⚖️ Public Filing ≠ Trade Secret
Mphasis filed ECF Nos. 14-38 and 14-41 unsealed—no redactions, no protective order.
Then claimed I “misappropriated trade secrets” by quoting them.
But here’s the twist:
That same Plaintiff—and the Court—sealed a personal cellphone number (ECF No. 67).
Apparently, a 10-digit number deserves more confidentiality than the mishandling of U.S. healthcare infrastructure.
This TRO wasn’t about protection.
It was about punishing protected speech and shielding offshore partners (Mphasis and QBE) from accountability.
Legal Update – Rule 11 Sanctions and Court Order Sought
On June 22, 2025, Defendant filed an amended declaration detailing false and retaliatory statements by Plaintiff’s counsel Kimberly Karseboom and William Grob of Ogletree Deakins. These attorneys mischaracterized publicly filed, unsealed documents (ECF Nos. 14-38 and 14-41) as “trade secrets” in order to obtain invasive relief against the Defendant, including proposed forensic access to personal devices.
The Defendant has requested judicial sanctions under Rule 11 and submitted a Proposed Court Order stating:
“ORDERED that Plaintiff and its counsel, Kimberly Karseboom and William Grob of Ogletree Deakins, shall SHOW CAUSE why sanctions under Rule 11 should not be imposed.”
This action follows months of misleading litigation tactics that obscured QBE’s own security lapses and triggered unconstitutional overreach. All materials remain derived from public filings and protected whistleblower activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b), SOX, Dodd-Frank, and NYLL § 740.
Pro Se Trial Readiness and Public Interest Statement
As a pro se litigant, I approach this matter with full respect for the Court and all parties involved. My intent is not adversarial, but constitutional: to ensure that all facts are properly weighed and that domestic law—especially as it relates to U.S. data security and endpoint governance—is applied equitably.
This case does not pit individuals against each other. It raises structural concerns about how offshore enterprise structures—like those of Mphasis and QBE—have sidestepped internal enforcement policies, failed to secure active healthcare endpoints, and deprioritized U.S. data governance in favor of financial efficiency.
The QBE-issued laptop remained unrecovered for months. It was used across multiple endpoints. These actions were contrary to QBE’s own internal policies—policies that appear to have been knowingly ignored. Rather than acknowledge these lapses, litigation was initiated.
I remain trial-ready, not only to defend my rights, but to help the Court examine how regulated data was handled under these conditions. My participation is in service of the same democratic principles this Court was established to uphold: transparency, accountability, and adherence to U.S. law.
QBE.World – Public Interest Summary
Introduction
QBE Insurance Group and Mphasis Corporation are engaged in a civil matter raising material questions about enterprise governance, data security, and retaliation following protected disclosures. This summary presents verified facts, procedural context, and public-interest implications in a manner consistent with legal standards and transparency.
Governance Failure and Data Exposure
On February 28, 2025, an Mphasis executive transmitted QBE-related materials to Defendant without providing a corporate-managed, encrypted, or policy-approved device—nor any protective designation. The resulting security lapse originated upstream from Defendant and was later documented in court filings. The exposure was due to internal enforcement failures, not external intrusion.
Laptop Return and Retaliation Timeline
Following termination, Defendant attempted to return a QBE-issued laptop. After corporate email access was disabled, Defendant used a traceable alias to transmit return instructions. All communications were signed and attributable. Rather than addressing the recovery context, Mphasis cited the alias as “impersonation”—a claim echoed in press coverage despite the absence of any misrepresentation.
Public Records and Media Coverage
All referenced exhibits and email communications derive from the public docket in Mphasis v. Rojas, Case No. 1:25-cv-03175 (S.D.N.Y.). No sealed, redacted, or confidential-designated materials were disclosed beyond those publicly filed by Plaintiff. Media coverage, including by LiveMint, has referenced both the impersonation allegation and the broader whistleblower disclosures.
Why This Matters
This matter does not concern unauthorized hacking—but governance failure over sensitive enterprise endpoints. The QBE-issued device remained unrecovered for over five months post-termination, during which Mphasis and QBE failed to coordinate retrieval or confirm secure chain of custody.
QBE claims the device was “locked” via software in December 2024. However, remote locks are not equivalent to physical retrieval or forensic assurance. Security experts confirm: software-based locking is a mitigation—not a safeguard—especially when the device remains physically uncontrolled.
Remote lock mechanisms can be bypassed under various conditions:
• Login Circumvention – A skilled actor with physical access can use bootable media or privilege escalation tools to bypass OS credentials.
• Lack of Full-Disk Encryption – Data at rest may be accessible if disk encryption is not enforced.
• Firmware Vulnerabilities – Without BIOS/UEFI boot protection, external booting is possible.
• Misconfigured Wake-on-LAN / Remote Access – Dormant devices may be exploitable if improperly secured.
Failure to physically retrieve a live healthcare endpoint is not merely a technical lapse—it is a regulatory and operational breach. Allowing an active device containing protected data to remain outside corporate control is analogous to a court bailiff leaving a loaded sidearm unattended: foreseeable, preventable, and institutionally negligent.
Claims of misappropriation must therefore be weighed against Plaintiffs’ own failure to retrieve, secure, or verify endpoint custody. The risk did not originate with Defendant—but with those responsible for data protection.
Internal Breach – Not External Hacking
The QBE.pptx incident exemplifies a recurring enterprise risk: sensitive data loss stemming from internal control failures, not malicious external intrusion. Mphasis transmitted materials to an unmanaged endpoint and failed to initiate retrieval protocols. The result is consistent with systemic governance breakdowns.
Clarifying the “Nitin” Alias
The temporary alias nitin.rakesh@mphasis.it.com was created only after Mphasis blocked Defendant’s communication channels. It was used exclusively to facilitate the return of QBE property. Every message was signed by Defendant. No effort was made to impersonate any real person. The alias functioned as a delivery channel—not an act of fraud or misrepresentation.
Rule 11 Sanctions Requested
On June 17, 2025, Defendant filed a Rule 11 motion seeking sanctions against Plaintiff for mischaracterizing public court filings as trade secrets. The challenged exhibit—ECF No. 14–38—was filed by Plaintiff without protective seal, confidentiality marking, or restriction.
Motion Basis and Requested Relief
The motion invokes:
• Judicial Estoppel, New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001)
• Waiver of Privilege, Fed. R. Evid. 502
• Unclean Hands, Precision Instrument Mfg. Co., 324 U.S. 806 (1945)
• Sanctions, Rule 11(b)(1)–(3), Rule 16(f), and 28 U.S.C. § 1927
Defendant has requested corrective action and referral of Plaintiff’s counsel to relevant grievance committees for alleged misstatements and procedural abuse.
Endpoint Governance and Oversight Failure
Despite receiving multiple email notices, QBE failed to coordinate the laptop’s retrieval. Mphasis later submitted sworn declarations asserting refusal—serving as grounds for a forensic imaging order. However, the laptop was never issued by Mphasis and remained under QBE’s enterprise domain and governance.
Protected Whistleblower Disclosures
Disclosures regarding dual-endpoint architecture, offshoring, and compliance failures affecting protected healthcare data were made in good faith and are shielded by federal and state whistleblower statutes.
The March 2024 QBE healthcare breach appears consistent with the exact governance deficiencies Defendant had previously reported—namely, the failure to secure live devices, enforce return protocols, and monitor access control in cross-border settings.
Legal Action and Breach Attribution
QBE declined to provide a verifiable digital chain of custody and relied on physical-only delivery methods for endpoint return—without offering secure electronic options. Its global infrastructure is managed outside the U.S., while Mphasis operates as a foreign subsidiary. These cross-border structures complicate domestic oversight and raise policy concerns regarding regulatory visibility.
Returning the laptop under such conditions does not waive legal rights. Instead, it affirms—both factually and procedurally—the same control failures that exposed patient data and violated compliance norms.
Final Statement
Defendant asserts his right to jury trial. Whatever the outcome, the materials at issue remain publicly filed. This matter is subject to continuing judicial and regulatory scrutiny.
WIP
No Misappropriation
• Mphasis never issued you a device.
• The laptop at issue was QBE property.
• They cite ECF No. 14-38 as “trade secrets” but filed it publicly, unsealed.
• You created the mphasis.nyc domain to fulfill a return obligation they failed to coordinate.
Protected Whistleblower Activity
• You reported clear internal governance failures (dual endpoint, unsecure device, no retrieval process).
• Your disclosures align with statutory protections under:
◦ 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b) (DTSA whistleblower immunity),
◦ SOX / Dodd-Frank (retaliation protections),
◦ NYLL § 740 (retaliation for health and safety disclosures).
Intent Was Transparency—Not Deception
• Every message using mphasis.nyc or nitin.rakesh@mphasis.it.com was signed.
• No impersonation—just traceable delivery when they cut off all access.
Jury Perspective
• You're the individual trying to return a healthcare laptop in good faith.
• They're the multinational who left it sitting, unsecured, while blaming you for doing your job.
The following sections are based exclusively on materials from ECF Nos. 14-38 and 14-41—public exhibits filed by Mphasis in the U.S. District Court. These documents were not sealed, redacted, or designated confidential at the time of filing. Only after their citation in defense were they retroactively labeled as “trade secrets.” The record stands on its own. All commentary below is grounded solely in the publicly docketed filings.
DISCLAIMER: This summary is a factual representation of public filings and protected disclosures made by the Defendant in accordance with rights under 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b), Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and New York Labor Law § 740. No confidential, sealed, or privileged information has been disclosed beyond what has been publicly filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. This document is provided for transparency and does not constitute legal advice or waiver of any legal rights.