UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Before the Court is Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc.'s ("GenomeDx") Motion to Compel Production of Documents (the "Motion"), filed on January 30, 2026. The Court has reviewed and considered the following submissions in connection with the Motion: (1) the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed January 30, 2026; (2) the Declaration of Peter Vassiliev in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed January 30, 2026, together with attached Exhibits A through F, which include, among other things, the meet-and-confer correspondence between counsel for Plaintiff GenomeDx and counsel for Defendant Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. ("Helios"), specifically Marcus Pellegrini and Danielle Forrest of Ridgecrest Durneval LLP, as well as Helios's privilege log entries for the documents at issue; (3) any opposition filed by Helios through its counsel at Ridgecrest Durneval LLP; and (4) any reply filed by GenomeDx.

The Motion concerns thirty-four (34) documents withheld by Helios from production in response to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Request Nos. 22, 23, and 31, which were served on or about January 27, 2026. In response to these requests, Helios produced one thousand two hundred forty-seven (1,247) documents but withheld eighty-three (83) documents on the grounds of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. GenomeDx challenges thirty-four (34) of the eighty-three (83) withheld documents. The thirty-four (34) challenged documents consist of pre-launch business plans, board presentations, and investor materials that reference GenomeDx's patents or GenomeDx's Decipher® genomic classifier test.

The Court further notes that the parties entered into a Stipulated Protective Order, which was entered by the Court on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. 47), establishing two-tier confidentiality designations: "Confidential" and "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only."

Having considered the Motion, the supporting papers, any opposition and reply, and the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, and for the reasons set forth herein and on the record, the Court makes the following findings and enters the following Order:

FINDINGS

The Court finds as follows:

1. GenomeDx has met its burden of demonstrating that the thirty-four (34) withheld documents are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, including GenomeDx's patent infringement claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and Helios's asserted defenses of non-infringement and invalidity, and are proportional to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.

2. The documents at issue — pre-launch business plans, board presentations made to Helios's board of directors and to investors including Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, and investor materials prepared and disseminated in connection with fundraising activities — contain predominantly business content that was shared with non-lawyer business personnel, members of Helios's board of directors, and third-party investors. Helios has not established that the dominant purpose of these communications was to obtain or provide legal advice. To the extent that any legal advice may be interspersed within these otherwise business-oriented documents, the disclosure of such documents to non-lawyer business personnel and third-party investors, including representatives of Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, who are outside the attorney-client relationship, has resulted in a waiver of any privilege that might otherwise have attached. The Court finds that Helios has failed to demonstrate that the common-interest doctrine or any other exception to waiver applies to communications shared with these third-party investors.

3. Helios's privilege log entries for the thirty-four (34) challenged documents are insufficient to sustain the claimed attorney-client privilege and work-product protections as to these specific documents. The privilege log entries fail to provide adequate descriptions of the nature of the documents, the specific legal advice sought or rendered, or the basis upon which each document is claimed to be privileged or protected work product. Generic descriptions such as "document reflecting legal advice" or "document prepared in anticipation of litigation" are inadequate to carry Helios's burden of establishing the applicability of the asserted privileges on a document-by-document basis.

4. Adequate protections for any legitimately confidential business information contained in the thirty-four (34) documents are provided by the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. 47), which permits designation of documents at two tiers of confidentiality and restricts the use and dissemination of designated materials to the purposes of this litigation.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. Grant of Motion. Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED as to the thirty-four (34) documents identified in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Peter Vassiliev, filed January 30, 2026. Helios's claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection as to these thirty-four (34) documents are overruled.

2. Production Deadline. Defendant Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. shall produce the thirty-four (34) documents identified in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Peter Vassiliev to Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. within ten (10) business days of the date of entry of this Order. Failure to comply with this production deadline may result in the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to monetary sanctions, adverse inference instructions, or such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

3. Applicability of Protective Order. All documents produced by Helios pursuant to this Order shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. 47). Helios may designate any or all of the produced documents as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" in accordance with the procedures and definitions set forth in the Stipulated Protective Order. Any challenges to such designations shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Stipulated Protective Order.

4. Format of Production. The thirty-four (34) documents shall be produced in the format specified in the parties' agreed-upon ESI Protocol, dated November 14, 2025, and consistent with the format of prior productions made by Helios in this matter, including the production of documents in single-page TIFF format with searchable text files (OCR), load files containing all applicable metadata fields, and native format for spreadsheets and presentation files, as applicable.

5. Reservation of Rights. This Order is without prejudice to any party's right to seek further relief from the Court regarding discovery disputes arising in this action, including but not limited to disputes concerning the remaining forty-nine (49) documents withheld by Helios that are not the subject of the instant Motion. Nothing in this Order constitutes a ruling on the ultimate admissibility of any document produced pursuant to this Order at trial or in connection with any dispositive motion, and all parties' rights to object to the admissibility of such documents at the appropriate time are expressly preserved.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______, 2026

________________________________________

HON. DAVID R. CABRERA United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of California San Jose, California

SUBMITTED BY:

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Catherine Bloom (State Bar No. 198274) 555 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 773-5500 Facsimile: (415) 773-5501

Email: cbloom@calderwoodharkness.com

Alan Ngo (State Bar No. 247831) Peter Vassiliev (State Bar No. 312409) Wendy Schultz (State Bar No. 328756)

Attorneys for Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc.

Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL

GENOME DX THERAPEUTICS INC., a Delaware corporation,	Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL
Plaintiff,	Hon. Jessica W. Langston
v.	Referred to: Hon. David R. Cabrera, United States Magistrate Judge

HELIOS PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc.'s ("GenomeDx") Motion to Compel Production of Documents (the "Motion"), filed on January 30, 2026. The Court has reviewed and considered the following submissions in connection with the Motion: (1) the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed January 30, 2026; (2) the Declaration of Peter Vassiliev in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents, filed January 30, 2026, together with attached Exhibits A through F, which include, among other things, the meet-and-confer correspondence between counsel for Plaintiff GenomeDx and counsel for Defendant Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. ("Helios"), specifically Marcus Pellegrini and Danielle Forrest of Ridgecrest Durneval LLP, as well as Helios's privilege log entries for the documents at issue; (3) any opposition filed by Helios through its counsel at Ridgecrest Durneval LLP; and (4) any reply filed by GenomeDx.
The Motion concerns thirty-four (34) documents withheld by Helios from production in response to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents, Request Nos. 22, 23, and 31, which were served on or about January 27, 2026. In response to these requests, Helios produced one thousand two hundred forty-seven (1,247) documents but withheld eighty-three (83) documents on the grounds of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection. GenomeDx challenges thirty-four (34) of the eighty-three (83) withheld documents. The thirty-four (34) challenged documents consist of pre-launch business plans, board presentations, and investor materials that reference GenomeDx's patents or GenomeDx's Decipher® genomic classifier test.
The Court further notes that the parties entered into a Stipulated Protective Order, which was entered by the Court on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. 47), establishing two-tier confidentiality designations: "Confidential" and "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only."
Having considered the Motion, the supporting papers, any opposition and reply, and the arguments of counsel, and good cause appearing therefor, and for the reasons set forth herein and on the record, the Court makes the following findings and enters the following Order:
FINDINGS
The Court finds as follows:
1. GenomeDx has met its burden of demonstrating that the thirty-four (34) withheld documents are relevant to the claims and defenses in this action, including GenomeDx's patent infringement claims under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and Helios's asserted defenses of non-infringement and invalidity, and are proportional to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
2. The documents at issue — pre-launch business plans, board presentations made to Helios's board of directors and to investors including Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, and investor materials prepared and disseminated in connection with fundraising activities — contain predominantly business content that was shared with non-lawyer business personnel, members of Helios's board of directors, and third-party investors. Helios has not established that the dominant purpose of these communications was to obtain or provide legal advice. To the extent that any legal advice may be interspersed within these otherwise business-oriented documents, the disclosure of such documents to non-lawyer business personnel and third-party investors, including representatives of Corinth Ventures Fund III, LP, who are outside the attorney-client relationship, has resulted in a waiver of any privilege that might otherwise have attached. The Court finds that Helios has failed to demonstrate that the common-interest doctrine or any other exception to waiver applies to communications shared with these third-party investors.
3. Helios's privilege log entries for the thirty-four (34) challenged documents are insufficient to sustain the claimed attorney-client privilege and work-product protections as to these specific documents. The privilege log entries fail to provide adequate descriptions of the nature of the documents, the specific legal advice sought or rendered, or the basis upon which each document is claimed to be privileged or protected work product. Generic descriptions such as "document reflecting legal advice" or "document prepared in anticipation of litigation" are inadequate to carry Helios's burden of establishing the applicability of the asserted privileges on a document-by-document basis.
4. Adequate protections for any legitimately confidential business information contained in the thirty-four (34) documents are provided by the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. 47), which permits designation of documents at two tiers of confidentiality and restricts the use and dissemination of designated materials to the purposes of this litigation.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Grant of Motion. Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc.'s Motion to Compel Production of Documents is GRANTED as to the thirty-four (34) documents identified in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Peter Vassiliev, filed January 30, 2026. Helios's claims of attorney-client privilege and work-product protection as to these thirty-four (34) documents are overruled.
2. Production Deadline. Defendant Helios Precision Diagnostics, Inc. shall produce the thirty-four (34) documents identified in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Peter Vassiliev to Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc. within ten (10) business days of the date of entry of this Order. Failure to comply with this production deadline may result in the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to monetary sanctions, adverse inference instructions, or such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
3. Applicability of Protective Order. All documents produced by Helios pursuant to this Order shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Stipulated Protective Order entered by the Court on December 18, 2025 (Dkt. No. 47). Helios may designate any or all of the produced documents as "Confidential" or "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only" in accordance with the procedures and definitions set forth in the Stipulated Protective Order. Any challenges to such designations shall be resolved in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Stipulated Protective Order.
4. Format of Production. The thirty-four (34) documents shall be produced in the format specified in the parties' agreed-upon ESI Protocol, dated November 14, 2025, and consistent with the format of prior productions made by Helios in this matter, including the production of documents in single-page TIFF format with searchable text files (OCR), load files containing all applicable metadata fields, and native format for spreadsheets and presentation files, as applicable.
5. Reservation of Rights. This Order is without prejudice to any party's right to seek further relief from the Court regarding discovery disputes arising in this action, including but not limited to disputes concerning the remaining forty-nine (49) documents withheld by Helios that are not the subject of the instant Motion. Nothing in this Order constitutes a ruling on the ultimate admissibility of any document produced pursuant to this Order at trial or in connection with any dispositive motion, and all parties' rights to object to the admissibility of such documents at the appropriate time are expressly preserved.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: ______, 2026
________________________________________
HON. DAVID R. CABRERA United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of California San Jose, California
SUBMITTED BY:
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Catherine Bloom (State Bar No. 198274) 555 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 773-5500 Facsimile: (415) 773-5501
Email: cbloom@calderwoodharkness.com
Alan Ngo (State Bar No. 247831) Peter Vassiliev (State Bar No. 312409) Wendy Schultz (State Bar No. 328756)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Genome Dx Therapeutics Inc.
Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL
GENOME DX THERAPEUTICS INC., a Delaware corporation, | Case No. 3:25-cv-01847-JWL
Plaintiff, | Hon. Jessica W. Langston
v. | Referred to: Hon. David R. Cabrera, United States Magistrate Judge
HELIOS PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

FINDINGS

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SUBMITTED BY:

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts