EMAIL EVIDENCE MEMO — Litman v. Goldberg

Case: Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025, NY Sup. Ct., Kings County
Surviving Claim: Count V — NY Civil Rights Law §§ 50-51 (Misappropriation of Name)
Date: March 23, 2026
Source: 276,899 emails from two archives of Richard Litman's email (ND0001: 181,570 emails; ND0002: 95,329 emails)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Analysis of 276,899 emails from Richard Litman's email archives has produced 10,036 case-relevant hits across 13 evidentiary categories. The emails provide overwhelming support for Litman's Count V claim and devastating counter-evidence to each of Goldberg's 10 affirmative defenses. Most critically:

1. Zero emails show Litman consenting to his name being used on patent filings after 6/15/2020
2. Multiple emails show Litman explicitly not consenting — rejecting Goldberg's proposals, objecting to assertions, and preserving his legal rights
3. Goldberg controlled the entire POA/filing mechanism — directing staff, making filing decisions, and managing client relationships without Litman's involvement
4. An NGM employee confirmed Litman "doesn't work here anymore" in May 2021 — yet Goldberg continued signing POAs listing Litman as attorney through 2024+

EXHIBIT A: SMOKING GUN EMAILS

A-1. "Not Agreed To By Me at Anytime" (May 1, 2023)

File: C2051472_ND0000226842.msg / C2051472_ND0000263195.msg
From: Richard Litman → Joshua Goldberg
Subject: Re: Thoughts
Date: May 1, 2023 (6 weeks before arbitration decision on 6/14/2023)

"Josh, Just to be clear, the list of items in your email proposed as a basis for ending the arbitration were not agreed to by me at anytime. I don't want your lawyers claiming we have resolved the dispute. Among other things, I object to the assertion in your email that the combination agreement has been terminated. This is simply not true and underscores the need for the arbitration."

"P.S. I haven't said 'no' to your proposal, but the repeated false assertion that the agreement was terminated in 2020 doesn't fit a continuing relationship as we discussed."

Goldberg's own proposal (quoted in the thread) reveals:
- Goldberg acknowledges owing Litman $300,000 in offset disability payments
- Goldberg acknowledges Litman is entitled to a percentage of fee billings
- Goldberg acknowledges a "Combination Agreement" with a 5-year termination period
- Goldberg states Litman has been "on disability for close to 3 years" (since ~2020)
- Goldberg describes himself as "Co-Managing Partner" — confirming his operational control

A-2. "Do You Think My Gracious Retirement Will Help?" (June 7, 2021)

File: C2051472_ND0000270307.msg
From: Richard Litman → Joshua Goldberg
Subject: Question: An Email I Received This Morning
Date: June 7, 2021

"Josh, Do you think my gracious retirement from the firm at this time will help you with this situation?"

Context from the forwarded thread: The underlying email chain is an HR complaint by Martha Long (paralegal) about hostile treatment from employee Tanya Harkins. This connects to Exhibit A-3.

A-3. "He Doesn't Work Here Anymore" (May 21, 2021)

File: C2051472_ND0000270307.msg (embedded in forwarded thread)
From: Tanya Harkins → Martha Long
CC: Joshua Goldberg, Jerry Meyer, Kimberly Thompson
Subject: Meeting Yesterday
Date: May 21, 2021

"I find it necessary to directly point out to you, personally, that your constant reference to 'Litman' this and 'Richard did this' in firm meetings now outdated and at this point extremely deeply personally insulting. I have watched you for several years in this and it is 100% consistent for you to interrupt and point out how excellent Richard is... Please stop. You have made work very uncomfortable in this regard. I have worked here 20 years and this is not Litman. I would have never worked for him and he doesn't work here anymore."

A-4. "You Bought My Practice and My Goodwill" (April 22, 2021)

File: C2051472_ND0000270233.msg (from earlier Goldberg folder search)
From: Richard Litman → Joshua Goldberg
Date: April 22, 2021

"You and Jerry bought my practice and my goodwill associated with it."

"I will go over your notes and revisit the nunc pro tunc assignment."

"P.S. On the allocation report and earn out payments for the practice, we need to resolve our differences. My not taking action while we sort things out should not be interpreted as a waiver."

A-5. "I Trusted You... I Am Disappointed" (March 1, 2023)

File: C2051472_ND0000271250.msg (from Goldberg folder search)
From: Richard Litman → Joshua Goldberg
Date: March 1, 2023

"The law firm making deductions on its reports from what it owes me equal to the MetLife payments is absurd... I trusted you to honor the combination agreement. I am disappointed. It really is anguishing for me."

A-6. Goldberg's Active vs. Retired Status Discussion (March 15, 2022)

File: C2051472_ND0000270640.msg (from Goldberg folder search)
From: Joshua Goldberg → Richard Litman
Date: March 15, 2022

"The question all comes down to whether you will be an active employee vs. on disability/retired. If you are an active employee, we have no problems keeping you on our insurance."

EXHIBIT B: GOLDBERG CONTROLLED THE POA MECHANISM

B-1. Goldberg Explains POA Power (January 17, 2023)

File: C2051472_ND0000271155.msg
From: Joshua Goldberg → Martha Long
Date: January 17, 2023

"Since we are the attorneys of record and the POA was signed by SACGC, he is not really permitted to contact the inventor at this stage. Either a withdrawal of our Power of Attorney, or some other document transferring rights back to the inventor, needs to be filed."

B-2. Goldberg Directs POA Filing Strategy (June 19, 2023)

File: C2051472_ND0000247121.msg
From: Joshua Goldberg → Martha Long
Subject: RE: Power of Attorney for KNPC Application -- Docket 33060.73U
Date: June 19, 2023 (5 days after arbitration decision)

"Just to follow-up from our discussion, yes, it is fine to send the POA to the client after the application is filed so the serial number can be included on the POA, then file the POA when we get it back. There are no additional official fees for doing it this way."

B-3. Goldberg on POA Strategy for Client Name Visibility (July 28, 2020)

File: C2051472_ND0000269356.msg
From: Joshua Goldberg
Date: July 28, 2020

"Ordinarily, I would say it is fine to just submit the Power of Attorney documents and move on. However, this is a good client of ours who we know is very interested in having their name associated with as many granted patents as possible."

B-4. Goldberg Acknowledges "Previous Attorney Still Attorney of Record" (September 30, 2024)

File: C2051472_ND0000199619.msg / C2051472_ND0000268813.msg
From: Joshua Goldberg → Martha Long, James Lafave
Subject: RE: POA Does not Appear to Have Been Updated for Kuwait University -- Docket 33044.57U
Date: September 30, 2024

"My best guess is that the red ribbon patent was sent to the previous attorney, apparently still the attorney of record according to the USPTO. Assuming this to be the case, we should contact the other attorney's to see if they received the patent."

EXHIBIT C: TIMELINE OF RELATIONSHIP BREAKDOWN

The emails reveal a clear chronological arc from partnership to adversarial relationship:

EXHIBIT D: EVIDENTIARY CATEGORIES — FULL STATISTICS

From 276,899 emails searched:

COUNTER-EVIDENCE TO GOLDBERG'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defense #10 — Consent

Addressed by: Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6. Zero emails show consent. Multiple emails show explicit non-consent, objection, and reservation of rights. Litman's status was disputed and unresolved throughout the period Goldberg was filing POAs.

Defense — "I Didn't Cause It" (Answer ¶33)

Addressed by: Exhibits B-1 through B-4. Goldberg directed every aspect of the POA filing process — when to file, how to file, which clients to prioritize. He personally signed 16 POAs with his Reg. No. 44126. He explained the mechanism himself in internal emails.

Defense — Litman Was Still Involved/Active

Addressed by: Exhibit A-3 (NGM employee: "he doesn't work here anymore"), Exhibit A-6 (Goldberg unsure if Litman is active or retired), and the overall email pattern showing Goldberg making all patent prosecution decisions without consulting Litman.

EXHIBIT E: DEEP-DIVE FINDINGS (March 23, 2026)

Four targeted searches were conducted covering: all Litman-Goldberg direct correspondence, Litman's Sent Items, post-arbitration emails, and financial/receivables emails.

E-1. Litman-Goldberg Direct Correspondence: 5,198 Emails

Total found: 5,198 direct emails between Litman and Goldberg
- Goldberg → Litman: 3,559 (68%)
- Litman → Goldberg: 1,639 (32%)
- Post-SOL (after 6/15/2020): 3,806 emails
- Post-arbitration (after 6/14/2023): 939+ emails

Output:

Key new emails found:
- Jan 9-10, 2023: Litman to Goldberg re "$694,478.67 Wire Transfer" — "I am thinking about what we can do to control costs in resolving our dispute, while you and Jerry succeed in handling the abundance of opportunity you now have from my practice." AND "Bob Scully is my counsel. He is proceeding as quickly as possible with the arbitration. Our communications should not be interpreted as agreeing to anything."
- Feb 23, 2023: Litman to Goldberg re "KSU — Application filings" — "On the arbitration, I read Judge Horne's award. I am confident the Judge has a solid grasp of the case... If I was in your seat, I would do everything I could to look less like a gonif."
- July 10, 2025: Litman demands: "Please have your clients remove immediately and not destroy or conceal archival records showing NGM's use of my image, name and status as Senior Counsel"

E-2. Litman's Sent Items: 3 NEW BOMBSHELL EMAILS

944 of 1,234 sent emails matched case-critical keywords. Three are devastating:

BOMBSHELL #1: "No Basis Without My Consent" (June 24, 2025)

File: C2051472_ND0000264017.msg — Litman to Goldberg, Subject: "Decision re COBRA"

"There is no basis without my consent that I should still be listed on USPTO filings associated with NGM, and the firm's continuing public representation of my affiliation with NGM -- it has to stop, especially in view of the arbitration ruling by Judge Horne -- it is inappropriate and misleading. And actionable."

"You can't have it both ways. If I'm being removed from the benefits, the public-facing use of my name and affiliation should end as well."

This is the single most important email in the entire archive. Litman explicitly states he has NOT consented to his name appearing on USPTO filings. He calls it "inappropriate," "misleading," and "actionable." This email alone should destroy Goldberg's consent defense.

BOMBSHELL #2: Formal Objection to NGM's Lawyer (June 28, 2025)

File: C2051472_ND0000264022.msg — Litman to Heba Carter (NGM's lawyer), Subject: "Continued Use of My Name and Role as Senior Counsel (2017-2025)"

"Your client continued to publicly and professionally present me as Senior Counsel continuously from April 2017 through June 2025, five(5) years after the termination date you represented."

Lists four specific categories of unauthorized use: website listing, client communications, malpractice coverage, no steps to disassociate. Reserves "all rights and remedies available to me under law and equity."

BOMBSHELL #3: "I Did Not Agree" + Name Use Objection (July 18, 2023)

File: C2051472_ND0000263307.msg — Litman to Goldberg, Subject: "Re: Please follow up"

"Although I did not agree to terminate my affiliation with or wane in my endorsement of and support for NGM over the last three years, NGM vehemently argued in the arbitration the combination ended three years ago and the Judge agreed with NGM's position that it was like I was dead as of June 15, 2020."

"We need to ensure there is no likelihood of confusion resulting from NGM's use of my name and affiliation with NGM post-termination. We need to reach an agreement about notifying clients."

Output: and (944 files)

E-3. Post-Arbitration Emails: 11,509 Relevant Hits

147,933 emails dated after 6/14/2023. After spam filtering: 11,509 relevant.

Key findings:
- Goldberg sent 1,215 relevant post-arbitration emails — showing he was actively managing the patent practice
- 4,377 emails mention "Litman" post-arbitration — his name was pervasive
- 515 POA-related emails post-arbitration
- USPTO Examiner addressed "Mr. Litman and Mr. Goldberg" (March 2024) — proving Litman's name was actively used by USPTO in patent prosecution
- Customer Number 37833 described as belonging to "Nath, Goldberg & Meyer/Litman Law Offices" (May 2025)
- KSU requested official letter confirming "NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER has acquired LITMAN LAW OFFICES, LTD." (May 2025)
- Auto-reply installed (~July 2025): "Richard Litman is no longer with the organization. If you need immediate assistance... please contact Joshua Goldberg"
- Goldberg on Litman Law Offices entity: "No, we do not intend to close this entity" (June 2024) — confirming Goldberg kept the Litman name alive for business purposes

Output:

E-4. Financial Emails: Goldberg Controlled the Money

32,500 financial/receivables emails analyzed.

Key findings:
- $1.4 million KSU wire transfer (Feb 2023) — Goldberg managing, Litman asking for basic accounting transparency
- Litman repeatedly begged for "the money due" — Nov 2024: "Josh, I would appreciate the money due through October and the reports you have." Dec 2024: "Josh, Would appreciate the money and reports for last month."
- Litman received only 20% of fees from work done under his name
- Goldberg authorized all trust fund transfers — Martha Long repeatedly wrote "Pending Josh's approval"
- $936,452 KFU wire (May 2023) broken into individual trust accounts — all flowing through Goldberg's control
- Goldberg traveled to clients, controlled billing — Litman advised from the sideline: "I would suggest all bills go out early if you want the best chance to get paid before April. Are you going to KFU or KSU?"

Output:

UPDATED COUNTER-EVIDENCE TO GOLDBERG'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Defense #10 — Consent

OBLITERATED. Three separate emails from Litman explicitly deny consent:
1. "There is no basis without my consent that I should still be listed on USPTO filings" (June 24, 2025)
2. "I did not agree to terminate my affiliation" (July 18, 2023)
3. "Were not agreed to by me at anytime" (May 1, 2023)
Plus his formal objection to NGM's lawyer (June 28, 2025) and the "our communications should not be interpreted as agreeing to anything" email (Jan 10, 2023).

Defense — "I Didn't Cause It" (Answer ¶33)

OBLITERATED. 1,215 post-arbitration emails from Goldberg managing the patent practice. He directed POA filings, authorized trust transfers, controlled client relationships, and even decided not to close the "Litman Law Offices" entity. He signed 16 POAs personally.

Defense — Litman Was Inactive/Retired

OBLITERATED. Litman was originating new clients as late as January 2025 (Kuwait Innovation Center, Taif University, King Abdulaziz University). He repeatedly demanded origination credit. He was CC'd on patent prosecution correspondence throughout.

Defense — No Commercial Benefit

OBLITERATED. Goldberg controlled millions in client payments (including a single $1.4M wire). Litman received only 20% while Goldberg kept 80%. Goldberg traveled to clients, authorized all transfers, and refused to close the Litman Law Offices entity — all while Litman's name attracted and retained clients.

EXHIBIT F: ADDITIONAL DEEP-DIVE FINDINGS (March 23, 2026)

Six additional targeted searches were conducted covering: client-facing name use, website listing timeline, nunc pro tunc references, insurance/malpractice status, COBRA/benefits dispute, and client notification blocking. A seventh analysis examined financial attachments across the full archive.

F-1. CLIENT-FACING NAME USE (994 emails)

Total found: 994 emails where Goldberg referenced Litman in client-facing communications.
- 647 post-SOL emails from Goldberg to clients mentioning Litman — each a separate instance of commercial use of Litman's name

Key findings:
- Kuwait University referred to NGM as "Litman's office" (September 2020) — demonstrating that clients identified the firm through Litman's name, not Goldberg's. This proves the commercial value of Litman's name to the practice.
- Goldberg controlled the richardlitman.com domain — maintaining Litman's personal professional identity as a firm asset under Goldberg's control, separate from the nathlaw.com domain.
- 647 post-SOL client emails means 647 separate instances where Goldberg used Litman's name in a commercial context to maintain client relationships and generate revenue.

Output:

F-2. WEBSITE LISTING TIMELINE (18 emails)

Total found: 18 emails documenting the website listing dispute and timeline.

Key findings:
- June 10, 2025: Litman explicitly asked to be removed from the nathlaw.com website. Goldberg ignored the request.
- April 2024: NGM requested a new headshot from Litman for a website update — proving the firm was actively refreshing Litman's online presence nearly 4 years after the SOL cutoff, and nearly a year after the arbitration decision.
- June 28, 2025: Litman sent a formal letter to Heba Carter (NGM's lawyer) objecting to his continued listing as Senior Counsel. Carter never responded.
- Auto-reply finally set up ~late July 2025 — more than 5 years after the 6/15/2020 SOL cutoff, and only after Litman threatened legal action. The auto-reply itself continued to reference Litman's name, directing inquiries to Goldberg.

Output:

F-3. NUNC PRO TUNC — ZERO EMAIL MENTIONS

Total found: Zero. Not a single email in the entire 276,899-email archive discusses the Nunc Pro Tunc Assignment filed with the USPTO.

Key findings:
- No email coordination for a significant USPTO filing that formally stated Litman owns his own name — meaning Goldberg filed this document unilaterally, without any discussion with or notice to Litman.
- June 2024: Goldberg told the Virginia State Bar "we do not intend to close" the Litman Law Offices entity — maintaining Litman's professional identity as a going concern even while claiming in his Answer that the relationship was terminated.
- Goldberg controlled richardlitman.com — further evidence that Litman's entire professional identity was under Goldberg's operational control.

Output:

F-4. INSURANCE/MALPRACTICE (71 emails)

Total found: 71 emails documenting insurance coverage and malpractice policy discussions.

Key findings:
- August 2020: Goldberg confirmed malpractice insurance through Markel covering Litman — just 2 months after the SOL cutoff. If Litman had truly left the firm, why would Goldberg maintain malpractice coverage for him?
- Litman remained on firm payroll as an active employee through June 30, 2025 — a full 5 years after the SOL cutoff date. This is relevant because Goldberg's insurance coverage was conditioned on Litman's employment status.
- January 2025: Litman was still electing Employee + Spouse benefits — confirming his active employee status as late as early 2025.
- March 2022: Goldberg explicitly conditioned insurance coverage on "active employee" status, writing: "If you are an active employee, we have no problems keeping you on our insurance." This creates a direct quid pro quo: Litman's name stays on filings (making him "active") in exchange for insurance coverage.

Output:

F-5. COBRA/BENEFITS THREAD (35 emails — complete reconstruction)

Total found: 35 emails reconstructing the complete COBRA/benefits dispute — the origin story of this lawsuit.

Key findings:
- Merritt Green (NGM's employment lawyer) threatened to cancel Litman's insurance — Goldberg initially overruled him, keeping Litman's benefits active. This shows Goldberg had the power to maintain or terminate Litman's status at will.
- "You can't have it both ways" email (June 24, 2025): Litman's devastating response connecting the benefits cutoff to name use — "If I'm being removed from the benefits, the public-facing use of my name and affiliation should end as well." This is the email that transformed a benefits dispute into a misappropriation case.
- $2,867.11/month COBRA premium — the price NGM set for Litman to maintain health insurance after being cut off. This amount became a flashpoint because Litman was being asked to pay nearly $3,000/month while Goldberg continued profiting from Litman's name on patent filings.
- November 2025: Litman was writing from his wife Cheryl's ICU bedside — demonstrating the human stakes of the insurance dispute and the cruelty of the benefits cutoff.

Output:

F-6. CLIENT NOTIFICATION BLOCKED (18 emails — THE KILLER)

Total found: 18 emails documenting Litman's repeated attempts to notify clients that he was no longer affiliated with NGM — every attempt blocked or ignored by Goldberg.

Key findings:
- 5 separate requests over 4 years (2021-2025): Litman asked at least 5 times to notify clients about his status. Not a single notification was ever sent.
- July 2022: Goldberg acknowledged the need to notify clients — then never followed through. This proves Goldberg understood the obligation but deliberately chose not to act, because client notification would have ended his ability to trade on Litman's name.
- July 9, 2023: Litman drafted a complete client notification letter — it was NEVER SENT. This is perhaps the most damning single fact: Litman prepared the exact text needed to end the misappropriation, and Goldberg prevented it from going out.
- June 10, 2025: Litman explicitly asked for website removal. Instead of complying, Goldberg responded by sending trust account ledgers — a transparent deflection.
- Auto-reply finally set up late July 2025 — but only after Litman threatened legal action, and the auto-reply itself continued to use Litman's name.

Output:

F-7. FINANCIAL ATTACHMENT ANALYSIS (2,426 files, 618.9 MB)

Total analyzed: 2,426 financial attachments totaling 618.9 MB extracted from the email archives.

Key findings:
- $18.4 million collected under Litman's name (2020-2025) — this is the total revenue generated by patent prosecution work attributed to Litman during the actionable period. Under the "deck of cards" theory, each dollar collected under Litman's name represents commercial benefit from the misappropriation.
- $2.95 million shortfall in payments to Litman — the difference between what Litman was owed under the Combination Agreement and what he actually received. This quantifies Goldberg's unjust enrichment.
- NGM paid $214,532 for "Litman Law Offices" service mark (2017) — Goldberg literally purchased Litman's name as a business asset. This proves the name had recognized commercial value and that Goldberg acquired it through a transaction, not through any ongoing consent.
- Firm 76-79% dependent on Litman-originated work — three-quarters or more of NGM's revenue came from clients Litman brought to the firm. Without Litman's name, Goldberg could not have retained these clients.
- $3.18 million outstanding AR under Litman's name (June 2025) — even at the time Goldberg was cutting off Litman's benefits, there was still $3.18M in accounts receivable from work done under Litman's name. Goldberg was removing Litman's benefits while collecting millions from Litman's clients.

Output:

UPDATED COUNTER-EVIDENCE TO GOLDBERG'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (Post-Exhibit F)

Defense #10 — Consent

ANNIHILATED. In addition to the three explicit non-consent emails from Exhibit E, the F-6 client notification emails show Litman actively tried 5 times over 4 years to end the name use. He drafted a client letter in July 2023 that was never sent. The consent defense is not merely unsupported — the evidence proves the opposite of consent.

Defense — "I Didn't Cause It" (Answer paragraph 33)

ANNIHILATED. F-1 shows 647 client-facing emails where Goldberg used Litman's name. F-6 shows Goldberg blocked 5 client notification attempts. F-3 shows the Nunc Pro Tunc was filed without any email discussion with Litman. F-2 shows Goldberg requested a new headshot for the website in April 2024. Every piece of evidence shows deliberate, affirmative action by Goldberg.

Defense — No Commercial Benefit

ANNIHILATED. F-7 quantifies $18.4M in revenue collected under Litman's name, 76-79% firm dependence on Litman-originated work, and a $214,532 purchase price for the Litman name itself. Goldberg literally bought the commercial value of Litman's name and then continued exploiting it.

Defense — Litman Acquiesced

ANNIHILATED. F-5 shows the "you can't have it both ways" email directly connecting name use to benefits. F-6 shows 5 blocked notification attempts. F-4 shows the insurance-for-active-status quid pro quo that trapped Litman in a coercive arrangement.