A ruling in WP Engine Inc v Automattic Inc has issued an order addressing multiple discovery disputes, granting and denying various motions to compel, and setting directions for additional document production, interrogatory responses, and additional deposition time for Matt Mullenweg.
Court orders WP Engine to produce documents from Asana, Jira, Figma, and Miro
The dispute underlying Dkt. 289 was initiated through a joint letter brief filed by Automattic Inc and other defendants, alongside WP Engine Inc, in which defendants sought to compel WP Engine to search for and produce documents from four collaboration platforms—Asana, Jira, Figma, and Miro and to depose Regina Yuan following that production.
The court granted defendants’ motion to compel production of those documents from Asana,, finding that defendants had shown “material, substantive communications exist within these platforms.” The court rejected WP Engine’s position that nominative fair use could be evaluated solely through public marketing materials, stating this “fails to establish that discovery of internal discussions is barred,” and noting that such internal communications could include “admissions as to the necessity of referencing all or part of a mark.”
The court also denied WP Engine’s request for reciprocal discovery, saying it was “not adequately supported,” and ordered WP Engine to work with defendants to agree on search terms and a production methodology for the platforms.
The order set a preferred production date of June 17, 2026, and a final deadline of July 2, 2026. The court further directed WP Engine to coordinate deposition dates for Regina Yuan, allowing defendants approximately one week to review the produced materials, and limited the deposition to five hours on the record, restricting questioning to issues arising from the production and excluding unrelated topics.
Partial relief granted to WP Engine
In Dkt. 292, WP Engine Inc filed a letter motion seeking to compel Automattic Inc and related defendants to respond to four interrogatories, and requesting leave to exceed the numerical limits under Rule 33(a)(1).
Responding to this, the court, found that “both parties bear fault for this dispute” over Rule 33(a)(1) limits and the parties’ approach to counting interrogatories. The court noted that defendants were “overly aggressive in insisting that their methodology for counting interrogatories was correct,” while also observing that WP Engine delayed raising the issue with the court.
The court further observed that although WP Engine Inc had “100 interrogatories at their disposal,” many of the disputed requests were “similar or identical” across multiple defendants, and noted that, given that defendants share common counsel and are highly aligned, responding to such interrogatories generated only “marginal additional burden” for each additional defendant.
For interrogatories concerning fame and actual confusion, the court stated that defendants “need only respond to the extent that the information they would disclose has not already been disclosed in response to an equivalent interrogatory posed to another Defendant.” The court further stated that a defendant may respond by saying it has “no further information to provide” beyond what another defendant has disclosed, provided that statement is true. The court also stated that defendants need not respond to subparts requesting identification of “all Documents you may rely on to support that contention.”
For interrogatories 17 and 18 regarding damages, the court stated that defendants “need only state each item of claimed damages that will not be disclosed in their expert reports, the amount of such item, and a specification of how WPE caused that item of damage.”
The court denied WPE Interrogatory 23 directed at Matt Mullenweg concerning laches and awareness of alleged trademark use. The court stated that the request “seems to seek information already supplied by other Defendants’ interrogatory responses.” The court also noted that, if the issues were significant to WP Engine, it “had the opportunity to explore these issues with Mr. Mullenweg at his deposition.”
Most document production requests by WP Engine denied
In Dkt. 293, WP Engine filed a discovery letter seeking to compel Automattic Inc and related defendants to produce several categories of allegedly withheld documents and to require further responses from Matt Mullenweg
As to this, the court denied WP Engine Inc’s motion to compel production of “long-withheld documents central to WPE’s claims” in its entirety.
The court denied requests for the WordPress Foundation’s financial statements, a requested Google document and related communications, a loan agreement and associated ledger, RFP 317 materials, and reimbursement authorization referenced at the deposition of Mr. Davies based on defendants’ representations that “the documents at issue have already been produced,” that “no such documents exist,” or that the documents “post-date the parties’ August 15, 2025 discovery cut-off.”
With respect to RFP 317, the court rejected Matt Mullenweg’s contention that the post necessarily implies the existence of “continuous, real-time…wordpress.org analytics.”
The court also denied requests for any alleged Mullenweg stock option grants, citing the parties’ March 25, 2026 agreement on financial discovery, the fact that such grants are not expressly covered by that agreement, and WP Engine’s position at the May 29, 2026 hearing that the agreement was not intended to include them, which “precludes any argument” that they must be produced under it.
Requests for Audrey HC documents were also denied, with the court finding that WP Engine “has failed to advance facts establishing the relevance of that entity.”
Finally, the court declined to compel a different response to RFA 45 concerning California tax filings, citing the “breadth and vagueness” of the request. The court noted that any dispute over admissibility could be addressed before Judge MartĂnez-OlguĂn at trial, and stated that Matt Mullenweg’s response that he did not know the contents of the Foundation’s filings was “tantamount to an admission,” and further noted that Rule 36 provides its own consequences for refusal to admit an RFA.
WP Engine granted a limited deposition extension for Matt Mullenweg
In Dkt. 294, WP Engine Inc and the defendants filed a joint letter brief concerning the deposition of Matt Mullenweg. WP Engine sought additional deposition time, arguing that his three-day, deposition was insufficient given the number of topics and alleged issues with his preparation and testimony. Defendants opposed the request, stating that he had already been deposed for more than 21 hours and had answered the questions posed within the agreed schedule, and that no further time was warranted.
The court partially granted WP Engine’s request, ordering an additional three hours of deposition time for Matt Mullenweg.
The order further stated that Defendants do not need to redesignate Mullenweg for follow-up depositions, though any newly designated witnesses may be allocated 30 additional minutes each.
The court also clarified that WP Engine cannot reopen questioning already answered with “I don’t know” or “I don’t recall,” leaving any consequences of such testimony to be addressed at trial, while noting that “there were instances where Mr. Mullenweg appeared to be evasive or to waste time.”
Interrogatory rulings granted in part and denied in part
In Dkt. 295, WP Engine Inc moved to compel Defendants Automattic Inc, WooCommerce Inc, and the WordPress Foundation to provide full and complete responses to several interrogatories. WP Engine argues that the current responses are either partial or improper refusals and that they withhold key factual information.
The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The ruling has ordered that Defendants must provide the earliest date they contend trademark misuse began, stating that an answer in the form of “Trademark misuse began as early as [date]” is sufficient.
The ruling granted the request, holding that WP Engine is “entitled to know whether Defendants admit or deny that their statements were intended to disrupt or did disrupt WPE’s business relationships,” and that the possibility of conceding elements of the claim is “not a proper basis to refuse to answer the question.”
The court granted the request, finding that Mr. Mullenweg’s statements regarding the “free” and “open” nature of WordPress and its independence from commercial control are “key features of WPE’s remaining claims and its trial narrative,” and rejecting Defendants’ relevance objection as “not well-founded.”
WP Engine was entitled to the requested information concerning statements made to WP Engine’s customers or potential customers about its products or services, including suggestions to switch hosting providers and blocking access, finding that it is “relevant to WPE’s remaining claims and its trial narrative.”
The court held that Automattic, WooCommerce, and the WordPress Foundation must respond at least with respect to any non-privileged instances where a determination of infringement was made, and enforcement was not pursued. It noted that such “determinations” may be privileged in some contexts, such as confidential legal advice, or non-privileged in others, such as demand letters or statements to third parties.
WP Engine was further allowed to identify who at Automattic first became aware of its use of the “Challenged Terms”. It also found that tracing how that information spread internally within the company is “less material” and likely to raise privilege concerns, and therefore not proportional to the needs of the case.
Requests seeking a full accounting of licensing efforts were denied as disproportionate to the needs of the case, with the court noting that Defendants could be limited at trial to the scope of their existing answers if they do not amend them.
Discovery into additional account information for Mr. Mullenweg was denied, with his response found adequate absent any showing that an account was omitted.
Requests for broader governance and organizational information for Mr. Mullenweg and Automattic were also denied as overly broad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.
Rulings on document production and data requests
As for Dkt.302, the court deferred ruling on production of a Google Document underlying Exhibit 9 pending in camera review. It ordered production of earlier versions of WP Engine’s refund-reasons spreadsheet from 2021 onward, to the extent they exist. It also required WP Engine to produce the 2025 annual ACF user survey data and to disclose in writing the scope of its search regarding brand studies, while noting that the absence of such studies largely resolved the issue.
The request for BI team and data-warehouse reports was denied, and Google Analytics and Search Console source data was conditionally granted, with the parties directed to meet and confer to confirm what has already been produced and to produce any remaining source data in their possession.
Finally, WP Engine’s request for Defendants’ ACF plugin visitor-level data was denied, with the court noting that the data was not retained beyond 48 hours and that spoliation arguments were premature at this stage.
The court also ruled on Dkt. 311, Defendants’ motion to compel financial documents, granting it in part and denying it in part. It denied several categories of requested materials, including certain consultant report drafts, board-related communications, and financial reporting packages, while granting requests for investor-related communications, valuation-related materials, and certain engagement documents deemed necessary to understand the record.
The court set a June 17, 2026 deadline for production and responses ordered under the discovery rulings, while allowing limited flexibility for scheduling depositions in Dkt. 294.