1. Plaintiffs’ Motions re Status Quo, which contain several alternative motions, are granted in part and denied in part as follows:

a. The motion to lift the Status Quo Order entirely is denied. Except as provided in this Order, Plaintiffs shall not access the Disputed Emails.

b. This Order will operate prospectively as an order under 18 U.S.C. § 2707(e).

c. Plaintiffs may access, read, review, and reference any of the following documents, subject to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B), regardless of whether such documents may also be found in the Disputed Emails:

i. Any document produced by any Plaintiff to any Defendant prior to November 11, 2022;

ii. Any document produced by any Defendant to any Plaintiff;

iii. Any document attached to any captioned item (including pleadings, motions, briefs, declarations, discovery requests, and discovery responses) or any communication to the Court in this action, other than documents attached to the Declaration of David Aldred (ECFs 108, 109, 115, and 116); and

iv. Any document on which Jason Meyer is the author, direct recipient, copied recipient, or blind copied recipient which is in Mr. Jason Meyer's email box.

d. Defendants shall search the Disputed Emails for documents requested by means of discovery served upon any Defendant by any Plaintiff in this action.

e. Defendants shall separately produce to Plaintiffs copies of all emails and their attachments from the Disputed Emails for which Plaintiff Meyer was a recipient (to, cc, bcc) or sender.

f. The parties shall meet and confer regarding any other Disputed Emails that Plaintiffs allege to have quoted or used in this action, and for which they seek production.

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for a protective order is granted in part as follows: Plaintiffs shall answer discovery requests unless they cannot answer a particular question or request because they need access to the Disputed Emails, in which case they shall so state. The motion is otherwise denied.

3. Defendants’ Motion to Compel is denied in part as moot with respect to answers already provided and granted in part as follows:

*2 a. With respect to Defendants’ Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 14 sent to Plaintiffs, and in particular (i) the “identity of all individuals or entities involved in the intrusion, including who directed such efforts,” and (ii) “each use You made of any information learned from Your review of emails from the Indian Defendants’ argildx.com email accounts,” Plaintiffs shall answer such interrogatories to the extent not protected by privilege (for example, if persons other than counsel were involved in directing efforts concerning the Disputed Emails), or, if privilege is claimed, Plaintiffs shall clearly state the objection based upon privilege.

b. The parties are to meet and confer regarding responses to Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 14 to the extent that the issues identified in the hearing on December 28, 2022, have not been resolved by the parties as of the date of this Order.

4. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order is denied.

5. Nothing in this order shall constitute a ruling on any of the privilege issues claimed by the parties, the merits of other pending motions, or the admissibility of any evidence.