1008-00005 · Lumos Analytics Inc · Discovery

deposition-summary-mallick.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

6 / 35 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

INTERNAL MEMORANDUM

June 12, 2023

TO: Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

FROM: Omar Siddiqui, Working Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

RE: Deposition Summary — Serena Mallick (June 7, 2023)

CLIENT: Lumos Analytics Inc.

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

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 attorneys and authorized personnel at Calderwood & Harkness LLP in connection with the above-referenced matter. Distribution, reproduction, or disclosure of this memorandum or its contents to any person not authorized by Calderwood & Harkness LLP is strictly prohibited.

I. Introduction and Deposition Logistics

This memorandum summarizes the key testimony of Serena Mallick, a former Senior Software Engineer — Data Pipelines at Lumos Analytics Inc. ("Lumos") and a current employee and co-defendant in the above-captioned matter. The deposition of Ms. Mallick was conducted on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at the offices of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 555 California Street, 40th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104.

Ms. Mallick appeared through her counsel of record, Patricia Whitfield and Samuel Gerber of Whitfield, Raines & Gerber LLP, located at 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, California 94104. Both Ms. Whitfield and Mr. Gerber attended the deposition session in person. The examination of Ms. Mallick was conducted by Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, on behalf of Lumos Analytics Inc. I attended the deposition and assisted Ms. Schultz throughout the proceedings.

The deposition commenced at approximately 9:00 a.m. and concluded at approximately 5:15 p.m., lasting approximately seven hours of total testimony time, exclusive of breaks. A certified court reporter was present for the duration of the proceedings, and the deposition was taken under oath in accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure. All testimony was recorded stenographically, and a rough transcript has been received by our office. The page and line citations referenced throughout this memorandum correspond to the rough transcript and may be subject to minor adjustments upon receipt of the final certified transcript.

This memorandum is intended to summarize the most significant substantive testimony elicited during the deposition. It does not purport to be a complete or verbatim account of all questions and answers. Where specific testimony is particularly noteworthy for purposes of trial preparation, mediation strategy, or further discovery, I have included direct quotations or close paraphrases with transcript citations. The memorandum is organized topically rather than chronologically by deposition session.

II. Background and Employment at Lumos Analytics Inc.

A. Hire Date and Role

Ms. Mallick testified that she joined Lumos Analytics Inc. on or about June 15, 2020, in the position of Senior Software Engineer — Data Pipelines. She reported directly to Rachel Fong, who held the title of Vice President of Engineering at Lumos during the entirety of Ms. Mallick's employment. Ms. Mallick confirmed that her primary professional responsibility at Lumos was building, maintaining, and improving the proprietary DataStream ETL (extract, transform, load) pipeline system. The DataStream pipeline is the core data-ingestion infrastructure that feeds alternative financial data into Lumos's flagship product, the LumosEdge platform.

Ms. Mallick described the LumosEdge platform as an AI-driven financial analytics product marketed to institutional asset managers, including hedge funds, pension funds, and large family offices. She testified that the platform's competitive differentiation depended heavily on the breadth, speed, and reliability of its data-ingestion capabilities — capabilities provided by the DataStream ETL pipeline that she helped to design and maintain.

With respect to the scope of the DataStream system, Ms. Mallick confirmed that it integrates data from forty-three (43) separate alternative-data vendors. She testified that the pipeline architecture handles data from diverse source types, including satellite imagery feeds, web-scraped datasets, credit card transaction aggregates, geolocation data, and social media sentiment analytics. She acknowledged that the integration specifications for each vendor relationship — including API configurations, data-format mappings, authentication protocols, and scheduling parameters — were developed in-house by the Lumos engineering team under her supervision and that of Ms. Fong.

Ms. Mallick further described her role as encompassing both hands-on coding and architectural design decisions. She stated that she was one of a small team of approximately four to five engineers who had comprehensive access to the full DataStream codebase and its associated documentation.

B. Execution of PIIAA

Ms. Mallick confirmed that, upon commencement of her employment at Lumos in June 2020, she executed Lumos's standard Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement (the "PIIAA"). When shown a copy of her executed PIIAA, which had been marked as Exhibit 7 during the deposition, Ms. Mallick identified and confirmed her signature on the final page of the agreement. She did not dispute the authenticity of the document.

Under questioning, Ms. Mallick acknowledged that the PIIAA contained the following key provisions:

(a) An assignment of inventions clause, pursuant to which she agreed to assign to Lumos all right, title, and interest in any inventions, discoveries, developments, or improvements conceived or reduced to practice during the course of her employment or with the use of Lumos resources;

(b) A confidentiality and non-disclosure provision, which survived termination of employment for a period of three (3) years, restricting her from disclosing or using Lumos proprietary information;

(c) A non-solicitation of employees clause, effective for a period of twelve (12) months following separation from Lumos, which prohibited her from directly or indirectly soliciting, recruiting, or inducing any Lumos employee to leave Lumos's employment; and

(d) A covenant not to use or disclose Lumos trade secrets at any time, without limitation as to duration, constituting a restrictive covenant framework binding her both during and after employment.

Ms. Mallick testified that she understood at the time she signed the PIIAA that these obligations would continue to bind her after her departure from Lumos. She stated that she read the agreement before signing it and did not request any modifications or seek legal counsel prior to execution. She further acknowledged that the PIIAA required the return of all company materials — including documents, files, data, copies, and electronic media — upon termination of her employment for any reason.

C. Access to Proprietary Information

Ms. Mallick confirmed that during her tenure at Lumos, she had access to the full DataStream ETL pipeline codebase, including all source code, configuration files, deployment scripts, and associated documentation. She also confirmed access to the proprietary data-schema definitions that govern how data from each of the forty-three alternative-data vendors is structured, normalized, and stored within the LumosEdge platform.

In addition to the codebase and data schemas, Ms. Mallick testified that she had access to the integration specifications for each of the forty-three alternative-data vendor relationships. These specifications, she acknowledged, included vendor-specific API documentation, authentication credentials, data-format mappings, scheduling and refresh configurations, error-handling protocols, and historical performance benchmarks.

Ms. Mallick further testified that, while her primary focus was on data pipelines rather than machine learning, she was familiar with certain portions of the LumosEdge ML model architecture. Specifically, she stated she understood how the data pipeline outputs interfaced with the downstream ML models and had reviewed portions of the model architecture documentation in the course of her engineering duties. She characterized her familiarity with the ML components as "working knowledge" rather than deep expertise.

Critically, Ms. Mallick confirmed that she was aware throughout her employment that the DataStream codebase, data-schema definitions, and vendor integration specifications were treated as proprietary and confidential by Lumos. She stated that access to these materials was limited to authorized engineering personnel, that the materials were stored in private repositories requiring credentialed access, and that Lumos periodically reminded employees of their confidentiality obligations through internal communications and team meetings.

III. Circumstances of Departure from Lumos

A. Initial Contact from Rajiv Anand

Ms. Mallick testified that Rajiv Anand, a former colleague at Lumos who had served as Director of Machine Learning, first contacted her about joining a new venture in "late September 2022." This timing is notable because Mr. Anand submitted his own resignation from Lumos effective September 30, 2022. Ms. Mallick stated that Mr. Anand's outreach occurred approximately around the time of, or shortly after, his own departure from the company.

She stated that Mr. Anand reached out to her via personal text message, rather than through Lumos company communication channels such as Meridian Solutions or corporate email. Ms. Mallick testified that during this initial contact, Mr. Anand described his plan to start a new company that would offer AI-driven alternative-data analytics specifically tailored to hedge funds and proprietary trading desks. The company was subsequently identified as NovaSpark Technologies Inc., which corporate records show was incorporated in the State of Delaware on October 3, 2022 — just three days after Mr. Anand's separation from Lumos.

When asked to provide a more precise date of first contact, Ms. Mallick initially stated she was "uncertain" about the exact date. However, upon further questioning and after being shown certain text message records recovered during the forensic imaging process, she acknowledged that Mr. Anand's initial outreach most likely occurred between September 28 and October 2, 2022. The significance of this narrow window is that it encompasses the final days of Mr. Anand's employment at Lumos and the period immediately following his resignation, suggesting that NovaSpark's recruitment efforts commenced essentially contemporaneously with Mr. Anand's departure.

Ms. Mallick testified that during their initial conversation, Mr. Anand told her that the new venture would be "building from scratch" and would not use any Lumos technology. She stated that Mr. Anand represented to her that NovaSpark would develop its own proprietary systems independently. Ms. Mallick characterized this assurance as a factor in her willingness to engage in further discussions about joining the company.

B. Decision to Join NovaSpark

Ms. Mallick testified that following the initial outreach from Mr. Anand, she had several additional conversations with him over a period of approximately ten to twelve days before making the decision to resign from Lumos and accept a position at NovaSpark. These conversations took place via personal text message and, on at least two occasions, by telephone.

She acknowledged that during these discussions, Mr. Anand described NovaSpark's seed funding prospects in some detail. Specifically, Mr. Anand mentioned interest from a venture capital fund, which was later identified as Blackpine Capital Partners LP, managed by Franklin Osei. Ms. Mallick was aware that Blackpine Capital Partners ultimately closed a $12 million seed round in NovaSpark on November 15, 2022, approximately one month after Ms. Mallick joined the company. She testified that the seed funding prospects were a material factor in her decision to accept the offer.

Ms. Mallick stated that she was primarily motivated by two factors in deciding to join NovaSpark: first, the equity compensation package offered to her as an early employee and co-founder; and second, the opportunity to serve as Vice President of Engineering at a startup, representing a significant title and responsibility upgrade from her Senior Software Engineer position at Lumos. She characterized the opportunity as a "once-in-a-career" chance to build an engineering organization from the ground up.

When asked directly whether Mr. Anand specifically asked her to bring any Lumos materials or proprietary information to NovaSpark, Ms. Mallick denied that any such request was made. She stated that Mr. Anand never explicitly asked her to copy, transfer, or otherwise bring Lumos's DataStream code, documentation, or any other proprietary materials to NovaSpark.

C. Resignation. Ms. Mallick resigned from Lumos Analytics Inc. on October 14, 2022. Her resignation was submitted via email, which was marked as Exhibit 19 during the deposition. She testified that she gave no advance notice of her resignation beyond the email itself — she did not provide the customary two weeks' notice and did not have a conversation with her supervisor, Rachel Fong, prior to submitting her resignation email.

Significantly, Ms. Mallick testified that she did not return company materials or confirm the deletion of Lumos proprietary information from her personal devices upon her departure, as required by the terms of the PIIAA she had executed. When asked specifically whether she returned any physical or electronic company property — including her laptop, USB drives, documents, or copies of source code — she stated that she returned her Lumos-issued laptop and badge but did not address the disposition of any copies of Lumos materials that may have resided on personal devices or media.

When asked whether she completed an exit checklist or participated in a formal exit interview with Lumos's Human Resources department, Ms. Mallick stated that she "did not recall any formal exit process." She acknowledged that the abruptness of her departure — with no advance notice and no formal offboarding — was unusual, but she attributed this to the circumstances of her decision to join a startup and her desire to begin work at NovaSpark promptly.

IV. The DataStream ETL Repository Copying Incident (October 10, 2022)

A. The USB Drive and Copying Event

A substantial portion of the deposition focused on the events of October 10, 2022, four days prior to Ms. Mallick's resignation from Lumos. Ms. Mallick was presented with forensic evidence drawn from the Preliminary Forensic Report prepared by Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC, dated May 1, 2023 (marked in part as Exhibit 12), as well as IT security log excerpts from Lumos's internal systems (marked as Exhibit 15).

The forensic evidence and IT logs establish that on October 10, 2022, Ms. Mallick performed a complete clone of the DataStream ETL pipeline repository to a personal external USB drive. The repository, which totaled approximately 780 megabytes (MB) in size, was copied in its entirety. The USB drive was identified by its serial number as WD-4837291, a Glenrock Industries portable storage device.

When initially confronted with the forensic evidence of this copying event, Ms. Mallick characterized the action as creating a "backup" of "her work." She described the copy as a routine preservation of her professional contributions. However, upon further questioning by Ms. Schultz, Ms. Mallick acknowledged that the repository she cloned was not limited to code she had personally authored. Rather, the clone encompassed the entire DataStream ETL pipeline codebase, including contributions from other members of the engineering team, proprietary data-schema definitions governing the structure of data from all forty-three alternative-data vendors, vendor integration specifications, configuration files, deployment scripts, and associated documentation.

Ms. Mallick confirmed that the USB drive with serial number WD-4837291 was her personal property. It was not a Lumos-issued device, nor was it an approved storage medium under Lumos's information security policies. She acknowledged that she brought the USB drive from home specifically on October 10, 2022, and connected it to her Lumos workstation to perform the repository clone.

B. Mallick's Justification and Admissions

When pressed on her motivation for copying the DataStream repository, Ms. Mallick testified that she did so because she "wanted to have a reference for her own professional development" and that she "didn't think it through." She stated that at the time, she viewed the copy as an innocuous preservation of work she had contributed to over the course of her employment, rather than as an act of misappropriation.

Ms. Mallick acknowledged under oath that she did not seek or obtain permission from Lumos or from any supervisor — including Rachel Fong, VP of Engineering — before copying the repository to her personal USB drive. She confirmed that there was no Lumos policy or practice permitting employees to clone entire proprietary code repositories to personal storage media, and that the company's information security guidelines would have prohibited such an action.

When asked whether copying approximately 780 MB of an employer's proprietary codebase to a personal USB drive was consistent with her obligations under the PIIAA, Ms. Mallick conceded that it was not. She acknowledged that the PIIAA prohibited the removal or copying of Lumos proprietary information to personal devices or media without authorization. This concession is significant in establishing both the breach of contractual obligations and the knowing nature of the misappropriation.

Ms. Schultz then asked Ms. Mallick directly whether she understood at the time of the copying that the DataStream ETL pipeline was a Lumos trade secret. Ms. Mallick's response was carefully worded: "I understood it was confidential. I didn't think of it in terms of trade secrets at the time." This distinction — acknowledging confidentiality while disclaiming awareness of trade-secret status — appears to be a deliberate effort by Ms. Mallick and her counsel to limit the applicability of willful misappropriation arguments. However, it should be noted that her acknowledgment of the materials' confidential nature is sufficient under California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq.) to support a finding of misappropriation, as knowledge of confidentiality satisfies the scienter element regardless of whether the deponent personally categorized the information as a "trade secret."

Ms. Mallick denied having a specific plan to use the DataStream materials at NovaSpark at the time she made the copy on October 10, 2022. However, she acknowledged that the timing of the copying event — four days before her resignation, while she was actively in discussions with Rajiv Anand about joining NovaSpark — was, in her words, "not a good look." This candid concession, while falling short of an admission of intent, is nonetheless valuable for impeachment purposes and will resonate with a trier of fact evaluating the circumstantial evidence of her motivations.

C. Disposition of the USB Drive

Ms. Mallick testified that after copying the DataStream repository on October 10, 2022, she took the USB drive (WD-4837291) home to her apartment at 578 Guerrero Street, Apartment 3B, San Francisco, California 94110. The USB drive remained in her personal possession from that date forward.

When asked whether she accessed the files on the USB drive after joining NovaSpark, Ms. Mallick's testimony was notably equivocal. She stated that she "may have" accessed files on the drive after commencing employment at NovaSpark on October 17, 2022. She qualified this admission, however, by claiming that she did not "systematically" use the materials — a hedge that implicitly acknowledges at least some degree of access and use.

This testimony is corroborated — and, in some respects, undermined — by the findings of Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC. The Brindoval forensic analysis confirmed that the USB drive with serial number WD-4837291 was connected to Ms. Mallick's personal laptop on multiple occasions between October 17, 2022 (the date she began work at NovaSpark) and January 2023 (approximately the date Lumos issued its cease-and-desist letter). The frequency and timing of these connections are inconsistent with Ms. Mallick's characterization of casual or incidental access and instead suggest repeated, sustained engagement with the Lumos materials during the period in which NovaSpark was actively developing its competing product.

Ms. Mallick's personal laptop was among the devices imaged by Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC during the court-ordered forensic imaging process conducted between March 22 and April 14, 2023. The Brindoval Preliminary Forensic Report, dated May 1, 2023, confirmed the presence of Lumos DataStream files on both the USB drive and Ms. Mallick's personal laptop. The forensic artifacts indicate that certain files were not merely stored passively but were opened, accessed, and in some instances modified on Ms. Mallick's personal devices during the relevant period.

V. Communications with Co-Defendants Regarding Lumos Technology

A. Communications with Rajiv Anand

Ms. Mallick confirmed that she communicated with Rajiv Anand via personal text message and through a personal signal messaging thread during the September–October 2022 timeframe. She acknowledged that these communications took place outside of Lumos company channels and were conducted using personal devices and accounts.

Ms. Mallick acknowledged discussing with Mr. Anand the technical capabilities that NovaSpark would need to build in order to compete in the alternative-data analytics market. These discussions specifically included the topic of data-ingestion pipelines — a subject that directly and substantively overlapped with Ms. Mallick's core area of expertise and responsibility at Lumos, namely the DataStream ETL pipeline system.

During the deposition, Ms. Mallick was shown specific text message excerpts that had been recovered during the forensic imaging process (marked as Exhibit 18). Among these, Ms. Schultz directed Ms. Mallick's attention to a message from Mr. Anand dated approximately October 5, 2022, in which Mr. Anand asked about "the architecture of the data layer." Ms. Mallick acknowledged the message and confirmed that she responded with a description of general pipeline design principles. She characterized her response as conveying only "general concepts" that would be known to any experienced data engineer, rather than disclosing Lumos-specific proprietary information.

However, the content and context of these communications are significant. Even accepting Ms. Mallick's characterization that her response was limited to "general concepts," the exchange demonstrates that Mr. Anand was actively seeking her input on the design of NovaSpark's data infrastructure — precisely the area in which she possessed extensive knowledge of Lumos's proprietary systems — and that she was willing to provide that input while still employed at Lumos and while in possession of the DataStream repository she had copied to her personal USB drive just five days earlier.

Ms. Mallick denied that Mr. Anand explicitly asked her to bring the DataStream code to NovaSpark. She maintained that there was no express instruction or request to transfer Lumos proprietary materials. Nonetheless, she conceded under questioning that the nature of their conversations — which focused specifically on data pipeline architecture and NovaSpark's need for that capability — made clear that her expertise with Lumos's proprietary pipeline architecture was a key reason Mr. Anand recruited her to join NovaSpark. This concession is important because it establishes the nexus between Ms. Mallick's access to Lumos trade secrets and NovaSpark's interest in her services, supporting the inference that the recruitment was motivated in significant part by her knowledge of Lumos's proprietary technology.

B. Communications with Derek Yun

Ms. Mallick testified that she was aware during the September–October 2022 period that Derek Yun, another Lumos employee (a Machine Learning Engineer), was simultaneously being recruited by Mr. Anand to join NovaSpark. She stated that she and Mr. Yun communicated about the NovaSpark opportunity "a couple of times" before each of them submitted their respective resignations from Lumos.

When asked whether the timing of their departures was coordinated — either among the three individuals or between any two of them — Ms. Mallick denied any express coordination. She testified that each individual made an independent decision about when to resign. However, she acknowledged the objective fact that all three individuals departed Lumos within a roughly three-week window: Mr. Anand on September 30, 2022; Ms. Mallick on October 14, 2022; and Mr. Yun on October 21, 2022. This compressed timeline, combined with the active cross-communication among the three individuals during the same period, strongly suggests a coordinated departure, notwithstanding Ms. Mallick's denial of express coordination.

Ms. Mallick further confirmed that she was aware Mr. Yun joined NovaSpark as a founding engineer on October 24, 2022, just three days after his October 21, 2022 resignation from Lumos. The rapidity of Mr. Yun's transition — virtually no gap between his departure from Lumos and his commencement of employment at NovaSpark — mirrors Ms. Mallick's own three-day transition (resignation on October 14, commencement at NovaSpark on October 17) and underscores the planned nature of these departures.

VI. Work at NovaSpark Technologies Inc.

A. Role and Responsibilities

Ms. Mallick confirmed that she began employment at NovaSpark Technologies Inc. on October 17, 2022, three days after her resignation from Lumos. Her title at NovaSpark is Vice President of Engineering. NovaSpark is headquartered at 88 Bluxome Street, Floor 4, San Francisco, California 94107.

Ms. Mallick's primary responsibility at NovaSpark has been building the company's data-ingestion and processing infrastructure from the ground up. She testified that this involved designing the architecture for how NovaSpark ingests, transforms, normalizes, and stores alternative data for consumption by the company's analytics models. This function is directly and substantively equivalent to the DataStream ETL pipeline she built and maintained at Lumos — a point Ms. Mallick did not dispute.

NovaSpark's stated product offering — AI-driven alternative-data analytics for hedge funds and proprietary trading desks — directly overlaps with Lumos's core market of AI-driven financial analytics for institutional asset managers. While Ms. Mallick attempted to draw distinctions by noting that NovaSpark's initial target clients were hedge funds and proprietary trading desks rather than the broader institutional asset manager category, the fundamental technology requirements (alternative-data ingestion, transformation, and AI-driven analytics) are substantially identical. This market overlap is relevant to both the misappropriation claims and the damages analysis, as it establishes the competitive harm to Lumos.

B. Use of Lumos Materials at NovaSpark

This section of the deposition produced some of the most significant testimony for Lumos's case. Ms. Mallick initially testified that NovaSpark's data pipeline was "designed from scratch" and did not incorporate any Lumos code, data schemas, or other proprietary materials. She maintained this position repeatedly in response to questions framed in several different ways.

However, when confronted with the findings of Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC's Preliminary Forensic Report (Exhibit 12), which documented the presence of Lumos DataStream files on NovaSpark's development servers as of the date of the forensic examination, Ms. Mallick's testimony shifted markedly. She stated that she "could not explain" how those files ended up on NovaSpark's systems. She did not offer any alternative explanation — such as transfer by another individual, accidental copying, or a benign cause — for the presence of Lumos proprietary files on NovaSpark's infrastructure.

This inability to provide an explanation is particularly damaging because Ms. Mallick simultaneously acknowledged two critical facts: first, that she was the only person at NovaSpark who had access to the DataStream repository; and second, that the Lumos files found on NovaSpark's servers could only have come from her USB drive (WD-4837291) or her personal laptop — the two devices on which the Brindoval forensic analysis had already confirmed the presence of the same files. Taken together, these admissions effectively eliminate any plausible source for the Lumos files on NovaSpark's servers other than Ms. Mallick herself.

When asked whether she could identify any specific NovaSpark design documents, architecture specifications, or technical plans that were independently created and that predated the presence of Lumos files on NovaSpark's development servers, Ms. Mallick was unable to do so. She could not point to any documentary evidence of independent design work that would establish that NovaSpark's pipeline architecture was developed without reference to the Lumos materials. This absence of contemporaneous documentation of independent development is a significant evidentiary gap for the defense.

Ms. Mallick conceded under sustained questioning that the architectural structure of NovaSpark's early pipeline prototypes bore similarities to the DataStream system she had built at Lumos. She attributed these similarities to her "general industry knowledge" and experience as a data pipeline engineer, rather than to any use of Lumos materials. However, this explanation is difficult to credit in light of the forensic evidence establishing that Lumos files were present on NovaSpark's servers and that Ms. Mallick was the only possible vector for their introduction.

C. Awareness of Anand's and Yun's Exfiltration

Ms. Mallick was questioned regarding her knowledge of data exfiltration activities attributed to her co-defendants, Rajiv Anand and Derek Yun. She testified as follows:

She stated she was not aware that Mr. Anand had transferred approximately 3.2 gigabytes (GB) of Lumos files — including ML model architecture specifications and hyperparameter configuration files — to a personal Hollowell Health IT account on September 26, 2022, four days before his resignation from Lumos.

She stated she was not aware that Mr. Anand forwarded the thirty-seven-page confidential LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap to his personal email account (r.anand.personal@vaultmail.com) on September 28, 2022, two days before his resignation.

She also stated she was not aware that Mr. Yun had downloaded forty-seven (47) proprietary Jupyter notebooks containing feature-engineering code and model-training scripts to a personal Larkspur Technologies account on October 18, 2022, one day after he joined NovaSpark (and three days before his official resignation from Lumos, which was effective October 21, 2022).

Ms. Mallick testified that she did not see or access any of Mr. Anand's or Mr. Yun's exfiltrated materials at NovaSpark. However, she candidly acknowledged that the ongoing forensic examination of NovaSpark's shared systems may reveal evidence to the contrary. This caveat is notable and may reflect counsel's advice to avoid making categorical denials that could be contradicted by forthcoming forensic evidence.

VII. Response to Cease-and-Desist and Litigation

A. Receipt of Cease-and-Desist Letter

Ms. Mallick confirmed that she received the cease-and-desist letter dated January 9, 2023, sent by Marcus Delgado of Calderwood & Harkness LLP on behalf of Lumos Analytics Inc. The letter was delivered to her residential address at 578 Guerrero Street, Apartment 3B, San Francisco, California 94110. The cease-and-desist letter was marked as Exhibit 22 during the deposition.

Ms. Mallick testified that upon receiving the letter, she forwarded it to Patricia Whitfield at Whitfield, Raines & Gerber LLP. She stated that Ms. Whitfield's firm was already representing NovaSpark and the other individual defendants in connection with the dispute.

Notably, Ms. Mallick testified that she did not take any immediate steps to delete, return, or sequester Lumos materials upon receiving the cease-and-desist letter. She did not contact Lumos or Calderwood & Harkness LLP to arrange the return of the USB drive or to confirm the deletion of Lumos files from her personal devices. When asked about this inaction, she stated that she "relied on counsel's advice" regarding the appropriate next steps and that counsel had instructed her to preserve all materials pending further developments. While reliance on counsel's advice is understandable, the failure to take any immediate remedial action — particularly with respect to materials that Ms. Mallick had already acknowledged were improperly copied — is relevant to the question of willfulness and ongoing misappropriation.

B. Compliance with TRO

Ms. Mallick testified that following the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") by the Honorable David Rutherford on January 23, 2023, she ceased accessing any Lumos materials and preserved all devices, media, and data as ordered by the court. She confirmed compliance with the TRO's requirements from that date forward.

Ms. Mallick further confirmed that her personal laptop, the USB drive with serial number WD-4837291, and her personal cellular phone were subsequently surrendered for imaging and were imaged by Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC during the court-ordered forensic imaging process conducted between March 22 and April 14, 2023. She did not raise any objections to the forensic examination of these devices beyond those asserted by her counsel on the record.

VIII. Key Credibility Observations

Based on my observations during the deposition and a review of the rough transcript, the following credibility assessments are offered for the team's consideration:

Overall Demeanor. Ms. Mallick's testimony was generally measured and controlled. She presented as composed and articulate, and she was clearly well-prepared by her counsel. She did not become visibly flustered during difficult lines of questioning, though she displayed noticeable hesitation on several critical points.

Evasiveness on Intent and Use. Despite her generally poised presentation, Ms. Mallick was notably evasive on the central questions of intent and the use of Lumos materials at NovaSpark. Her repeated qualifications — characterizing the copying as a "backup," claiming she "may have" accessed the files, and attributing pipeline similarities to "general industry knowledge" — reflect a pattern of minimization that is inconsistent with the forensic evidence and the surrounding circumstances.

The "Backup" Characterization. Ms. Mallick's characterization of the October 10, 2022 copying event as a "backup" of "her work" is significantly undermined by multiple factors: the timing of the copy (during active recruitment by Mr. Anand and four days before her resignation); the scope of the copy (the entire DataStream repository, encompassing approximately 780 MB of code, schemas, and specifications, not merely the code she had personally authored); the use of a personal, non-company-issued USB drive; and the failure to seek permission from any supervisor. These circumstances collectively point to a deliberate act of misappropriation, not a routine backup.

Inability to Explain Files on NovaSpark Servers. Ms. Mallick's testimony that she "could not explain" how Lumos DataStream files appeared on NovaSpark's development servers is perhaps the single most damaging credibility gap in her deposition. Given her concurrent admissions that she was the sole person at NovaSpark with access to the DataStream repository and that the files could only have come from her devices, her inability to offer any explanation is tantamount to an acknowledgment that she transferred the files — an acknowledgment she stopped short of making expressly.

Claimed Ignorance of Co-Defendants' Activities. Ms. Mallick's claim that she was not aware of the separate exfiltration activities of Mr. Anand and Mr. Yun is facially plausible — it is possible that each individual acted independently in removing Lumos materials. However, this claim is difficult to evaluate in isolation, given the coordinated nature of the three departures, the active communications among the three individuals during the relevant period, and the fact that all three were working together at NovaSpark during the period when the exfiltrated materials were present on NovaSpark's systems.

Defense Counsel Objections. It should be noted that defense counsel, Ms. Whitfield, objected frequently during the deposition on grounds of attorney-client privilege, particularly when questioning approached Ms. Mallick's post-litigation communications with counsel and NovaSpark's remediation efforts following the issuance of the TRO. These objections were generally sustained by agreement of the parties (consistent with standard deposition practice), and the relevant exchanges are noted in the transcript. The assertion of privilege in these areas, while legally appropriate, prevented the development of testimony regarding what steps, if any, NovaSpark and Ms. Mallick took to identify, quarantine, and purge Lumos materials from NovaSpark's systems following the TRO.

IX. Implications for Settlement and Damages Analysis

Ms. Mallick's deposition testimony has significant implications for the overall strength of Lumos's claims and for our settlement and mediation strategy. The key takeaways are as follows:

Strengthening of Core Misappropriation Claims. Ms. Mallick's testimony strengthens Lumos's claims that (a) the DataStream ETL pipeline — including the codebase, data schemas, and vendor integration specifications — was misappropriated through unauthorized copying to a personal USB drive and subsequent transfer to NovaSpark's systems; (b) the misappropriation was knowing and deliberate, notwithstanding Ms. Mallick's attempts to characterize it otherwise, given her acknowledgment of the PIIAA obligations, her concession that copying was inconsistent with those obligations, and the damaging timing of the copy; and (c) Lumos proprietary materials were present on NovaSpark's development systems and were used, directly or indirectly, in the development of NovaSpark's competing product.

Coordinated Departure Narrative. Ms. Mallick's testimony regarding the recruiting effort by Mr. Anand — including the timeline of contacts, the discussions about NovaSpark's technical needs, and the compressed departure window for all three individuals — supports the narrative of a planned, systematic departure designed to replicate Lumos's core technology at NovaSpark. While Ms. Mallick denied express coordination, the circumstantial evidence is compelling, and her own admissions regarding the sequence of events are consistent with a coordinated effort.

Damages and Unjust Enrichment Analysis. The testimony obtained in this deposition is consistent with the unjust enrichment analysis currently being developed in coordination with Naveen Kapoor of Meridian Cybersecurity Advisors Inc. The estimated unjust enrichment figure of $8.7 million to $12.4 million, based on an assessment of fourteen to eighteen months of development time saved by NovaSpark through its use of misappropriated Lumos technology, is supported by Ms. Mallick's inability to identify independent design documents at NovaSpark predating the introduction of Lumos files, and by her concession that NovaSpark's early pipeline prototypes bore architectural similarities to the DataStream system.

Mediation and Settlement Strategy. It is recommended that Ms. Mallick's deposition transcript excerpts — particularly those regarding the USB drive copying event (October 10, 2022), her concessions regarding PIIAA obligations, and the unexplained presence of Lumos files on NovaSpark's development servers — be highlighted prominently in the mediation brief. These excerpts should be used to support a strong settlement posture and to demonstrate to the mediator and opposing counsel that Lumos has substantial evidence of willful misappropriation. The combination of forensic evidence and Ms. Mallick's own admissions under oath presents a compelling case that should incentivize the defendants to engage in meaningful settlement discussions.

X. Exhibits Referenced During Deposition

The following exhibits were marked and used during the deposition of Serena Mallick on June 7, 2023. Copies of these exhibits are maintained in the case file and are available for review.

XI. Next Steps

Based on the testimony obtained during Ms. Mallick's deposition and the analysis set forth in this memorandum, the following next steps are recommended:

1. Derek Yun Deposition. The remaining deposition of co-defendant Derek Yun is currently scheduled for June 22, 2023. Preparation for Mr. Yun's deposition should incorporate the testimony obtained from Ms. Mallick, particularly with respect to the timeline of recruitment, the communications among the three co-defendants during September–October 2022, and Mr. Yun's knowledge of Ms. Mallick's copying activities. Mr. Yun should also be questioned regarding his own exfiltration of the forty-seven Jupyter notebooks to his personal Larkspur Technologies account.

2. Cross-Reference with Anand Deposition. Ms. Mallick's testimony should be carefully cross-referenced with the deposition testimony of Rajiv Anand, which was taken on May 15, 2023. Areas of particular focus should include: the coordination (or lack thereof) of the three departures; the substance of Mr. Anand's discussions with Ms. Mallick about Lumos technology and NovaSpark's technical requirements; and any inconsistencies between Mr. Anand's account and Ms. Mallick's account of the recruitment timeline and the assurances Mr. Anand allegedly made regarding building "from scratch."

3. Additional discovery Requests. We recommend propounding additional targeted discovery requests to NovaSpark Technologies Inc. seeking production of the company's version-control history (e.g., Git logs), development server access logs, and internal development documentation (including design specifications, architecture diagrams, and project planning documents) for the period from October 2022 through January 2023. These materials are critical to testing Ms. Mallick's claim that NovaSpark's data pipeline was "designed from scratch" and to establishing the extent to which Lumos materials were incorporated into NovaSpark's product development.

4. Coordination with Damages Expert. We should coordinate with Naveen Kapoor at Meridian Cybersecurity Advisors Inc. to incorporate Ms. Mallick's deposition admissions — particularly her concession regarding architectural similarities, her inability to identify independent NovaSpark design documents, and the forensic evidence of Lumos file presence on NovaSpark servers — into the ongoing damages and unjust enrichment analysis. Mr. Kapoor should be provided with the relevant transcript excerpts and a copy of this memorandum.

5. Mediation Preparation. This deposition summary should be included in the case file and incorporated into the mediation preparation materials. Key transcript excerpts should be identified and organized for potential inclusion in the mediation brief, with particular emphasis on the passages identified in Section IX above.

This memorandum is intended for internal use by Calderwood & Harkness LLP attorneys and authorized personnel in connection with the representation of Lumos Analytics Inc. in the above-captioned matter. It reflects the professional analysis and impressions of the undersigned and is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. Please direct any questions to the undersigned or to Wendy Schultz.

Respectfully submitted,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Omar Siddiqui Working Associate Calderwood & Harkness LLP 555 California Street, 40th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 555-0147 osiddiqui@calderwoodharkness.com

cc: Case File (C&H Matter No. 1008-00005)

Exhibit No.	Description
Exhibit 7	Serena Mallick's executed Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement ("PIIAA"), dated on or about June 15, 2020
Exhibit 12	Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC Preliminary Forensic Report, dated May 1, 2023 (excerpts regarding USB drive WD-4837291 and Mallick's personal laptop)
Exhibit 15	IT security log excerpts from Lumos Analytics Inc. documenting the October 10, 2022 file-copy event from Mallick's workstation to USB drive WD-4837291
Exhibit 18	Text message thread between Serena Mallick and Rajiv Anand, September–October 2022 (recovered during court-ordered forensic imaging)
Exhibit 19	Serena Mallick's resignation email to Rachel Fong, dated October 14, 2022
Exhibit 22	Cease-and-desist letter from Marcus Delgado, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, to Serena Mallick, dated January 9, 2023

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
INTERNAL MEMORANDUM
June 12, 2023
TO: Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
FROM: Omar Siddiqui, Working Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
RE: Deposition Summary — Serena Mallick (June 7, 2023)
CLIENT: Lumos Analytics Inc.
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
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 attorneys and authorized personnel at Calderwood & Harkness LLP in connection with the above-referenced matter. Distribution, reproduction, or disclosure of this memorandum or its contents to any person not authorized by Calderwood & Harkness LLP is strictly prohibited.
I. Introduction and Deposition Logistics
This memorandum summarizes the key testimony of Serena Mallick, a former Senior Software Engineer — Data Pipelines at Lumos Analytics Inc. ("Lumos") and a current employee and co-defendant in the above-captioned matter. The deposition of Ms. Mallick was conducted on Wednesday, June 7, 2023, at the offices of Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 555 California Street, 40th Floor, San Francisco, California 94104.
Ms. Mallick appeared through her counsel of record, Patricia Whitfield and Samuel Gerber of Whitfield, Raines & Gerber LLP, located at 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, California 94104. Both Ms. Whitfield and Mr. Gerber attended the deposition session in person. The examination of Ms. Mallick was conducted by Wendy Schultz, Lead Associate, on behalf of Lumos Analytics Inc. I attended the deposition and assisted Ms. Schultz throughout the proceedings.
The deposition commenced at approximately 9:00 a.m. and concluded at approximately 5:15 p.m., lasting approximately seven hours of total testimony time, exclusive of breaks. A certified court reporter was present for the duration of the proceedings, and the deposition was taken under oath in accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure. All testimony was recorded stenographically, and a rough transcript has been received by our office. The page and line citations referenced throughout this memorandum correspond to the rough transcript and may be subject to minor adjustments upon receipt of the final certified transcript.
This memorandum is intended to summarize the most significant substantive testimony elicited during the deposition. It does not purport to be a complete or verbatim account of all questions and answers. Where specific testimony is particularly noteworthy for purposes of trial preparation, mediation strategy, or further discovery, I have included direct quotations or close paraphrases with transcript citations. The memorandum is organized topically rather than chronologically by deposition session.
II. Background and Employment at Lumos Analytics Inc.
A. Hire Date and Role
Ms. Mallick testified that she joined Lumos Analytics Inc. on or about June 15, 2020, in the position of Senior Software Engineer — Data Pipelines. She reported directly to Rachel Fong, who held the title of Vice President of Engineering at Lumos during the entirety of Ms. Mallick's employment. Ms. Mallick confirmed that her primary professional responsibility at Lumos was building, maintaining, and improving the proprietary DataStream ETL (extract, transform, load) pipeline system. The DataStream pipeline is the core data-ingestion infrastructure that feeds alternative financial data into Lumos's flagship product, the LumosEdge platform.
Ms. Mallick described the LumosEdge platform as an AI-driven financial analytics product marketed to institutional asset managers, including hedge funds, pension funds, and large family offices. She testified that the platform's competitive differentiation depended heavily on the breadth, speed, and reliability of its data-ingestion capabilities — capabilities provided by the DataStream ETL pipeline that she helped to design and maintain.
With respect to the scope of the DataStream system, Ms. Mallick confirmed that it integrates data from forty-three (43) separate alternative-data vendors. She testified that the pipeline architecture handles data from diverse source types, including satellite imagery feeds, web-scraped datasets, credit card transaction aggregates, geolocation data, and social media sentiment analytics. She acknowledged that the integration specifications for each vendor relationship — including API configurations, data-format mappings, authentication protocols, and scheduling parameters — were developed in-house by the Lumos engineering team under her supervision and that of Ms. Fong.
Ms. Mallick further described her role as encompassing both hands-on coding and architectural design decisions. She stated that she was one of a small team of approximately four to five engineers who had comprehensive access to the full DataStream codebase and its associated documentation.
B. Execution of PIIAA
Ms. Mallick confirmed that, upon commencement of her employment at Lumos in June 2020, she executed Lumos's standard Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement (the "PIIAA"). When shown a copy of her executed PIIAA, which had been marked as Exhibit 7 during the deposition, Ms. Mallick identified and confirmed her signature on the final page of the agreement. She did not dispute the authenticity of the document.
Under questioning, Ms. Mallick acknowledged that the PIIAA contained the following key provisions:
(a) An assignment of inventions clause, pursuant to which she agreed to assign to Lumos all right, title, and interest in any inventions, discoveries, developments, or improvements conceived or reduced to practice during the course of her employment or with the use of Lumos resources;
(b) A confidentiality and non-disclosure provision, which survived termination of employment for a period of three (3) years, restricting her from disclosing or using Lumos proprietary information;
(c) A non-solicitation of employees clause, effective for a period of twelve (12) months following separation from Lumos, which prohibited her from directly or indirectly soliciting, recruiting, or inducing any Lumos employee to leave Lumos's employment; and
(d) A covenant not to use or disclose Lumos trade secrets at any time, without limitation as to duration, constituting a restrictive covenant framework binding her both during and after employment.
Ms. Mallick testified that she understood at the time she signed the PIIAA that these obligations would continue to bind her after her departure from Lumos. She stated that she read the agreement before signing it and did not request any modifications or seek legal counsel prior to execution. She further acknowledged that the PIIAA required the return of all company materials — including documents, files, data, copies, and electronic media — upon termination of her employment for any reason.
C. Access to Proprietary Information
Ms. Mallick confirmed that during her tenure at Lumos, she had access to the full DataStream ETL pipeline codebase, including all source code, configuration files, deployment scripts, and associated documentation. She also confirmed access to the proprietary data-schema definitions that govern how data from each of the forty-three alternative-data vendors is structured, normalized, and stored within the LumosEdge platform.
In addition to the codebase and data schemas, Ms. Mallick testified that she had access to the integration specifications for each of the forty-three alternative-data vendor relationships. These specifications, she acknowledged, included vendor-specific API documentation, authentication credentials, data-format mappings, scheduling and refresh configurations, error-handling protocols, and historical performance benchmarks.
Ms. Mallick further testified that, while her primary focus was on data pipelines rather than machine learning, she was familiar with certain portions of the LumosEdge ML model architecture. Specifically, she stated she understood how the data pipeline outputs interfaced with the downstream ML models and had reviewed portions of the model architecture documentation in the course of her engineering duties. She characterized her familiarity with the ML components as "working knowledge" rather than deep expertise.
Critically, Ms. Mallick confirmed that she was aware throughout her employment that the DataStream codebase, data-schema definitions, and vendor integration specifications were treated as proprietary and confidential by Lumos. She stated that access to these materials was limited to authorized engineering personnel, that the materials were stored in private repositories requiring credentialed access, and that Lumos periodically reminded employees of their confidentiality obligations through internal communications and team meetings.
III. Circumstances of Departure from Lumos
A. Initial Contact from Rajiv Anand
Ms. Mallick testified that Rajiv Anand, a former colleague at Lumos who had served as Director of Machine Learning, first contacted her about joining a new venture in "late September 2022." This timing is notable because Mr. Anand submitted his own resignation from Lumos effective September 30, 2022. Ms. Mallick stated that Mr. Anand's outreach occurred approximately around the time of, or shortly after, his own departure from the company.
She stated that Mr. Anand reached out to her via personal text message, rather than through Lumos company communication channels such as Meridian Solutions or corporate email. Ms. Mallick testified that during this initial contact, Mr. Anand described his plan to start a new company that would offer AI-driven alternative-data analytics specifically tailored to hedge funds and proprietary trading desks. The company was subsequently identified as NovaSpark Technologies Inc., which corporate records show was incorporated in the State of Delaware on October 3, 2022 — just three days after Mr. Anand's separation from Lumos.
When asked to provide a more precise date of first contact, Ms. Mallick initially stated she was "uncertain" about the exact date. However, upon further questioning and after being shown certain text message records recovered during the forensic imaging process, she acknowledged that Mr. Anand's initial outreach most likely occurred between September 28 and October 2, 2022. The significance of this narrow window is that it encompasses the final days of Mr. Anand's employment at Lumos and the period immediately following his resignation, suggesting that NovaSpark's recruitment efforts commenced essentially contemporaneously with Mr. Anand's departure.
Ms. Mallick testified that during their initial conversation, Mr. Anand told her that the new venture would be "building from scratch" and would not use any Lumos technology. She stated that Mr. Anand represented to her that NovaSpark would develop its own proprietary systems independently. Ms. Mallick characterized this assurance as a factor in her willingness to engage in further discussions about joining the company.
B. Decision to Join NovaSpark
Ms. Mallick testified that following the initial outreach from Mr. Anand, she had several additional conversations with him over a period of approximately ten to twelve days before making the decision to resign from Lumos and accept a position at NovaSpark. These conversations took place via personal text message and, on at least two occasions, by telephone.
She acknowledged that during these discussions, Mr. Anand described NovaSpark's seed funding prospects in some detail. Specifically, Mr. Anand mentioned interest from a venture capital fund, which was later identified as Blackpine Capital Partners LP, managed by Franklin Osei. Ms. Mallick was aware that Blackpine Capital Partners ultimately closed a $12 million seed round in NovaSpark on November 15, 2022, approximately one month after Ms. Mallick joined the company. She testified that the seed funding prospects were a material factor in her decision to accept the offer.
Ms. Mallick stated that she was primarily motivated by two factors in deciding to join NovaSpark: first, the equity compensation package offered to her as an early employee and co-founder; and second, the opportunity to serve as Vice President of Engineering at a startup, representing a significant title and responsibility upgrade from her Senior Software Engineer position at Lumos. She characterized the opportunity as a "once-in-a-career" chance to build an engineering organization from the ground up.
When asked directly whether Mr. Anand specifically asked her to bring any Lumos materials or proprietary information to NovaSpark, Ms. Mallick denied that any such request was made. She stated that Mr. Anand never explicitly asked her to copy, transfer, or otherwise bring Lumos's DataStream code, documentation, or any other proprietary materials to NovaSpark.
C. Resignation. Ms. Mallick resigned from Lumos Analytics Inc. on October 14, 2022. Her resignation was submitted via email, which was marked as Exhibit 19 during the deposition. She testified that she gave no advance notice of her resignation beyond the email itself — she did not provide the customary two weeks' notice and did not have a conversation with her supervisor, Rachel Fong, prior to submitting her resignation email.
Significantly, Ms. Mallick testified that she did not return company materials or confirm the deletion of Lumos proprietary information from her personal devices upon her departure, as required by the terms of the PIIAA she had executed. When asked specifically whether she returned any physical or electronic company property — including her laptop, USB drives, documents, or copies of source code — she stated that she returned her Lumos-issued laptop and badge but did not address the disposition of any copies of Lumos materials that may have resided on personal devices or media.
When asked whether she completed an exit checklist or participated in a formal exit interview with Lumos's Human Resources department, Ms. Mallick stated that she "did not recall any formal exit process." She acknowledged that the abruptness of her departure — with no advance notice and no formal offboarding — was unusual, but she attributed this to the circumstances of her decision to join a startup and her desire to begin work at NovaSpark promptly.
IV. The DataStream ETL Repository Copying Incident (October 10, 2022)
A. The USB Drive and Copying Event
A substantial portion of the deposition focused on the events of October 10, 2022, four days prior to Ms. Mallick's resignation from Lumos. Ms. Mallick was presented with forensic evidence drawn from the Preliminary Forensic Report prepared by Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC, dated May 1, 2023 (marked in part as Exhibit 12), as well as IT security log excerpts from Lumos's internal systems (marked as Exhibit 15).
The forensic evidence and IT logs establish that on October 10, 2022, Ms. Mallick performed a complete clone of the DataStream ETL pipeline repository to a personal external USB drive. The repository, which totaled approximately 780 megabytes (MB) in size, was copied in its entirety. The USB drive was identified by its serial number as WD-4837291, a Glenrock Industries portable storage device.
When initially confronted with the forensic evidence of this copying event, Ms. Mallick characterized the action as creating a "backup" of "her work." She described the copy as a routine preservation of her professional contributions. However, upon further questioning by Ms. Schultz, Ms. Mallick acknowledged that the repository she cloned was not limited to code she had personally authored. Rather, the clone encompassed the entire DataStream ETL pipeline codebase, including contributions from other members of the engineering team, proprietary data-schema definitions governing the structure of data from all forty-three alternative-data vendors, vendor integration specifications, configuration files, deployment scripts, and associated documentation.
Ms. Mallick confirmed that the USB drive with serial number WD-4837291 was her personal property. It was not a Lumos-issued device, nor was it an approved storage medium under Lumos's information security policies. She acknowledged that she brought the USB drive from home specifically on October 10, 2022, and connected it to her Lumos workstation to perform the repository clone.
B. Mallick's Justification and Admissions
When pressed on her motivation for copying the DataStream repository, Ms. Mallick testified that she did so because she "wanted to have a reference for her own professional development" and that she "didn't think it through." She stated that at the time, she viewed the copy as an innocuous preservation of work she had contributed to over the course of her employment, rather than as an act of misappropriation.
Ms. Mallick acknowledged under oath that she did not seek or obtain permission from Lumos or from any supervisor — including Rachel Fong, VP of Engineering — before copying the repository to her personal USB drive. She confirmed that there was no Lumos policy or practice permitting employees to clone entire proprietary code repositories to personal storage media, and that the company's information security guidelines would have prohibited such an action.
When asked whether copying approximately 780 MB of an employer's proprietary codebase to a personal USB drive was consistent with her obligations under the PIIAA, Ms. Mallick conceded that it was not. She acknowledged that the PIIAA prohibited the removal or copying of Lumos proprietary information to personal devices or media without authorization. This concession is significant in establishing both the breach of contractual obligations and the knowing nature of the misappropriation.
Ms. Schultz then asked Ms. Mallick directly whether she understood at the time of the copying that the DataStream ETL pipeline was a Lumos trade secret. Ms. Mallick's response was carefully worded: "I understood it was confidential. I didn't think of it in terms of trade secrets at the time." This distinction — acknowledging confidentiality while disclaiming awareness of trade-secret status — appears to be a deliberate effort by Ms. Mallick and her counsel to limit the applicability of willful misappropriation arguments. However, it should be noted that her acknowledgment of the materials' confidential nature is sufficient under California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426 et seq.) to support a finding of misappropriation, as knowledge of confidentiality satisfies the scienter element regardless of whether the deponent personally categorized the information as a "trade secret."
Ms. Mallick denied having a specific plan to use the DataStream materials at NovaSpark at the time she made the copy on October 10, 2022. However, she acknowledged that the timing of the copying event — four days before her resignation, while she was actively in discussions with Rajiv Anand about joining NovaSpark — was, in her words, "not a good look." This candid concession, while falling short of an admission of intent, is nonetheless valuable for impeachment purposes and will resonate with a trier of fact evaluating the circumstantial evidence of her motivations.
C. Disposition of the USB Drive
Ms. Mallick testified that after copying the DataStream repository on October 10, 2022, she took the USB drive (WD-4837291) home to her apartment at 578 Guerrero Street, Apartment 3B, San Francisco, California 94110. The USB drive remained in her personal possession from that date forward.
When asked whether she accessed the files on the USB drive after joining NovaSpark, Ms. Mallick's testimony was notably equivocal. She stated that she "may have" accessed files on the drive after commencing employment at NovaSpark on October 17, 2022. She qualified this admission, however, by claiming that she did not "systematically" use the materials — a hedge that implicitly acknowledges at least some degree of access and use.
This testimony is corroborated — and, in some respects, undermined — by the findings of Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC. The Brindoval forensic analysis confirmed that the USB drive with serial number WD-4837291 was connected to Ms. Mallick's personal laptop on multiple occasions between October 17, 2022 (the date she began work at NovaSpark) and January 2023 (approximately the date Lumos issued its cease-and-desist letter). The frequency and timing of these connections are inconsistent with Ms. Mallick's characterization of casual or incidental access and instead suggest repeated, sustained engagement with the Lumos materials during the period in which NovaSpark was actively developing its competing product.
Ms. Mallick's personal laptop was among the devices imaged by Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC during the court-ordered forensic imaging process conducted between March 22 and April 14, 2023. The Brindoval Preliminary Forensic Report, dated May 1, 2023, confirmed the presence of Lumos DataStream files on both the USB drive and Ms. Mallick's personal laptop. The forensic artifacts indicate that certain files were not merely stored passively but were opened, accessed, and in some instances modified on Ms. Mallick's personal devices during the relevant period.
V. Communications with Co-Defendants Regarding Lumos Technology
A. Communications with Rajiv Anand
Ms. Mallick confirmed that she communicated with Rajiv Anand via personal text message and through a personal signal messaging thread during the September–October 2022 timeframe. She acknowledged that these communications took place outside of Lumos company channels and were conducted using personal devices and accounts.
Ms. Mallick acknowledged discussing with Mr. Anand the technical capabilities that NovaSpark would need to build in order to compete in the alternative-data analytics market. These discussions specifically included the topic of data-ingestion pipelines — a subject that directly and substantively overlapped with Ms. Mallick's core area of expertise and responsibility at Lumos, namely the DataStream ETL pipeline system.
During the deposition, Ms. Mallick was shown specific text message excerpts that had been recovered during the forensic imaging process (marked as Exhibit 18). Among these, Ms. Schultz directed Ms. Mallick's attention to a message from Mr. Anand dated approximately October 5, 2022, in which Mr. Anand asked about "the architecture of the data layer." Ms. Mallick acknowledged the message and confirmed that she responded with a description of general pipeline design principles. She characterized her response as conveying only "general concepts" that would be known to any experienced data engineer, rather than disclosing Lumos-specific proprietary information.
However, the content and context of these communications are significant. Even accepting Ms. Mallick's characterization that her response was limited to "general concepts," the exchange demonstrates that Mr. Anand was actively seeking her input on the design of NovaSpark's data infrastructure — precisely the area in which she possessed extensive knowledge of Lumos's proprietary systems — and that she was willing to provide that input while still employed at Lumos and while in possession of the DataStream repository she had copied to her personal USB drive just five days earlier.
Ms. Mallick denied that Mr. Anand explicitly asked her to bring the DataStream code to NovaSpark. She maintained that there was no express instruction or request to transfer Lumos proprietary materials. Nonetheless, she conceded under questioning that the nature of their conversations — which focused specifically on data pipeline architecture and NovaSpark's need for that capability — made clear that her expertise with Lumos's proprietary pipeline architecture was a key reason Mr. Anand recruited her to join NovaSpark. This concession is important because it establishes the nexus between Ms. Mallick's access to Lumos trade secrets and NovaSpark's interest in her services, supporting the inference that the recruitment was motivated in significant part by her knowledge of Lumos's proprietary technology.
B. Communications with Derek Yun
Ms. Mallick testified that she was aware during the September–October 2022 period that Derek Yun, another Lumos employee (a Machine Learning Engineer), was simultaneously being recruited by Mr. Anand to join NovaSpark. She stated that she and Mr. Yun communicated about the NovaSpark opportunity "a couple of times" before each of them submitted their respective resignations from Lumos.
When asked whether the timing of their departures was coordinated — either among the three individuals or between any two of them — Ms. Mallick denied any express coordination. She testified that each individual made an independent decision about when to resign. However, she acknowledged the objective fact that all three individuals departed Lumos within a roughly three-week window: Mr. Anand on September 30, 2022; Ms. Mallick on October 14, 2022; and Mr. Yun on October 21, 2022. This compressed timeline, combined with the active cross-communication among the three individuals during the same period, strongly suggests a coordinated departure, notwithstanding Ms. Mallick's denial of express coordination.
Ms. Mallick further confirmed that she was aware Mr. Yun joined NovaSpark as a founding engineer on October 24, 2022, just three days after his October 21, 2022 resignation from Lumos. The rapidity of Mr. Yun's transition — virtually no gap between his departure from Lumos and his commencement of employment at NovaSpark — mirrors Ms. Mallick's own three-day transition (resignation on October 14, commencement at NovaSpark on October 17) and underscores the planned nature of these departures.
VI. Work at NovaSpark Technologies Inc.
A. Role and Responsibilities
Ms. Mallick confirmed that she began employment at NovaSpark Technologies Inc. on October 17, 2022, three days after her resignation from Lumos. Her title at NovaSpark is Vice President of Engineering. NovaSpark is headquartered at 88 Bluxome Street, Floor 4, San Francisco, California 94107.
Ms. Mallick's primary responsibility at NovaSpark has been building the company's data-ingestion and processing infrastructure from the ground up. She testified that this involved designing the architecture for how NovaSpark ingests, transforms, normalizes, and stores alternative data for consumption by the company's analytics models. This function is directly and substantively equivalent to the DataStream ETL pipeline she built and maintained at Lumos — a point Ms. Mallick did not dispute.
NovaSpark's stated product offering — AI-driven alternative-data analytics for hedge funds and proprietary trading desks — directly overlaps with Lumos's core market of AI-driven financial analytics for institutional asset managers. While Ms. Mallick attempted to draw distinctions by noting that NovaSpark's initial target clients were hedge funds and proprietary trading desks rather than the broader institutional asset manager category, the fundamental technology requirements (alternative-data ingestion, transformation, and AI-driven analytics) are substantially identical. This market overlap is relevant to both the misappropriation claims and the damages analysis, as it establishes the competitive harm to Lumos.
B. Use of Lumos Materials at NovaSpark
This section of the deposition produced some of the most significant testimony for Lumos's case. Ms. Mallick initially testified that NovaSpark's data pipeline was "designed from scratch" and did not incorporate any Lumos code, data schemas, or other proprietary materials. She maintained this position repeatedly in response to questions framed in several different ways.
However, when confronted with the findings of Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC's Preliminary Forensic Report (Exhibit 12), which documented the presence of Lumos DataStream files on NovaSpark's development servers as of the date of the forensic examination, Ms. Mallick's testimony shifted markedly. She stated that she "could not explain" how those files ended up on NovaSpark's systems. She did not offer any alternative explanation — such as transfer by another individual, accidental copying, or a benign cause — for the presence of Lumos proprietary files on NovaSpark's infrastructure.
This inability to provide an explanation is particularly damaging because Ms. Mallick simultaneously acknowledged two critical facts: first, that she was the only person at NovaSpark who had access to the DataStream repository; and second, that the Lumos files found on NovaSpark's servers could only have come from her USB drive (WD-4837291) or her personal laptop — the two devices on which the Brindoval forensic analysis had already confirmed the presence of the same files. Taken together, these admissions effectively eliminate any plausible source for the Lumos files on NovaSpark's servers other than Ms. Mallick herself.
When asked whether she could identify any specific NovaSpark design documents, architecture specifications, or technical plans that were independently created and that predated the presence of Lumos files on NovaSpark's development servers, Ms. Mallick was unable to do so. She could not point to any documentary evidence of independent design work that would establish that NovaSpark's pipeline architecture was developed without reference to the Lumos materials. This absence of contemporaneous documentation of independent development is a significant evidentiary gap for the defense.
Ms. Mallick conceded under sustained questioning that the architectural structure of NovaSpark's early pipeline prototypes bore similarities to the DataStream system she had built at Lumos. She attributed these similarities to her "general industry knowledge" and experience as a data pipeline engineer, rather than to any use of Lumos materials. However, this explanation is difficult to credit in light of the forensic evidence establishing that Lumos files were present on NovaSpark's servers and that Ms. Mallick was the only possible vector for their introduction.
C. Awareness of Anand's and Yun's Exfiltration
Ms. Mallick was questioned regarding her knowledge of data exfiltration activities attributed to her co-defendants, Rajiv Anand and Derek Yun. She testified as follows:
She stated she was not aware that Mr. Anand had transferred approximately 3.2 gigabytes (GB) of Lumos files — including ML model architecture specifications and hyperparameter configuration files — to a personal Hollowell Health IT account on September 26, 2022, four days before his resignation from Lumos.
She stated she was not aware that Mr. Anand forwarded the thirty-seven-page confidential LumosEdge 3.0 Product Roadmap to his personal email account (r.anand.personal@vaultmail.com) on September 28, 2022, two days before his resignation.
She also stated she was not aware that Mr. Yun had downloaded forty-seven (47) proprietary Jupyter notebooks containing feature-engineering code and model-training scripts to a personal Larkspur Technologies account on October 18, 2022, one day after he joined NovaSpark (and three days before his official resignation from Lumos, which was effective October 21, 2022).
Ms. Mallick testified that she did not see or access any of Mr. Anand's or Mr. Yun's exfiltrated materials at NovaSpark. However, she candidly acknowledged that the ongoing forensic examination of NovaSpark's shared systems may reveal evidence to the contrary. This caveat is notable and may reflect counsel's advice to avoid making categorical denials that could be contradicted by forthcoming forensic evidence.
VII. Response to Cease-and-Desist and Litigation
A. Receipt of Cease-and-Desist Letter
Ms. Mallick confirmed that she received the cease-and-desist letter dated January 9, 2023, sent by Marcus Delgado of Calderwood & Harkness LLP on behalf of Lumos Analytics Inc. The letter was delivered to her residential address at 578 Guerrero Street, Apartment 3B, San Francisco, California 94110. The cease-and-desist letter was marked as Exhibit 22 during the deposition.
Ms. Mallick testified that upon receiving the letter, she forwarded it to Patricia Whitfield at Whitfield, Raines & Gerber LLP. She stated that Ms. Whitfield's firm was already representing NovaSpark and the other individual defendants in connection with the dispute.
Notably, Ms. Mallick testified that she did not take any immediate steps to delete, return, or sequester Lumos materials upon receiving the cease-and-desist letter. She did not contact Lumos or Calderwood & Harkness LLP to arrange the return of the USB drive or to confirm the deletion of Lumos files from her personal devices. When asked about this inaction, she stated that she "relied on counsel's advice" regarding the appropriate next steps and that counsel had instructed her to preserve all materials pending further developments. While reliance on counsel's advice is understandable, the failure to take any immediate remedial action — particularly with respect to materials that Ms. Mallick had already acknowledged were improperly copied — is relevant to the question of willfulness and ongoing misappropriation.
B. Compliance with TRO
Ms. Mallick testified that following the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") by the Honorable David Rutherford on January 23, 2023, she ceased accessing any Lumos materials and preserved all devices, media, and data as ordered by the court. She confirmed compliance with the TRO's requirements from that date forward.
Ms. Mallick further confirmed that her personal laptop, the USB drive with serial number WD-4837291, and her personal cellular phone were subsequently surrendered for imaging and were imaged by Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC during the court-ordered forensic imaging process conducted between March 22 and April 14, 2023. She did not raise any objections to the forensic examination of these devices beyond those asserted by her counsel on the record.
VIII. Key Credibility Observations
Based on my observations during the deposition and a review of the rough transcript, the following credibility assessments are offered for the team's consideration:
Overall Demeanor. Ms. Mallick's testimony was generally measured and controlled. She presented as composed and articulate, and she was clearly well-prepared by her counsel. She did not become visibly flustered during difficult lines of questioning, though she displayed noticeable hesitation on several critical points.
Evasiveness on Intent and Use. Despite her generally poised presentation, Ms. Mallick was notably evasive on the central questions of intent and the use of Lumos materials at NovaSpark. Her repeated qualifications — characterizing the copying as a "backup," claiming she "may have" accessed the files, and attributing pipeline similarities to "general industry knowledge" — reflect a pattern of minimization that is inconsistent with the forensic evidence and the surrounding circumstances.
The "Backup" Characterization. Ms. Mallick's characterization of the October 10, 2022 copying event as a "backup" of "her work" is significantly undermined by multiple factors: the timing of the copy (during active recruitment by Mr. Anand and four days before her resignation); the scope of the copy (the entire DataStream repository, encompassing approximately 780 MB of code, schemas, and specifications, not merely the code she had personally authored); the use of a personal, non-company-issued USB drive; and the failure to seek permission from any supervisor. These circumstances collectively point to a deliberate act of misappropriation, not a routine backup.
Inability to Explain Files on NovaSpark Servers. Ms. Mallick's testimony that she "could not explain" how Lumos DataStream files appeared on NovaSpark's development servers is perhaps the single most damaging credibility gap in her deposition. Given her concurrent admissions that she was the sole person at NovaSpark with access to the DataStream repository and that the files could only have come from her devices, her inability to offer any explanation is tantamount to an acknowledgment that she transferred the files — an acknowledgment she stopped short of making expressly.
Claimed Ignorance of Co-Defendants' Activities. Ms. Mallick's claim that she was not aware of the separate exfiltration activities of Mr. Anand and Mr. Yun is facially plausible — it is possible that each individual acted independently in removing Lumos materials. However, this claim is difficult to evaluate in isolation, given the coordinated nature of the three departures, the active communications among the three individuals during the relevant period, and the fact that all three were working together at NovaSpark during the period when the exfiltrated materials were present on NovaSpark's systems.
Defense Counsel Objections. It should be noted that defense counsel, Ms. Whitfield, objected frequently during the deposition on grounds of attorney-client privilege, particularly when questioning approached Ms. Mallick's post-litigation communications with counsel and NovaSpark's remediation efforts following the issuance of the TRO. These objections were generally sustained by agreement of the parties (consistent with standard deposition practice), and the relevant exchanges are noted in the transcript. The assertion of privilege in these areas, while legally appropriate, prevented the development of testimony regarding what steps, if any, NovaSpark and Ms. Mallick took to identify, quarantine, and purge Lumos materials from NovaSpark's systems following the TRO.
IX. Implications for Settlement and Damages Analysis
Ms. Mallick's deposition testimony has significant implications for the overall strength of Lumos's claims and for our settlement and mediation strategy. The key takeaways are as follows:
Strengthening of Core Misappropriation Claims. Ms. Mallick's testimony strengthens Lumos's claims that (a) the DataStream ETL pipeline — including the codebase, data schemas, and vendor integration specifications — was misappropriated through unauthorized copying to a personal USB drive and subsequent transfer to NovaSpark's systems; (b) the misappropriation was knowing and deliberate, notwithstanding Ms. Mallick's attempts to characterize it otherwise, given her acknowledgment of the PIIAA obligations, her concession that copying was inconsistent with those obligations, and the damaging timing of the copy; and (c) Lumos proprietary materials were present on NovaSpark's development systems and were used, directly or indirectly, in the development of NovaSpark's competing product.
Coordinated Departure Narrative. Ms. Mallick's testimony regarding the recruiting effort by Mr. Anand — including the timeline of contacts, the discussions about NovaSpark's technical needs, and the compressed departure window for all three individuals — supports the narrative of a planned, systematic departure designed to replicate Lumos's core technology at NovaSpark. While Ms. Mallick denied express coordination, the circumstantial evidence is compelling, and her own admissions regarding the sequence of events are consistent with a coordinated effort.
Damages and Unjust Enrichment Analysis. The testimony obtained in this deposition is consistent with the unjust enrichment analysis currently being developed in coordination with Naveen Kapoor of Meridian Cybersecurity Advisors Inc. The estimated unjust enrichment figure of $8.7 million to $12.4 million, based on an assessment of fourteen to eighteen months of development time saved by NovaSpark through its use of misappropriated Lumos technology, is supported by Ms. Mallick's inability to identify independent design documents at NovaSpark predating the introduction of Lumos files, and by her concession that NovaSpark's early pipeline prototypes bore architectural similarities to the DataStream system.
Mediation and Settlement Strategy. It is recommended that Ms. Mallick's deposition transcript excerpts — particularly those regarding the USB drive copying event (October 10, 2022), her concessions regarding PIIAA obligations, and the unexplained presence of Lumos files on NovaSpark's development servers — be highlighted prominently in the mediation brief. These excerpts should be used to support a strong settlement posture and to demonstrate to the mediator and opposing counsel that Lumos has substantial evidence of willful misappropriation. The combination of forensic evidence and Ms. Mallick's own admissions under oath presents a compelling case that should incentivize the defendants to engage in meaningful settlement discussions.
X. Exhibits Referenced During Deposition
The following exhibits were marked and used during the deposition of Serena Mallick on June 7, 2023. Copies of these exhibits are maintained in the case file and are available for review.
XI. Next Steps
Based on the testimony obtained during Ms. Mallick's deposition and the analysis set forth in this memorandum, the following next steps are recommended:
1. Derek Yun Deposition. The remaining deposition of co-defendant Derek Yun is currently scheduled for June 22, 2023. Preparation for Mr. Yun's deposition should incorporate the testimony obtained from Ms. Mallick, particularly with respect to the timeline of recruitment, the communications among the three co-defendants during September–October 2022, and Mr. Yun's knowledge of Ms. Mallick's copying activities. Mr. Yun should also be questioned regarding his own exfiltration of the forty-seven Jupyter notebooks to his personal Larkspur Technologies account.
2. Cross-Reference with Anand Deposition. Ms. Mallick's testimony should be carefully cross-referenced with the deposition testimony of Rajiv Anand, which was taken on May 15, 2023. Areas of particular focus should include: the coordination (or lack thereof) of the three departures; the substance of Mr. Anand's discussions with Ms. Mallick about Lumos technology and NovaSpark's technical requirements; and any inconsistencies between Mr. Anand's account and Ms. Mallick's account of the recruitment timeline and the assurances Mr. Anand allegedly made regarding building "from scratch."
3. Additional discovery Requests. We recommend propounding additional targeted discovery requests to NovaSpark Technologies Inc. seeking production of the company's version-control history (e.g., Git logs), development server access logs, and internal development documentation (including design specifications, architecture diagrams, and project planning documents) for the period from October 2022 through January 2023. These materials are critical to testing Ms. Mallick's claim that NovaSpark's data pipeline was "designed from scratch" and to establishing the extent to which Lumos materials were incorporated into NovaSpark's product development.
4. Coordination with Damages Expert. We should coordinate with Naveen Kapoor at Meridian Cybersecurity Advisors Inc. to incorporate Ms. Mallick's deposition admissions — particularly her concession regarding architectural similarities, her inability to identify independent NovaSpark design documents, and the forensic evidence of Lumos file presence on NovaSpark servers — into the ongoing damages and unjust enrichment analysis. Mr. Kapoor should be provided with the relevant transcript excerpts and a copy of this memorandum.
5. Mediation Preparation. This deposition summary should be included in the case file and incorporated into the mediation preparation materials. Key transcript excerpts should be identified and organized for potential inclusion in the mediation brief, with particular emphasis on the passages identified in Section IX above.
This memorandum is intended for internal use by Calderwood & Harkness LLP attorneys and authorized personnel in connection with the representation of Lumos Analytics Inc. in the above-captioned matter. It reflects the professional analysis and impressions of the undersigned and is protected by the attorney work-product doctrine. Please direct any questions to the undersigned or to Wendy Schultz.
Respectfully submitted,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Omar Siddiqui Working Associate Calderwood & Harkness LLP 555 California Street, 40th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 555-0147 osiddiqui@calderwoodharkness.com
cc: Case File (C&H Matter No. 1008-00005)
Exhibit No. | Description
Exhibit 7 | Serena Mallick's executed Proprietary Information and Inventions Assignment Agreement ("PIIAA"), dated on or about June 15, 2020
Exhibit 12 | Brindoval Digital Forensics LLC Preliminary Forensic Report, dated May 1, 2023 (excerpts regarding USB drive WD-4837291 and Mallick's personal laptop)
Exhibit 15 | IT security log excerpts from Lumos Analytics Inc. documenting the October 10, 2022 file-copy event from Mallick's workstation to USB drive WD-4837291
Exhibit 18 | Text message thread between Serena Mallick and Rajiv Anand, September–October 2022 (recovered during court-ordered forensic imaging)
Exhibit 19 | Serena Mallick's resignation email to Rachel Fong, dated October 14, 2022
Exhibit 22 | Cease-and-desist letter from Marcus Delgado, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, to Serena Mallick, dated January 9, 2023

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

INTERNAL MEMORANDUM

C&H MATTER NUMBER: 1008-00005

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts