Sulzer Mixpac AG v. DXM Co. Ltd.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 23, 2025
Docket1:19-cv-09404
StatusUnknown

This text of Sulzer Mixpac AG v. DXM Co. Ltd. (Sulzer Mixpac AG v. DXM Co. Ltd.) 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
Sulzer Mixpac AG v. DXM Co. Ltd., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------X SULZER MIXPAC AG, Plaintiff, -against- Case No. 1:19-cv-09404-LAP DXM CO. LTD., and DENTAZON CORPORATION Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------X PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE DISCLOSURE AND USE OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS Plaintiff Sulzer Mixpac AG (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants DXM Co. Ltd. and Dentazon Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) anticipate that documents, testimony, or information containing or reflecting confidential, proprietary, trade secret, and/or commercially sensitive information are likely to be disclosed or produced during the course of discovery, initial disclosures, and supplemental disclosures in this case and request that the Court enter an Order setting forth the conditions for treating, obtaining, and using such information. Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds good cause for entry of the following Protective Order Regarding the Disclosure and Use of Discovery Materials (“Order” or “Protective Order”). 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS (a) Protected Material designated under the terms of this Protective Order shall be used by a Receiving Party solely for this case and shall not be used directly or indirectly for any other purpose whatsoever. (b) The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures during discovery, or in the course of making initial or supplemental disclosures under Rule 26(a). Designations under this Order shall be made with care and shall not be made absent a good faith belief that the designated material satisfies the criteria set forth below. If it comes to a Producing Party’s attention that designated material does not qualify for protection at all, or does not qualify for the level of protection initially asserted, the Producing Party must

promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing or changing the designation. 2. DEFINITIONS (a) “Communication” means any conversation, discussion, letter, memorandum, email, text message, meeting, note, or other transfer of information whether written, oral, or by any other means and includes any documents which abstract, digest, transcribe, or record any such communication. (b) “Day” or “date” means the exact day, month, and year if ascertainable, or if not, the best available approximation (including relationship to other events). (c) “Defendants” shall collectively refer to Defendants DXM Co. Ltd. (“DXM”) and Dentazon Corporation (“Dentazon”), to each Defendant individually, and/or any

member, officer, director, shareholder, attorney, employee, accountant, parent, subsidiary, division, affiliate, predecessor, agent, representative, or person acting on their behalf or under their control. (d) “Discovery Material” means all items or information, including from any non-party, regardless of the medium or manner generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, or tangible things) that are produced, that are refused production, disclosed, or generated in connection with discovery or Rule 26(a) disclosures in this case. (e) “Discovery Requests” means a Party’s interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission. (f) “Outside Counsel” means (i) counsel who have made an appearance in this case and/or counsel who have been admitted pro hac vice to this case, and (ii) partners, associates,

and non-lawyer staff of such counsel to whom it is reasonably necessary to disclose the information for this litigation. (g) “Party” means a party to this case and any member, officer, director, shareholder, attorney, employee, accountant, parent, subsidiary, division, affiliate, predecessor, agent, representative, or person acting on their behalf or under the party’s control. (h) “Plaintiff” or “Mixpac” shall collectively refer to Plaintiff Sulzer Mixpac AG and/or any member, officer, director, shareholder, attorney, employee, accountant, parent, subsidiary, division, affiliate, predecessor, agent, representative, or person acting on their behalf or under their control. (i) “Producing Party” means any Party or non-party that discloses or produces

any Discovery Material in this case. (j) “Protected Material” means any Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” (or simply “AEO”) as provided for in this Order. Protected Material shall not include materials that have been actually published or publicly disseminated. (k) “Receiving Party” means any Party who receives Discovery Material from a Producing Party. (l) “Sensitive Industry Information” means the following items: financial data, sales information, customer lists, supplier information, sales or marketing forecasts or plans, business plans, sales or marketing strategy, product development information, engineering documents, design-around documents, testing documents, employee information, information regarding market share, non-public prosecution information, and other non-public information of similar competitive and business sensitivity related to a Producing Party. In addition, Sensitive

Industry Information shall include but is not limited to the foregoing items with respect to Mixpac’s mixing tips. (m) “This Action” shall mean Sulzer Mixpac AG v. DXM Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-09404-LAP in the Southern District of New York. (n) The terms “document” and “Electronically Stored Information” (or “ESI”) have the full meanings ascribed to them in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and include all writings and records of every kind or description, however produced or reproduced, whether in hard copy or electronic form, whether draft or final, and whether original or reproduction, in the possession, custody or control of a Producing Party or Producing Party’s attorneys, agents, representatives or assigns. Any document or item of ESI that contains any notation, addition, comment or marking of any

kind that makes it different from the original in any way is a separate document or item of ESI. (o) The terms “person,” “persons” or “people” include not only natural people but also firms, partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, sole proprietorships, associations and business enterprises, as well as all divisions, subdivisions, bureaus, offices, departments or other units thereof. (p) The terms “concerning,” “regarding,” “related to,” “refer to,” “relating,” or “referring to” will be used in their broadest sense and shall mean directly or indirectly mentioning or describing, pertaining to, constituting, evidencing, being connected with, or reflecting upon a stated subject matter, including but not limited to the particular category of information requested. (q) The singular shall be deemed to include the plural, and the plural shall be deemed to include the singular as necessary to make the request inclusive rather than exclusive. (r) The words “and” and “or” shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to make the request inclusive rather than exclusive.

(s) The word “any” means all and the word “all” means any. The words “any” and “all” shall be construed as necessary to make a request inclusive rather than exclusive. 3. COMPUTATION OF TIME The computation of any period of time prescribed or allowed by this Order shall be performed in terms of calendar days (i.e., without regard to weekends or holidays). 4.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sulzer Mixpac AG v. DXM Co. Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sulzer-mixpac-ag-v-dxm-co-ltd-nysd-2025.