1.17 Professional Vendors: Persons or entities employed by the Parties or their Counsel to assist in the Action that provide litigation or trial support services (e.g., photocopying; data processing; graphic production; videotaping; translating; preparing exhibits or demonstrations; organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium; mock jurors; investigators; professional jury or trial consultants) and their employees and subcontractors.

If imprinting on the face of the document is not possible, then by (1) affixing a stamp with “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” on the medium on which the electronic data is stored when copies are delivered to a Receiving Party; and (2) designating the production as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” in the transmittal cover letter.

For purposes of Section 5.4 of the instant Order, the disclosure obligations and objection process set forth herein shall solely apply to the person retained by a Party or its Counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in the prosecution or defense of the Action and shall not include that person’s employees and support personnel.

The Receiving Party is not required to return or destroy Discovery Material that (i) is stored on backup storage media made in accordance with regular data backup procedures for disaster recovery purposes; (ii) is located in the email archive system or archived electronic files of departed employees; (iii) must be retained pursuant to the Receiving Party’s legal or regulatory retention obligations or (iv) is subject to legal hold obligations; provided however, that these materials continue to be subject to the terms of this Order.

Backup storage media will not be restored for purposes of returning or certifying destruction of Discovery Material but such retained information shall continue to be treated in accordance with the Order.

Defendants Argus Information & Advisory ServicesInc.

(“Argus”), Verisk Analytics, Inc. (“Verisk”), and Trans Union LLC (“TransUnion,”and collectively, the “Defendants”) and Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMC”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree, with the approval of the Court, that the deadline for the parties to apply to the Court for a protective order (see DI.

82, § 7) is hereby extended through and including February 25, 2025.

This extension of time is necessary so that the parties can meet and confer and work towards minimizing or eliminating disputes regarding a joint protective order.

The Honorable‘Stephanos Bibas Circuit Court Judge, sitting by designation

Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d), the parties may not extend depositions upon oral examination beyond one business day (of seven hours duration) without mutual agreement or prior leave of the Court.

Should counsel find, after good faith efforts—including oral communication among Delaware and Lead Counsel for all parties to the dispute—that they are unable to resolve a discovery matter or a dispute relating to a protective order, the parties involved in the discovery matter or protective order dispute shall submit a joint letter in substantially the following form: Dear Judge Bibas: The parties in the above-referenced matter write to request the scheduling of a discovery teleconference.

Within three days, any party opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed three pages, outlining that party’s reasons for its opposition.

After the filing of case dispositive motions, this matter may be referred to a magistrate judge to explore the possibility of alternative dispute resolution.

On November 5, 2025, counsel shall submit a joint letter to the Court with an interim report on the nature of the matters in issue and the progress of discovery to date.

An injury is concrete if it “has a close relationship to a harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American courts.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 424 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted); Barclift v. Keystone Credit Servs., 93 F.4th 136, 144–45 (3d Cir. 2024).

Under the federal Act, information is a trade secret if (1) its owner “has taken reasonable measures to keep [it] secret” and (2) its economic value comes partly from the fact that competitors do not know it.

JPMorgan may amend its complaint to add a claim under a state law that reaches defendants’ con- duct or to allege facts to which the Delaware Act would apply.

That broad accusation is conclusory, but a more precise allegation makes it plausible: a whistleblower who seemed to work for Verisk sent JPMorgan a letter warning that its “data assets have become Verisk’s and its subsidiaries’ assets/profits” and that “Verisk has encouraged and facilitated data sharing across [all its] subsidiaries.” Id. ¶¶ 67–68.

Accepting those allegations as true and reading them in the light most favorable to JPMorgan, Verisk plausibly used JPMorgan’s data by sending it from Argus to other subsidiaries so they could exploit it.

I DENY Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

I GRANT Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim under the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

I dismiss that claim without prejudice.

I DENY Defendants’ motion to dismiss Defendants Verisk and TransUnion.

On December 18, 2024, the Court heard oral argument in the above-captioned case.

As stated at argument, plaintiff is authorized to file a supplemental letter addressing Randolph Equities, LLC v. Carbon Cap., Inc., 648 F. Supp.

2d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), a case raised by defendant at oral argument but not addressed in the briefing.

The letter is not to exceed three pages, and is to be filed to ECF by Tuesday, December 24, 2024.

United States District Judge

Whitney Capital Partners, LLC, No. l:24-cv-05864-PAE (S.D.N.Y.) Dear Judge Engelmayer: In accordance with Southern District of New York Electronic Case Filing ("ECF") Rule 2 l .7(b ), as counsel for defendant in this matter, I write respectfully to request that the Court formally seal the following docket entries: 1.

Document 17-2, an affirmation in support of defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

The reason for this request is that sensitive information was mistakenly included in the filed exhibits.

A redacted version of Document 17-2, an affirmation in support of defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, will separately be filed electronically in accordance with ECF Rule 21.7(c).

Paul A. Engelmayer December 1 7, 2024 Page2 Respectfully submitted, By: Isl Eric Del Pozo Eric Del Pozo ( #ED2 l 77) SHIPMAN & GOODWIN LLP 260 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel.

October 15, 2024 ByECF The Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square, Room 2201 New York, NY 10007 Re: Chung v. JH Whitney Capital Partners, LLC, No. 24-cv-05864 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.) Dear Judge Engelmayer: We represent Plaintiff in the above-referenced action.

On October 11, 2024, the Court entered an Order setting the following deadlines: (i) October 31, 2024 for Plaintiff to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and (ii) November 14, 2024 for Defendant to file a reply.

Plaintiff requires additional time to submit her opposition and requested Defendant's consent to an extension of the October 31 deadline to November 7, 2024.

This is the first request for an extension of time to respond to Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Other than the briefing schedule set by the Court, no other deadlines have been set in the case, and therefore Plaintiffs request does not affect any other scheduled dates or a case management plan.

That day, the Court issued an order directing plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or oppose the motion.

On September 19, 2024, plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

On October 10, 2024, defendant filed a renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an opposition to the motion to dismiss no later than October 31, 2024.

At the time any reply is served, the moving party shall supply the Court with two (2) courtesy copies of all motion papers by mailing or delivering them to the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007.

Document production shall begin two months after the Court’s resolution of all pending motions to dismiss and be substantially complete within ten monthsthereof.

Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d), the parties may not extend depositions upon oral examination beyond one business day (of seven hours duration) without mutual agreement or prior leave of the Court.

Within three days, any party opposing the application for relief may file a letter, not to exceed three pages, outlining that party’s reasons for its opposition.

Should counsel find it will be necessary to apply to the Court for a protective order specifying terms and conditions for the disclosure of confidential information, counsel should confer and attempt to reach an agreement on a proposed form of order and submit it to the Court within 10 days from the date of the Court’s resolution of all pending motions to dismiss.

After the filing of case dispositive motions, this matter may be referred to a magistrate judge to explore the possibility of alternative dispute resolution.

Defendants Argus Information & Advisory ServicesInc.

(“Argus”), Verisk Analytics, Inc. (“Verisk”), and Trans Union LLC (“TransUnion,”and collectively, the “Defendants”) and Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMC”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree, with the approval of the Court, that the deadline for the parties to proposea joint scheduling order or submit separate proposals insofar as they are unable to reach agreement (see D.I.

The Court will not look kindly on future requests for extensions.

The Honorable Stephanos Bibas Circuit Court Judge, sitting by designation Dated: September 4, 2024 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Counsel for Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank,

On August 29, 2024, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff shall file any amended complaint by September 19, 2024.

If plaintiff does amend, by October 10, 2024, defendant shall: (1) file an answer; (2) file a new motion to dismiss; or (3) submit a letter to the Court, copying plaintiff, stating that they rely on the previously filed motion to dismiss.1 It is further ORDERED that if no amended complaint is filed, plaintiff shall serve any opposition to the motion to dismiss by September 19, 2024.

At the time any reply is served, the moving party shall supply the Court with two (2) courtesy copies of all motion papers by mailing or delivering them to the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007.

1 If defendant files a new motion to dismiss or rely on its previous motion, plaintiff’s opposition will be due 14 days thereafter, and defendant’s reply, if any, will be due seven days after that.

Case 1:24-cv-00348-SB Document 28 Filed 08/28/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 102Case 1:24-cv-00348-SB Document 29 Filed 08/29/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 105

Defendants Argus Information & Advisory Services Inc. (“Argus”), Verisk Analytics, Inc. (“Verisk”), and Trans Union LLC (“TransUnion,” and collectively, the “Defendants”) and Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (“JPMC”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate and agree, with the approval of the Court, that the deadline for JPMC to file its opposition briefs in response to Defendants’ forthcoming Motions to Dismiss is extended through and including September 20, 2024, and the deadline for Defendants to file reply briefs is extended through and including October 1, 2024.

The Honorable Stephanos Bibas Circuit Court Judge, sitting by designation

Case 1:24-cv-00348-SB Document 28 Filed 08/28/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 103Case 1:24-cv-00348-SB Document 29 Filed 08/29/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 106

Counsel for Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, Counsel for Defendant Verisk Analytics, Inc. National Association