IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
1:21-cv-05807
| S.D.N.Y. | Jun 12, 2025Background
- In re Didi Global Inc. Securities Litigation involves allegations brought by lead plaintiff Alaka Holdings Ltd. and others against Didi Global Inc. and various underwriter defendants.
- Plaintiffs sought to permanently seal Exhibit 4, a transcript excerpt from a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition containing private personal information and proprietary trading strategies of Alaka and its designees.
- Underwriter Defendants had previously designated related documents as "FOR ATTORNEYS’ OR EXPERTS’ EYES ONLY" per the stipulated confidentiality order.
- Plaintiffs and defendants both have sought protective orders and sealing of sensitive material, following established practices and prior court orders regarding confidentiality.
- Judge Valerie Figueredo ruled on the plaintiffs' motion to permanently seal Exhibit 4 and required defendants to justify permanent sealing of other confidential exhibits under controlling Second Circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should Exhibit 4 be permanently sealed? | Disclosure would expose private, personal, and proprietary trading information, outweighing public access. | Not detailed in this order. | Court GRANTS permanent sealing of Exhibit 4. |
| Are privacy interests sufficient to override public access? | Privacy interests in personal and business info justify sealing. | Not detailed in this order. | Court agrees privacy interests outweigh presumption of public access. |
| Does prior court practice support continued sealing? | Past orders and ESI Protocol support ongoing confidentiality protections. | Not detailed in this order. | Court follows established practice and grants requested relief. |
| Should the court require further showing re: Exhibits D-G? | N/A (Plaintiffs request sealing per Defendants’ designation.) | Defendants to show justification per Lugosch. | Court orders Defendants to justify permanent sealing under Lugosch. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) (public's right of access to judicial records may be overridden for privacy or higher value interests)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (court discretion necessary in access to judicial records)
- In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1987) (sealing requires necessity and narrow tailoring)
- U.S. v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (privacy interests in personal and business affairs may justify sealing)