IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
1:21-cv-05807
S.D.N.Y.May 19, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs represent a putative class in a securities action against DiDi Global Inc. and various underwriters and individual defendants.
- A Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order governs the handling of sensitive discovery materials, entered on May 22, 2024.
- DiDi has designated certain discovery materials and supporting documents as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
- Plaintiffs seek to file a motion to compel production of documents that DiDi has withheld, citing restrictions under People’s Republic of China (PRC) blocking statutes.
- Under the protective order, plaintiffs are required to file these documents under seal unless the court orders otherwise or the producing party consents.
- Plaintiffs contest both the confidentiality designations and necessity of sealing, arguing that DiDi bears the burden of justifying such measures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery materials should be filed under seal | Rosen: Material should not necessarily be sealed; burden is on DiDi to justify sealing | DiDi: Designations require sealing under the protective order | Determination remains with the court; plaintiffs must file under seal, but court decides final status |
| Whether party consent is relevant to sealing judicial records | Rosen: Party consent is immaterial to court’s sealing determination | DiDi: Protective order requires sealing per designation | Court's discretion governs, not parties’ agreement |
| Weight of presumption favoring public access | Rosen: Presumption weaker for discovery materials vs. filings resolutive on merits | DiDi: Protective order necessitates confidentiality at this stage | Presumption of access depends on role of materials in merits decision |
| Propriety of DiDi's confidentiality designations | Rosen: Does not concede designations are proper | DiDi: Asserts designations per protective order | Final determination is the court’s, pending motion review |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (trial courts have discretion in determining access to judicial records)
- DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818 (2d Cir. 1997) (burden is on the party seeking sealing)
- United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (presumption of access depends on material’s role in judicial decision)
- Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir. 2001) (differentiates between discovery materials and motions needing judicial resolution)
- Brown v. Advantage Eng’g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013 (11th Cir. 1992) (party agreement is immaterial to the propriety of sealing records)