XpresSpa Group Inc (XSPA)

[farmerannie]

You're 100% right.

IMO, this is just another thinly disguised stall tactic, requesting that V provide disclosure similar to what V already received from Z in forms eventually provided to the court. It can't possibly be for the purpose of discovering new information.

As submitted by a poster on VRNG24's Twitter site:

Tre Beal ?@TreBeal · 3h3 hours ago
@TheRealVRNG24 this is an interesting motion, ZTE attorneys want to get information from V that it can obtain from their client.

It's a tit-for-tat head slap against V by new lawyers who haven't yet bailed on Z.

It could be meant as a credibility attack toward V's assertion of harm from revealing confidential information, or to compare what V claims Z revealed with what V's witnesses may state was actually revealed (from their knowledge). If minor inconsistencies can be found, they might be used to attack or minimize V's damages claims.

And we KNOW there will be substantial damages claims. Is this damage control in its strict sense? I'll let others be the judge. My humble opinion tells me yes.