Thanks for posting the above @djm3001 The ruling only shows that...

Thanks for posting the above @djm3001

The ruling only shows that axiom's request for more information is ambiguous and that the court doesn't believe will help to prove axiom's contempt of court motion, so was denied.

The ruling clearly states that a Sumitomo employee sent two emails to local newspapers with the intent of slandering axiom's reputation in 2015. Something that Sumitomo has admitted to. Further its states that this occurred using a Sumitomo computer whilst the individual was employed by Sumitomo. This contempt of court claim isn't due to be heard until early next year. The onus will be on axiom to prove that the individual committed these actions as a result of the request of their employer.

Clearly Sumitomo was using nefarious tactics to hurt axiom's credibility, if they were doing this what else they were doing?