FXRobott LLC v. Noetiq Research Inc., 1:25-cv-02264

Plaintiffs (FXRobott LLC, Argand Technologies Corp., Robott Corporation) sought injunctive relief against Defendants (Noetiq Research Inc. et al.) for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation.
During discovery, Plaintiffs failed to timely produce a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) allegedly covering third parties shown the trade secrets at issue.
The NDA was not produced until less than 90 minutes before the evidentiary hearing, despite earlier requests for such documents and deposition testimony about possible existence.
Plaintiffs claim the NDA protected their trade secrets disclosed to Tappollo Media, LLC and its purported owners, Boon Chew and Frank Perez.
Defendants moved to strike the late-produced NDA, arguing prejudice from lack of discovery and opportunity to challenge its validity and scope.
The court considered whether to admit the NDA for the preliminary injunction, balancing fairness, prejudice, and procedural rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Late-Produced NDA	NDA demonstrates confidentiality for trade secrets disclosed to third parties	Late disclosure deprived Defendants of discovery and ability to challenge authenticity; seeks preclusion	NDA is struck from preliminary injunction record through Rule 37(c); Plaintiffs may seek to use it only for permanent injunction with further limited discovery
Justification of Late Production	Del Grande found the NDA after deposition; counsel received it only on eve of hearing	No substantial justification—document should have been found and produced earlier	No substantial justification found; delay was not excused
Significance/Relevance of NDA	NDA is highly material to show trade secret protection	Improper late disclosure prevented timely challenge and harmed defense	Agreed: NDA is highly relevant but prejudice from late disclosure outweighs benefit
Remedy for Discovery Violation	Allow limited use with opportunity for further discovery	Strike NDA or alternatively require Plaintiffs to pay for supplemental discovery and hearings	NDA precluded for preliminary injunction; may be admitted for permanent injunction if Plaintiffs cover Defendants’ supplemental costs

Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Sci. Commc’ns, Inc., 118 F.3d 955 (2d Cir. 1997) (court articulated four-factor test for precluding evidence due to discovery violations)
Outley v. City of New York, 837 F.2d 587 (2d Cir. 1988) (re: appropriateness of evidence preclusion as discovery sanction)
Patterson v. Balsamico, 440 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2006) (standards for evaluating prejudice and considering continuance as alternate remedy)