Nanjing CIC International Co., Ltd. v. Schwartz
6:20-cv-07031-EAW-MWP
W.D.N.Y.Jun 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Nanjing CIC International Co., Ltd., is a trading company in China that alleges Defendants (Foundry Associates, Inc. and its president, Schwartz) stole its U.S. customer base in collusion with a former Plaintiff employee, E. Chen.
- The Court previously entered a Protective Order governing designation of discovery documents as Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only (AEO).
- Plaintiff sought to de-designate certain sales reports and invoices classified as AEO, arguing misdesignation and undue hindrance in using these documents for ongoing litigation in China.
- An earlier Order (October 2023) partially granted Plaintiff’s request, requiring some information in pre-2018 reports be marked as Confidential but keeping other information post-2018 as AEO.
- Plaintiff moved again to de-designate 2023–2024 reports and invoice details; Defendants cross-moved to shift costs for discovery production to Plaintiff.
- The dispute centers on whether Defendants have shown good cause to designate more recent discovery as AEO under Rule 26 and if cost-shifting for producing multiple discovery versions is warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| De-designation of 2023–2024 sales reports | Prior order requires de-designation; law of the case | AEO needed to protect customer data against competitor misuse | Denied; Defendants showed good cause for AEO; prior order does not compel de-designation |
| De-designation of invoice date/number/amount | Info is not sensitive; needed for damages calculation | Aggregated dates/amounts reveal business patterns, needs AEO | Denied; grouped info reveals procurement habits, justified as AEO |
| Plaintiff using discovery in Chinese litigation | Should be allowed under For Litigation Only designation | Use is not appropriate; not addressed in this order | Not addressed due to denial of de-designation motion |
| Attorney’s fees/cost-shifting | Seeks costs for Defendants’ improper designations | Seeks shifting cost for production of de-designated documents | Denied for both; neither side met threshold for fee/cost-shifting under Federal Rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (establishes broad court discretion on protective orders and confidentiality)
- Dove v. Atl. Capital Corp., 963 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1992) (protective order decisions are within the court's discretion)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (presumption that producing party bears discovery costs)