IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-05807
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re DiDi Global Securities Litigation: Judge Kaplan denied DiDi’s motion to seal its memorandum supporting an appeal-certification request.
DiDi Global Inc.’s request to keep its appeal-certification memorandum under seal was denied, implicating public access to that court filing.
What happened
In In re DiDi Global, Inc. Securities Litigation, DiDi asked to file under seal a memorandum supporting its request to certify an order for immediate appeal. DiDi said the memorandum concerned competitively sensitive business operations or could put it at a competitive disadvantage.
The court explained that sealing requires specific findings showing that keeping the material closed is essential to protect an important interest and is narrowly limited. After reviewing the memorandum, the court was not persuaded that those findings were appropriate.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied DiDi’s motion to seal. The opinion addressed access to the memorandum, not whether the requested interlocutory appeal should be certified.
The detailed version
- IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:21-cv-05807
- Lewis Kaplan
- Feb. 13, 2025
Background
DiDi Global Inc. moved to file under seal its memorandum of law supporting a motion to certify the court’s January 22, 2025 memorandum opinion for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). DiDi asserted that the memorandum concerned competitively sensitive business operations or that disclosure would place it at a competitive disadvantage.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the standard that court documents may be sealed only when specific findings on the record show that sealing is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The court also recognized the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. After carefully reviewing the memorandum, the court was not persuaded that the required findings, or anything approaching them, were appropriate.
Disposition
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied DiDi’s motion to seal, identified as Motion Dkt. 291. The endorsement did not decide whether DiDi’s motion for certification for interlocutory appeal should be granted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.