In re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-08585
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In re Turquoise Hill Securities Litigation: Judge Liman denied defendants’ motion to seal exhibits in full, without prejudice, and required proposed redactions.
The ruling directly affects the defendants and the parties’ access to Exhibits L, M, N, and O; the exhibits remain sealed while defendants propose specific redactions.
What happened
In In re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation, defendants asked to keep four exhibits supporting the plaintiff’s request for class certification entirely sealed. The exhibits were attached to a declaration filed by Salvatore Graziano.
The court said defendants’ stated concerns about confidentiality and possible competitive harm did not justify sealing the exhibits in full. It explained that sealing must be limited to what is needed to protect the relevant interest.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion to seal the exhibits in their entirety, without prejudice to a new motion proposing specific redactions. He ordered defendants to submit that letter motion by January 29, 2025, and directed that the exhibits remain sealed until the court decides the new motion.
The detailed version
- In re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation · No. 1:20-cv-08585
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 22, 2025
Background
Defendants moved to seal Exhibits L, M, N, and O to the declaration of Salvatore Graziano. The declaration supported the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Defendants sought to seal the exhibits in their entirety, citing confidentiality interests and potential competitive harm.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the asserted confidentiality interests and potential competitive harm did not justify wholesale sealing of the exhibits. It stated that sealing a court filing must be narrowly tailored to serve the purpose supporting secrecy.
Ruling
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied defendants’ motion to seal the exhibits in their entirety, without prejudice to submission of a motion proposing redactions. The court ordered defendants to submit a letter motion proposing redactions by January 29, 2025. The exhibits were to remain sealed until the court decided that letter motion. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Dkt. No. 419.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.