Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 10, 2025

IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Docket
1:21-cv-05807
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureClass Action
In one sentence

In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation: Magistrate Judge Figueredo deferred sealing decisions until class certification and required a showing for permanent sealing.

Who this affects

Plaintiffs seeking to redact and seal class-certification materials, the defendants whose discovery materials were designated as restricted, and the parties and counsel listed as having access to the sealed documents.

What happened

In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation concerns Plaintiffs’ request to redact and seal materials supporting their reply on class certification. The requested materials included discovery materials designated by Goldman Sachs as restricted, deposition excerpts, declarations, and exhibits.

Plaintiffs said the protective order required the restricted materials to be filed under seal unless the producing party consented or the court ordered otherwise. They proposed publicly filing a redacted reply and filing an unredacted version with sealed exhibits.

Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo did not decide permanent sealing at this stage. She stated that the sealing motion would be resolved with the class-certification motion and directed Plaintiffs to make the required showing for permanent sealing by May 1, 2025.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:21-cv-05807
Judge
Lewis Kaplan
Date
Apr. 10, 2025

Background

Plaintiffs, represented by counsel, requested permission to file portions of their reply supporting class certification with redactions and to file certain supporting materials under seal. The requested materials included a declaration of Dr. Rajesh Aggarwal, three exhibits to the declaration of Laurence M. Rosen, a redacted version of the Rosen declaration, and related portions of the reply brief.

Plaintiffs explained that Goldman Sachs had designated discovery materials as restricted for attorneys’ eyes only under the protective order. Those materials were attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Rosen declaration and were referenced in the declarations and brief. Plaintiffs also sought to seal excerpts from the deposition of Lead Plaintiff Alaka Holdings Ltd. and to redact quotations from those excerpts in the publicly filed brief. Plaintiffs stated that Alaka Holdings had designated the deposition transcript as confidential under the protective order.

Court’s Action

Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered that the motion to seal would be resolved together with the motion for class certification. The court directed Plaintiffs to make a showing for permanently sealing the documents under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga by May 1, 2025. The opinion text does not state a final ruling granting or denying permanent sealing.

Effect

The order concerns the public availability of materials filed in connection with the class-certification motion. It affects Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions and sealed filings and the parties and counsel identified as having access to the sealed documents. It does not decide the class-certification motion or the underlying securities litigation claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.