1008-00005 · Lumos Analytics Inc · Discovery

deposition-summary-anand.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

5 / 35 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

MEMORANDUM

May 18, 2023

TO: Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate

FROM: Omar Siddiqui, Working Associate

RE: Deposition Summary — Rajiv Anand (May 15, 2023)

MATTER: Lumos Analytics Inc. v. NovaSpark Technologies Inc. et al., Case No. 23-CV-004871, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara

C&H MATTER NUMBER: 1008-00005

COPIES: Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner; Catherine Bloom, Billing Partner

This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and constitutes attorney work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. It is intended solely for the use of the attorneys and professionals working on the above-referenced matter and should not be disclosed to any third party without the express authorization of Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner.

I. Executive Summary

The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the key testimony elicited during the deposition of Rajiv Anand, taken on May 15, 2023, at the offices of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 555 California Street, 40th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104. The deposition was conducted by Wendy Schultz on behalf of our client, Lumos Analytics Inc. ("Lumos"). Defense counsel Patricia Whitfield and Samuel Gerber of Whitfield, Raines & Gerber LLP appeared on behalf of NovaSpark Technologies Inc. ("NovaSpark") and Mr. Anand individually.

The deposition lasted approximately six and one-half hours, inclusive of breaks, and was recorded by both stenographic and videographic means. Examination covered a broad range of topics central to Lumos's claims, including: Anand's employment history at Lumos; the scope and nature of his access to proprietary materials during his tenure; the data-transfer events of September 26 and September 28, 2022; the circumstances surrounding his resignation on September 30, 2022; the founding and incorporation of NovaSpark Technologies Inc. on October 3, 2022; his coordination with Serena Mallick and Derek Yun, both former Lumos employees who subsequently joined NovaSpark; and his characterization of the nature and proprietary status of the materials he transferred.

Overall Assessment: Anand made several significant admissions regarding the mechanics and timing of the data transfers, including his acknowledgment that he transferred approximately 3.2 GB of files to a personal Hollowell Health IT account on September 26, 2022, and that he forwarded a 37-page confidential product roadmap to his personal email on September 28, 2022. He further admitted to engaging in pre-resignation discussions with both Mallick and Yun about joining NovaSpark while they were still employed at Lumos. However, Anand attempted throughout the deposition to minimize the proprietary nature of the transferred materials and denied any intent to misappropriate Lumos trade secrets or to use those materials in the development of NovaSpark's competing product.

Critically, several key contradictions emerged between Anand's deposition testimony and the forensic evidence documented in the Preliminary Forensic Report prepared by Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC, dated May 1, 2023 (Exhibit 10). These contradictions, discussed in detail below, substantially undermine Anand's credibility and provide strong evidentiary support for Lumos's claims under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("CUTSA"), for breach of the Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement ("PIIAA"), breach of the duty of loyalty, and unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code § 17200.

II. Witness Background and Employment at Lumos

A. Personal Information

Rajiv Anand is 37 years old and currently resides at 1482 Mariposa Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94306. He testified that he has lived at this address since approximately 2020. With respect to his educational background, Anand testified that he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the University of California, Berkeley, in 2008, and a Master of Science degree in Computer Science with a specialization in Machine Learning from Stanford University in 2010. He stated that his academic work at Stanford focused on neural-network architectures and deep learning applications for time-series prediction — a subject area directly relevant to the proprietary technology at issue in this litigation.

Following his graduate studies, Anand testified that he held positions at several technology companies before joining Lumos, including a stint as a machine learning engineer at a financial technology startup (the name of which he identified as "Quantile Systems") from 2010 to 2014, and a senior engineer role at a larger data analytics firm (which he identified as "Aldermere Holdings") from 2014 to 2019.

B. Employment History at Lumos Analytics Inc.

Anand testified that he joined Lumos Analytics Inc. in March 2019 with the title of Principal Engineer — ML Infrastructure. He confirmed that his hiring was facilitated by Rachel Fong, Vice President of Engineering, with whom he had a prior professional relationship. Anand stated that from the outset of his employment, he was assigned to the core engineering team responsible for developing LumosEdge, Lumos's flagship AI-driven financial analytics product designed for institutional asset managers.

Anand testified that he was one of the original architects of the LumosEdge signal-generation engine, which he described as the central analytical component of the LumosEdge platform. He acknowledged that the signal-generation engine is the primary competitive differentiator of Lumos's product offering and that its development represented a significant investment of time, resources, and intellectual capital by Lumos.

In describing his specific role, Anand testified that he oversaw the design and development of the ensemble machine-learning model architecture underlying LumosEdge, including the neural-network topology, the selection and configuration of hyperparameters, and the integration of multiple model types (including gradient-boosted decision trees, recurrent neural networks, and transformer-based architectures) into a unified ensemble framework. He further testified that his work involved close collaboration with other members of the ML infrastructure team, including data engineers responsible for the ingestion and processing of training data.

Significantly, Anand confirmed that during his employment at Lumos, he had access to all five categories of proprietary technology that are at issue in this case:

1. LumosEdge Ensemble ML Model Architecture — the full specifications, design documents, and source code for the ensemble machine-learning model, including neural-network topology and hyperparameter configurations;

2. Proprietary Feature-Engineering Libraries — containing 2,847 individually engineered features designed for predictive signal generation across equity and fixed-income instruments;

3. DataStream ETL Pipeline Codebase and Data-Schema Definitions — the proprietary extract-transform-load pipeline and associated schema definitions covering the ingestion, normalization, and integration of data from 43 alternative-data vendors;

4. Curated and Labeled Training Dataset — approximately 14.6 terabytes of historical financial and alternative data that had been curated, cleaned, labeled, and structured by Lumos's data-engineering team over a period of more than three years; and

5. Confidential LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap — a 37-page internal strategy document outlining planned features, architectural enhancements, target market expansions, and go-to-market timelines for the next-generation version of the LumosEdge platform.

Anand acknowledged that he reported directly to Rachel Fong, VP of Engineering, and worked closely with other members of the engineering team. He specifically confirmed that he worked on a day-to-day basis with Serena Mallick, who served as a Senior Data Engineer responsible for the DataStream ETL pipeline, and Derek Yun, who served as a Machine Learning Engineer focused on feature engineering and model training. Anand testified that he considered Mallick and Yun to be among his closest collaborators at Lumos.

C. Execution of Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement (PIIAA)

Anand confirmed that he executed a Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement ("PIIAA") at the time he commenced employment with Lumos in March 2019. When shown the executed PIIAA, marked as Exhibit 3 during the deposition, Anand acknowledged his signature on the final page and confirmed that the document appeared to be a true and correct copy of the agreement he signed.

Anand testified that he was aware of the principal provisions of the PIIAA at the time he signed it. Specifically, he acknowledged his understanding of the following provisions:

(a) Assignment of Inventions Clause — providing that all inventions, developments, improvements, and works of authorship conceived or created by Anand during the course of his employment at Lumos, or using Lumos's resources, are the exclusive property of Lumos;

(b) Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Provision — requiring Anand to maintain the confidentiality of all proprietary information of Lumos and prohibiting disclosure of such information to any third party, with this obligation surviving termination of employment for a period of three years;

(c) Non-Solicitation of Employees Clause — prohibiting Anand, for a period of 12 months following separation from Lumos, from directly or indirectly soliciting, inducing, or encouraging any Lumos employee to leave Lumos's employment; and

(d) Covenant Not to Use or Disclose Trade Secrets — a separate and broader restrictive covenant prohibiting Anand from using or disclosing Lumos trade secrets at any time, without limitation as to duration.

Anand further acknowledged that the PIIAA contained a provision requiring the return of all company materials — including documents, files, data, equipment, and all copies thereof — upon termination of employment. When asked whether he returned all company materials upon his resignation on September 30, 2022, Anand initially stated that he "believed" he had returned everything that was required. However, upon further questioning, he acknowledged that he did not execute a formal return-of-materials certification or acknowledgment at the time of his departure. He stated that he was not asked to complete such a certification, but he did not dispute that the PIIAA imposed an affirmative obligation on him to return all materials regardless of whether a formal certification was requested.

III. Testimony Regarding Data Transfer Events

A. September 26, 2022 — Hollowell Health IT Transfer (3.2 GB)

Anand admitted that on or about September 26, 2022 — four days before his resignation — he transferred files from his Lumos work environment to a personal Hollowell Health IT account. This admission was elicited after Anand was confronted with Lumos IT security logs, marked as Exhibit 7, which documented the transfer activity in detail. The security logs recorded that the transfer involved approximately 3.2 gigabytes of data. When asked whether he disputed the volume figure reflected in the logs, Anand stated that he did not.

Anand was then asked to characterize the nature of the files he transferred. He described the files as consisting of "personal notes," "reference materials," and "general technical documentation" that he had accumulated during his time at Lumos. He maintained that these materials were not proprietary and that they reflected his own personal knowledge and work habits rather than Lumos trade secrets.

However, when shown the detailed file-name listing extracted from the Hollowell Health IT transfer logs, marked as Exhibit 8, Anand's characterization became significantly less tenable. The file-name listing included numerous files with names that directly referenced LumosEdge model architecture specifications, hyperparameter configuration files, and ensemble model training scripts. Specific file names referenced in the examination included, among others, "LumosEdgeensemblearchv4.2FINAL.py," "hyperparamconfigLSTMv7.json," and "featurelibequitysignals_master.csv." When confronted with these file names, Anand conceded that "some files may have included work product" but continued to maintain that he did not intend to take proprietary information and that the transfer was not motivated by any desire to misappropriate Lumos's intellectual property.

Anand specifically denied that the September 26 transfer was motivated by any plan to start a competing company. He testified that as of September 26, 2022, he had not yet decided to resign from Lumos and had not formulated any concrete plans to launch NovaSpark or any other venture. He stated that the transfer was simply part of his routine practice of backing up files he considered to be personal reference materials.

This testimony is potentially inconsistent with the undisputed fact that NovaSpark Technologies Inc. was incorporated in the State of Delaware on October 3, 2022 — only seven days after the Hollowell Health IT transfer and a mere three days after Anand's resignation from Lumos. The rapid sequence of events — a substantial data transfer on September 26, resignation on September 30, and incorporation of a directly competing enterprise on October 3 — strongly suggests pre-resignation planning and undermines Anand's claim that he had not yet decided to leave Lumos as of September 26.

B. September 28, 2022 — LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap Email

Two days after the Hollowell Health IT transfer, on September 28, 2022, Anand forwarded a confidential internal document — the 37-page "LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap" — from his Lumos corporate email account to his personal email address at r.anand.personal@vaultmail.com. When shown the email log documenting this transmission, marked as Exhibit 9, Anand acknowledged that he sent the email. He did not dispute the contents of the email or the identity of the attached document.

When asked to explain why he forwarded the confidential product roadmap to his personal email, Anand characterized the action as "inadvertent." He testified that he was in the process of sending himself a batch of emails "for personal record-keeping purposes" and that the roadmap document was inadvertently included among the items he forwarded. He stated that he did not specifically intend to send himself the roadmap and that its inclusion was an oversight.

Anand further testified that he did not subsequently open, review, or make any use of the LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap document after leaving Lumos. He stated that, to his recollection, the email sat unopened in his personal email archive and that he did not share the document with anyone at NovaSpark or any other third party.

This testimony is directly contradicted by the Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC Preliminary Forensic Report, dated May 1, 2023 (Exhibit 10), which is designated Attorneys' Eyes Only under the Protective Order entered in this case. The Brindoval report identified a copy of the LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap PDF on NovaSpark's internal confluence server — a collaborative wiki platform used by NovaSpark's engineering team. Critically, the metadata associated with the document on NovaSpark's confluence server indicated that the file was accessed multiple times between November 2022 and January 2023, well after Anand's departure from Lumos and during the period in which NovaSpark was actively developing its competing product. The Brindoval report further noted that the file's metadata was consistent with the version of the roadmap document attached to the September 28 email.

The contradiction between Anand's testimony that he never opened or reviewed the roadmap after leaving Lumos and the forensic evidence showing repeated access on NovaSpark systems is one of the most significant credibility issues arising from this deposition.

C. Testimony Regarding Mallick and Yun Data Transfers

Anand was questioned regarding his knowledge of data transfers carried out by Serena Mallick and Derek Yun prior to their respective departures from Lumos.

With respect to Mallick, Anand was asked whether he was aware that Serena Mallick copied the DataStream ETL pipeline repository — approximately 780 megabytes of proprietary source code, schema definitions, and pipeline configuration files — to a personal USB drive (serial number WD-4837291) on October 10, 2022, four days before her resignation from Lumos. Anand denied any knowledge of this action. He stated that he was not aware of the transfer prior to the commencement of this litigation and that Mallick did not inform him that she had taken any Lumos materials.

With respect to Yun, Anand was asked whether he was aware that Derek Yun downloaded 47 proprietary Jupyter notebooks containing feature-engineering code and model-training scripts to a personal Larkspur Technologies account on October 18, 2022, three days before his resignation from Lumos. Anand similarly denied knowledge of this transfer. He stated that Yun never discussed having taken Lumos materials and that he was unaware of the download until it was identified in the course of discovery.

Anand further denied that he directed, requested, encouraged, or in any way instructed either Mallick or Yun to take any Lumos proprietary materials with them when they departed from Lumos. He characterized the decisions of Mallick and Yun as independent actions over which he had no influence or control.

IV. Testimony Regarding Resignation and Founding of NovaSpark

A. Resignation from Lumos

Anand testified that he resigned from Lumos Analytics Inc. on September 30, 2022, effective immediately. He submitted his resignation via email to Rachel Fong, VP of Engineering, a copy of which was marked as Exhibit 4 during the deposition. Anand stated that his resignation was motivated by "professional dissatisfaction" and a general desire to "explore new opportunities." He described a sense of frustration with the pace of decision-making at Lumos and a feeling that his contributions were not being adequately recognized.

When asked directly whether his resignation was part of a premeditated plan to compete with Lumos using its proprietary technology, Anand denied this categorically. He stated that his decision to resign was personal and professional in nature and was not connected to any plan to start a competing enterprise.

Anand acknowledged that he did not provide advance notice of his resignation, nor did he offer to serve a transition period. He stated that he felt it was best to "make a clean break."

B. Incorporation and Launch of NovaSpark Technologies Inc.

Anand acknowledged that NovaSpark Technologies Inc. was incorporated in the State of Delaware on October 3, 2022 — three calendar days after his resignation from Lumos. He confirmed that he is listed as the sole incorporator on the Delaware Certificate of Incorporation, which was marked as Exhibit 5. He further confirmed that he serves as NovaSpark's Chief Executive Officer and co-founder, and that the company's other co-founders are Serena Mallick and Derek Yun, both of whom are also former Lumos employees.

NovaSpark's principal place of business is located at 88 Bluxome Street, Floor 4, San Francisco, California 94107. Its Delaware File Number is 7294183.

When asked about the remarkably short interval between his resignation from Lumos on September 30, 2022, and NovaSpark's incorporation on October 3, 2022, Anand stated that he had begun "thinking about starting a company" in "late September" but maintained that he had not taken any "concrete steps" toward incorporating or launching a business until after his resignation. He described the incorporation as something that "came together quickly" once he made the decision to proceed.

This testimony is in significant tension with the data-transfer events of September 26 and September 28, 2022, both of which occurred before Anand's resignation. The transfer of 3.2 GB of files, including documents with names referencing LumosEdge architecture and hyperparameter configurations, and the forwarding of the confidential product roadmap, are difficult to reconcile with Anand's claim that he had not yet taken concrete steps toward launching a competing venture as of late September 2022. The totality of the evidence strongly suggests that Anand's departure from Lumos was premeditated and that the data transfers were undertaken in preparation for the launch of NovaSpark.

C. NovaSpark's Business and Competitive Overlap

Anand described NovaSpark's business as offering "AI-driven alternative-data analytics for hedge funds and proprietary trading desks." He characterized NovaSpark's product as a platform that helps institutional investors extract predictive insights from non-traditional data sources, including satellite imagery, web-scraping outputs, credit-card transaction data, and social media sentiment.

When confronted with the significant overlap between NovaSpark's product offering and Lumos's core LumosEdge platform — which similarly provides AI-driven financial analytics for institutional asset managers — Anand attempted to distinguish the two companies' businesses. He asserted that NovaSpark focuses primarily on "alternative data" whereas Lumos focuses on "traditional financial data" such as price, volume, and fundamental financial metrics. He characterized this distinction as a meaningful market differentiation that placed the two companies in separate competitive spaces.

This characterization is contradicted by the evidence in this case and by Anand's own prior testimony. As noted above, Anand confirmed that one of the five categories of proprietary technology to which he had access was the DataStream ETL pipeline, which integrates data from 43 alternative-data vendors. He further confirmed that LumosEdge employs proprietary ensemble ML models for predictive signal generation across both equity and fixed-income instruments, using both traditional financial data and alternative data sources. The overlap between Lumos's existing product capabilities and NovaSpark's stated business focus is substantial and direct, and Anand's attempt to draw a meaningful distinction between the two is not credible.

D. NovaSpark Funding

Anand confirmed that NovaSpark closed a $12 million seed financing round on November 15, 2022, from Blackpine Capital Partners LP, a venture capital fund whose Managing Partner is Franklin Osei. The seed round was completed approximately six weeks after NovaSpark's incorporation, a rapid timeline that further suggests significant pre-resignation planning and preparation.

When asked whether NovaSpark's pitch materials to Blackpine Capital Partners referenced or relied upon Lumos proprietary technology, Anand denied this. He stated that the pitch materials described NovaSpark's product concept and market opportunity in general terms and did not include any Lumos trade secrets, proprietary data, or confidential information.

It should be noted that Lumos's First Set of Requests for Production, served on NovaSpark on March 20, 2023, included a specific request for all pitch decks, presentations, and related materials provided to Blackpine Capital Partners LP in connection with NovaSpark's seed financing. As of the date of the deposition, NovaSpark had not fully produced these documents. A meet-and-confer regarding the adequacy of NovaSpark's production was ongoing at the time of the deposition, and defense counsel Patricia Whitfield indicated during a sidebar that supplemental production was forthcoming. The completeness and content of these pitch materials remain a critical outstanding discovery issue.

V. Testimony Regarding Coordination with Mallick and Yun

A. Recruitment of Serena Mallick

Anand admitted that he communicated with Serena Mallick about the possibility of her joining NovaSpark before Mallick's resignation from Lumos on October 14, 2022. He testified that these conversations occurred "in early October" 2022 — that is, after his own resignation on September 30 but while Mallick was still an active employee of Lumos. He characterized the conversations as "exploratory" in nature and stated that they involved general discussions about career plans and the possibility of working together in the future.

Anand denied making a formal offer of employment to Mallick while she was still employed at Lumos. He stated that any discussions about specific roles, titles, or compensation did not occur until after Mallick had submitted her resignation.

However, the timeline of events undermines this characterization. Anand acknowledged that Mallick resigned from Lumos on October 14, 2022, and began employment at NovaSpark as Vice President of Engineering on October 17, 2022 — only three calendar days after her resignation. The near-instantaneous transition from Lumos employee to NovaSpark executive strongly suggests that Mallick's employment at NovaSpark was pre-arranged during the period in which she was still employed at Lumos, and that Anand's conversations with Mallick went well beyond "exploratory" discussions.

It should also be noted that this recruitment occurred within the 12-month non-solicitation period under Anand's PIIAA. The non-solicitation clause prohibited Anand from directly or indirectly soliciting, inducing, or encouraging any Lumos employee to leave Lumos's employment for a period of 12 months following his separation. Anand's admission that he discussed joining NovaSpark with Mallick while she was still at Lumos — regardless of whether a formal offer was extended — potentially constitutes a direct violation of this provision.

B. Recruitment of Derek Yun

Anand similarly acknowledged having conversations with Derek Yun about joining NovaSpark before Yun's resignation from Lumos on October 21, 2022. He testified that these conversations occurred "around mid-October" 2022 and that they were "casual discussions about career plans." He characterized the conversations as exploratory and stated that Yun made an independent decision to leave Lumos.

As with Mallick, the timeline tells a different story. Yun resigned from Lumos on October 21, 2022, and began employment at NovaSpark as a founding engineer on October 24, 2022 — again, only three calendar days after his resignation. The pattern is identical to Mallick's transition and strongly supports the inference that Yun's employment at NovaSpark was arranged in advance of his departure from Lumos.

Anand denied that he specifically recruited either Mallick or Yun to bring Lumos proprietary materials with them when they left Lumos. He stated that he never asked either individual to copy, download, or transfer any Lumos files, data, or documents, and that any materials they may have taken were taken of their own accord and without his knowledge or direction.

C. Coordinated Departure

When asked directly whether the sequential departures of himself (September 30), Mallick (October 14), and Yun (October 21) were coordinated, Anand denied any formal coordination. He testified that each individual made an "independent decision" to leave Lumos and that the timing was coincidental.

This testimony is significantly undercut by the tight timeline of events and the undisputed fact that all three individuals began employment at NovaSpark within days of their respective resignations from Lumos. The sequence — Anand resigns on September 30, NovaSpark is incorporated on October 3, Mallick resigns on October 14 and begins at NovaSpark on October 17, and Yun resigns on October 21 and begins at NovaSpark on October 24 — is strongly suggestive of a coordinated plan executed over a period of approximately three weeks. Anand's denial of coordination is difficult to credit in light of the overall evidentiary record.

VI. Characterization of Materials and Denials

A. Anand's Position on the Proprietary Nature of Materials

Throughout the deposition, Anand repeatedly attempted to minimize the proprietary nature of the materials he transferred and the technology at issue in this case. His principal arguments were as follows:

• Model architecture concepts: Anand claimed that the ensemble model architecture concepts underlying LumosEdge are "well-known in the machine learning community" and represent standard approaches that are widely discussed in academic literature and at industry conferences. He asserted that the general concept of combining gradient-boosted decision trees with recurrent neural networks and transformer architectures is not novel or proprietary and therefore does not constitute a trade secret.

• Hyperparameter configurations: Anand characterized the hyperparameter configurations as "routine tuning outputs" that any skilled machine learning engineer could independently derive through standard experimentation and grid-search methodologies. He stated that hyperparameter values are specific to particular datasets and training environments and are not independently valuable.

• LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap: Anand described the 37-page product roadmap as a "high-level strategic document" that did not contain implementable technical specifications. He characterized it as aspirational in nature and asserted that it would not provide meaningful competitive advantage to any third party.

Anand denied that NovaSpark's product development relied on any Lumos proprietary materials. He maintained that NovaSpark's technology was being developed independently and that any similarities between NovaSpark's product and LumosEdge were attributable to the use of common techniques and publicly available tools.

B. Denials Regarding Use of Lumos Materials at NovaSpark

Anand testified affirmatively that NovaSpark's product was being built "from scratch" using "publicly available tools and independently developed methods." He stated that NovaSpark's engineering team — which, as noted, includes himself, Mallick, and Yun, all former Lumos employees — was developing its platform using open-source machine-learning frameworks and publicly available datasets, without reference to or reliance upon any Lumos proprietary technology.

He specifically denied that the files transferred to his personal Hollowell Health IT on September 26, 2022, were ever loaded onto NovaSpark systems, shared with NovaSpark employees, or used in any way in connection with NovaSpark's product development. He stated that the files remained on his personal Hollowell Health IT account and were never accessed after his departure from Lumos.

This denial is directly and unambiguously contradicted by the Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC Preliminary Forensic Report (Exhibit 10). The Brindoval report confirmed the presence of Lumos proprietary materials on NovaSpark's servers, including files whose metadata — including file-creation timestamps, authorship attributes, and hash values — traced back to the files transferred to Anand's personal Hollowell Health IT on September 26, 2022. The Brindoval report documented a forensic file-matching analysis that linked specific files on NovaSpark's systems to the corresponding files in the Hollowell Health IT transfer logs, establishing a clear chain of custody from Lumos's environment to Anand's personal account to NovaSpark's corporate infrastructure.

C. Failure to Return Company Materials

Anand admitted that he did not execute any formal acknowledgment or certification of return of company materials upon his resignation from Lumos on September 30, 2022. He stated that he "believed" he had deleted all Lumos files from his personal devices and accounts at or around the time of his departure. However, when pressed under questioning, he acknowledged that he had not conducted any systematic review of his personal devices, cloud storage accounts, or email archives to confirm that all Lumos materials had been identified and deleted. He was unable to describe any specific steps he took to ensure compliance with his obligation under the PIIAA to return all company materials.

This admission is particularly significant in light of the Brindoval forensic findings, which demonstrate that Lumos materials were not, in fact, deleted from Anand's personal accounts and were subsequently migrated to NovaSpark's corporate systems.

VII. Credibility Assessment and Key Contradictions

Based on a thorough review of Anand's deposition testimony and the available documentary and forensic evidence, the following key contradictions and credibility concerns have been identified:

Contradiction 1 — Pre-Resignation Planning: Anand testified that he had not decided to resign from Lumos or to start a competing company as of September 26, 2022, the date of the 3.2 GB Hollowell Health IT transfer. Yet on that very date, he transferred a substantial volume of files — including files whose names reference LumosEdge model architecture and hyperparameter configurations — to a personal cloud storage account. Seven days later, on October 3, 2022, he incorporated NovaSpark as a directly competing enterprise. The temporal proximity of the data transfer, the resignation, and the incorporation strongly suggests premeditated planning that is inconsistent with Anand's testimony.

Contradiction 2 — "Inadvertent" Roadmap Transfer: Anand characterized the September 28, 2022 email forwarding the LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap to his personal email as "inadvertent." However, the Brindoval Preliminary Forensic Report identified the identical roadmap document on NovaSpark's internal confluence server, with metadata showing that it was accessed multiple times between November 2022 and January 2023. The presence of the document on NovaSpark's systems and its repeated access are wholly inconsistent with Anand's claim that the forwarding was accidental and that he never opened or reviewed the document after leaving Lumos.

Contradiction 3 — Denial of Lumos Materials on NovaSpark Systems: Anand denied that any Lumos proprietary materials were ever loaded onto NovaSpark systems or used in NovaSpark's product development. This denial is directly contradicted by Brindoval's forensic file-matching analysis, which confirmed the presence of Lumos proprietary files on NovaSpark servers with metadata tracing back to Anand's Hollowell Health IT transfer. This is perhaps the most significant contradiction in Anand's testimony, as it goes to the core of Lumos's misappropriation claims.

Contradiction 4 — Knowledge of Mallick and Yun Data Transfers: Anand denied any knowledge of the data transfers carried out by Mallick (780 MB DataStream ETL pipeline repository copied to USB on October 10, 2022) and Yun (47 proprietary Jupyter notebooks downloaded to Larkspur Technologies on October 18, 2022). However, he admitted that he recruited both Mallick and Yun to join NovaSpark while they were still employed at Lumos, and the undisputed evidence shows that all three began work at NovaSpark within days of their respective resignations. The coordinated nature of the departures and the pattern of pre-departure data exfiltration make Anand's claimed ignorance of Mallick's and Yun's actions difficult to credit.

Overarching Credibility Concern: Anand's sustained attempt throughout the deposition to characterize highly specific proprietary materials — including 2,847 individually engineered features, detailed neural-network topology specifications, hyperparameter configuration files, and a 37-page confidential product roadmap — as generic, publicly available, or non-proprietary information significantly undermines his overall credibility. These materials represent the product of years of substantial investment by Lumos and are the core assets that give LumosEdge its competitive differentiation. Anand's characterization of these materials as routine or commonplace is inconsistent with his own testimony about the sophistication and uniqueness of the work he performed at Lumos and is unlikely to withstand scrutiny by the Court or a jury.

VIII. Implications for Case Strategy

Anand's deposition testimony has significant implications for the prosecution of Lumos's claims and the overall litigation strategy. The key takeaways are as follows:

Strength of Lumos's Claims. Anand's admissions regarding the September 26 Hollowell Health IT transfer, the September 28 roadmap email, and his pre-resignation recruitment of Mallick and Yun are highly favorable to Lumos's claims. These admissions provide direct evidentiary support for the following causes of action:

• Misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426–3426.11): Anand's admissions establish that he acquired Lumos's trade secrets through his position of trust and transferred them to personal accounts prior to his departure. The Brindoval forensic evidence establishes that those materials subsequently appeared on NovaSpark's systems, supporting a claim of both acquisition by improper means and use in a competing enterprise.

• Breach of the PIIAA: Anand's admissions support claims for breach of the confidentiality and non-disclosure provision (by transferring and retaining proprietary materials), breach of the non-solicitation of employees clause (by recruiting Mallick and Yun while they were still at Lumos, within the 12-month restriction period), and breach of the restrictive covenant prohibiting the use or disclosure of Lumos trade secrets.

• Breach of the duty of loyalty: The evidence that Anand was planning a competing venture and transferring proprietary materials while still employed at Lumos supports a claim that he breached his duty of loyalty to his employer.

• Unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200: The totality of Anand's conduct — pre-departure data exfiltration, coordinated recruitment of key employees, and launch of a directly competing enterprise funded by $12 million in seed capital — supports a claim for unfair competition.

Leveraging Contradictions. The contradictions between Anand's testimony and the Brindoval forensic evidence should be highlighted prominently in any motion for summary adjudication or, if the case proceeds to trial, during cross-examination. The juxtaposition of Anand's specific denials with the forensic evidence contradicting those denials is likely to have a powerful impact on the trier of fact.

Expert Rebuttal. Anand's characterization of the transferred materials as non-proprietary and publicly available can be effectively rebutted through two sources: (1) the technical testimony of Rachel Fong, VP of Engineering at Lumos, who can testify to the time, resources, and expertise invested in developing the proprietary technology at issue; and (2) the expert analysis of Naveen Kapoor of Meridian Cybersecurity Advisors Inc., who is being retained to provide opinions on the proprietary nature of the materials, the extent of overlap between the transferred materials and NovaSpark's product, and the competitive advantage conferred by possession of such materials.

Upcoming Depositions. Anand's admissions regarding his recruitment of Mallick and Yun should be used as a foundation for the upcoming depositions of Serena Mallick (scheduled for June 7, 2023) and Derek Yun (scheduled for June 22, 2023). Anand's testimony provides a baseline against which the consistency of Mallick's and Yun's accounts can be tested. In particular, the deposition outlines for Mallick and Yun should probe the following areas: (i) the timing and substance of their pre-resignation conversations with Anand about joining NovaSpark; (ii) whether Anand directed or suggested that they take Lumos materials; (iii) their knowledge of the materials transferred by the other members of the group; and (iv) whether the sequential departures were coordinated.

Outstanding discovery. NovaSpark's incomplete production of the Blackpine Capital Partners pitch materials remains a critical outstanding discovery issue. If NovaSpark's pitch materials to Blackpine referenced or incorporated Lumos proprietary technology — including descriptions of technical capabilities derived from LumosEdge, demonstrations of features built on Lumos data, or projections based on accelerated development timelines made possible by the misappropriated materials — such evidence would further undercut Anand's denials and could constitute an additional basis for damages. This issue should be pursued aggressively in the ongoing meet-and-confer process, and if NovaSpark fails to produce these materials, a motion to compel should be filed.

IX. Exhibits Referenced During Deposition

The following exhibits were marked and referenced during the deposition of Rajiv Anand on May 15, 2023:

X. Next Steps

Based on the testimony elicited at the Anand deposition and the analysis set forth in this memorandum, I recommend the following next steps:

1. Circulation and Review. Circulate this memorandum to Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner, and Catherine Bloom, Billing Partner, for review and discussion. I am available to meet at their convenience to discuss the implications of Anand's testimony for the overall case strategy and trial preparation.

2. Deposition Preparation — Mallick and Yun. Prepare detailed deposition outlines for the upcoming depositions of Serena Mallick (scheduled June 7, 2023) and Derek Yun (scheduled June 22, 2023). The outlines should incorporate the key admissions and contradictions from Anand's testimony and should be designed to probe for further admissions regarding the coordinated nature of the departures, the data transfers, and the use of Lumos materials at NovaSpark. Particular attention should be given to testing consistency between each witness's account and Anand's testimony.

3. Outstanding Document Production. Follow up with defense counsel Patricia Whitfield and Samuel Gerber at Whitfield, Raines & Gerber LLP regarding NovaSpark's outstanding document production obligations, with particular emphasis on the Blackpine Capital Partners pitch materials. If satisfactory production is not received within 10 business days, recommend filing a motion to compel.

4. Expert Coordination. Coordinate with Naveen Kapoor at Meridian Cybersecurity Advisors Inc. to develop a technical rebuttal to Anand's characterization of the transferred materials as non-proprietary and publicly available. Mr. Kapoor should be provided with the relevant portions of the deposition transcript (subject to any Protective Order designations) so that his expert report can specifically address and rebut Anand's claims regarding the routine nature of hyperparameter configurations, the public availability of the ensemble model architecture, and the purportedly high-level nature of the product roadmap.

5. Supplemental Motion Practice and Damages Analysis. Evaluate whether Anand's deposition testimony warrants (a) a supplemental motion to compel production of documents referenced in his testimony, including any communications with Blackpine Capital Partners and any internal NovaSpark documents relating to the use of the transferred materials, and (b) an update to the damages analysis prepared in connection with Lumos's unjust enrichment estimates. The current damages range of $8.7 million to $12.4 million — based on an estimated 14 to 18 months of accelerated development time attributable to the misappropriated materials — should be reassessed in light of Anand's admissions and the additional forensic evidence.

This memorandum constitutes privileged attorney work product and is not intended for disclosure outside the litigation team. All references to Exhibit 10 (Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC Preliminary Forensic Report) are subject to the Attorneys' Eyes Only designation under the Protective Order entered in this action.

Prepared by:

________________________________________

Omar Siddiqui Working Associate Calderwood & Harkness LLP 555 California Street, 40th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104

Date: May 18, 2023

Exhibit No.	Description
Exhibit 1	Rajiv Anand's resume/curriculum vitae
Exhibit 2	Lumos Analytics Inc. offer letter to Rajiv Anand, dated March 2019
Exhibit 3	Executed Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement (PIIAA) — Rajiv Anand, dated March 2019
Exhibit 4	Anand resignation email to Rachel Fong, dated September 30, 2022
Exhibit 5	NovaSpark Technologies Inc. Delaware Certificate of Incorporation, dated October 3, 2022
Exhibit 6	NovaSpark organizational chart (produced in discovery)
Exhibit 7	Lumos IT security logs showing Hollowell Health IT transfer activity, September 26, 2022 (approximately 3.2 GB)
Exhibit 8	File-name listing extracted from Hollowell Health IT transfer logs, September 26, 2022
Exhibit 9	Email log showing forwarding of LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap to r.anand.personal@vaultmail.com, September 28, 2022
Exhibit 10	Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC Preliminary Forensic Report, dated May 1, 2023 (designated Attorneys' Eyes Only under the Protective Order)
Exhibit 11	Lumos internal communications regarding Anand's departure
Exhibit 12	NovaSpark marketing / pitch deck excerpts (produced in discovery)

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
MEMORANDUM
May 18, 2023
TO: Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate
FROM: Omar Siddiqui, Working Associate
RE: Deposition Summary — Rajiv Anand (May 15, 2023)
MATTER: Lumos Analytics Inc. v. NovaSpark Technologies Inc. et al., Case No. 23-CV-004871, Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara
C&H MATTER NUMBER: 1008-00005
COPIES: Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner; Catherine Bloom, Billing Partner
This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and constitutes attorney work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. It is intended solely for the use of the attorneys and professionals working on the above-referenced matter and should not be disclosed to any third party without the express authorization of Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner.
I. Executive Summary
The purpose of this memorandum is to summarize the key testimony elicited during the deposition of Rajiv Anand, taken on May 15, 2023, at the offices of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 555 California Street, 40th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104. The deposition was conducted by Wendy Schultz on behalf of our client, Lumos Analytics Inc. ("Lumos"). Defense counsel Patricia Whitfield and Samuel Gerber of Whitfield, Raines & Gerber LLP appeared on behalf of NovaSpark Technologies Inc. ("NovaSpark") and Mr. Anand individually.
The deposition lasted approximately six and one-half hours, inclusive of breaks, and was recorded by both stenographic and videographic means. Examination covered a broad range of topics central to Lumos's claims, including: Anand's employment history at Lumos; the scope and nature of his access to proprietary materials during his tenure; the data-transfer events of September 26 and September 28, 2022; the circumstances surrounding his resignation on September 30, 2022; the founding and incorporation of NovaSpark Technologies Inc. on October 3, 2022; his coordination with Serena Mallick and Derek Yun, both former Lumos employees who subsequently joined NovaSpark; and his characterization of the nature and proprietary status of the materials he transferred.
Overall Assessment: Anand made several significant admissions regarding the mechanics and timing of the data transfers, including his acknowledgment that he transferred approximately 3.2 GB of files to a personal Hollowell Health IT account on September 26, 2022, and that he forwarded a 37-page confidential product roadmap to his personal email on September 28, 2022. He further admitted to engaging in pre-resignation discussions with both Mallick and Yun about joining NovaSpark while they were still employed at Lumos. However, Anand attempted throughout the deposition to minimize the proprietary nature of the transferred materials and denied any intent to misappropriate Lumos trade secrets or to use those materials in the development of NovaSpark's competing product.
Critically, several key contradictions emerged between Anand's deposition testimony and the forensic evidence documented in the Preliminary Forensic Report prepared by Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC, dated May 1, 2023 (Exhibit 10). These contradictions, discussed in detail below, substantially undermine Anand's credibility and provide strong evidentiary support for Lumos's claims under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("CUTSA"), for breach of the Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement ("PIIAA"), breach of the duty of loyalty, and unfair business practices under California Business & Professions Code § 17200.
II. Witness Background and Employment at Lumos
A. Personal Information
Rajiv Anand is 37 years old and currently resides at 1482 Mariposa Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94306. He testified that he has lived at this address since approximately 2020. With respect to his educational background, Anand testified that he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the University of California, Berkeley, in 2008, and a Master of Science degree in Computer Science with a specialization in Machine Learning from Stanford University in 2010. He stated that his academic work at Stanford focused on neural-network architectures and deep learning applications for time-series prediction — a subject area directly relevant to the proprietary technology at issue in this litigation.
Following his graduate studies, Anand testified that he held positions at several technology companies before joining Lumos, including a stint as a machine learning engineer at a financial technology startup (the name of which he identified as "Quantile Systems") from 2010 to 2014, and a senior engineer role at a larger data analytics firm (which he identified as "Aldermere Holdings") from 2014 to 2019.
B. Employment History at Lumos Analytics Inc.
Anand testified that he joined Lumos Analytics Inc. in March 2019 with the title of Principal Engineer — ML Infrastructure. He confirmed that his hiring was facilitated by Rachel Fong, Vice President of Engineering, with whom he had a prior professional relationship. Anand stated that from the outset of his employment, he was assigned to the core engineering team responsible for developing LumosEdge, Lumos's flagship AI-driven financial analytics product designed for institutional asset managers.
Anand testified that he was one of the original architects of the LumosEdge signal-generation engine, which he described as the central analytical component of the LumosEdge platform. He acknowledged that the signal-generation engine is the primary competitive differentiator of Lumos's product offering and that its development represented a significant investment of time, resources, and intellectual capital by Lumos.
In describing his specific role, Anand testified that he oversaw the design and development of the ensemble machine-learning model architecture underlying LumosEdge, including the neural-network topology, the selection and configuration of hyperparameters, and the integration of multiple model types (including gradient-boosted decision trees, recurrent neural networks, and transformer-based architectures) into a unified ensemble framework. He further testified that his work involved close collaboration with other members of the ML infrastructure team, including data engineers responsible for the ingestion and processing of training data.
Significantly, Anand confirmed that during his employment at Lumos, he had access to all five categories of proprietary technology that are at issue in this case:
1.  LumosEdge Ensemble ML Model Architecture — the full specifications, design documents, and source code for the ensemble machine-learning model, including neural-network topology and hyperparameter configurations;
2.  Proprietary Feature-Engineering Libraries — containing 2,847 individually engineered features designed for predictive signal generation across equity and fixed-income instruments;
3.  DataStream ETL Pipeline Codebase and Data-Schema Definitions — the proprietary extract-transform-load pipeline and associated schema definitions covering the ingestion, normalization, and integration of data from 43 alternative-data vendors;
4.  Curated and Labeled Training Dataset — approximately 14.6 terabytes of historical financial and alternative data that had been curated, cleaned, labeled, and structured by Lumos's data-engineering team over a period of more than three years; and
5.  Confidential LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap — a 37-page internal strategy document outlining planned features, architectural enhancements, target market expansions, and go-to-market timelines for the next-generation version of the LumosEdge platform.
Anand acknowledged that he reported directly to Rachel Fong, VP of Engineering, and worked closely with other members of the engineering team. He specifically confirmed that he worked on a day-to-day basis with Serena Mallick, who served as a Senior Data Engineer responsible for the DataStream ETL pipeline, and Derek Yun, who served as a Machine Learning Engineer focused on feature engineering and model training. Anand testified that he considered Mallick and Yun to be among his closest collaborators at Lumos.
C. Execution of Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement (PIIAA)
Anand confirmed that he executed a Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement ("PIIAA") at the time he commenced employment with Lumos in March 2019. When shown the executed PIIAA, marked as Exhibit 3 during the deposition, Anand acknowledged his signature on the final page and confirmed that the document appeared to be a true and correct copy of the agreement he signed.
Anand testified that he was aware of the principal provisions of the PIIAA at the time he signed it. Specifically, he acknowledged his understanding of the following provisions:
(a) Assignment of Inventions Clause — providing that all inventions, developments, improvements, and works of authorship conceived or created by Anand during the course of his employment at Lumos, or using Lumos's resources, are the exclusive property of Lumos;
(b) Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Provision — requiring Anand to maintain the confidentiality of all proprietary information of Lumos and prohibiting disclosure of such information to any third party, with this obligation surviving termination of employment for a period of three years;
(c) Non-Solicitation of Employees Clause — prohibiting Anand, for a period of 12 months following separation from Lumos, from directly or indirectly soliciting, inducing, or encouraging any Lumos employee to leave Lumos's employment; and
(d) Covenant Not to Use or Disclose Trade Secrets — a separate and broader restrictive covenant prohibiting Anand from using or disclosing Lumos trade secrets at any time, without limitation as to duration.
Anand further acknowledged that the PIIAA contained a provision requiring the return of all company materials — including documents, files, data, equipment, and all copies thereof — upon termination of employment. When asked whether he returned all company materials upon his resignation on September 30, 2022, Anand initially stated that he "believed" he had returned everything that was required. However, upon further questioning, he acknowledged that he did not execute a formal return-of-materials certification or acknowledgment at the time of his departure. He stated that he was not asked to complete such a certification, but he did not dispute that the PIIAA imposed an affirmative obligation on him to return all materials regardless of whether a formal certification was requested.
III. Testimony Regarding Data Transfer Events
A. September 26, 2022 — Hollowell Health IT Transfer (3.2 GB)
Anand admitted that on or about September 26, 2022 — four days before his resignation — he transferred files from his Lumos work environment to a personal Hollowell Health IT account. This admission was elicited after Anand was confronted with Lumos IT security logs, marked as Exhibit 7, which documented the transfer activity in detail. The security logs recorded that the transfer involved approximately 3.2 gigabytes of data. When asked whether he disputed the volume figure reflected in the logs, Anand stated that he did not.
Anand was then asked to characterize the nature of the files he transferred. He described the files as consisting of "personal notes," "reference materials," and "general technical documentation" that he had accumulated during his time at Lumos. He maintained that these materials were not proprietary and that they reflected his own personal knowledge and work habits rather than Lumos trade secrets.
However, when shown the detailed file-name listing extracted from the Hollowell Health IT transfer logs, marked as Exhibit 8, Anand's characterization became significantly less tenable. The file-name listing included numerous files with names that directly referenced LumosEdge model architecture specifications, hyperparameter configuration files, and ensemble model training scripts. Specific file names referenced in the examination included, among others, "LumosEdgeensemblearchv4.2FINAL.py," "hyperparamconfigLSTMv7.json," and "featurelibequitysignals_master.csv." When confronted with these file names, Anand conceded that "some files may have included work product" but continued to maintain that he did not intend to take proprietary information and that the transfer was not motivated by any desire to misappropriate Lumos's intellectual property.
Anand specifically denied that the September 26 transfer was motivated by any plan to start a competing company. He testified that as of September 26, 2022, he had not yet decided to resign from Lumos and had not formulated any concrete plans to launch NovaSpark or any other venture. He stated that the transfer was simply part of his routine practice of backing up files he considered to be personal reference materials.
This testimony is potentially inconsistent with the undisputed fact that NovaSpark Technologies Inc. was incorporated in the State of Delaware on October 3, 2022 — only seven days after the Hollowell Health IT transfer and a mere three days after Anand's resignation from Lumos. The rapid sequence of events — a substantial data transfer on September 26, resignation on September 30, and incorporation of a directly competing enterprise on October 3 — strongly suggests pre-resignation planning and undermines Anand's claim that he had not yet decided to leave Lumos as of September 26.
B. September 28, 2022 — LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap Email
Two days after the Hollowell Health IT transfer, on September 28, 2022, Anand forwarded a confidential internal document — the 37-page "LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap" — from his Lumos corporate email account to his personal email address at r.anand.personal@vaultmail.com. When shown the email log documenting this transmission, marked as Exhibit 9, Anand acknowledged that he sent the email. He did not dispute the contents of the email or the identity of the attached document.
When asked to explain why he forwarded the confidential product roadmap to his personal email, Anand characterized the action as "inadvertent." He testified that he was in the process of sending himself a batch of emails "for personal record-keeping purposes" and that the roadmap document was inadvertently included among the items he forwarded. He stated that he did not specifically intend to send himself the roadmap and that its inclusion was an oversight.
Anand further testified that he did not subsequently open, review, or make any use of the LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap document after leaving Lumos. He stated that, to his recollection, the email sat unopened in his personal email archive and that he did not share the document with anyone at NovaSpark or any other third party.
This testimony is directly contradicted by the Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC Preliminary Forensic Report, dated May 1, 2023 (Exhibit 10), which is designated Attorneys' Eyes Only under the Protective Order entered in this case. The Brindoval report identified a copy of the LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap PDF on NovaSpark's internal confluence server — a collaborative wiki platform used by NovaSpark's engineering team. Critically, the metadata associated with the document on NovaSpark's confluence server indicated that the file was accessed multiple times between November 2022 and January 2023, well after Anand's departure from Lumos and during the period in which NovaSpark was actively developing its competing product. The Brindoval report further noted that the file's metadata was consistent with the version of the roadmap document attached to the September 28 email.
The contradiction between Anand's testimony that he never opened or reviewed the roadmap after leaving Lumos and the forensic evidence showing repeated access on NovaSpark systems is one of the most significant credibility issues arising from this deposition.
C. Testimony Regarding Mallick and Yun Data Transfers
Anand was questioned regarding his knowledge of data transfers carried out by Serena Mallick and Derek Yun prior to their respective departures from Lumos.
With respect to Mallick, Anand was asked whether he was aware that Serena Mallick copied the DataStream ETL pipeline repository — approximately 780 megabytes of proprietary source code, schema definitions, and pipeline configuration files — to a personal USB drive (serial number WD-4837291) on October 10, 2022, four days before her resignation from Lumos. Anand denied any knowledge of this action. He stated that he was not aware of the transfer prior to the commencement of this litigation and that Mallick did not inform him that she had taken any Lumos materials.
With respect to Yun, Anand was asked whether he was aware that Derek Yun downloaded 47 proprietary Jupyter notebooks containing feature-engineering code and model-training scripts to a personal Larkspur Technologies account on October 18, 2022, three days before his resignation from Lumos. Anand similarly denied knowledge of this transfer. He stated that Yun never discussed having taken Lumos materials and that he was unaware of the download until it was identified in the course of discovery.
Anand further denied that he directed, requested, encouraged, or in any way instructed either Mallick or Yun to take any Lumos proprietary materials with them when they departed from Lumos. He characterized the decisions of Mallick and Yun as independent actions over which he had no influence or control.
IV. Testimony Regarding Resignation and Founding of NovaSpark
A. Resignation from Lumos
Anand testified that he resigned from Lumos Analytics Inc. on September 30, 2022, effective immediately. He submitted his resignation via email to Rachel Fong, VP of Engineering, a copy of which was marked as Exhibit 4 during the deposition. Anand stated that his resignation was motivated by "professional dissatisfaction" and a general desire to "explore new opportunities." He described a sense of frustration with the pace of decision-making at Lumos and a feeling that his contributions were not being adequately recognized.
When asked directly whether his resignation was part of a premeditated plan to compete with Lumos using its proprietary technology, Anand denied this categorically. He stated that his decision to resign was personal and professional in nature and was not connected to any plan to start a competing enterprise.
Anand acknowledged that he did not provide advance notice of his resignation, nor did he offer to serve a transition period. He stated that he felt it was best to "make a clean break."
B. Incorporation and Launch of NovaSpark Technologies Inc.
Anand acknowledged that NovaSpark Technologies Inc. was incorporated in the State of Delaware on October 3, 2022 — three calendar days after his resignation from Lumos. He confirmed that he is listed as the sole incorporator on the Delaware Certificate of Incorporation, which was marked as Exhibit 5. He further confirmed that he serves as NovaSpark's Chief Executive Officer and co-founder, and that the company's other co-founders are Serena Mallick and Derek Yun, both of whom are also former Lumos employees.
NovaSpark's principal place of business is located at 88 Bluxome Street, Floor 4, San Francisco, California 94107. Its Delaware File Number is 7294183.
When asked about the remarkably short interval between his resignation from Lumos on September 30, 2022, and NovaSpark's incorporation on October 3, 2022, Anand stated that he had begun "thinking about starting a company" in "late September" but maintained that he had not taken any "concrete steps" toward incorporating or launching a business until after his resignation. He described the incorporation as something that "came together quickly" once he made the decision to proceed.
This testimony is in significant tension with the data-transfer events of September 26 and September 28, 2022, both of which occurred before Anand's resignation. The transfer of 3.2 GB of files, including documents with names referencing LumosEdge architecture and hyperparameter configurations, and the forwarding of the confidential product roadmap, are difficult to reconcile with Anand's claim that he had not yet taken concrete steps toward launching a competing venture as of late September 2022. The totality of the evidence strongly suggests that Anand's departure from Lumos was premeditated and that the data transfers were undertaken in preparation for the launch of NovaSpark.
C. NovaSpark's Business and Competitive Overlap
Anand described NovaSpark's business as offering "AI-driven alternative-data analytics for hedge funds and proprietary trading desks." He characterized NovaSpark's product as a platform that helps institutional investors extract predictive insights from non-traditional data sources, including satellite imagery, web-scraping outputs, credit-card transaction data, and social media sentiment.
When confronted with the significant overlap between NovaSpark's product offering and Lumos's core LumosEdge platform — which similarly provides AI-driven financial analytics for institutional asset managers — Anand attempted to distinguish the two companies' businesses. He asserted that NovaSpark focuses primarily on "alternative data" whereas Lumos focuses on "traditional financial data" such as price, volume, and fundamental financial metrics. He characterized this distinction as a meaningful market differentiation that placed the two companies in separate competitive spaces.
This characterization is contradicted by the evidence in this case and by Anand's own prior testimony. As noted above, Anand confirmed that one of the five categories of proprietary technology to which he had access was the DataStream ETL pipeline, which integrates data from 43 alternative-data vendors. He further confirmed that LumosEdge employs proprietary ensemble ML models for predictive signal generation across both equity and fixed-income instruments, using both traditional financial data and alternative data sources. The overlap between Lumos's existing product capabilities and NovaSpark's stated business focus is substantial and direct, and Anand's attempt to draw a meaningful distinction between the two is not credible.
D. NovaSpark Funding
Anand confirmed that NovaSpark closed a $12 million seed financing round on November 15, 2022, from Blackpine Capital Partners LP, a venture capital fund whose Managing Partner is Franklin Osei. The seed round was completed approximately six weeks after NovaSpark's incorporation, a rapid timeline that further suggests significant pre-resignation planning and preparation.
When asked whether NovaSpark's pitch materials to Blackpine Capital Partners referenced or relied upon Lumos proprietary technology, Anand denied this. He stated that the pitch materials described NovaSpark's product concept and market opportunity in general terms and did not include any Lumos trade secrets, proprietary data, or confidential information.
It should be noted that Lumos's First Set of Requests for Production, served on NovaSpark on March 20, 2023, included a specific request for all pitch decks, presentations, and related materials provided to Blackpine Capital Partners LP in connection with NovaSpark's seed financing. As of the date of the deposition, NovaSpark had not fully produced these documents. A meet-and-confer regarding the adequacy of NovaSpark's production was ongoing at the time of the deposition, and defense counsel Patricia Whitfield indicated during a sidebar that supplemental production was forthcoming. The completeness and content of these pitch materials remain a critical outstanding discovery issue.
V. Testimony Regarding Coordination with Mallick and Yun
A. Recruitment of Serena Mallick
Anand admitted that he communicated with Serena Mallick about the possibility of her joining NovaSpark before Mallick's resignation from Lumos on October 14, 2022. He testified that these conversations occurred "in early October" 2022 — that is, after his own resignation on September 30 but while Mallick was still an active employee of Lumos. He characterized the conversations as "exploratory" in nature and stated that they involved general discussions about career plans and the possibility of working together in the future.
Anand denied making a formal offer of employment to Mallick while she was still employed at Lumos. He stated that any discussions about specific roles, titles, or compensation did not occur until after Mallick had submitted her resignation.
However, the timeline of events undermines this characterization. Anand acknowledged that Mallick resigned from Lumos on October 14, 2022, and began employment at NovaSpark as Vice President of Engineering on October 17, 2022 — only three calendar days after her resignation. The near-instantaneous transition from Lumos employee to NovaSpark executive strongly suggests that Mallick's employment at NovaSpark was pre-arranged during the period in which she was still employed at Lumos, and that Anand's conversations with Mallick went well beyond "exploratory" discussions.
It should also be noted that this recruitment occurred within the 12-month non-solicitation period under Anand's PIIAA. The non-solicitation clause prohibited Anand from directly or indirectly soliciting, inducing, or encouraging any Lumos employee to leave Lumos's employment for a period of 12 months following his separation. Anand's admission that he discussed joining NovaSpark with Mallick while she was still at Lumos — regardless of whether a formal offer was extended — potentially constitutes a direct violation of this provision.
B. Recruitment of Derek Yun
Anand similarly acknowledged having conversations with Derek Yun about joining NovaSpark before Yun's resignation from Lumos on October 21, 2022. He testified that these conversations occurred "around mid-October" 2022 and that they were "casual discussions about career plans." He characterized the conversations as exploratory and stated that Yun made an independent decision to leave Lumos.
As with Mallick, the timeline tells a different story. Yun resigned from Lumos on October 21, 2022, and began employment at NovaSpark as a founding engineer on October 24, 2022 — again, only three calendar days after his resignation. The pattern is identical to Mallick's transition and strongly supports the inference that Yun's employment at NovaSpark was arranged in advance of his departure from Lumos.
Anand denied that he specifically recruited either Mallick or Yun to bring Lumos proprietary materials with them when they left Lumos. He stated that he never asked either individual to copy, download, or transfer any Lumos files, data, or documents, and that any materials they may have taken were taken of their own accord and without his knowledge or direction.
C. Coordinated Departure
When asked directly whether the sequential departures of himself (September 30), Mallick (October 14), and Yun (October 21) were coordinated, Anand denied any formal coordination. He testified that each individual made an "independent decision" to leave Lumos and that the timing was coincidental.
This testimony is significantly undercut by the tight timeline of events and the undisputed fact that all three individuals began employment at NovaSpark within days of their respective resignations from Lumos. The sequence — Anand resigns on September 30, NovaSpark is incorporated on October 3, Mallick resigns on October 14 and begins at NovaSpark on October 17, and Yun resigns on October 21 and begins at NovaSpark on October 24 — is strongly suggestive of a coordinated plan executed over a period of approximately three weeks. Anand's denial of coordination is difficult to credit in light of the overall evidentiary record.
VI. Characterization of Materials and Denials
A. Anand's Position on the Proprietary Nature of Materials
Throughout the deposition, Anand repeatedly attempted to minimize the proprietary nature of the materials he transferred and the technology at issue in this case. His principal arguments were as follows:
•  Model architecture concepts: Anand claimed that the ensemble model architecture concepts underlying LumosEdge are "well-known in the machine learning community" and represent standard approaches that are widely discussed in academic literature and at industry conferences. He asserted that the general concept of combining gradient-boosted decision trees with recurrent neural networks and transformer architectures is not novel or proprietary and therefore does not constitute a trade secret.
•  Hyperparameter configurations: Anand characterized the hyperparameter configurations as "routine tuning outputs" that any skilled machine learning engineer could independently derive through standard experimentation and grid-search methodologies. He stated that hyperparameter values are specific to particular datasets and training environments and are not independently valuable.
•  LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap: Anand described the 37-page product roadmap as a "high-level strategic document" that did not contain implementable technical specifications. He characterized it as aspirational in nature and asserted that it would not provide meaningful competitive advantage to any third party.
Anand denied that NovaSpark's product development relied on any Lumos proprietary materials. He maintained that NovaSpark's technology was being developed independently and that any similarities between NovaSpark's product and LumosEdge were attributable to the use of common techniques and publicly available tools.
B. Denials Regarding Use of Lumos Materials at NovaSpark
Anand testified affirmatively that NovaSpark's product was being built "from scratch" using "publicly available tools and independently developed methods." He stated that NovaSpark's engineering team — which, as noted, includes himself, Mallick, and Yun, all former Lumos employees — was developing its platform using open-source machine-learning frameworks and publicly available datasets, without reference to or reliance upon any Lumos proprietary technology.
He specifically denied that the files transferred to his personal Hollowell Health IT on September 26, 2022, were ever loaded onto NovaSpark systems, shared with NovaSpark employees, or used in any way in connection with NovaSpark's product development. He stated that the files remained on his personal Hollowell Health IT account and were never accessed after his departure from Lumos.
This denial is directly and unambiguously contradicted by the Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC Preliminary Forensic Report (Exhibit 10). The Brindoval report confirmed the presence of Lumos proprietary materials on NovaSpark's servers, including files whose metadata — including file-creation timestamps, authorship attributes, and hash values — traced back to the files transferred to Anand's personal Hollowell Health IT on September 26, 2022. The Brindoval report documented a forensic file-matching analysis that linked specific files on NovaSpark's systems to the corresponding files in the Hollowell Health IT transfer logs, establishing a clear chain of custody from Lumos's environment to Anand's personal account to NovaSpark's corporate infrastructure.
C. Failure to Return Company Materials
Anand admitted that he did not execute any formal acknowledgment or certification of return of company materials upon his resignation from Lumos on September 30, 2022. He stated that he "believed" he had deleted all Lumos files from his personal devices and accounts at or around the time of his departure. However, when pressed under questioning, he acknowledged that he had not conducted any systematic review of his personal devices, cloud storage accounts, or email archives to confirm that all Lumos materials had been identified and deleted. He was unable to describe any specific steps he took to ensure compliance with his obligation under the PIIAA to return all company materials.
This admission is particularly significant in light of the Brindoval forensic findings, which demonstrate that Lumos materials were not, in fact, deleted from Anand's personal accounts and were subsequently migrated to NovaSpark's corporate systems.
VII. Credibility Assessment and Key Contradictions
Based on a thorough review of Anand's deposition testimony and the available documentary and forensic evidence, the following key contradictions and credibility concerns have been identified:
Contradiction 1 — Pre-Resignation Planning: Anand testified that he had not decided to resign from Lumos or to start a competing company as of September 26, 2022, the date of the 3.2 GB Hollowell Health IT transfer. Yet on that very date, he transferred a substantial volume of files — including files whose names reference LumosEdge model architecture and hyperparameter configurations — to a personal cloud storage account. Seven days later, on October 3, 2022, he incorporated NovaSpark as a directly competing enterprise. The temporal proximity of the data transfer, the resignation, and the incorporation strongly suggests premeditated planning that is inconsistent with Anand's testimony.
Contradiction 2 — "Inadvertent" Roadmap Transfer: Anand characterized the September 28, 2022 email forwarding the LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap to his personal email as "inadvertent." However, the Brindoval Preliminary Forensic Report identified the identical roadmap document on NovaSpark's internal confluence server, with metadata showing that it was accessed multiple times between November 2022 and January 2023. The presence of the document on NovaSpark's systems and its repeated access are wholly inconsistent with Anand's claim that the forwarding was accidental and that he never opened or reviewed the document after leaving Lumos.
Contradiction 3 — Denial of Lumos Materials on NovaSpark Systems: Anand denied that any Lumos proprietary materials were ever loaded onto NovaSpark systems or used in NovaSpark's product development. This denial is directly contradicted by Brindoval's forensic file-matching analysis, which confirmed the presence of Lumos proprietary files on NovaSpark servers with metadata tracing back to Anand's Hollowell Health IT transfer. This is perhaps the most significant contradiction in Anand's testimony, as it goes to the core of Lumos's misappropriation claims.
Contradiction 4 — Knowledge of Mallick and Yun Data Transfers: Anand denied any knowledge of the data transfers carried out by Mallick (780 MB DataStream ETL pipeline repository copied to USB on October 10, 2022) and Yun (47 proprietary Jupyter notebooks downloaded to Larkspur Technologies on October 18, 2022). However, he admitted that he recruited both Mallick and Yun to join NovaSpark while they were still employed at Lumos, and the undisputed evidence shows that all three began work at NovaSpark within days of their respective resignations. The coordinated nature of the departures and the pattern of pre-departure data exfiltration make Anand's claimed ignorance of Mallick's and Yun's actions difficult to credit.
Overarching Credibility Concern: Anand's sustained attempt throughout the deposition to characterize highly specific proprietary materials — including 2,847 individually engineered features, detailed neural-network topology specifications, hyperparameter configuration files, and a 37-page confidential product roadmap — as generic, publicly available, or non-proprietary information significantly undermines his overall credibility. These materials represent the product of years of substantial investment by Lumos and are the core assets that give LumosEdge its competitive differentiation. Anand's characterization of these materials as routine or commonplace is inconsistent with his own testimony about the sophistication and uniqueness of the work he performed at Lumos and is unlikely to withstand scrutiny by the Court or a jury.
VIII. Implications for Case Strategy
Anand's deposition testimony has significant implications for the prosecution of Lumos's claims and the overall litigation strategy. The key takeaways are as follows:
Strength of Lumos's Claims. Anand's admissions regarding the September 26 Hollowell Health IT transfer, the September 28 roadmap email, and his pre-resignation recruitment of Mallick and Yun are highly favorable to Lumos's claims. These admissions provide direct evidentiary support for the following causes of action:
•  Misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 3426–3426.11): Anand's admissions establish that he acquired Lumos's trade secrets through his position of trust and transferred them to personal accounts prior to his departure. The Brindoval forensic evidence establishes that those materials subsequently appeared on NovaSpark's systems, supporting a claim of both acquisition by improper means and use in a competing enterprise.
•  Breach of the PIIAA: Anand's admissions support claims for breach of the confidentiality and non-disclosure provision (by transferring and retaining proprietary materials), breach of the non-solicitation of employees clause (by recruiting Mallick and Yun while they were still at Lumos, within the 12-month restriction period), and breach of the restrictive covenant prohibiting the use or disclosure of Lumos trade secrets.
•  Breach of the duty of loyalty: The evidence that Anand was planning a competing venture and transferring proprietary materials while still employed at Lumos supports a claim that he breached his duty of loyalty to his employer.
•  Unfair business practices under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200: The totality of Anand's conduct — pre-departure data exfiltration, coordinated recruitment of key employees, and launch of a directly competing enterprise funded by $12 million in seed capital — supports a claim for unfair competition.
Leveraging Contradictions. The contradictions between Anand's testimony and the Brindoval forensic evidence should be highlighted prominently in any motion for summary adjudication or, if the case proceeds to trial, during cross-examination. The juxtaposition of Anand's specific denials with the forensic evidence contradicting those denials is likely to have a powerful impact on the trier of fact.
Expert Rebuttal. Anand's characterization of the transferred materials as non-proprietary and publicly available can be effectively rebutted through two sources: (1) the technical testimony of Rachel Fong, VP of Engineering at Lumos, who can testify to the time, resources, and expertise invested in developing the proprietary technology at issue; and (2) the expert analysis of Naveen Kapoor of Meridian Cybersecurity Advisors Inc., who is being retained to provide opinions on the proprietary nature of the materials, the extent of overlap between the transferred materials and NovaSpark's product, and the competitive advantage conferred by possession of such materials.
Upcoming Depositions. Anand's admissions regarding his recruitment of Mallick and Yun should be used as a foundation for the upcoming depositions of Serena Mallick (scheduled for June 7, 2023) and Derek Yun (scheduled for June 22, 2023). Anand's testimony provides a baseline against which the consistency of Mallick's and Yun's accounts can be tested. In particular, the deposition outlines for Mallick and Yun should probe the following areas: (i) the timing and substance of their pre-resignation conversations with Anand about joining NovaSpark; (ii) whether Anand directed or suggested that they take Lumos materials; (iii) their knowledge of the materials transferred by the other members of the group; and (iv) whether the sequential departures were coordinated.
Outstanding discovery. NovaSpark's incomplete production of the Blackpine Capital Partners pitch materials remains a critical outstanding discovery issue. If NovaSpark's pitch materials to Blackpine referenced or incorporated Lumos proprietary technology — including descriptions of technical capabilities derived from LumosEdge, demonstrations of features built on Lumos data, or projections based on accelerated development timelines made possible by the misappropriated materials — such evidence would further undercut Anand's denials and could constitute an additional basis for damages. This issue should be pursued aggressively in the ongoing meet-and-confer process, and if NovaSpark fails to produce these materials, a motion to compel should be filed.
IX. Exhibits Referenced During Deposition
The following exhibits were marked and referenced during the deposition of Rajiv Anand on May 15, 2023:
X. Next Steps
Based on the testimony elicited at the Anand deposition and the analysis set forth in this memorandum, I recommend the following next steps:
1.  Circulation and Review. Circulate this memorandum to Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner, and Catherine Bloom, Billing Partner, for review and discussion. I am available to meet at their convenience to discuss the implications of Anand's testimony for the overall case strategy and trial preparation.
2.  Deposition Preparation — Mallick and Yun. Prepare detailed deposition outlines for the upcoming depositions of Serena Mallick (scheduled June 7, 2023) and Derek Yun (scheduled June 22, 2023). The outlines should incorporate the key admissions and contradictions from Anand's testimony and should be designed to probe for further admissions regarding the coordinated nature of the departures, the data transfers, and the use of Lumos materials at NovaSpark. Particular attention should be given to testing consistency between each witness's account and Anand's testimony.
3.  Outstanding Document Production. Follow up with defense counsel Patricia Whitfield and Samuel Gerber at Whitfield, Raines & Gerber LLP regarding NovaSpark's outstanding document production obligations, with particular emphasis on the Blackpine Capital Partners pitch materials. If satisfactory production is not received within 10 business days, recommend filing a motion to compel.
4.  Expert Coordination. Coordinate with Naveen Kapoor at Meridian Cybersecurity Advisors Inc. to develop a technical rebuttal to Anand's characterization of the transferred materials as non-proprietary and publicly available. Mr. Kapoor should be provided with the relevant portions of the deposition transcript (subject to any Protective Order designations) so that his expert report can specifically address and rebut Anand's claims regarding the routine nature of hyperparameter configurations, the public availability of the ensemble model architecture, and the purportedly high-level nature of the product roadmap.
5.  Supplemental Motion Practice and Damages Analysis. Evaluate whether Anand's deposition testimony warrants (a) a supplemental motion to compel production of documents referenced in his testimony, including any communications with Blackpine Capital Partners and any internal NovaSpark documents relating to the use of the transferred materials, and (b) an update to the damages analysis prepared in connection with Lumos's unjust enrichment estimates. The current damages range of $8.7 million to $12.4 million — based on an estimated 14 to 18 months of accelerated development time attributable to the misappropriated materials — should be reassessed in light of Anand's admissions and the additional forensic evidence.
This memorandum constitutes privileged attorney work product and is not intended for disclosure outside the litigation team. All references to Exhibit 10 (Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC Preliminary Forensic Report) are subject to the Attorneys' Eyes Only designation under the Protective Order entered in this action.
Prepared by:
________________________________________
Omar Siddiqui Working Associate Calderwood & Harkness LLP 555 California Street, 40th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104
Date: May 18, 2023
Exhibit No. | Description
Exhibit 1 | Rajiv Anand's resume/curriculum vitae
Exhibit 2 | Lumos Analytics Inc. offer letter to Rajiv Anand, dated March 2019
Exhibit 3 | Executed Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement (PIIAA) — Rajiv Anand, dated March 2019
Exhibit 4 | Anand resignation email to Rachel Fong, dated September 30, 2022
Exhibit 5 | NovaSpark Technologies Inc. Delaware Certificate of Incorporation, dated October 3, 2022
Exhibit 6 | NovaSpark organizational chart (produced in discovery)
Exhibit 7 | Lumos IT security logs showing Hollowell Health IT transfer activity, September 26, 2022 (approximately 3.2 GB)
Exhibit 8 | File-name listing extracted from Hollowell Health IT transfer logs, September 26, 2022
Exhibit 9 | Email log showing forwarding of LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap to r.anand.personal@vaultmail.com, September 28, 2022
Exhibit 10 | Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC Preliminary Forensic Report, dated May 1, 2023 (designated Attorneys' Eyes Only under the Protective Order)
Exhibit 11 | Lumos internal communications regarding Anand's departure
Exhibit 12 | NovaSpark marketing / pitch deck excerpts (produced in discovery)

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

MEMORANDUM

C&H MATTER NUMBER: 1008-00005

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts