Altimeo Asset Management v. Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 23, 2023·No. 1:19-cv-10067·Unknown

Opinion

MEA ae i Oe HO Re et et er ee le ee Pees EE SE See re

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALTIMEO ASSET MANAGEMENT and ODS CAPITAL LLC, individually and on behalf of all others 19 Civ. 10067 (PAE) similarly situated, Plaintiffs, STIPULATED -V- CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND QIHOO 360 TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., HONGYI PROTECTIVE ORDER ZHOU, XIANGDONG QI, and ERIC X. CHEN, Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:

WHEREAS, the parties to this action (collectively, the “Parties” and each individually, a “Party”)! request that this Court issue a protective order pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to protect the confidentiality of nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that they may need to disclose in connection with discovery in this action; and WHEREAS, the Parties, through counsel, agree to the following terms; and WHEREAS, this Court finds that good cause exists for issuance of an appropriately tailored protective order governing the confidentiality of certain information in this action; and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Parties to this action, their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, as well as any other person in active concert or participation with any of the foregoing and all other persons with actual notice of this Order, will adhere to the following terms, upon risk of contempt:

' The “Parties” include Plaintiffs Altimeo Asset Management and ODS Capital LLC and Defendants Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd., Hongyi Zhou, and Eric X. Chen. Defendant Xiangdong Qi has not appeared in this action.

{00488377;10 }

Case 1:19-cv-1006/-PAE Document □□□ Filed 10/20/25 Page «< of il

1, No person or entity subject to this Order may disclose “Discovery Material” (7.e., information of any kind produced or disclosed in the course of discovery in this action) that a Party or person has designated as “Confidential” pursuant to this Order to any other person or entity except as permitted expressly by this Order. 2, The Party or person producing or disclosing Discovery Material (each, a “Producing Party’) may designate as Confidential only the portion of such material that it reasonably and in good faith believes consists of: (a) nonpublic financial information (including without limitation profitability reports or estimates, financial statements, tax returns, percentage fees, design fees, royalty rates, minimum guarantee payments, sales reports, sale margins, transaction records, investments, and account information); — - (b) nonpublic information relating to ownership or control of any non-public company; (c) nonpublic business plans, product-development information, marketing plans, marketing studies or other sensitive nonpublic information concerning business or legal strategy or operations; (d) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; (e) any information which is subject to or in good faith believed to be subject to limitations on disclosure pursuant to federal, state, or foreign data protection laws or other privacy obiigations, including, without limitation, Law of the People’s Republic of China on Guarding State Secrets (effective October 1, 2010), the State Security Law of the People’s Republic of China (effective July 1, 2015), the PRC Data Security Law (effective September 1, 2021), the Cybersecurity Law of the People’s Republic of China (effective

Case 1:19-cv-10067-PAE Document Filed 10/20/23 Page 3 of 11

June 1, 2017), the Measures for Security Assessment for Cross-border Data Transfer (effective September 1, 2022), the Personal Information Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China (effective November 1, 2021), and/or the Securities Law of the People’s Republic of China (effective March 1, 2020); (f) any information which is otherwise prohibited from public disclosure pursuant to the laws of the country in which the information originated; or (g) any other category of information given confidential status by this Court after the date of this Order. 3. The Producing Party or its counsel shall designate confidential portions of Discovery Material as Confidential by stamping or otherwise clearly marking as Confidential the protected portion in a manner that wil! not interfere with legibility or audibility. 4. A Producing Party or its counsel may designate deposition exhibits, deposition transcripts, or portions of deposition transcripts as Confidential either by: (a) indicating on the record during the deposition that a question calls for Confidential information, in which case the reporter will bind the transcript of the designated testimony ina separate volume and mark it as “Confidential Information Governed by Protective Order”; or (b) notifying the reporter and all counsel of record, in writing, within 30 days after a deposition has concluded, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript that are to be designated Confidential, in which case all counsel receiving the transcript will be responsible for marking the copies of the designated transcript in their possession or under their contro] as directed by the Producing Party or that person’s counsel. During the 30-day period following a deposition, all Parties will treat the entire deposition transcript as if it had been designated Confidential.

{00488377510 }

Case 1:19-cv-10067-PAE Document 190 Filed 10/20/23 Page 4 of 11

5. The parties anticipate that Discovery Material in this matter could include foreign language documents. To the extent that any Party prepares a translation of any Discovery Material that the Producing Party designated as Confidential, such designation(s) shall also apply to the translation of the Discovery Material without need for any further action or notice by the Producing Party. 6. If at any time before the trial of this action a Producing Party realizes that it should have designated as Confidential some portion(s) of Discovery Material that it previously produced without limitation, the Producing Party may so designate such material by notifying all Parties in writing. Thereafter, all persons subject to this Order will treat such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material as Confidential. In addition, the Producing Party shall provide each other Party with replacement versions of such Discovery Material that bears the Confidential designation within two (2) business days of providing such notice. 7. Nothing contained in this Order will be construed as; (a) a waiver by a Party or person of its right to object to any discovery request; (b) a waiver of any privilege or protection; or (c) a ruling regarding the admissibility at trial of any document, testimony, or other evidence. 8. Where a Producing Party has designated Discovery Material as Confidential, other persons subject to this Order may disclose such information only to the following persons: (a) the Parties to this action, their insurers, and counsel to their insurers; (b) counsel of record for this action, including any paralegal, clerical, contracted support personnel, or other assistant that such counsel employs and assigns to this matter;

Case 1:19-cv-10067-PAE Document 190 Filed 10/20/23 Page 5 of 11

(c} outside vendors or service providers (such as litigation support service providers, copy-service providers, foreign language translators, and document- management consultants) that counsel hire and assign to this matter; (d) any mediator or arbitrator that the Parties engage in this matter or that this Court appoints, provided such person has first executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as Exhibit A hereto;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Altimeo Asset Management v. Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Altimeo Asset Management v. Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd. (Altimeo Asset Management v. Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)