DECISION AND ORDER Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of Currenex’s matching algorithm source code and related documents, ECF No. 132, and Defendant Currenex, Inc.’s (“Currenex”) cross-motion to compel Plaintiffs to produce their foreign exchange (“FX”) trading methodologies and algorithms, ECF No. 134. For the reasons described below, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is hereby GRANTED and Currenex’s cross-motion to compel is hereby DENIED. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts This decision assumes familiarity with the background of this litigation, which is described in Judge Kaplan’s May 18, 2023 Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motions to dismiss. ECF No. 83. This decision therefore discusses only those facts most relevant to the current disputes. Currenex operates an electronic platform for FX transactions. ECF No. 96, Second Amended Complaint 4 (“SAC”). These FX transactions take the form of an exchange of one currency for another at a given price. The most common trades on the Currenex platform are Euro/U.S. dollar, U.S. dollar/Japanese Yen, and British pound/U.S. dollar. SAC 59. To trade on the Currenex platform, market participants submit bids (the prices at which they are willing to buy) or offers (the prices at which they are willing to sell). SAC 4. The platform uses a “matching logic” that completes trades by matching bids with offers. SAC 5. Plaintiffs allege that Currenex and State Street Global Markets International Limited conspired with certain participants that traded on Currenex’s FX trading platform — including Goldman, Sachs & Co. LLC, HC Technologies, LLC, State Street Bank and Trust Company, and other Doe Defendants (the “Trading Defendants”) — to give those participants secret privileges, including the ability to complete transactions without entering competitive bids. SAC
