In re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-08585
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Judge Liman granted two sealing motions and required defendants to reconsider another in In re Turquoise Hill Resources Securities Litigation.
The order affects the non-party witnesses whose names were redacted, the defendants who sought to seal exhibits, and the public’s access to the court filings.
What happened
In re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation concerned requests to restrict public access to information filed in the case. Two motions sought redactions of non-party witnesses’ names in the Third Amended Complaint, following an earlier court order on the same subject.
The court granted those two motions, filed at Docket Nos. 337 and 339. Defendants’ separate motion, Docket No. 331, sought to seal five exhibits submitted with their motion to dismiss. The court ordered defendants to file a letter within 14 days explaining whether they still believed the reasons for secrecy outweighed the public’s presumptive right to access court documents, considering the exhibits’ use in the court’s earlier decision on the motion to dismiss. The clerk was directed to close Docket Nos. 337 and 339.
Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the order on November 7, 2024. The order did not grant or deny the motion at Docket No. 331; it required defendants to state their position about continued sealing.
The detailed version
- In re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation · No. 1:20-cv-08585
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 7, 2024
Background
The order addresses motions to seal, meaning requests to keep filed material from public view or to redact information in court papers. Motions at Docket Nos. 337 and 339 sought only to redact the names of non-party witnesses referenced in the Third Amended Complaint. The court noted that the requests were consistent with its earlier order addressing the same issue.
Rulings
The court granted the motions at Docket Nos. 337 and 339. It also addressed defendants’ motion to seal at Docket No. 331, which sought to seal Exhibits 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 submitted with the motion to dismiss. Rather than grant or deny that motion in this order, the court directed defendants to submit a letter within 14 days stating whether they continued to maintain that countervailing factors outweighed the presumption of public access to judicial documents. The court specifically noted that the exhibits had been used in the opinion and order resolving the motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.
Effect of the Order
The clerk was directed to close Docket Nos. 337 and 339. The order does not state that Docket No. 331 was granted or denied. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.