IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-05807
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation: Judge Kaplan’s filing seeks to seal defendants’ response and exhibit, but provides no ruling.
The filing concerns DiDi Global Inc., the five named individual defendants, named plaintiff Shereen El-Nahas’s designated deposition testimony, and public access to the court filings. The text does not state the request’s outcome.
What happened
In In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation, DiDi Global Inc. and five individual defendants asked for permission to file under seal their response to a motion about replacing the lead plaintiff, along with an exhibit.
The filing says the materials refer to named plaintiff Shereen El-Nahas’s deposition testimony, which was designated highly confidential under a protective order. The defendants argued that sealing was narrowly limited and would protect confidential business information and third-party interests.
The text is a request submitted to Judge Kaplan, not a ruling. It does not state whether the court granted or denied the request.
The detailed version
- IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:21-cv-05807
- Lewis Kaplan
- Jan. 22, 2025
Nature of the Filing
This document is a letter requesting permission to file materials under seal. It does not contain a court order or state a disposition of the request.
Background
Defendants DiDi Global Inc., Will Wei Cheng, Jean Qing Liu, Stephen Jingshi Zhu, Alan Yue Zhuo, and Adrian Perica asked to file under seal their response to Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint Alaka Holdings, Ltd. as lead plaintiff instead of Junhong Cao. They also sought to seal an attached exhibit and to file a public version of the opposition using placeholders.
Reason for Sealing
The filing states that the response and exhibit refer to deposition testimony from named plaintiff Shereen El-Nahas. The testimony had been designated highly confidential under the parties’ protective order. The filing quotes that order as restricting disclosure of confidential documents except to specified persons, including the parties, their lawyers, and the court.
The defendants argued that sealing was narrowly tailored to protect their interests and the interests of third parties. They relied on the general presumption that court records should be publicly accessible but argued that confidential, competitively sensitive business information may be sealed when necessary to protect higher-value interests and when the sealing request is limited to what is necessary.
Disposition
The text contains the defendants’ request and legal argument but no ruling by Judge Kaplan. It therefore does not establish whether the request to seal was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.