Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 1, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-07984
StatusUnknown

This text of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc. (Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC. Civil Action No. 24-cv-07984-KPF and NYP HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiffs, CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER v. PERPLEXITY AI, INC., Defendant. Plaintiffs Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and NYP Holdings, Inc. and Defendant Perplexity AI, Inc. (each a “Party,” and collectively, “the Parties”), through their respective counsel of record, hereby submit this Confidentiality and Protective Order (“Protective Order”) for the Court to so order. Whereas, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. This Protective Order governs the handling of any documents, information, and other things exchanged by the Parties or received from nonparties in response to any discovery

method authorized or permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in connection with all phases of the above-captioned action leading up to trial, including, but not limited to, the filing of any pleadings, answering any discovery requests, taking depositions, filing motions, and preparing transcripts and exhibits. This Protective Order does not govern proceedings during trial, nor does it prohibit any Party from seeking a separate protective order to govern trial proceedings; however, this Protective Order shall govern all testimony taken at a pretrial hearing or other judicial proceeding in this action. 2. Any information or materials produced by any Party or nonparty as part of discovery in this action may be designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Inspection Data” by such Party or nonparty pursuant to Paragraph 3 of this Protective Order. 3. As used herein: (a) “Confidential Information” shall include any documents, tangible things, or testimony that a Party (or nonparty as applicable) reasonably believes not to be in the public

domain and contains any confidential financial, business, research, development, technical, strategic, and/or personal information, the disclosure of which, in the good faith judgment of the Party or nonparty designating the material as confidential, could harm the privacy or business interests of the Producing Party (as defined below) or any other person. Confidential Information shall not include information that (a) is available to the public other than through a breach of this Protective Order or other duty of confidentiality; or (b) a Receiving Party (as defined below) can demonstrate was already known to the Party at the time of disclosure and was not subject to conditions of confidentiality. (b) “Designated In-House Counsel” shall mean In-House Counsel (as defined

below) who seek access to “Highly Confidential” documents and information in this Action. Each Party shall be permitted to designate to the other Party no more than three (3) Designated In-House Counsel, none of whom shall have responsibilities that include and/or are intertwined with “competitive decision-making,” Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. iGuzzini Lighting USA, Ltd., 311 F.R.D. 80, 83 (S.D.N.Y. 2015), or editorial decision- making. (c) “Highly Confidential Information” shall include any Confidential Information which a Party (or nonparty as applicable) reasonably believes to be so sensitive that it is entitled to extraordinary protections. Such information includes but is not limited to any information, document, or thing, or portion of any document or thing, that contains trade secrets or highly sensitive business or personal information, the disclosure of which would create a substantial risk of serious harm to the privacy or business interests of the Producing Party or any other person that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. (d) “Highly Confidential – Inspection Data” shall be defined in a separate

agreement negotiated by the Parties for the discovery of source code and other extremely sensitive electronic data subject to inspection, including but not limited to training data. (e) “In-House Counsel” shall mean those attorneys who are directly employed by and serve as in-house counsel to a Party. For the avoidance of doubt, the term In-House Counsel shall not include outside counsel of record that have appeared in this action along with other lawyers affiliated with the law firms that are retained to represent a Party in this action. (f) “Producing Party” shall mean the Party or Parties to this action (and any nonparty as applicable) producing documents and/or information in this action.

(g) “Receiving Party” shall mean the Party or Parties to this action (and any nonparty as set forth in this Protective Order) receiving documents and/or information in this action. (h) “Expert” shall mean a person who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as a testifying expert witness or as a non-testifying consultant in this action, who the Party or its counsel believe has specialized knowledge or experience in an area pertinent to the litigation and who is neither a past or current employee of a Party, nor a current employee of a Party’s commercial competitor, and at the time of retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or of a Party’s competitor. As a reference point, the Parties’ initial, non-exhaustive lists of competitors are attached hereto as Schedule 1. (i) “Professional Vendor” shall mean a person or entity that provides litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstratives, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and

their employees and subcontractors. 4. Designation in conformity with this Protective Order requires: (a) For information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, but excluding transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), that the Producing Party affix the legend “CONFIDENTIAL”, “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”, or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – INSPECTION DATA” to each page that contains protected material. If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, to the extent practicable, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins) and must

specify, for each portion, the level of protection being asserted. (b) In the case of testimony given in deposition or in other pretrial or trial proceedings, confidentiality designations shall be made by notifying all counsel, either on the record during the deposition or in writing at any time up to twenty (20) business days after the final transcript is received by counsel for the Party asserting the confidentiality designation, of those portions which are to be stamped or otherwise treated as such. Prior to the expiration of such twenty (20) business day period (or until a designation is made by counsel, if such a designation is made in a shorter period of time), all such documents, tangible things, deposition transcripts, and recordings of the deposition shall be treated as Highly Confidential Information. Nothing shall prohibit a Party from seeking to redesignate a confidentiality designation subsequent to the twenty (20) business day period. (c) For information produced in some form other than documentary and for any other tangible items, that the Producing Party affix in a prominent place “CONFIDENTIAL”, “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL”, or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –

INSPECTION DATA”. If only a portion or portions of the information or item warrant protection, the Producing Party, to the extent practicable, shall identify the protected portion(s) and specify the level of protection being asserted. 5.

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

Related

Philips v. Iguzzini Lighting USA, Ltd.
311 F.R.D. 80 (S.D. New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Perplexity AI, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dow-jones-company-inc-v-perplexity-ai-inc-nysd-2025.