Lynwood Investments CY Limited v. Konovalov

Background

The case’s sole claim is Lynwood’s copyright claim involving NGINX Plus software code. The code was allegedly developed by individual defendants while they were employed at Rambler Internet Holding LLC in Russia. The order addresses a discovery letter concerning two disputes under the protective order.

House Counsel’s Access

Lynwood sought permission for its designated in-house counsel, Elena Kanevskaia, to review materials labeled Highly Confidential—Attorney’s Eyes Only, or HC-AEO. Lynwood said her involvement would help outside counsel understand communications, identify people, pursue follow-up questions, and develop litigation strategy. Lynwood agreed that Kanevskaia would not directly access source code, but sought permission for her to receive verbal summaries and information derived from source code.

The defendants raised security concerns, including concerns about the widespread use of the NGINX software, Lynwood’s alleged control by a Russian oligarch and billionaire, and Kanevskaia’s Russian nationality and lack of jurisdictional contact with the court if she violated the protective order.

The court ruled that Kanevskaia may review HC-AEO materials, except for source code and information derived from source code. The court found that Lynwood had not explained why she needed access to source code or derivative source-code information. The court also found that the defendants had not explained why she should be barred from accessing the other HC-AEO materials because their argument focused on security risks related to source code.

Simultaneous Code Inspections

Lynwood proposed modifying section 8(c) of the model source-code discovery order. The proposed changes would allow multiple sets of source code to be loaded onto the same inspection computer for simultaneous inspections.

The defendants did not object to the first proposed paragraph, which would allow a receiving party to install and use additional source code on an inspection computer for comparison with produced source code. The defendants objected to a second paragraph that would allow simultaneous code inspection on the same computer while permitting producing parties to remain present.

The court declined to include the second paragraph. It found that the first paragraph already appeared to allow simultaneous inspection by permitting additional source code to be installed and compared with produced source code. The court also found that Lynwood had not explained what it meant by a “one-party code inspection” or why that procedure was needed. The court directed the parties to meet and confer if additional procedures later became necessary and to submit another discovery letter only if they could not resolve the issue.

Disposition

Judge Andis A. Westmore issued the order regarding the discovery letter and stated that the order disposed of docket number 254. The order addressed discovery and protective-order procedures; it did not decide the underlying copyright claim.