Troell v. Binance Holdings Limited

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 13, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-07136
StatusUnknown

This text of Troell v. Binance Holdings Limited (Troell v. Binance Holdings Limited) 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
Troell v. Binance Holdings Limited, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOCELYN TROELL, et al., Plaintiffs, Civil Action Case No. vs. 24 Civ. 07136 (JAV) BINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED, et al., PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendants. JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, United States District Judge: WHEREAS, all plaintiffs and defendants Binance Holdings Limited and BAM Trading Services Inc. in the above-captioned action (collectively, the “Parties,” and individually, a “Party”) request that this Court issue a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to protect the confidentiality of certain nonpublic and confidential material that will be exchanged pursuant to and during the course of discovery in this case; WHEREAS, the Parties, through counsel, agree to the following terms; WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that this Protective Order does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures or responses to discovery, and that the protection it affords only extends to the limited information or items that are entitled, under the applicable legal principles, to confidential treatment; WHEREAS, the Parties further acknowledge that this Protective Order does not create entitlement to file confidential information under seal; and WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, and based on the representations of the Parties that discovery in this case will involve confidential documents or information, the public disclosure of which would cause harm to the Producing Person1 and/or a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed, and to protect against injury caused by dissemination of confidential documents and information, this Court finds good cause to issue an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of this action; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Protective Order—including, 1 Producing Person shall mean any person, including any Party to this action, or nonparty that produces any material in connection with this action, whether in response to a subpoena or otherwise. Accordingly, the Parties shall share a copy of this Order with any third party to whom they send a subpoena or other request for documents or testimony in this action. without limitation, the Parties, their representatives, agents, experts, and consultants, all third parties providing discovery in this action, and all other interested persons with actual or constructive notice of this Protective Order—shall adhere to the following terms: 1. Any person subject to this Protective Order who receives from any other person subject to this Protective Order any “Discovery Material” (i.e., information of any kind produced or disclosed pursuant to and in the course of discovery in this action) that is designated “Confidential” pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order (hereinafter, “Confidential Discovery Material”) shall not disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder. 2. The person producing any given Discovery Material may designate Confidential only such portion of such material the public disclosure of which is either restricted by law or would cause harm to the business, commercial, financial, or personal interests of the Producing Person and/or a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed and that consists of: a. nonpublic financial information (including, without limitation, profitability reports or estimates, percentage fees, design fees, royalty rates, minimum guarantee payments, sales reports, and sale margins); b. nonpublic material relating to ownership or control of any nonpublic company; c. nonpublic plans, product development information, or marketing plans; d. any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; e. nonpublic information constituting or reflecting any “trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G)); f. nonpublic information the public disclosure of which would reveal confidential customer or client information that any Party is obligated to keep confidential pursuant to applicable laws, regulations, or court orders recognized and enforced by United States or other applicable law; or g. any other category of information hereinafter given Confidential status by the Court. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing herein is intended to prevent a Producing Person from designating the entirety of a given document as Confidential if the Producing Person reasonably believes the entire document falls within one or more of the categories. 3. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the Producing Person or that person’s counsel may designate 2 such portion Confidential by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking Confidential the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility; and (b) if a Party seeks to file any Discovery Material containing Confidential information with the Court, then within 10 business days after the filing party requests the Producing Person redact such Confidential information, the Producing Person will redact the Confidential information for the filing party to file, unless such information was redacted at the time of production. 4. With respect to deposition transcripts, a Producing Person or that person’s counsel may designate such portion 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 (consisting of both question and answer) in a 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 of the conclusion of a deposition, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript and/or the specific exhibits 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 or exhibit (as the case may be) in their possession or under their control as directed by the Producing Person or that person’s counsel. During the 30- day period following the conclusion of a deposition, the entire deposition transcript will be treated as if it had been designated Confidential. 5. If at any time prior to the trial of this action, a Producing Person realizes that some portion(s) of Discovery Material previously produced by the Producing Person without limitation should be designated Confidential, then the Producing Person may so designate by so apprising all prior recipients of the Discovery Material in writing, and thereafter such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material will be deemed to be, and treated as, Confidential under the terms of this Protective Order. Additionally, if at any time prior to the trial of this action, a Party, realizes that some portion(s) of Discovery Material previously produced by one or more Producing Persons without limitation should be designated Confidential based on a duty of confidence owed to that Party as set forth above in paragraph 2, then such Party may so designate by so apprising the Producing Party and all prior recipients of the Discovery Material in writing, and thereafter such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material will be deemed to be, and treated as, Confidential under the terms of this Protective Order.

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Troell v. Binance Holdings Limited, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troell-v-binance-holdings-limited-nysd-2025.