# DEPOSITION QUESTIONS: Derived from Text Message & Email Evidence (iCloud Photos) **Date:** March 30, 2026 **Case:** *Litman v. Goldberg*, Index No. 524343/2025 **Court:** NY Supreme Court, Kings County (Hon. Brian L. Gotlieb, J.S.C.) **Surviving Claim:** Count V -- NY Civil Rights Law Sections 50-51 (Misappropriation of Name) **Purpose:** These questions are drawn exclusively from admissions, statements, and conduct documented in the iCloud Photos text message screenshots and related email evidence. Each question is designed to lock Goldberg into testimony that either (a) confirms the text message record, (b) contradicts his Answer and affirmative defenses, or (c) establishes elements of the Section 51 claim. Impeachment exhibits are noted for each topic. --- ## I. Control of Firm Operations **Source:** June 15, 2021 text -- Goldberg states: *"I will continue managing the firm as I have been"* and *"Being as remote as much as I have been this past year+ says to me it is doable."* **Goal:** Establish that Goldberg exercised unilateral control over all firm operations, including the mechanism by which Litman's name appeared on patents, the website, and client communications. 1. Mr. Goldberg, on June 15, 2021, you texted Mr. Litman, "I will continue managing the firm as I have been." When did you begin managing the firm? 2. When did you physically relocate from the firm's Virginia office to Brooklyn, New York? 3. Did you inform Mr. Litman before moving to Brooklyn that you intended to manage the firm remotely? 4. From June 15, 2020 forward, who was responsible for the day-to-day management of NGM's patent prosecution practice? 5. You texted Mr. Litman: "Being as remote as much as I have been this past year+ says to me it is doable." What did you mean by that? 6. As Managing Partner, did anyone at the firm have the authority to overrule your decisions regarding which attorney's name appeared on USPTO filings? 7. As Managing Partner, did you have final authority over the firm's USPTO Customer Number -- specifically, which attorneys' names and registration numbers were associated with that Customer Number? 8. Did you have final authority over the content of the firm's website, nathlaw.com, including which attorneys were listed and how they were described? 9. Did you have final authority over the firm's email system, including which email addresses were active and who had access to them? > **Impeachment Exhibit:** iCloud Photos text message screenshot dated June 15, 2021 (Exhibit E, page reference). If Goldberg denies managing the firm or claims shared authority, confront with his own statement that he "will continue managing the firm as I have been." --- ## II. Use of Litman's Name **Source:** January 30, 2023 text exchange regarding "Senior Counsel" designation (Exhibit E, p. 14); August 2025 Omar Albannai client contact exchange; June 13, 2025 text where Litman raises "use of my name" (Exhibit E, p. 47). **Goal:** Sever the "Senior Counsel" website listing from the unauthorized POA signatures and Line 74 patent listings. Establish that Litman never consented to the specific mechanism by which his name appeared on 905 patents. 1. Mr. Goldberg, did Mr. Litman ever consent -- orally or in writing -- to you personally signing Powers of Attorney listing his name and registration number on USPTO filings after June 15, 2020? 2. Did Mr. Litman ever authorize you to file patent applications using his name as attorney of record after June 15, 2020? 3. On January 30, 2023, you texted Mr. Litman and asked: "if you are on disability, what would be considered legal vs. fraud? I don't want ANY of us having to face a fraud issue." What did you mean by "fraud"? 4. In that same exchange, you asked: "can you be an ACTIVE Senior Counsel while on disability?" At that time, was Mr. Litman actively practicing law? 5. You then wrote: "Nobody has given me a real answer on that question yet." Who had you asked about this issue before texting Mr. Litman? 6. After Mr. Litman explained that a "Senior Counsel" listing was consistent with disability law, you replied: "I am fine with you being considered as 'Senior Counsel.'" You were granting permission to Mr. Litman, correct -- not the other way around? 7. What is the difference between agreeing to be listed as "Senior Counsel" on the firm's website and authorizing the filing of Power of Attorney forms with the USPTO in someone's name? 8. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Litman the fact that his name appeared on Line 74 of patent front pages -- the "Attorney, Agent, or Firm" designation -- after June 15, 2020? 9. Did you ever show Mr. Litman a patent front page bearing his name after June 15, 2020? 10. Did you ever forward to Mr. Litman a single Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt from the USPTO reflecting that a filing had been made using his name? 11. On June 13, 2025, Mr. Litman texted you about "other issues such as use of my name, etc and the perpetual royalty free license promised in the amendment." How did you respond to his concern about the use of his name? 12. Did you respond at all to the "use of my name" portion of that message? 13. When Mr. Litman raised "use of my name" on June 13, 2025, was that the first time he raised the issue with you? 14. Are you aware that Omar Albannai, a prospective client, contacted the firm in August 2025 seeking Richard Litman specifically? > **Impeachment Exhibits:** > - iCloud Photos text screenshot dated January 30, 2023 (Exhibit E, p. 14) -- Goldberg's "fraud" question and "I am fine with you being considered as 'Senior Counsel'" statement. > - iCloud Photos text screenshot dated June 13, 2025 (Exhibit E, p. 47) -- Litman raises "use of my name"; Goldberg's silence is an adoptive admission under CPLR 4547. > - Omar Albannai contact form / email (August 2025). > - 16 Goldberg-signed POA forms (PTO/AIA/82A), Reg. 44126 -- none discussed in 51 pages of texts. --- ## III. Financial Accounting **Source:** June 2025 text exchanges regarding trust account manipulation, Soluno reports, and Attorney Number 418; December 23, 2024 exchange regarding 631 KFU patents; June 19, 2025 email identifying $35,120 in missing allocations. **Goal:** Expose the financial motive for unauthorized name use and establish the accounting gap that conceals revenue generated from patents bearing Litman's name. 1. Mr. Goldberg, what is "Attorney Number 418" in NGM's accounting system? 2. Is Attorney Number 418 associated with Richard Litman? 3. Can you explain how client payments received by the firm are allocated to Attorney 418? 4. Why were some of Mr. Litman's originated clients assigned multiple NGM client numbers? 5. What client numbers beginning with "1," "J," or "5" were assigned to clients that Mr. Litman originated? 6. From June 15, 2020 through June 2023, approximately how much per month was Mr. Litman receiving as his share of originated client revenue? 7. Beginning in approximately July 2023 -- one month after the Arbitration Award -- Mr. Litman's monthly allocations dropped to approximately $20,000 per month. Why? 8. In a text message exchange, you acknowledged that Soluno reports for Attorney 418 "drew its data from account ledgers that didn't include payments actually made." Can you explain what payments were excluded from those reports? 9. Were client trust account funds received for patents filed in Mr. Litman's name deposited into accounts that Mr. Litman could not access or monitor? 10. On June 19, 2025, Mr. Litman identified $35,120 in missing allocations in an email to you. Did you respond to that email? 11. Were those missing allocations ever corrected? 12. What is the total revenue NGM collected from clients for patents that listed "Richard C. Litman" as the attorney of record between June 15, 2020 and January 14, 2025? > **Impeachment Exhibits:** > - iCloud Photos text screenshots from June 2025 regarding Soluno reports, Attorney 418, and trust account allocations. > - June 19, 2025 email identifying $35,120 in missing allocations. > - AR Report (AR_Report_202602_RL.xlsx) showing $1.4M receivable across 477 matters with no associated client name. --- ## IV. Email Access Retaliation **Source:** July 17-21, 2025 text exchange (Exhibit E, pp. 50-51) -- Litman reports email accounts eliminated; Goldberg promises to investigate. **Goal:** Establish that Goldberg controlled Litman's digital identity and retaliated by eliminating email access after Litman raised litigation and accounting concerns. 1. Mr. Goldberg, on July 18, 2025, Mr. Litman texted you: "My personal emails have been eliminated from litman@4patent.com and the Nath law account. Is that something you can correct?" You replied: "It should be. Let me find out from IT what happened." Do you recall that exchange? 2. Who at the firm authorized the removal of Mr. Litman's email access? 3. Did you investigate what happened, as you promised in that text? 4. What did you learn from IT about why Mr. Litman's email was eliminated? 5. Was Mr. Litman's email access at litman@4patent.com ever restored? 6. Was Mr. Litman's access to his NathLaw.com email account ever restored? 7. Between June 15, 2020 and July 18, 2025, was the email address litman@4patent.com active and receiving emails? 8. During that five-year period, who at the firm was reading emails sent to litman@4patent.com? 9. Were any auto-forwarding rules set up on litman@4patent.com or litman@nathlaw.com to redirect incoming emails to other firm personnel? 10. Did anyone at the firm ever respond to client emails sent to litman@4patent.com without Mr. Litman's knowledge? 11. Were any emails deleted or destroyed from litman@4patent.com or the NathLaw account before, during, or after Mr. Litman reported the access issue? 12. Mr. Litman texted you on July 15, 2025 -- three days before the email elimination -- raising accounting issues and asking to talk "before more litigation." Was the removal of his email access related to his raising those issues? > **Impeachment Exhibits:** > - iCloud Photos text screenshot dated July 18, 2025 (Exhibit E, p. 51) -- Litman reports email elimination; Goldberg's "Let me find out from IT" response. > - iCloud Photos text screenshot dated July 15, 2025 (Exhibit E, p. 50) -- "Do you want to talk before more litigation?" (timeline shows retaliation motive). > - iCloud Photos text screenshot showing Litman: "Same with NathLaw.com. This whole thing is really affecting me." --- ## V. KFU Revenue and Patent Volume **Source:** December 23, 2024 text exchange (Exhibit E, p. 38) -- Goldberg confirms "KFU is winding up with 631 patents this year"; June 2025 texts/emails regarding revenue allocations. **Goal:** Establish the massive commercial value extracted from patents bearing Litman's name and the financial motive for continuing the unauthorized name use. 1. Mr. Goldberg, on December 23, 2024, you texted Mr. Litman: "KFU is winding up with 631 patents this year, we hit their goal of 600 for the year." Is that accurate? 2. How much total revenue did King Faisal University generate for the firm in calendar year 2024? 3. What percentage of that KFU revenue was allocated to Mr. Litman under the revenue-sharing provision of the Amendment? 4. How many of those 631 KFU patents listed "Richard C. Litman" as the attorney of record on Line 74? 5. When you texted Mr. Litman about the 631 patents, did you mention that his name appeared on the front page of each one? 6. Did you mention that you had personally signed Powers of Attorney for any of those KFU patent applications? 7. Mr. Litman responded to your text by discussing invoicing and getting paid. Did he say anything about his name appearing on those patents? 8. Can you explain the $35,120 in missing allocations identified in the June 19, 2025 email from Mr. Litman? 9. Were those missing allocations related to KFU or KSU revenue? 10. In the firm's internal revenue tracking, what client numbers were assigned to KFU matters, and were any of those matters tracked under Attorney Number 418? > **Impeachment Exhibits:** > - iCloud Photos text screenshot dated December 23, 2024 (Exhibit E, p. 38) -- Goldberg's "631 patents" statement and Litman's response focused entirely on invoicing (not name use). > - June 19, 2025 email identifying $35,120 missing allocations. > - RFA No. 6: Goldberg ADMITTED firm employee received Electronic Acknowledgement Receipts (not Litman). --- ## VI. Health Insurance **Source:** December 2023 texts regarding Mt. Sinai/UHC coverage; May 2024 texts regarding COBRA; June 2025 texts regarding ongoing health insurance issues. **Goal:** Establish Goldberg's control over Litman's health insurance as leverage and another dimension of the power imbalance that negates any inference of "consent." 1. Mr. Goldberg, was Mr. Litman covered under the firm's health insurance plan after June 15, 2020? 2. Through which insurer was that coverage provided? 3. In December 2023, Mr. Litman raised a concern that Mt. Sinai might stop accepting UHC as of January 2024. Were you aware of that concern? 4. How did you respond to that concern? 5. When Mr. Litman requested COBRA information, did you provide it? 6. How long was Mr. Litman's COBRA eligibility period, and when did it expire? 7. Was Mr. Litman's continued health insurance coverage in any way tied to or conditioned upon his acquiescence to the firm's use of his name? 8. Did Mr. Litman's spouse, Cheryl Litman, have medical conditions that made continuous health insurance coverage critical? 9. Were you aware of that when you made decisions about Mr. Litman's relationship with the firm? > **Impeachment Exhibits:** > - iCloud Photos text screenshots from December 2023 (Mt. Sinai/UHC concern), May 2024 (COBRA request), and June 2025 (ongoing insurance issues). --- ## VII. Client Relationships and Goodwill **Source:** Thomas Bennington July 3, 2025 contact form; Dakota AG / Lynn Odland reference to "The Litman Law office"; Omar Albannai August 2025 exchange; Litman's texts offering to help with KAU and Dubai client development. **Goal:** Establish that Litman's name carried independent commercial value that Goldberg exploited, and that clients understood themselves to be engaging "Richard Litman" -- not Joshua Goldberg. 1. Mr. Goldberg, are you aware that clients continued to contact the firm specifically asking for Richard Litman after June 15, 2020? 2. Did you receive the July 3, 2025 contact form submission from Thomas Bennington seeking Mr. Litman? 3. How did your firm respond to Mr. Bennington's inquiry? 4. Did anyone at the firm inform Mr. Bennington that Mr. Litman had not been affiliated with the firm since June 15, 2020? 5. Were you aware that client Lynn Odland of Dakota AG referred to the firm as "The Litman Law office"? 6. When clients used the name "Litman" to identify the firm, did you correct them? 7. Mr. Litman texted you on May 3, 2023, offering to reach out to "my old friend Dr. Mohammed Kadi at KAU about the 36 new matters." Was Mr. Litman's personal relationship with Dr. Kadi valuable to the firm? 8. Mr. Litman texted you on October 4, 2024: "I am willing to take the trip alone. The recent Dubai move to become IP central requires immediate action." Was Mr. Litman's willingness to travel to the Middle East valuable to the firm's client retention? 9. If Mr. Litman's name had no commercial value to the firm, why did you not remove it from the USPTO filings and the website and simply use your own name? 10. Between January 14 and January 21, 2025, you switched the attorney name on patent front pages from "Richard C. Litman" to your own name. What prompted that change? 11. If the use of Mr. Litman's name was authorized and consensual, why did you make the switch quietly, without informing Mr. Litman? > **Impeachment Exhibits:** > - Thomas Bennington contact form (July 3, 2025). > - Dakota AG / Lynn Odland correspondence referencing "The Litman Law office." > - iCloud Photos text screenshots: May 3, 2023 (KAU offer, Exhibit E, p. 21); October 4, 2024 (Dubai trip offer, Exhibit E, p. 33); October 16, 2024 (offer to accompany, Exhibit E, p. 34). > - Switchover analysis: Patent 12,194,434 (Jan 14, 2025, last Litman) vs. Patent 12,201,650 (Jan 21, 2025, first Goldberg). --- ## VIII. Pre-Litigation Conduct **Source:** July 15, 2025 text (Exhibit E, p. 50) -- Litman: "I feel very badly about having to do this... Do you want to talk before more litigation?"; July 2025 texts regarding forensic accountant request and counsel involvement. **Goal:** Establish Goldberg's refusal to address Litman's concerns and his awareness that litigation was imminent -- negating any claim that the name use was innocent or that Litman delayed unreasonably. 1. Mr. Goldberg, on July 15, 2025, Mr. Litman texted you: "Josh, I feel very badly about having to do this, particularly for your wife, kids and mother. I would like to help you resolve this without legal trouble, but you control the accounting and money, and now the clients. Do you want to talk before more litigation?" How did you respond? 2. Did you agree to talk to Mr. Litman as he requested? 3. Mr. Litman stated that you "control the accounting and money, and now the clients." Was that accurate? 4. Did Mr. Litman request that you engage a forensic accountant to resolve the accounting disputes? 5. Did you engage a forensic accountant? 6. After Mr. Litman raised these issues in July 2025, when did your counsel, Aaron Gould, first become involved in this matter? 7. Was Mr. Gould's involvement a response to Mr. Litman's July 2025 communications? 8. Between July 15, 2025 and the filing of this lawsuit, did you take any steps to remove Mr. Litman's name from the firm's USPTO filings, website, or client communications? > **Impeachment Exhibits:** > - iCloud Photos text screenshot dated July 15, 2025 (Exhibit E, p. 50) -- "you control the accounting and money, and now the clients." > - Timeline: Goldberg had already quietly switched Line 74 names in January 2025 (six months before this text), but never told Litman. --- ## IX. VA State Bar and Professional Identity **Source:** June 2024 texts regarding Virginia State Bar dues for "Litman Law Offices, Ltd." **Goal:** Establish that Goldberg maintained Litman's professional registrations as part of the broader pattern of controlling Litman's professional identity without authorization. 1. Mr. Goldberg, are you familiar with the Virginia State Bar dues for the entity "Litman Law Offices, Ltd."? 2. Who at NGM was responsible for paying those dues? 3. Were those dues paid when they came due in July 2023? 4. Why were they not paid on time? 5. Was the entity "Litman Law Offices, Ltd." still active as of June 2024? 6. Who at NGM was responsible for administering Mr. Litman's professional registrations, bar memberships, and continuing education requirements? 7. Did you ever consult Mr. Litman about whether he wished to maintain the "Litman Law Offices, Ltd." registration? 8. On July 6, 2021, you signed a professional liability insurance application listing Mr. Litman as "Of Counsel" to the firm. Did you inform Mr. Litman that you were listing him on the malpractice insurance application? 9. Did Mr. Litman authorize you to represent to an insurance company that he was "Of Counsel" to NGM as of July 2021? > **Impeachment Exhibits:** > - iCloud Photos text screenshots from June 2024 regarding VA State Bar dues. > - Professional liability insurance application dated July 6, 2021 (Goldberg's signature listing Litman as "Of Counsel"). --- ## X. Impeachment Index The following table maps each topic to the specific text message date, approximate iCloud Photos image filename (where known), and Exhibit E page reference. These exhibits should be pre-marked and ready to display if Goldberg denies or contradicts his documented statements. | Topic | Date | Exhibit E Page | Key Quote | Impeachment Use | |-------|------|---------------|-----------|-----------------| | I. Firm Control | 06/15/2021 | -- | "I will continue managing the firm as I have been" | Contradicts any claim of shared authority or Litman's involvement in operations | | II. Name Use -- "Fraud" | 01/30/2023 | p. 14 | "what would be considered legal vs. fraud?" | Consciousness of wrongdoing; knew listing was problematic | | II. Name Use -- Consent | 01/30/2023 | p. 14 | "I am fine with you being considered as 'Senior Counsel'" | Goldberg grants permission TO Litman, proving he controlled the name use | | II. Name Use -- Objection | 06/13/2025 | p. 47 | "other issues such as use of my name" | Litman explicitly raised name use; Goldberg's silence = adoptive admission | | III. Accounting -- Soluno | June 2025 | -- | Soluno reports "drew its data from account ledgers that didn't include payments actually made" | Admits accounting reports were incomplete/misleading | | IV. Email Elimination | 07/18/2025 | p. 51 | "My personal emails have been eliminated" / "Let me find out from IT" | Proves Goldberg controlled digital identity; retaliation after litigation threat | | IV. Pre-Litigation Threat | 07/15/2025 | p. 50 | "Do you want to talk before more litigation?" | Timeline shows email cut 3 days after litigation warning | | V. 631 Patents | 12/23/2024 | p. 38 | "KFU is winding up with 631 patents this year" | Admits volume; Litman's response was about revenue, not name use | | VII. Client Development | 05/03/2023 | p. 21 | "let me know if you would like me to reach out to my old friend Dr. Mohammed Kadi" | Litman's role was advisory/referral, not patent prosecution | | VII. Client Development | 10/04/2024 | p. 33 | "I am willing to take the trip alone" | Business development, not consent to POA signatures | | VII. Client Development | 06/01/2025 | p. 43 | "it looks like you may be getting work now from KAU in Jeddah" | Litman tracking revenue potential, not authorizing filings | | VIII. Pre-Litigation | 07/15/2025 | p. 50 | "you control the accounting and money, and now the clients" | Litman had no control; negates consent defense | --- ## Critical Absences in 51 Pages of Texts The following terms appear **zero times** across all 51 pages of text messages (Exhibit E). If Goldberg claims the texts demonstrate Litman's consent to or knowledge of the patent name use, these absences are devastating: - "Power of Attorney" -- 0 mentions - "POA" -- 0 mentions - "Customer Number" or "37833" -- 0 mentions - "Line 74" -- 0 mentions - "Attorney of record" -- 0 mentions - "Filing receipt" -- 0 mentions - "Office action" -- 0 mentions - "Notice of Allowance" -- 0 mentions - Any request for Litman's authorization to file -- 0 instances **Deposition application:** After each topic area, if Goldberg claims Litman "knew" about the patent name use, ask: "Can you point to any text message in Exhibit E where you discussed signing a Power of Attorney in Mr. Litman's name?" The answer is no. There are none. --- ## Notes for Examining Attorney 1. **Do not argue.** Ask the question, wait for the answer, move to the next question. If Goldberg gives a non-responsive answer, repeat the question verbatim. 2. **"I don't recall" follow-ups.** If Goldberg claims not to recall his own text messages, respond: "Mr. Goldberg, I am showing you your own text message from [date]. Does seeing your own words refresh your recollection?" 3. **Objection handling.** Under NY CPLR, objections to form do not prevent the witness from answering. If counsel instructs the witness not to answer, state for the record: "Please mark that counsel has directed the witness not to answer. We will seek a ruling from the Court." 4. **Exhibit introduction.** For each iCloud Photos screenshot, use the standard sequence: (1) display the image, (2) ask the court reporter to mark it, (3) ask Goldberg if he recognizes the text exchange, (4) ask him to read the relevant portion aloud, (5) proceed with questions. 5. **Connect to Section 51 elements.** Every topic maps to a Section 51 element: - Topics I, IV, IX: **Control** (Goldberg caused the name use) - Topics II, VII: **Without consent** (no authorization for the specific mechanism) - Topics III, V: **Purposes of trade** (commercial/financial motive) - Topics VI, VIII: **Power imbalance** (negates implied consent defense) --- *Prepared March 30, 2026* *Litman v. Goldberg, Index No. 524343/2025*