Martha Long was soliciting clients using Litman's name and professional reputation, or that he directed her to do so.
Q17. Martha Long works as a legal secretary at Nath, Goldberg & Meyer, correct?
Q18. What are her primary responsibilities?
Q19. I'm showing you an email from Martha Long to a prospective client. Please read the highlighted sentence aloud. Exhibit: Long email to Al-Harbi containing "I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years"
"I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years and he is one of the best patent attorneys I know."
— Martha Long, email to prospective client
Q20. Were you aware that Ms. Long was using this language in communications with prospective clients?
Q21. Did you authorize Ms. Long to use Richard Litman's name in soliciting new business for the firm?
Q22. I'm showing you a second email, this one to Dr. Lateri. It contains the same "27 years" language. Exhibit: Long email to Lateri
Q23. And a third, to Dr. Won. Exhibit: Long email to Won
Q24. So this was a template, not a one-time statement. Did you create this template, or did Ms. Long create it independently?
Q25. Who authorized the use of Richard Litman's name and reputation in soliciting clients for the firm after he left?
Follow-Up Trap
If Goldberg claims ignorance, confront with Martha's deposition testimony (obtained first) about his directives. If he blames Martha, he admits the firm used Litman's name — and as managing partner, he had a duty to prevent it.
Topic C: Trademark / IP Services (Q26–35)
Purpose: Show that Litman's name was used to maintain existing and attract new trademark clients — a separate category of unauthorized commercial use.
Q26. Are you familiar with trademark work performed under the name "Litman Law Office" or referencing Richard Litman?
Q27. Howard Kline performed trademark work for the firm, correct?
Q28. Are you aware that Mr. Kline was copied on approximately 91% of all emails sent to Richard Litman regarding trademark matters? Exhibit: Email analysis showing 2,678 trademark emails, 91% CC to Kline
Q29. Were you aware that Poppiti, an attorney for Nicola Pizza, contacted Richard Litman directly about trademark matters after June 15, 2020? Exhibit: Poppiti email to Litman
Q30. Did anyone at the firm redirect Poppiti to a different attorney, or did the firm continue to handle Nicola Pizza matters under Litman's name?
Q31. I'm showing you correspondence from the Dakota Attorney General's office addressed to "Litman Law Office." Exhibit: Dakota AG correspondence
Q32. Was there ever an entity called "Litman Law Office" after Mr. Litman left the firm?
Q33. Who was actually performing the work that the Dakota AG believed was being done by "Litman Law Office"?
Q34. Were clients informed that Richard Litman was no longer performing their trademark work?
Q35. Did you take any steps to correct the impression that Richard Litman was still actively handling trademark matters?
Follow-Up Trap
If Goldberg claims trademark work was "transitional," ask why it continued for over 4 years past Litman's departure. If he claims Litman authorized it, demand the written consent — which does not exist.
Topic D: Republication (Q36–44)
Purpose: Establish Goldberg knew the firm website and Google Patents continued to display Litman's name in a commercial context, and took no steps to correct it.
Q36. Who controls the content of the nathlaw.com website?
Q37. I'm showing you a Wayback Machine capture of nathlaw.com from June 21, 2025. Richard Litman is listed as "PATENT ATTORNEY" with no indication he is retired or no longer with the firm. Exhibit: Wayback Machine screenshot, nathlaw.com, June 21, 2025
Q38. This is more than five years after Mr. Litman ceased working at the firm. Why was his name still displayed?
Q39. I'm showing you a second capture from September 5, 2025. Mr. Litman has been removed entirely. Exhibit: Wayback Machine screenshot, nathlaw.com, September 5, 2025
Q40. What happened between June 21, 2025, and September 5, 2025, that caused you to remove Mr. Litman's name from the website?
Note: This lawsuit was filed in mid-2025. The removal coincides with Goldberg being served.
Q41. You are aware that Google Patents indexes all USPTO records, correct?
Q42. And that every patent listing Richard Litman as attorney of record is publicly searchable on Google Patents?
Q43. Each of those 905 patents functions as a permanent advertisement associating Mr. Litman's name with your firm's work, correct?
Q44. Did you consider the reputational impact on Mr. Litman of having his name appear on hundreds of patents for work he did not perform or supervise?
Follow-Up Trap
If Goldberg says "Google Patents is not our publication," counter: "But filing the POA with Litman's name is your publication — Google merely republishes what you filed." The initial act is the filing; Google is the amplifier.
Topic E: Closing — Consent (Q45–47)
Purpose: Destroy the consent defense (Affirmative Defense #10) by demanding production of written consent that does not exist.
Q45. Mr. Goldberg, we have now discussed four categories of use of Richard Litman's name: patent prosecution, client solicitation, trademark services, and website display. Can you identify any written consent from Mr. Litman authorizing any of these uses after June 15, 2020?
Q46. I'm showing you the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment you recorded at the USPTO, Reel 007281, Frame 0821. Please read the highlighted paragraph. Exhibit: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment (Reel 007281, Frame 0821)
The assignment states that Litman retains ownership of his professional name and identity.
— Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment, recorded at USPTO
Q47. This document — which you recorded — states that Mr. Litman owns his own name. How do you reconcile that with your continued use of his name for the past five years?
End State
Goldberg either (a) admits he had no written consent, destroying Affirmative Defense #10, or (b) produces a document that can be authenticated and tested. No document has been produced in discovery.
Topic F: RFA Confrontation Series (30 Questions) — NEW (March 28, 2026)
Purpose: Use the read-back-and-confront technique to destroy Goldberg's sworn RFA responses with documentary evidence. Each question reads his verbatim response, then forces a contradiction.
Technique
Read the verbatim RFA response aloud. Ask the witness to confirm the words. Then confront with the document that contradicts. The witness either admits the document is accurate (destroying the RFA response) or denies it (destroying credibility). Both answers advance the case.
RFA #2 — "Did Not Individually Cause" (Q48–52)
"Denied. Defendant denies that he individually caused Plaintiff's name to appear on patents issued after June 15, 2020. The appearance of Plaintiff's name on patents was a function of the Customer Number system maintained by the USPTO and the prior arrangements between the parties."
— Goldberg RFA #2 Response, Feb 17, 2026
Q48. Mr. Goldberg, I am going to read your response to Request for Admission Number 2. [Read verbatim.] Did I read that correctly?
Q49. I am now showing you Exhibit [__], a Power of Attorney filed with the USPTO for Application 18/392,663. Do you see the signature line that reads "/Joshua B. Goldberg/" with Registration Number 44126? Exhibit: POA for App. 18/392,663
Q50. When you signed this Power of Attorney appointing Customer Number 37833, you understood that Customer Number 37833 was associated with "Richard C. Litman, Nath, Goldberg & Meyer," correct?
Q51. You signed sixteen separate Powers of Attorney between 2020 and January 2025, each appointing Customer Number 37833 — is that consistent with your statement that you did not "individually cause" Plaintiff's name to appear on patents?
Q52. If you had not signed these Powers of Attorney, would Customer Number 37833 have been associated with these patent applications?
Follow-Up Trap
The answer to Q52 must be no. The POA is the causal act. Sixteen separate volitional acts cannot be explained away as "a function of the Customer Number system."
RFA #3/#14 — Line 74 Admissions (Q53–57)
RFA #3: "Admitted that Plaintiff's name appeared on certain patent front pages."
RFA #14: "Admitted that the name 'Richard C. Litman' appeared on Line 74 of certain patents issued after June 15, 2020."
— Goldberg RFA Responses, Feb 17, 2026
Q53. You admitted in RFA Number 3 that Plaintiff's name appeared on "certain patent front pages." I am showing you a spreadsheet of 905 patents issued after June 15, 2020 listing "Richard C. Litman" as attorney. Do you dispute that this is the correct number? Exhibit: 905-patent list
Q54. Can you identify a single one of these 905 patents where you took any action to remove Mr. Litman's name before issuance?
Q55. I am now showing you the USPTO Patent Grant XML for Patent 12,194,434, issued January 14, 2025, showing "Richard C. Litman" on Line 74, and the XML for Patent 12,201,650, issued January 21, 2025, showing "Joshua B. Goldberg" on Line 74. You switched the name in that one-week period, correct? Exhibit: Patent Grant XML, both patents
Q56. What event occurred between January 14 and January 21, 2025 that caused you to stop using Mr. Litman's name and start using your own?
Q57. Prior to that switchover, for the entire period from June 15, 2020 through January 14, 2025, you had the ability to change the attorney name on Line 74 at any time, correct?
Follow-Up Trap
The switchover proves he had the ability to control the name all along. If he could change it in January 2025, he could have changed it in June 2020. The answer to "what happened?" is either the lawsuit or its anticipation — consciousness of wrongdoing.
RFA #7 — Fees Collected (Q58–62)
"Admitted that Defendant's firm collected fees in connection with patent prosecution matters on which Plaintiff's name appeared as attorney of record."
— Goldberg RFA #7 Response, Feb 17, 2026
Q58. You admitted in RFA Number 7 that your firm collected fees on matters where Mr. Litman's name appeared as attorney of record. What was the total amount of fees collected between June 15, 2020 and the present?
Q59. I am showing you a trust account summary showing $32.7 million in trust account activity. Is that figure consistent with your understanding? Exhibit: Trust Ledger Summary
Q60. Of that amount, how much was paid or credited to Mr. Litman?
Q61. Did any client ever request that Mr. Litman personally handle their matter based on seeing his name on prior patents?
Q62. Would you have been able to collect the same fees from KFU, KSU, and other clients if your name, rather than Mr. Litman's, had appeared as attorney of record from 2020 onward?
Follow-Up Trap
If yes (same fees), why didn't he switch the name? If no, he admits Litman's name had independent commercial value — the "advertising" element of Section 51.
RFA #8 — Customer Number 37833 (Q63–67)
"Admitted that Customer Number 37833 is associated with 'Richard C. Litman' and 'Nath, Goldberg & Meyer' in USPTO records."
— Goldberg RFA #8 Response, Feb 17, 2026
Q63. Who has the authority to change the name associated with a USPTO Customer Number?
Q64. Between June 15, 2020 and January 2025, did you take any steps to disassociate Mr. Litman's name from Customer Number 37833?
Q65. Every time a Power of Attorney appointing Customer Number 37833 was filed, all official correspondence for that application would be addressed to "Richard C. Litman, Nath, Goldberg & Meyer" — is that correct?
Q66. I am showing you a Notice of Allowance addressed to "Richard C. Litman" at your firm's address. This was generated because Customer Number 37833 was appointed via a Power of Attorney you signed, correct? Exhibit: Notice of Allowance
Q67. How many patent applications were associated with Customer Number 37833 as of January 2025?
CN-24396 — Nicola Pizza (Q67A–67E)
Background
The Amendment transferred two USPTO Customer Numbers: 37833 (patent correspondence) and 24396 (Nicola Pizza trademark correspondence). CN-24396 was confirmed as the Nicola Pizza trademark routing number on April 10, 2026. This extends the Customer Number liability chain from patents into trademarks — the same mechanism (Customer Number bearing Litman's name) operated across both practice areas.
Q67A. The Amendment transfers Customer Numbers 24396 and 37833. What is Customer Number 24396 used for?
Q67B. Customer Number 24396 is Nicola Pizza's trademark routing, correct? How long was Nicola Pizza Mr. Litman's client?
Q67C. After the Amendment, who filed trademark renewals for Nicola Pizza — and under whose name?
Q67D. The most recent Nicola Pizza filing was July 2, 2025 — was it under Mr. Litman's name? Exhibit: Nicola Pizza trademark filing, July 2, 2025
Q67E. Were the $9,520 in Nicola Pizza trust receipts from December 2024 through January 2025 credited to Mr. Litman's 20%?
Follow-Up Trap
CN-24396 proves the Amendment's Customer Number transfer was not limited to patents — it encompassed trademarks too. If Goldberg claims CN-37833 was "a function of the Customer Number system," the same excuse must cover CN-24396, meaning he is admitting the Amendment gave him control over both Litman-named Customer Numbers. The $9,520 trust receipt question forces him to either confirm Litman was credited (proving ongoing financial obligation) or admit he was not (proving diversion).
RFA #9 — Website (Q68–72)
"Admitted that Plaintiff's name and biographical information appeared on the firm's website, nathlaw.com, during some portion of the period after June 15, 2020. Defendant denies that he personally controlled the content of the website."
— Goldberg RFA #9 Response, Feb 17, 2026
Q68. I am showing you a Wayback Machine capture from June 21, 2025 showing "RICHARD C. LITMAN, PATENT ATTORNEY" on the professionals page. Was Mr. Litman actively practicing as a patent attorney at your firm as of June 2025? Exhibit: Wayback Machine capture, June 21, 2025
Q69. You say you did not "personally control" the website. Who did control the content of nathlaw.com?
Q70. I am showing you a second capture from September 5, 2025, where Mr. Litman has been completely removed. Who authorized Mr. Litman's removal? Exhibit: Wayback Machine capture, Sept. 5, 2025
Q71. The lawsuit was filed on July 21, 2025. Mr. Litman's name was still on the website as of June 21 and was removed by September 5. Was his name removed because of this lawsuit?
Q72. During the period Mr. Litman's name appeared on nathlaw.com, did any prospective client contact the firm after viewing Mr. Litman's profile page?
RFA #10 — POA Signatures (Q73–77)
"Defendant objects to this request as vague and overbroad. Subject to and without waiving said objections, Defendant admits that he signed certain Powers of Attorney in connection with patent prosecution matters handled by the firm."
— Goldberg RFA #10 Response, Feb 17, 2026
Q73. I am showing you Exhibits [__] through [__], which are sixteen Powers of Attorney, each bearing your electronic signature "/Joshua B. Goldberg/" with Registration Number 44126. Do you recognize your signature on each of these? Exhibit: 16 POAs
Q74. For each of these sixteen Powers of Attorney, you were appointing Customer Number 37833, which you have already admitted is associated with "Richard C. Litman" — correct?
Q75. The most recent of these Powers of Attorney is dated January 17, 2025. As of that date, did you have Mr. Litman's consent to file a Power of Attorney associating his name with a new patent application?
Q76. Your objection called this request "vague and overbroad." You signed sixteen POAs — can you identify which of these sixteen you believe were outside the scope of the request?
Q77. I am showing you a professional liability insurance application dated July 6, 2021, which you signed, listing Mr. Litman as "Of Counsel." On that same date, were you signing Powers of Attorney using Mr. Litman's name without his knowledge? Exhibit: Professional liability insurance application, July 6, 2021
Follow-Up Trap
The insurance application proves Goldberg held Litman out as affiliated with the firm while simultaneously using his name on patent filings. Q73-Q74 form a closed loop: RFA #10 (signed POAs) + RFA #8 (CN-37833 = Litman) + RFA #2 (denies causing) = three sworn statements that cannot coexist.
Deposition Bomb: "Purely as a Courtesy"
The Setup
Goldberg's BOP response (Feb 26, 2026) describes including Litman's name on patent front pages as "purely as a courtesy." Nine days earlier, his RFA #7 response (Feb 17, 2026) claimed the Combination Agreements are contractual authority for the name listings. These positions are mutually exclusive.
This contradiction should be deployed at the very end of the Goldberg deposition, after all other topics are locked in. The sequence:
- First: Read the RFA #7 response claiming contractual basis. Have him confirm.
- Second: Walk through the Combination Agreement word by word — no "consent," no "goodwill," no "Power of Attorney."
- Third: Read the BOP response: "purely as a courtesy."
- Fourth: Ask: "Mr. Goldberg, which is it? Was this a contractual right or a courtesy? Because you took both positions under oath within nine days."
Why This Is Devastating
If contractual — produce the contract clause. It does not exist. If courtesy — it was voluntary and unauthorized. If he tries a third explanation, he has now taken three inconsistent positions under oath. No answer helps him.
PI Opposition Admissions (EDNY, Oct 10, 2025)
In the federal case (Litman v. Nath, 1:25-cv-04048, EDNY), Goldberg's own counsel made five judicial admissions in a signed court filing opposing Litman's preliminary injunction:
- Name use was a deliberate "practice"
- Applied to "filings and client communications"
- Motivated by "the revenue share"
- "In both parties' financial interest"
- NGM "agreed" to continue listing Litman "because of the parties' agreement to share revenue"
These are judicial admissions made through counsel in a federal filing. They cannot be withdrawn. They confirm the commercial purpose (motivation by revenue), the deliberate nature (a "practice"), and the scope (filings AND client communications).
Deposition Use
Confront Goldberg with each admission. Ask: "Your attorney filed this statement in federal court. Is it true?" If yes, liability is conceded on commercial purpose. If he disavows his own attorney's federal filing, his credibility is destroyed.
Duration: 4 hours
Topics: 5 + closing
Questions: 48
Priority: High
Witness Profile
Martha Long is a non-party witness who worked closely with Litman for decades. She is not a defendant and may be sympathetic. Approach with respect — she is a fact witness whose testimony locks in Goldberg's directives. Every answer she gives becomes impeachment material for Goldberg's deposition.
Topic A: "27 Years" Solicitations (Q1–16)
Purpose: Establish that Long used a template referencing Litman's name and 27-year tenure to solicit prospective clients, and determine whether Goldberg directed this.
Q1. Ms. Long, how long have you worked at Nath, Goldberg & Meyer?
Q2. And you worked directly with Richard Litman during his time at the firm?
Q3. For how many years did you work with Mr. Litman?
Q4. When did Mr. Litman stop actively working at the firm?
Q5. After Mr. Litman stopped working, did your job responsibilities change?
Q6. Did you send emails to prospective clients on behalf of the firm?
Q7. I'm showing you an email you sent to Dr. Al-Harbi. Do you recognize this email? Exhibit: Long email to Al-Harbi
Q8. Please read the highlighted sentence.
"I have worked with Richard Litman for 27 years and he is one of the best patent attorneys I know."
— Martha Long, email to Dr. Al-Harbi
Q9. At the time you sent this email, was Mr. Litman actively working at the firm?
Q10. Why did you reference Mr. Litman's name in a solicitation email if he was not actively working?
Q11. I'm showing you a second email with the same language, this one to Dr. Lateri. Exhibit: Long email to Lateri
Q12. And a third to Dr. Won. Exhibit: Long email to Won
Q13. So this was standard language you used in multiple emails. Would you call it a template?
Q14. Who created this template — did you write it yourself, or did someone instruct you to use this language?
Q15. Did Mr. Goldberg review or approve these solicitation emails before you sent them?
Q16. Did Mr. Litman ever give you permission to use his name in soliciting new clients?
Follow-Up Trap
If Long says she acted independently, it still establishes the firm's unauthorized use. If she says Goldberg directed it, that is direct evidence of his personal liability. Either answer advances the case.
Topic B: Document Forwarding (Q17–25)
Purpose: Establish the volume of correspondence sent under Litman's name and Long's role as the conduit.
Q17. As part of your duties, did you send emails and documents to clients on behalf of the firm?
Q18. Were you responsible for forwarding patent office correspondence to King Faisal University?
Q19. Our records indicate approximately 19,701 emails mention kfu@4patent.com (Source: EMAIL_METADATA_ND0001.csv + EMAIL_METADATA_ND0002.csv; any-field count of From/To/CC). Does that volume sound consistent with your experience? Exhibit: Email volume analysis — KFU correspondence
Q20. When you forwarded USPTO documents to KFU, whose name appeared on those documents as attorney of record?
Q21. Did KFU contacts ever ask about Mr. Litman's availability or involvement?
Q22. What did you tell them?
Q23. Did you forward office action responses, filing receipts, and notices of allowance that bore Mr. Litman's name?
Q24. Did you understand that these documents represented Mr. Litman as the actively practicing attorney?
Q25. Who was actually performing the patent prosecution work reflected in these documents?
Follow-Up Trap
If she says "Mr. Goldberg" or "the firm," establish that documents bearing Litman's name were being forwarded to clients for work Goldberg was performing. This is the essence of unauthorized use — Litman's name on someone else's work product.
Topic C: Knowledge of Status (Q26–31)
Purpose: Establish that firm personnel knew Litman was not actively working, contradicting any claim that his name use was "incidental."
Q26. Are you familiar with Tanya Harkins at the firm?
Q27. Did Ms. Harkins ever make a statement about Mr. Litman's status at the firm?
"He doesn't work here anymore."
— Tanya Harkins, regarding Richard Litman
Q28. When did Ms. Harkins make that statement, to your recollection?
Q29. Was it common knowledge within the firm that Mr. Litman was no longer actively working?
Q30. Despite this knowledge, did the firm continue to file documents and send correspondence bearing Mr. Litman's name?
Q31. Did anyone at the firm ever discuss whether it was appropriate to continue using Mr. Litman's name?
Topic D: October 8, 2025 Meeting (Q32–39)
Purpose: Establish what Goldberg communicated to staff after the lawsuit was filed — potential evidence of consciousness of guilt.
Q32. Were you present at a meeting on or about October 8, 2025?
Q33. Who called that meeting?
Q34. Who else attended?
Q35. What was the stated purpose of the meeting?
Q36. Did Mr. Goldberg discuss the lawsuit filed by Mr. Litman?
Q37. Did Mr. Goldberg give any instructions about how to handle documents or correspondence going forward?
Q38. Did Mr. Goldberg give any instructions about Mr. Litman's name on the website or marketing materials?
Q39. Were you instructed to preserve or destroy any documents?
Follow-Up Trap
Any instruction to stop using Litman's name is an admission that the prior use was unauthorized. Any instruction to destroy documents triggers spoliation concerns. Either outcome benefits the case.
Topic E: POA Processing (Q40–46)
Purpose: Establish the mechanical process by which POAs bearing Litman's name were prepared and filed — and Goldberg's directive role.
Q40. Were you involved in preparing Powers of Attorney for filing with the USPTO?
Q41. Can you describe the process: who decided which attorney's name would go on a POA?
Q42. I'm showing you a directive from Mr. Goldberg dated June 19, 2023 — five days after the arbitration decision. Do you recognize this? Exhibit: Goldberg directive, June 19, 2023
Q43. What instructions did this directive contain regarding POA filings?
Q44. After this directive, did the firm continue to file POAs listing Richard Litman as attorney of record?
Q45. How many POAs listing Mr. Litman's name would you estimate were filed after this directive?
Q46. Did Mr. Litman personally sign any of these POAs, or were they signed by others on his behalf?
Closing (Q47–48)
Q47. Ms. Long, did Richard Litman ever give you written permission to use his name in soliciting clients or in any firm communications after he stopped working?
Q48. To your knowledge, did Richard Litman give anyone at the firm written permission to continue using his name after June 15, 2020?
End State
Long's testimony establishes: (1) she used a template invoking Litman's name, (2) the firm knew he was gone, (3) Goldberg directed continued operations under Litman's name, (4) no written consent existed. All of this is locked in before Goldberg sits.
Duration: 3 hours
Topics: 6 + closing
Questions: 52
Priority: Important
Witness Profile
Kline is a trademark attorney who was systematically CC'd on 91% of all Litman trademark correspondence (2,678 emails). He sent his own "concerns" email about the "new arrangement" — evidence he understood something was wrong. He is a fact witness who can establish the trademark category of unauthorized name use and corroborate the pattern of using Litman's name post-departure.
Topic A: 91% CC Rate (Q1–12)
Purpose: Establish that Kline was receiving virtually all Litman trademark correspondence, meaning he knew Litman's name was being used and was positioned to perform the underlying work.
Q1. Mr. Kline, you are an attorney at Nath, Goldberg & Meyer, correct?
Q2. What is your area of practice?
Q3. Did you work with Richard Litman on trademark matters?
Q4. Were you regularly copied on emails sent to or from Mr. Litman regarding trademark work?
Q5. Our analysis of firm email records shows that you were CC'd on approximately 2,678 trademark-related emails involving Mr. Litman — representing a 91% copy rate. Does that sound consistent with your experience? Exhibit: Email analysis — 2,678 trademark emails, 91% CC to Kline
Q6. Why were you copied on such a high percentage of Mr. Litman's trademark correspondence?
Q7. Was there a point at which you began receiving these emails instead of Mr. Litman rather than in addition to him?
Q8. When did that transition occur?
Q9. After Mr. Litman stopped actively working, who was performing the trademark work that had previously been done under his name?
Q10. Were clients informed that Mr. Litman was no longer handling their trademark matters?
Q11. Did correspondence to clients continue to reference Mr. Litman's name?
Q12. Who directed that Mr. Litman's name continue to be used in trademark correspondence?
Follow-Up Trap
The 91% CC rate proves Kline was the shadow attorney. If he says clients were told about the switch, demand evidence of those notifications. If he says they weren't told, that's concealment.
Topic B: Nicola Pizza (Q13–23)
Purpose: Use Nicola Pizza as a concrete case study of a client who believed Litman was handling their trademark work when he was not.
Q13. Are you familiar with Nicola Pizza as a client of the firm?
Q14. What trademark work did the firm perform for Nicola Pizza?
Q15. Who at the firm was the original point of contact for Nicola Pizza trademark matters?
Q16. I'm showing you an email from Poppiti, an attorney representing Nicola Pizza, sent to Richard Litman. Exhibit: Poppiti email to Litman regarding Nicola Pizza
Q17. This email was sent after June 15, 2020, correct?
Q18. Was Mr. Litman actively handling Nicola Pizza matters at that time?
Q19. Who actually responded to this inquiry?
Q20. Was the response sent under Mr. Litman's name?
Q21. Are you aware of trust ledger entries for Nicola Pizza? Exhibit: Trust ledger — Nicola Pizza
Q22. Whose name appears on the trust account for Nicola Pizza matters?
Q23. So Nicola Pizza's attorney believed he was communicating with Richard Litman, the trust account bore Litman's name, but the work was actually being performed by someone else. Is that accurate?
Follow-Up Trap
Nicola Pizza is the perfect microcosm: outside counsel (Poppiti) contacts Litman by name, trust account in Litman's name, work performed by others. If Kline admits any of this, it is a textbook § 51 commercial use of another's name.
Topic C: "New Arrangement" (Q24–31)
Purpose: Confront Kline with his own email expressing concerns about the arrangement — proving he knew something was wrong.
Q24. Mr. Kline, I'm showing you an email you sent in which you express concerns about what you called a "new arrangement." Do you recognize this email? Exhibit: Kline "new arrangement" concerns email
Q25. What was the "new arrangement" you were referring to?
Q26. What specifically concerned you about it?
Q27. Did your concerns relate to the use of Mr. Litman's name on work he was not performing?
Q28. Who did you communicate these concerns to?
Q29. Did Mr. Goldberg respond to your concerns?
Q30. Were any changes made as a result of your concerns?
Q31. Did the firm continue using Mr. Litman's name on trademark matters despite your expressed concerns?
Follow-Up Trap
Kline's own "concerns" email is devastating: it proves a firm insider recognized the arrangement was problematic. If he softens his concerns now, impeach with the email's plain language. If he confirms the concerns, it corroborates Litman's entire theory.
Topic D: Other Clients (Q32–37)
Purpose: Expand beyond Nicola Pizza to show a pattern across multiple clients.
Q32. Besides Nicola Pizza, what other clients did you handle trademark work for that had originally been Mr. Litman's clients?
Q33. I'm showing you correspondence from the Dakota Attorney General's office referencing "Litman Law Office." Were you involved in this matter? Exhibit: Dakota AG correspondence to "Litman Law Office"
Q34. Who was actually performing the work the Dakota AG attributed to "Litman Law Office"?
Q35. Our records flag three additional client matters with similar patterns. Can you identify which of these you worked on? Exhibit: 3 FLAGS analysis — additional trademark client matters
Q36. For each of these matters, was client correspondence sent under Mr. Litman's name?
Q37. Were any of these clients notified that Mr. Litman was no longer their attorney?
Topic E: Filing Patterns (Q38–42)
Purpose: Establish that trademark filings continued under Litman's name well past his departure, including recent evidence.
Q38. Were trademark applications or renewals filed with the USPTO under Mr. Litman's name after June 15, 2020?
Q39. Who prepared those filings?
Q40. Who reviewed and approved them before submission?
Q41. I'm showing you an auto-reply email from July 2025 referencing Mr. Litman. Exhibit: July 2025 auto-reply email
Q42. As of July 2025 — more than five years after Mr. Litman's departure — firm systems were still sending automated responses referencing his name. Who maintained these systems?
Follow-Up Trap
The July 2025 auto-reply is powerful: it shows the firm's systems were configured to use Litman's name, meaning the unauthorized use was institutional, not accidental. Someone set up those auto-replies and no one changed them for 5+ years.
Topic F: Knowledge (Q43–49)
Purpose: Establish what Kline knew about Litman's status and the propriety of continued name use.
Q43. When did you first become aware that Mr. Litman was no longer actively practicing at the firm?
Q44. How did you learn this?
Q45. After learning Mr. Litman was no longer active, did you continue to work on matters bearing his name?
Q46. Did you believe Mr. Litman had consented to the continued use of his name?
Q47. What was the basis for that belief?
Q48. Did you ever see a written authorization from Mr. Litman permitting the use of his name?
Q49. Did anyone at the firm — Mr. Goldberg, Ms. Long, or anyone else — ever show you written consent from Mr. Litman?
Closing (Q50–52)
Q50. Mr. Kline, across all the trademark matters we have discussed today, can you identify any instance where Mr. Litman gave written permission for his name to be used?
Q51. You expressed concerns about the "new arrangement" in your own email. Sitting here today, do you believe Mr. Litman's name was used appropriately?
Q52. Is there anything else you can tell us about how Mr. Litman's name was used at the firm after his departure that we have not covered today?
End State
Kline's testimony establishes: (1) he was the shadow trademark attorney, (2) clients believed Litman was handling their work, (3) he himself recognized the arrangement was problematic, (4) no written consent existed. His "concerns" email is a contemporaneous admission from inside the firm.
The following traps are designed to be set in earlier depositions and sprung in later ones. This is why deposition order matters: Kline first, then Long, then Goldberg.
Trap 1: "Who Decided Which Name?"
Ask Kline (Q12): "Who directed that Mr. Litman's name continue to be used in trademark correspondence?"
Ask Long (Q41): "Who decided which attorney's name would go on a POA?"
Confront Goldberg (Q10): "Who made the decision about which attorney's name would appear on Line 74?"
Why it works: If all three point to Goldberg, his denial in the Answer (¶33) is destroyed by three witnesses. If they give inconsistent answers, Goldberg cannot explain the discrepancy.
Trap 2: "Written Consent"
Ask Kline (Q48): "Did you ever see a written authorization from Mr. Litman?"
Ask Long (Q47): "Did Mr. Litman ever give you written permission?"
Confront Goldberg (Q45): "Can you identify any written consent from Mr. Litman?"
Why it works: Three witnesses all confirming no written consent existed destroys Affirmative Defense #10. Goldberg cannot then produce a document that his own employees say they never saw.
Trap 3: "Knowledge of Departure"
Ask Kline (Q43): "When did you first become aware Mr. Litman was no longer actively practicing?"
Ask Long (Q4 & Q29): "When did Mr. Litman stop?" + Harkins "he doesn't work here anymore"
Confront Goldberg: If he claims Litman was still "involved," two witnesses say otherwise.
Why it works: Establishes firm-wide knowledge of Litman's absence, making continued name use knowing and willful — relevant to statutory damages under § 51.
Trap 4: "The Template"
Ask Long (Q14): "Who created this template — did you write it, or did someone instruct you?"
Confront Goldberg (Q24-25): "Who authorized the use of Richard Litman's name in soliciting clients?"
Why it works: If Long says Goldberg directed it, he cannot deny it. If Long says she acted alone, Goldberg as managing partner had a duty to supervise. The trap catches him either way.
Trap 5: "The October Meeting"
Ask Long (Q32-39): Full account of the October 8, 2025 meeting — who said what, what instructions were given.
Confront Goldberg: Present Long's locked-in testimony and demand his version.
Why it works: Any instruction to stop using Litman's name is an admission the prior use was unauthorized. If Goldberg denies the meeting happened, Long's testimony contradicts him. If he confirms it, he admits consciousness of wrongdoing.
Trap 6: "The Concerns Email"
Ask Kline (Q24-31): Lock in his full account of what "concerns" he had and who he communicated them to.
Confront Goldberg: "Your own colleague expressed concerns about using Mr. Litman's name. What did you do about those concerns?"
Why it works: Goldberg either ignored internal warnings (reckless) or addressed them and continued anyway (willful). Either supports enhanced damages.
Overall Deposition Strategy
Every deposition ends with the same question: "Can you identify written consent?" Three witnesses, three "no" answers, one destroyed affirmative defense. The cross-deposition traps ensure that Goldberg walks into a room where every key fact has already been established by his own employees. His only options are to agree (liability) or contradict them (credibility destruction).
Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025 — NY Sup. Ct., Kings County
Depositions due by June 2, 2026 — Updated March 28, 2026
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT