Workplace Technologies Research, Inc. v. Project Management Institute, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 11, 2022
• Docket: 3:18-cv-01927
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JOSE L. PATIÑO, CA Bar No. 149568 JosePatino@eversheds-sutherland.com 2 NICOLA A. PISANO, CA Bar No. 151282 3 NicolaPisano@eversheds-sutherland.com SCOTT A. PENNER, CA Bar No. 253716 4 ScottPenner@eversheds-sutherland.com JUSTIN E. GRAY, CA Bar No. 282452 5 JustinGray@eversheds-sutherland.com 6 REGIS C. WORLEY, JR., CA Bar No. 234401 RegisWorley@eversheds-sutherland.com 7 EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 12255 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 100 8 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92130 TELEPHONE: 858.252.6502 9 FACSIMILE: 858.252.6503 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant 11 WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH, INC. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES Case No. 3:18-cv-01927-JO-MSB RESEARCH, INC., 15 Honorable Jinsook Ohta Plaintiff, 16 Complaint Filed: August 20, 2018 v. 17 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 18 JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL INSTITUTE, INC. CONFERENCE ORDER 19 Defendant.

21 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 22 INSTITUTE, INC.

23 Counterclaimant, 24 v. 25 WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH, INC.; and DOES 1-15 26 inclusive, 27 Counterdefendants. 28 1 Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Workplace Technologies Research, Inc. (“WTRI”) 2 and Defendant and Counter-Claimant Project Management Institute, Inc. (“PMI”) jointly 3 lodge this Joint Proposed Pretrial Conference Order.1 4 I. Statement to Be Read to the Jury of the Nature of the Case and Claims and 5 Defenses 6 This case involves a contract and trade secrets dispute between Plaintiff Workplace 7 Technologies Research, Inc., who is frequently referred to as “WTRI,” and Defendant 8 Project Management Institute, who is frequently referred to as “PMI.” 9 WTRI initiated this action and alleges PMI breached the parties’ contracts. PMI 10 alleges WTRI breached the parties’ contracts and misappropriated PMI’s trade secrets. 11 WTRI creates virtual worlds, computer-based simulations that can replicate real- 12 world situations, which enable users to gain experience without the consequences of real- 13 world mistakes. WTRI also performs scientific research on how simulations can develop 14 “accelerated learning,” which is the ability for participants to achieve proficiency in a 15 shorter period of time as compared to gaining real world experience. 16 PMI is a not-for-profit membership organization working in nearly every country 17 around the world to advance careers, strengthen organizational success, and empower 18 project professionals with new skills and ways of working to maximize their impact. PMI 19 offers project management certifications and provides training, education, thought 20 leadership, and academic research. 21 WTRI and PMI began their business relationship in or around late 2013 and ended 22 the relationship in or around mid-2018. Initially, PMI provided letters of support for 23 WTRI to the National Science Foundation (frequently referred to as “NSF”) at WTRI’s 24 request in connection with WTRI attempting to secure grant money from NSF. 25 1 This Joint Proposed Pretrial Conference Order is submitted while the parties’ motions in 26 limine and Daubert motions remain pending. See D.I. 248-284. The parties preserve their objections raised in the pending motions. This Joint Proposed Pretrial Conference 27 Order is subject to change based on the Court’s rulings on the outstanding motions in limine and Daubert motions. 28 1 Subsequently, the parties attempted to co-develop a virtual world software program aimed 2 at providing project management training through accelerated learning. 3 The software program the parties attempted to develop would have allowed project 4 management professionals to encounter real-world scenarios in a virtual world. Project 5 managers would be able to improve their skills in the virtual world without the 6 consequences of real-world mistakes. The software was supposed to provide a unique 7 experience for each user by providing different scenarios based on the user’s project 8 management experience and skills. The parties contemplated that WTRI would contribute 9 its experience in building virtual worlds and rehearsals, along with its research in 10 “accelerated learning.” PMI would contribute its expertise in the field of project 11 management. The software program never made it to market. 12 WTRI developed a software program called “Maxx Virtual World Agile Leadership 13 Rehearsal” after the breakdown of the relationship between WTRI and PMI. 14 The two contracts at issue in this case are the “Software Technology Development 15 and Purchase Agreement” (which is often referred to as the “Development Agreement”) 16 and the “Services Agreement.” The Development Agreement was effective as of 17 September 8, 2015. The “Services Agreement” was entered into as of December 15, 2016. 18 The parties’ dispute in this litigation relates to what happened in connection with the 19 software program the parties attempted to co-develop under the Development Agreement 20 and Services Agreement, whether the parties fulfilled their contractual and legal 21 obligations in connection with the two agreements and related work, whether and to what 22 extent PMI developed any trade secrets and, if so, what happened with PMI’s alleged trade 23 secrets after the parties’ relationship deteriorated. 24 WTRI claims that PMI breached the Development Agreement and the Services 25 Agreement. WTRI also claims that PMI breached the Development Agreement’s implied 26 covenant of good faith and fair dealing. PMI denies those allegations. 27 28 1 PMI claims WTRI breached the Development Agreement and the Services 2 Agreement. PMI also claims that WTRI breached the implied covenants of good faith and 3 fair dealing in both agreements. Additionally, PMI claims that WTRI stole and 4 misappropriated PMI’s trade secrets. WTRI denies those allegations. 5 II. List of Causes of Action to be Tried 6 1) WTRI’s Causes of Action2 7 a. Breach of the Development Agreement. 8 Elements 9

10 2 Prior to the commencement of discovery, the Court granted PMI’s motion to dismiss WTRI’s claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the 11 Services Agreement, fraud, and tortious interference with prospective business relations. See D.I. 42 at 8-9. The Court expressly stated that “[a]fter discovery commences, 12 however, WTRI is free to request leave to amend its Complaint, as consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules, based on evidence obtained through 13 discovery.” Id. In accordance with Rule 15(a) or 15(b) and this Court’s prior order, WTRI intends to raise the issue of amending its Complaint at the pretrial conference. 14 PMI is surprised that WTRI intends to raise further amendment of the Complaint at this 15 late date and given the Court’s prior rulings on PMI’s motions to dismiss (D.I. 24, D.I. 32, and D.I. 42) and WTRI’s motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint (D.I. 16 111). PMI is further surprised that WTRI first raised this issue in the November 24, 2021 Proposed Pretrial Order lodged with the Court and still has not moved for leave to file an 17 amended complaint in the past five months. The Court granted PMI’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint (WTRI’s fourth bite at the apple) without leave to amend 18 on January 20, 2020 with respect to WTRI’s claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the Services Agreement, fraud, and tortious interference 19 with prospective business relations. See D.I. 42 at 8-9. That followed the Court granting PMI’s motions to dismiss and dismissing with leave to amend the same claims in the 20 First Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint. See D.I. 24 at 22-25; D.I. 32 at 18 (cautioning WTRI that “further unsuccessful attempts to amend the Complaint 21 may demonstrate that the dismissed claims cannot be cured by amendment”). Moreover, the Court already denied WTRI’s motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint 22 after the close of fact discovery in a January 25, 2021 Order. See D.I. 111 at 5 (holding that WTRI’s “reason for seeking amendment is essentially that discovery has occurred, 23 not that newly uncovered evidence or a new admission by PMI confirms facts that were not previously alleged to support claims that were not previously rejected”). WTRI has 24 neither provided a proposed amended complaint nor discussed further amendment with PMI as of the time of the filing of this pretrial order, but it is difficult to understand how 25 further amendment would: (1) be permissible given the Court’s prior rulings and that PMI is not aware of what WTRI could have recently learned that would relate to causes 26 of action based on actions occurring no later than 2018; (2) result in properly pled claims; or (3) lead to anything other than substantial delay in resolving this action as further 27 amendment requires a motion for leave to amend, likely triggers a motion to dismiss in response, and may necessitate additional discovery. 28 1 To recover damages from PMI for breach of the development contract, WTRI must 2 prove all of the following: 3 1. That WTRI and PMI entered into a contract; 4 2. That WTRI did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the 5 development contract required it to do or was excused from having to complete certain 6 obligations due to PMI’s failure to satisfy one or more conditions precedent; 7 3. That PMI failed to do one or more of the obligations that the development 8 contract required it to do; 9 4. That WTRI was harmed; and 10 5. That PMI’s breach of the development contract was a substantial factor in 11 causing WTRI’s harm. 12 See, e.g., Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, CACI, No. 303 (2020). 13 b. Breach of the Services Agreement. 14 Elements 15 To recover damages from PMI for breach of the services contract, WTRI must 16 prove all of the following: 17 1. That WTRI and PMI entered into a contract; 18 2. That WTRI did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the services 19 contract required it to do or was excused from having to complete certain obligations due 20 to PMI’s failure to satisfy one or more conditions precedent; 21 3. That PMI failed to do one or more of the obligations that the services contract 22 required it to do; 23 4. That WTRI was harmed; and 24 5. That PMI’s breach of the services contract was a substantial factor in causing 25 WTRI’s harm. 26 See, e.g., Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, CACI, No. 303 (2020). 27 28 1 c. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing of the 2 Development Contract. 3 Elements 4 WTRI claims that PMI violated the duty to act fairly and in good faith in regard to 5 the development contract. To establish this claim, WTRI must prove all of the following: 6 1. That WTRI and PMI entered into a contract; 7 2. That WTRI did all, or substantially all of the significant things that the 8 development contract required it to do or that it was excused from having to do those 9 things; 10 3. That PMI’s conduct prevented WTRI from receiving the benefits under the 11 contract; 12 4. That by doing so, PMI did not act fairly and in good faith; and 13 5. That WTRI was harmed by PMI’s conduct. 14 See, e.g., Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, CACI, No. 325 (2020). 15 2) PMI’s Defenses to WTRI’s Causes of Action 16 PMI has asserted the following defenses to WTRI’s claims: 17 a. No Injury (Second Affirmative Defense) 18 b. Offset And/Or Setoff (Third Affirmative Defense) 19 c. Unclean Hands (Fourth Affirmative Defense) 20 d. In Pari Delicto (Fifth Affirmative Defense) 21 e. Unjust Enrichment (Sixth Affirmative Defense) 22 f. Consent (Seventh Affirmative Defense) 23 g. Waiver (Eighth Affirmative Defense) 24 h. Ratification (Ninth Affirmative Defense) 25 i. Estoppel (Tenth Affirmative Defense) 26 j. Adequate Remedy at Law (Eleventh Affirmative Defense) 27 k. Failure To Mitigate Damages (Twelfth Affirmative Defense) 28 1 l. Failure Of Condition Precedent (Thirteenth Affirmative Defense) 2 m. Excuse For Non-Performance (Fourteenth Affirmative Defense) 3 n. Frustration Of Purpose (Fifteenth Affirmative Defense) 4 o. Novation (Sixteenth Affirmative Defense) 5 p. Fraud (Seventeenth Affirmative Defense) 6 q. Statute Of Limitations (Eighteenth Affirmative Defense) 7 r. Laches (Nineteenth Affirmative Defense) 8 s. No Breach (Twentieth Affirmative Defense) 9 t. Independent Or Superseding Cause (Twenty-First Affirmative 10 Defense)3 11 3) PMI’s Causes of Action 12 a. Breach of the Development Agreement 13 Elements 14 To recover damages from WTRI for breach of the Development Agreement, PMI 15 must prove: 16 1. That PMI and WTRI entered into the Development Agreement; 17 2. That PMI did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the 18 Development Agreement required it to do or was excused from having to 19 complete certain obligations due to WTRI’s failure to satisfy one or more 20 conditions precedent; 21 3. That WTRI: 22 a. failed to do one or more of the obligations that the Development Agreement 23 required it to do; or 24

25 3 PMI asserted affirmative defenses in its Answer for: (1) Failure To State A Claim (First Affirmative Defense); (2) Failure To State A Claim For Attorneys’ Fees (Twenty-Third 26 Affirmative Defense); and (3) No Entitlement To Prejudgment Interest (Twenty-Fourth Affirmative Defense). PMI does not concede or withdraw any of these affirmative 27 defenses. But, these defenses and the issues relating to these defenses are matters for the Court and not the jury to decide. 28 1 b. did something that the Development Agreement prohibited it from doing;4 2 4. That PMI was harmed; and 3 5. That WTRI’s breach of the Development Agreement was a substantial factor in 4 causing PMI’s harm. 5 See, e.g., Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, CACI, No. 303 (2020). 6 b. Breach of the Services Agreement 7 Elements 8 To recover damages from WTRI for breach of the Services Agreement, PMI must 9 prove: 10 1. That PMI and WTRI entered into the Services Agreement; 11 2. That PMI did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the Services 12 Agreement required it to do or was excused from having to complete certain 13 obligations due to WTRI’s failure to satisfy one or more conditions precedent; 14 3. That WTRI 15 a. failed to do one or more of the obligations that the Services Agreement 16 required it to do; or 17 b. did something that the Services Agreement prohibited it from doing;5 18 4. That PMI was harmed; and 19 5. That WTRI’s breach of the Services Agreement was a substantial factor in 20 causing PMI’s harm. 21 See, e.g., Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, CACI, No. 303 (2020). 22 23 4 These alleged breaches include: (1) failing to satisfy the Acceptance Criteria per Section 24 5.2; (2) failing to provide quality code pursuant to Section 10.2(c); (3) breaching the field of use provision contained in Section 2.4; and (4) breaching the confidentiality provision 25 in Section 13. See D.I. 47. 5 These alleged breaches include: (1) failing to meet promotional obligations under 26 Section 2.4; (2) failing to make technical and content development contributions pursuant to Sections 2.1 and 2.5; (3) breaching the confidentiality provision in Section 10.3; and 27 (4) violating License Agreement attached as Exhibit A to the Services Agreement. See D.I. 47. 28 1 c. Breach Of Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing of 2 the Development Agreement 3 Elements 4 PMI claims that WTRI violated the duty to act fairly and in good faith as to the 5 Development Agreement. To establish this claim, PMI must prove: 6 1. That PMI and WTRI entered into the Development Agreement; 7 2. That PMI did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the 8 Development Agreement required it to do or that PMI was excused from having 9 to do those things; 10 3. That WTRI’s conduct prevented PMI from receiving the benefits under the 11 contract; 12 4. That by doing so, WTRI did not act fairly and in good faith; and 13 5. That PMI was harmed by WTRI’s conduct. 14 See, e.g., Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, CACI, No. 325 (2020). 15 d. Breach Of Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing of 16 the Services Agreement 17 Elements 18 PMI claims that WTRI violated the duty to act fairly and in good faith as to the 19 Services Agreement. To establish this claim, PMI must prove: 20 1. That PMI and WTRI entered into the Services Agreement; 21 2. That PMI did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the Services 22 Agreement required it to do or that PMI was excused from having to do those 23 things; 24 3. That WTRI’s conduct prevented PMI from receiving the benefits under the 25 contract; 26 4. That by doing so, WTRI did not act fairly and in good faith; and 27 5. That PMI was harmed by WTRI’s conduct. 28 1 See, e.g., Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, CACI, No. 325 (2020). 2 e. Theft Of Trade Secrets (18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.). 3 Elements 4 PMI claims that WTRI has misappropriated a trade secret under Federal law. To 5 succeed on this claim, PMI must prove: 6 1. That PMI owned its trade secrets related to its Flow activity templates and 7 corresponding spreadsheet designs (the “PMI Technology”) that is subject to 8 the misappropriation claim; 9 2. That the PMI Technology was trade secret at the time of misappropriation; 10 3. That WTRI improperly acquired, used, or disclosed the trade secrets; 11 4. That the PMI Technology is related to a product or service used in, or intended 12 for use in, interstate or foreign commerce; 13 5. That PMI was harmed or WTRI was unjustly enriched; and 14 6. That WTRI’s acquisition, use, or disclosure was a substantial factor in causing 15 PMI’s harm or WTRI to be unjustly enriched. 16 See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1); Attia v. Google, LLC, 983 F.3d 420 (9th Cir. 2020); 17 Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, CACI, No. 4401 (2020); Alta 18 Devices, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 343 F. Supp. 3d 868, 877 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (noting that 19 the elements of misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, 20 et seq., are similar to those under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ. 21 Code § 3426, et seq.). 22 f. Misappropriation Of Trade Secrets (Cal. Civ. Code § 3426, 23 et seq.). 24 Elements 25 PMI claims that WTRI has misappropriated a trade secret under state law. To 26 succeed on this claim, PMI must prove: 27 1. That PMI owned its related to its Flow activity templates and corresponding 28 1 spreadsheet designs (the “PMI Technology”) that is subject to the 2 misappropriation claim that is subject to the misappropriation claim; 3 2. That the PMI Technology was trade secret at the time of misappropriation; 4 3. That WTRI improperly acquired, used, or disclosed the trade secrets; 5 4. That PMI was harmed or WTRI was unjustly enriched; and 6 5. That WTRI’s acquisition, use, or disclosure was a substantial factor in causing 7 PMI’s harm or WTRI to be unjustly enriched. 8 See, e.g., Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions, CACI, No. 4401 (2020). 9 4) WTRI’s Defenses to PMI’s Causes of Action 10 Plaintiff has asserted the following defenses to PMI’s counterclaims: 11 a. False Claims (Second Affirmative Defense) 12 b. No Damage or Injury (Third Affirmative Defense) 13 c. Offset and/or Setoff (Fourth Affirmative Defense) 14 d. Unclean Hands (Fifth Affirmative Defense) 15 e. In Pari Delicto (Sixth Affirmative Defense) 16 f. Unjust Enrichment (Seventh Affirmative Defense) 17 g. Consent (Eighth Affirmative Defense) 18 h. Waiver (Ninth Affirmative Defense) 19 i. Ratification (Tenth Affirmative Defense) 20 j. Estoppel (Eleventh Affirmative Defense) 21 k. Adequate Remedy at Law (Twelfth Affirmative Defense) 22 l. Failure to Mitigate Damages (Thirteenth Affirmative Defense) 23 m. Failure of Condition Precedent (Fourteenth Affirmative Defense) 24 n. Excuse for Non-Performance (Fifteenth Affirmative Defense) 25 o. Frustration of Purpose (Sixteenth Affirmative Defense) 26 p. Novation (Seventeenth Affirmative Defense) 27 q. Laches (Eighteenth Affirmative Defense) 28 1 r. No Breach by WTRI (Nineteenth Affirmative Defense) 2 s. Breach of Contract by PMI (Twentieth Affirmative Defense) 3 t. Substantial Performance (Twenty-first Affirmative Defense) 4 u. The Information Is Not A Trade Secret (Twenty-second Affirmative 5 Defense) 6 v. Independently Developed (Twenty-third Affirmative Defense) 7 w. Readily Ascertainable (Twenty-fourth Affirmative Defense) 8 x. PMI Failed To Take Prompt Action (Twenty-fifth Affirmative 9 Defense) 10 y. Lack Of Improper Acquisition, Disclosure or Use (Twenty-sixth 11 Affirmative Defense) 12 z. PMI Has Not Sufficiently Described Its Purported Trade Secrets 13 (Twenty-seventh Affirmative Defense) 14 aa. Statute Of Limitations (Twenty-eighth Affirmative Defense) 15 III. Witnesses 16 a. Witnesses counsel expects to call at trial 17 LAY WITNESSES WTRI EXPECTS TO CALL 18 1. Sterling Chamberlain Mr. Chamberlain is WTRI’s CTO and is 19 expected to testify regarding WTRI’s 20 business, the relationship between PMI 21 and WTRI, including, but not limited to 22 work performed under the parties’ 23 agreements, and development of the Maxx 24 virtual environment. Mr. Chamberlain 25 may also testify regarding his knowledge 26 (or lack thereof) of certain PMI flows 27 alleged to be PMI’s trade secrets. Mr. 28 1 Chamberlain may also testify as to those 2 matters for which he was designated a 3 corporate designee under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 30(b)(6). 5 6 2. Lia DiBello Dr. DiBello is WTRI’s CEO and is 7 expected to testify regarding WTRI’s 8 business, her research on cognitive science 9 and accelerated learning (which are the 10 cornerstones of the technology involved in 11 this case), WTRI’s customers, lost 12 business, WTRI’s NSF grants, the 13 relationship between PMI and WTRI, 14 including but not limited to the negotiations 15 she personally conducted relating to the 16 various agreements and work performed 17 under the parties’ agreements, WTRI’s 18 relationship with CVP, and the 19 development and functionality of the Maxx 20 virtual environment. Dr. DiBello may also 21 testify regarding her knowledge (or lack 22 thereof) of certain PMI flows alleged to be 23 PMI’s trade secrets. Dr. DiBello may also 24 testify as to those matters for which she was 25 designated a corporate designee under Fed. 26 R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 27 28 1 3. David Lehmann Dr. Lehmann is WTRI’s CFO and he is 2 expected to testify regarding WTRI’s 3 business, financial projections, and the 4 relationship between WTRI and PMI, 5 including, but not limited to, work 6 performed under the parties’ agreements. 7 8 4. Chris Mancus Mr. Mancus, a PMI employee, is expected 9 to testify consistent with the parties’ 10 respective deposition designations in this 11 case, including, but not limited to, 12 collection of source code, PMI’s lack of 13 knowledge regarding a testing tool called 14 SonarQube that PMI appears to rely on for 15 its allegation that WTRI’s code was of 16 “poor quality”, which parties were 17 responsible for which portions of the 18 development, and those contractual 19 obligations PMI failed to meet. Mr. 20 Mancus may also testify as to those matters 21 for which he was designated a corporate 22 designee under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 23 5. Whitney Missildine Dr. Missildine, a former WTRI employee 24 who worked on the PMI/WTRI 25 collaboration, is expected to testify 26 regarding his employment at WTRI, his 27 personal use and knowledge of flows prior 28 1 to PMI and WTRI’s collaboration, his 2 recommendation to use Lucid Charts (a 3 software tool PMI alleges was part of the 4 creation of the trade secrets), and work 5 performed under the Development 6 Agreement. Dr. Missildine may also testify 7 regarding his knowledge (or lack thereof) 8 of certain PMI flows alleged to be PMI’s 9 trade secrets. 10 11 6. Thom Rossi Mr. Rossi, a PMI employee, is expected to 12 testify consistent with the parties’ 13 respective deposition designations in this 14 case, including, but not limited to, work 15 performed under the parties’ respective 16 agreements. Mr. Rossi will also testify as 17 to those matters for which he was 18 designated a corporate designee under Fed. 19 R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 20 7. Ioana Sfetcu Ms. Sfetcu, a PMI employee, is expected to 21 testify consistent with the parties’ 22 respective deposition designations in this 23 case, including, but not limited to, PMI’s 24 expenses for the projects resulting from the 25 parties’ agreements. Ms. Sfetcu may also 26 testify as to those matters for which she was 27 designated a corporate designee under Fed. 28 1 R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 2 3 8. Shelby Smith Dr. Smith, a former WTRI employee who 4 worked on the PMI/WTRI collaboration, is 5 expected to testify regarding her 6 employment at WTRI and her work 7 performed under the parties’ agreements. 8 Dr. Smith may also testify regarding her 9 knowledge (or lack thereof) of certain PMI 10 flows alleged to be PMI’s trade secrets. 11 12 9. Joshua West Mr. West, a former WTRI contractor who 13 worked on the PMI/WTRI collaboration, is 14 expected to testify regarding his 15 employment with WTRI, work performed 16 for WTRI as a contractor, development of 17 the product as part of the parties’ respective 18 agreements, including, but not limited to, 19 operation of the source code. Mr. West will 20 also testify as to those matters for which he 21 was designated a corporate designee under 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).6 23

25 6 WTRI reserves the right to amend its witness categorizations to the extent they are impacted by: (1) the Court’s rulings on pending Daubert motions; (2) any future Court 26 rulings (including on motions in limine, exhibit objections, or deposition designation objections); (3) any instructions or guidance from the Court regarding whether witnesses 27 can appear remotely; and/or (4) the witnesses PMI calls.

28 1 LAY WITNESSES PMI EXPECTS TO CALL AT TRIAL 2 1. Joseph Cahill PMI’s Chief Customer Officer. Mr. 3 Cahill is expected to testify regarding 4 PMI’s organizational and decision 5 making structure, the nature of PMI’s 6 business, PMI’s business strategy 7 regarding the PAL project, PMI’s 8 expectations for the PAL project, and 9 termination of the PAL project and the 10 parties’ agreements.7 11 2. Victor Carter-Bey Former Director of Certification at PMI. 12 Mr. Carter-Bey is expected to testify 13 regarding the negotiation of the parties’ 14 agreements, the parties’ communications, 15 PMI’s commitment to the PAL project 16 and performance under the parties’ 17 agreements, and the termination of the 18 parties’ agreements. 19 20 3. S terling Chamberlain WTRI’s Vice President and Senior 21 Technologist. Mr. Chamberlain is 22

23 7 WTRI objects to Mr. Cahill’s designation as a witness until PMI makes him available for deposition per the agreement of the parties. 24 PMI notes in response that it already stated it would make Mr. Cahill available for 25 deposition at a mutually agreeable date and time which moots WTRI’s objection. Moreover, WTRI obviously knew of Mr. Cahill’s existence long before now given that it 26 noticed his deposition, the parties agreed to a September 29, 2020 date for the deposition, and WTRI opted to take the deposition off calendar the day before it was to occur. 27 Accordingly, there is no legitimate objection to PMI’s inclusion of Mr. Cahill though PMI will provide briefing on the issue if the Court requests it. 28 1 expected to testify regarding the parties’ 2 relationship, the parties’ work on the PAL 3 project, and PMI’s commitment to the 4 PAL project. Mr. Chamberlain may also 5 testify as to those matters for which he 6 was designated a corporate designee 7 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 8 9 4. L ia DiBello WTRI’s President and Director of 10 Research. Dr. DiBello is expected to 11 testify regarding negotiation of the 12 parties’ agreements, the parties’ rights 13 and obligations under those agreements, 14 the parties’ relationship, the parties’ work 15 performed on the PAL project, the 16 development of the PAL project, and 17 PMI’s commitment to the PAL project. 18 Dr. DiBello may also testify as to those 19 matters for which she was designated a 20 corporate designee under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 30(b)(6). 22 5. D avid Garrett PMI’s Chief Strategy & Growth Officer. 23 Mr. Garrett is expected to testify 24 regarding PMI’s business strategy and 25 model, the marketability of the PAL 26 product, and PMI’s decision not to 27 28 1 commercialize the PAL product.8 2 3 6. Karen Holloway Lead Instructional Designer during the 4 PAL project. Ms. Holloway is expected 5 to testify regarding the parties’ work 6 performed on the PAL project, PMI’s 7 relationship with Czarina Games, PMI’s 8 commitment to the PAL project, and the 9 development and misappropriation of 10 PMI’s trade secrets. Ms. Holloway may 11 also testify as to those matters for which 12 she was designated a corporate designee 13 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 14 15 7. Misael (Mitch) Labrador Vice President of Software Development 16 at Creative Veteran Productions (CVP). 17 Mr. Labrador is expected to testify 18 regarding CVP’s relationship with the 19 parties, CVP’s role in the PAL project, 20 CVP’s work performed on the PAL 21 project, the software and source code 22

23 8 WTRI objects to Mr. Garrett’s designation as a witness and intends to raise the issue at the pretrial conference. Mr. Garrett’s designation is also addressed in WTRI’s motions in 24 limine.

25 PMI responds that it will oppose WTRI’s motion in limine. Moreover, PMI disclosed Garrett as a witness on November 5, 2021. See D.I. 227-1. WTRI slept on this purported 26 issue until its April 12, 2022 motion in limine – over five months later. See D.I. 250-1. WTRI could have sought leave to depose Garrett during these five months or taken any 27 other affirmative action – but WTRI did not. WTRI should not be rewarded for its delay.. 28 1 development of the PAL project, and 2 CVP’s knowledge of PMI’s trade secrets. 3 4 8. David Lehmann WTRI’s Vice President and Chief 5 Operating Officer. Dr. Lehmann is 6 expected to testify regarding the parties’ 7 agreements, the parties’ rights and 8 obligations under those agreements, the 9 parties’ relationship, the parties’ work 10 performed on the PAL project, and PMI’s 11 commitment to the PAL project. 12 9. Christopher Mancus System Architect at PMI during the PAL 13 project and technical lead on the PAL 14 project. Mr. Mancus is expected to 15 testify regarding software and source 16 code development of the PAL product, 17 the roles of Neudesic and CVP in 18 software development of the PAL 19 product, the parties’ work performed on 20 the PAL project, and PMI’s commitment 21 to the PAL project. Mr. Mancus may 22 also testify as to those matters for which 23 he was designated a corporate designee 24 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 25 10. Timothy Marshall President and Founder of Neudesic. Mr. 26 Marshall is expected to testify regarding 27 28 1 Neudesic’s relationship with the parties, 2 Neudesic’s role in and work on the PAL 3 project, the software and source code 4 development of the PAL project, and 5 Neudesic’s knowledge of PMI’s trade 6 secrets. 7 8 11. Betsy Redden Manager of Online Learning at PMI 9 during the PAL project. Ms. Redden is 10 expected to testify regarding the parties’ 11 agreements, PAL project deadlines and 12 progress, the parties’ work performed on 13 the PAL project, PMI’s relationship with 14 Czarina Games, the development and 15 misappropriation of PMI’s trade secrets, 16 and PMI’s commitment to the PAL 17 project. Ms. Redden may also testify as 18 to those matters for which she was 19 designated a corporate designee under 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 21 12. Alicia Sanchez CEO of Czarina Games and serious 22 games designer. Dr. Sanchez is expected 23 to testify regarding Czarina Games’s 24 relationship with the parties, Czarina 25 Games’s role on the PAL project, 26 Czarina Games’s work completed on the 27 PAL project, the software development 28 1 of the PAL project, and Czarina Games’s 2 knowledge of PMI’s trade secrets. 3 4 13. Jesse Sardina PMI’s Project Manager for the PAL 5 project. Mr. Sardina is expected to testify 6 regarding the parties’ agreements, the 7 division of the parties’ responsibilities 8 under the agreements, PMI’s relationship 9 with Neudesic, PMI’s relationship with 10 CVP, communications between the 11 parties, PMI’s work performed on the 12 PAL project, the development and 13 confidentiality of PMI’s trade secrets, 14 PMI’s investment in the PAL project, and 15 PMI’s commitment to the PAL project. 16 Mr. Sardina may also testify as to those 17 matters for which he was designated a 18 corporate designee under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 30(b)(6).9 20 b. Expert Witnesses counsel expect to call at trial 21 EXPERT WITNESSES WTRI EXPECTS TO CALL AT TRIAL 22 Ryan LaMotta Mr. LaMotta is expected to provide testimony as to 23 ASQ Consulting Group appropriate damages and/or remedies due WTRI as 24 25 9 PMI reserves the right to amend its witness categorizations to the extent they are 26 impacted by: (1) the Court’s rulings on pending Daubert motions; (2) any future Court rulings (including on motions in limine, exhibit objections, or deposition designation 27 objections); (3) any instructions or guidance from the Court regarding whether witnesses can appear remotely; and/or (4) the witnesses WTRI calls during its case-in-chief. 28 1 720 Rusk, Suite 425 a result of the alleged wrongful conduct as well as 2 Houston, TX 77002 to assess and comment on the reports of PMI’s 3 281-728-8651 experts, Ms. Irwin, Mr. Fincher, and Dr. Ferri, 4 relating to PMI’s claims for damages. Mr. LaMotta 5 will testify in accordance with and consistent with 6 his expert reports produced previously in this 7 matter and his deposition testimony. 8 9 Dr. Mahesh Raisinghani Dr. Raisinghani will testify in accordance with and 10 Texas Woman’s University consistent with his expert reports produced 11 304 Administration Dr. previously in this matter and his deposition 12 Denton, TX 76204 testimony, including, but not limited to the scope of 13 940-898-2000 project, program, and portfolio management, as 14 compared to product management, whether PMI 15 and WTRI used professional project management 16 techniques for the project under the parties’ 17 respective agreements, and the Maxx game and 18 what skills it teaches. 19 EXPERT WITNESSES PMI EXPECTS TO CALL AT TRIAL 20 Clark Aldrich Expert in developing virtual educational 21 Clark Aldrich Designs LLC simulations and serious games. Mr. Aldrich is 22 265 Warpas Road expected to testify: (1) in response to WTRI’s 23 Madison, CT 06443 analysis of the scope of the field of use provision 24 (203) 245-3743 in the parties’ agreements;10 and (2) in support of 25

26 10 WTRI objects to Mr. Clark Aldrich’s designation as a rebuttal witness to Dr. Raisinghani’s field of use opinions. PMI bears the burden to show that WTRI breached 27 the field of use provision and therefore was obligated to provide an opening report on the

28 1 PMI’s analysis of the scope of the project and 2 product management industries and the field of use 3 of the Maxx simulation. 4 5 Dr. Mickey Ferri Expert in applied business economics with 6 Insight Economics extensive experience in economic analysis, 7 4275 Executive Sq., Suite 200 business strategy, consulting, and data analysis. 8 San Diego, CA 92037 Dr. Ferri is expected to testify regarding the 9 (858) 373-9901 marketability of the PAL product and the 10 reasonableness of PMI’s decision not to 11 commercialize the PAL product. 12 Richard Fincher Global business and engineering executive with 13 Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc. expertise in strategic planning, budget 14 60 E. 42nd St., 3rd Floor development, marketing, and operations. Mr. 15 New York, NY 10165 Fincher is expected to testify regarding the 16 (212) 984-8500 practices of the project management industry, 17 professional project management methodologies 18 and processes, and the reasonableness of PMI’s 19 business approach to the PAL project. 20 Carlyn Irwin Expert in analyzing economic, financial, 21 Cornerstone Research causation, and accounting issues in context of 22 555 W. 5th St., 38th Flr. damages claims, valuing businesses, and 23 Los Angeles, CA 90013 conducting financial forensic analysis in 24 (213) 553-2533 commercial disputes. Ms. Irwin is expected to 25 testify: (1) in response to WTRI’s damages 26

27 subject matter. WTRI intends to raise this issue at the pretrial conference and the issue is part of WTRI’s Daubert briefing. 28 1 analysis; and (2) in support of PMI’s damages 2 claim and offset defense. 3 4 Jeremiah Stepan Expert in electrical and electronic systems 5 Exponent including software design. Mr. Stepan is expected 6 5401 McConnell Avenue to testify regarding the efficacy of the software 7 Los Angeles, CA 90066 developed for the PAL project, source code for the 8 (310) 754-2743 PAL project, and the reasonableness of PMI’s 9 decision to terminate the development of the 10 software. 11 Dr. Ricardo Valerdi Expert in industrial and systems engineering. Dr. 12 University of Arizona Valerdi is expected to testify regarding PMI’s 13 1127 E. James E. Rogers Way methods of developing its trade secrets, the 14 Tucson, AZ 85721 identification of PMI’s trade secrets, and WTRI’s 15 (520) 621-6561 misappropriation of PMI’s trade secrets. 16

17 c. Additional Witnesses, including experts, counsel do not expect to call 18 but reserve the right to call 19 ADDITIONAL WITNESSES WTRI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CALL 20 1. Robert Burke Mr. Burke, a PMI employee, is expected 21 to testify consistent with the parties’ 22 respective deposition designations in this 23 case, including, but not limited to, PMI’s 24 document collections efforts, PMI’s 25 document retention policies, and to what 26 extent those were followed in this case. 27 28 1 Mr. Burke may also testify as to those 2 matters for which he was designated a 3 corporate designee under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 30(b)(6). 5 6 2. Victor Carter-Bey Dr. Carter-Bey, a former PMI executive, 7 is expected to testify consistent with the 8 parties’ respective deposition 9 designations in this case, including, but 10 not limited to his employment with PMI, 11 negotiations relating to the parties’ 12 agreements, work performed under the 13 parties’ respective agreement, and an 14 offer to sell the product to WTRI when 15 the project was winding down. 16 3. Nick Ferrara Mr. Ferrara will testify in accordance 17 with and consistent with his expert 18 reports produced previously in this matter 19 and his deposition testimony, including, 20 but not limited to his analysis of the 21 source code via visual inspection and 22 through the use of tools, and whether 23 certain acceptance criteria were met and 24 if not, why not. Mr. Ferrara’s testimony 25 is expected to rebut PMI’s allegations 26 regarding WTRI’s code quality and 27 PMI’s allegation that certain acceptance 28 1 criteria were not met. 2 3 4. Dr. Philip Greenspun Dr. Greenspun will testify in accordance 4 with and consistent with his expert 5 reports produced previously in this matter 6 and his deposition testimony, including, 7 but not limited to his analysis of the 8 source code via visual inspection, 9 scalability of WTRI’s code, and whether 10 certain acceptance criteria were met and 11 if not, why not. Dr. Greenspun’s 12 testimony is expected to rebut PMI’s 13 allegations regarding whether certain 14 acceptance criteria were met. 15 16 5. Karen Holloway Ms. Holloway, a PMI employee who 17 worked on the PMI/WTRI collaboration, 18 is expected to testify consistent with the 19 parties’ respective deposition 20 designations in this case, including, but 21 not limited to PMI’s alleged trade secrets, 22 including their development, value (or 23 lack thereof), damages (or lack thereof), 24 marking (or lack thereof), WTRI’s access 25 (or lack thereof) to the alleged trade 26 secrets, and alleged misappropriation, as 27 well as the development of the PAL 28 1 project, including software development, 2 content creation, subject matter experts, 3 individual roles and responsibilities, and 4 contributions and interactions between 5 individuals involved with the project. 6 Ms. Holloway may also testify as to those 7 matters for which she was designated a 8 corporate designee under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9 30(b)(6). 10 11 6. Mitch Labrador Mr. Labrador, the CEO of CVP (a vendor 12 associated with the PMI/WTRI 13 collaboration) is expected to testify 14 consistent with the parties’ respective 15 deposition designations in this case, 16 including, but not limited to work 17 performed by CVP as part of the parties’ 18 respective agreements, CVP’s prior work 19 with WTRI, and his understanding of any 20 alleged benefits to PMI’s alleged trade 21 secrets. 22 7. Timothy Marshall Mr. Marshall, an employee of Neudesic (a 23 third-party vendor associated with the 24 PMI/WTRI collaboration), is expected to 25 testify consistent with the parties’ 26 respective deposition designations in this 27 case, including, but not limited to project 28 1 management, risk analysis, and other 2 contributions by Mr. Marshall and 3 Neudesic to the PAL project, interactions 4 with others involved with the project, 5 industry terms and usage, industry 6 customs and norms. 7 8 8. Betsy Redden Ms. Redden, a PMI employee, is expected 9 to testify consistent with the parties’ 10 respective deposition designations in this 11 case, including, but not limited to her 12 work on the projects resulting from the 13 parties’ respective agreements. Ms. 14 Redden may also testify as to those 15 matters for which she was designated a 16 corporate designee under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 30(b)(6). 18 9. Alicia Sanchez Dr. Sanchez is expected to testify 19 consistent with the parties’ respective 20 deposition designations in this case, 21 including, but not limited to validation 22 and other contributions by Dr. Sanchez 23 and Czarina Games to the PAL project, 24 interactions with others involved with the 25 project, identification of risk, and PMI’s 26 risk mitigation (if any). 27 28 1 10. Jesse Sardina Mr. Sardina, a PMI employee and the 2 PMI project manager for the PMI/WTRI 3 collaboration, is expected to testify 4 consistent with the parties’ respective 5 deposition designations in this case, 6 including, but not limited to PMI’s 7 verified interrogatories, his work on the 8 projects resulting from the parties’ 9 respective agreements, and how PMI’s 10 alleged damages are related to WTRI’s 11 alleged breaches. Mr. Sardina may also 12 testify as to those matters for which he 13 was designated a corporate designee 14 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 15 16 11. Dr. Rajeev Surati Dr. Surati will testify in accordance with 17 and consistent with his expert report 18 produced previously in this matter and his 19 deposition testimony, including, but not 20 limited to, his analysis of the Maxx virtual 21 environment, whether PMI’s alleged 22 trade secrets qualify as trade secrets, and 23 whether WTRI misappropriated any 24 alleged trade secret. Dr. Surati’s 25 testimony is expected to rebut PMI’s 26 allegations that WTRI misappropriated 27 PMI’s alleged trade secrets. 28 1 12. Brian Weiss Mr. Weiss, a former PMI employee, is 2 expected to testify consistent with the 3 parties’ respective deposition 4 designations in this case, including, but 5 not limited to the negotiations that 6 resulted in the agreements and work 7 performed under the parties respective 8 agreements. Mr. Weiss may also testify 9 as to those matters for which he was 10 designated a corporate designee under 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 12 13 ADDITIONAL WITNESSES PMI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CALL 14 1. Murat Bicak Former Chief Strategy & Growth Officer at PMI. 15 Mr. Bicak is expected to testify regarding the 16 parties’ relationship, the marketability of the PMI 17 Advanced Learning (“PAL”) software, PMI’s 18 decision not to commercialize the PAL product, 19 and PMI’s good faith commitment to the PAL 20 project.11 21 11 WTRI objects to Mr. Bicak’s designation as a witness until PMI makes him available 22 for deposition in the United States per the agreement of the parties.

23 PMI responds by noting at the outset that WTRI’s characterization of the parties’ earlier agreement regarding Mr. Bicak is incorrect. PMI never agreed to make Mr. Bicak 24 available for deposition “at least 21 days prior to the start of trial” or “in the United States.” Instead, PMI agreed to make Mr. Bicak available for deposition prior to trial if it 25 intends to call him to testify in connection with WTRI’s earlier failed attempts at serving a deposition subpoena. Mr. Bicak is a former employee of PMI who PMI understands 26 does not generally reside in the United States. PMI stated in this order that he “may” be called to testify. PMI already agreed to make Mr. Bicak available for deposition at a 27 mutually agreeable date and time if he “will” testify which should moot any WTRI

28 1 2. Whitney Missildine WTRI’s Lead Designer for the PAL project. Dr 2 Missildine is expected to testify regarding the 3 parties’ work performed on the PAL project, the 4 development of PMI’s trade secrets, and PMI’s 5 commitment to the PAL project. 6 7 3. Thom Rossi Manager of Information Technology for 8 Advanced Learning while at PMI. Mr. Rossi is 9 expected to testify regarding the parties’ 10 responsibilities for technical aspects of the PAL 11 project, the parties’ work performed on the PAL 12 project, the development of the software and 13 source code for the PAL project, Neudesic and 14 CVP’s roles on the PAL project, and PMI’s 15 commitment to the PAL project. 16 4. Ioana Sfetcu Senior Accountant at PMI. Ms. Sfetcu is 17 expected to testify regarding the preparation and 18 contents of PMI”s expense records relating to 19 the PAL project. Ms. Sfetcu may also testify as 20 to those matters for which she was designated a 21 corporate designee under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 30(b)(6). 23 5. Shelby Smith Product Engineer at WTRI. Dr. Smith is 24 expected to testify regarding the parties’ work 25

26 objection. Additionally, WTRI has not provided any authority (despite PMI’s request for authority) showing that PMI has any obligation to do more than it already said it would 27 with respect to making Mr. Bicak available for deposition. PMI will provide briefing on this issue at the Court’s request. 28 1 performed on the PAL project, the development 2 of PMI’s trade secrets, and PMI’s commitment to 3 the PAL project. 4 5 6. Steven Townsend Director of Network Programs at PMI during the 6 PAL project. Mr. Townsend is expected to 7 testify regarding PMI’s business strategy, the 8 purpose of the PAL project, the parties’ 9 negotiations of the agreements, the parties’ 10 communications, and PMI’s expectations for the 11 PAL project. 12 7. Brian Weiss Former Vice President of Practitioner Markets at 13 PMI. Mr. Weiss is expected to testify regarding 14 the negotiation and execution of the parties’ 15 agreements, the terms of the parties’ agreements, 16 the parties' relationship, communications 17 between the parties, PMI’s investment in the 18 PAL project, termination of the parties’ 19 agreements, the parties’ work performed on the 20 PAL project, and PMI’s commitment to the PAL 21 project. 22 8. Joshua West Software Engineer at WTRI during the PAL 23 project. Mr. West is expected to testify regarding 24 PMI’s work on the PAL project, the software 25 development of the PAL product, and PMI’s 26 commitment to the PAL project. 27 28 1 IV. Exhibits 2 a. Exhibits that counsel actually expect to offer at trial 3 WTRI’s list of exhibits it expects to offer and may offer at trial are attached hereto 4 as Exhibit A, which includes PMI’s objections. WTRI further reserves the right to rely 5 upon any exhibit identified by PMI in Exhibit B. 6 PMI’s list of exhibits it expects to offer and may offer at trial are attached hereto as 7 Exhibit B, which includes WTRI’s objections. PMI further reserves the right to rely upon 8 any exhibit identified by PMI in Exhibit A. 9 10 V. Statement of Facts to Which the Parties Stipulate 11 1. Plaintiff Workplace Technologies Research, Inc. (“WTRI”) is a Delaware 12 corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego, California. 13 2. Defendant Project Management Institute, Inc. (“PMI”) is a Pennsylvania 14 corporation organized as a not-for-profit membership association, with its principal place 15 of business in Newtown Square, Pennsylvania. 16 3. In late 2013, WTRI approached PMI, per the National Science Foundation’s 17 (“NSF”) recommendation, to request a letter of support in connection with a grant WTRI 18 intended to seek from the NSF. 19 4. In early 2014, PMI and WTRI began discussions about a potential 20 commercial partnership to co-develop an immersive accelerated learning technology 21 platform for project management professionals. 22 5. The parties entered two agreements relating to the co-development of an 23 immersive accelerated learning technology platform for project management 24 professionals. 25 6. The parties’ project came to be known as the Project Management Institute 26 Advanced Learning (“PAL”) project. 27 28 1 7. The first agreement is called the “Software Technology Development And 2 Purchase Agreement” (which the parties often refer to as the “Development Agreement”) 3 and has an effective date of September 8, 2015. 4 8. The Development Agreement contemplated a phased software build with 5 three phases named Alpha, Beta, and Charlie. 6 9. The parties amended the Development Agreement through the “First 7 Amendment to Software Technology Development and Purchase Agreement” (sometimes 8 referred to as the “First Amendment to the Development Agreement”). The First 9 Amendment to the Development Agreement has an effective date of November 30, 2016. 10 10. The First Amendment to the Software Technology Development Agreement 11 provided that the parties would enter into a Services Agreement (with PMI owing no 12 additional payments under the Development Agreement) if PMI rejected the fifth version 13 “Alpha Software” and retained the rejected version. 14 11. On December 2, 2016, Dr. Victor Carter-Bey (with PMI) sent an email to Dr. 15 Lia DiBello (with WTRI) stating PMI’s election to reject the fifth version “Alpha 16 Software” and retain the rejected software. 17 12. The second agreement is called the “Services Agreement” and has an 18 effective date of December 15, 2016. 19 13. PMI and WTRI jointly collaborated on two software programs under the 20 Development Agreement and Services Agreement: (a) Proteum ERP rehearsal, which 21 began development under the Development Agreement; and (b) IceBochz rehearsal, which 22 began development under the Services Agreement. 23 14. WTRI sent PMI a letter dated June 18, 2018 containing a notice of 24 termination of the Development Agreement and claiming alleged damages. 25 15. WTRI developed the Maxx Virtual World Agile Leadership Rehearsal. 26 WTRI advertises Maxx Virtual World Agile Leadership Rehearsal as one of its products.

27 28 1 VI. List of all Deposition Transcripts by Page and Line, or Videotape Depositions 2 by Section, that Will be Offered at Trial 3 WTRI’s list of all deposition transcripts by Page and Line, or Videotape Depositions 4 by Section, that will be offered at trial are attached here as Exhibit C, which includes 5 PMI’s objections and counter-designations and WTRI’s objections to PMI’s counter- 6 designations. 7 PMI’s list of all deposition transcripts by Page and Line, or Videotape Depositions 8 by Section, that will be offered at trial are attached here as Exhibit D, which includes 9 WTRI’s objections and counter-designations and PMI’s objections to WTRI’s counter- 10 designations. 11 12 VII. Jury Instructions, Verdict Forms, Trial Briefs, and Proposed Voir Dire 13 Both sides will file proposed jury instructions, verdict forms, trial briefs and 14 proposed voir dire questions one week prior to the commencement of trial pursuant to 15 CivLR 16.1(f)(9). In addition to filing proposed jury instructions in accordance with Fed. 16 R.Civ. P. 51 and CivLR 5.1, the parties will e-mail the proposed instructions to Chambers. 17 If a party disagrees with a particular instruction, the party must submit an alternate 18 instruction. 19 20 VIII. Jury Trial Demanded 21 This case will be tried by jury. 22 23 IX. Time Estimated for Trial 24 Each side is entitled to thirty hours to present their case, not including voir dire. 25 Jury trial is to start on June 3, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. The court will go dark as to this matter 26 on June 16, 2022, and trial will commence again on June 17, 2022 at 8:30 a.m.12 27 12 The Parties are reminded June 20, 2022 is a Federal Holiday. 28 ! || Dated: May 11, 2022 2 H sook Ohta 3 United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 \|Dated: April 28, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 8 EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP 9 10 /s/ Jose L. Patino 11 JOSE L. PATINO, CA Bar No. 149568 JosePatino@eversheds-sutherland.com 12 NICOLA A. PISANO, CA Bar No. 151282 NicolaPisano@eversheds-sutherland.com 13 SCOTT A. PENNER, CA Bar No. 253716 14 ScottPenner@eversheds-sutherland.com JUSTIN E. GRAY, CA Bar No. 282452 15 JustinGray@eversheds-sutherland.com REGIS C. WORLEY, JR., CA Bar No. 234401 16 RegisWorley@eversheds-sutherland.com 7 12255 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 100 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92130 18 TELEPHONE: — 858.252.6502 FACSIMILE: 858.252.6503 19 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant 20 We RK PLACE TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH, 21

22 ||Dated: April 28, 2022 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 23 By: /s/ Eric J. Bakewell Eric J. Bakewell Hannah L. McMeans 25 Benita S. Yu %6 Emily Horak 17 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, INC. 28 36 18cv1927

1 Eric J. Bakewell (SBN 241529) EBakewell@willkie.com 2 Hannah L. McMeans (SBN 323551) HMcmeans@willkie.com 3 Benita S. Yu (SBN 329195) BYu@willkie.com 4 Emily Horak (SBN 340115) EHorak@willkie.com 5 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3400 6 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 855-3000 7 Facsimile: (310) 855-3099

8 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant Project Management Institute, Inc. 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES Case No. 3:18-CV-01927-JO-MSB RESEARCH, INC., 13 Hon. Jinsook Otah 14 Plaintiff, Courtroom No. 4C v. 15 DEFENDANT AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT COUNTERCLAIMANT PROJECT 16 MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, INSTITUTE, INC., INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO 17 Defendant. WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES RESEARCH, INC.’S DEPOSITION 18 _________________________________ DESIGNATIONS

19 PROJECT MANAGEMENT Action Filed: August 20, 2018 INSTITUTE, INC., Trial Date: June 2, 2022 20 Counterclaimant, 21 v. 22

23 WORKPLACE TECHNOLOGIES 24 RESEARCH, INC.; and DOES 1-15 inclusive, 25 Counterdefendants. 26 27 l Defendant and Counterclaimant Project Management Institute, Inc. □□□□□□□ 2 || hereby submits its objections to Workplace Technologies Research, Inc.’s 3. || ((WTRI?’) deposition designations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 || 26(a)(3)(B). PMI cites the Federal Rules of Evidence upon which it relies in 5 || objecting to WIRI’s designations where applicable. 6 PMI makes the following General Objections to WTRI’s deposition 7 || designations in addition to the specific objections made herein: 8 e PMI objects under Federal Rules of Evidence 402 and 403 to WTRI’s 9 || inclusion of attorney colloquy in its designations as Counsel’s testimony is 10 || irrelevant, prejudicial, needlessly confusing, and misleading to a jury. 11 e PMI objects to the use of designations as “beyond the scope” where 12 || WIRI’s questions and/or a witness’s response are outside the scope of the 13. || deposition topics for which the witness was designated as a corporate 3 14 || representative pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). a 15 e PMI objects to the use of deposition designations to the extent those 16 || designations are submitted in violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 17. || regarding the use of depositions in court proceedings. 18 PMI notes that the applicability of certain objections (including, but not 19 || limited to, objections based on relevance and hearsay) ultimately may depend on 209 || the context and purpose for which a designation is used by WTRI at trial. PMI 21 || reserves the right to withdraw its objections or assert additional objections to 22 || WIRI’s designations at the time that WTRI’s intended usage of such designations 23 || becomes clear. 24 PMI also reserves its rights to: (1) offer any of WTRI’s deposition 25 || designations even if not offered by WTRI; and (2) revise its list of objections and 26 || counter-designations (including by supplementing or amending its objections or 27 || counter-designations) as appropriate especially to the extent that WTRI withdraws 2g || or modifies any of its designations, the Court sustains any of PMI’s objections to

1 || WIRI’s designations, the Court makes other rulings that impact the issues to be 2 || tried and the evidence that is admissible, and/or the parties reach any agreements 3 || impacting the necessity of certain testimony and other evidence. 4 Additionally, PMI is separately objecting to exhibits included on WTRI’s 5 || Tnal Exhibit List filed on concurrently filed. PMI reserves the nght to revise its 6 || deposition designation objections and counter-designations to the extent that they 7 || are impacted by the resolution of PMI’s objections to WTRI’s exhibits. g || Dated: April 18, 2021 WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP 9 By: /s/ Eric J. Bakewell Eric J. Bakewell 10 Hannah L. McMeans 11 Benita S. Yu Emily Horak Attorneys for Defendant and 13 Counterclaimant 14 Project Management Institute, Inc. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28