IN RE NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION
- Denise Cote
- 1:23-cv-10488
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re National Instruments Securities Litigation, Judge Cote received Defendants’ request to temporarily seal materials while Lead Plaintiff explains confidentiality claims; the text shows no ruling.
Defendants and Lead Plaintiff in the securities litigation, particularly regarding public access to deposition testimony, expert materials, and trading records designated as confidential.
What happened
In In re National Instruments Corporation Securities Litigation, Defendants asked to temporarily file parts of their opposition to class certification under seal. The materials include excerpts discussing an expert’s deposition testimony and Lead Plaintiff’s trading records.
Defendants said Lead Plaintiff had designated the entire deposition transcript as confidential under the protective order. They requested sealing for five business days so Lead Plaintiff could explain which materials, if any, should remain protected from public disclosure.
The letter does not state that Judge Denise L. Cote granted or denied the request. It is a request for temporary sealing, not a ruling on the request.
The detailed version
- IN RE NATIONAL INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:23-cv-10488
- Denise Cote
- June 17, 2025
Nature of the Filing
The text is a letter motion by Defendants seeking permission to temporarily file certain materials under seal in connection with their opposition to Lead Plaintiff’s motion to certify a class. The text does not contain a court order or state that Judge Denise L. Cote ruled on the request.
Materials Defendants Sought to Seal
Defendants identified several categories of proposed sealed materials: unredacted portions of their opposition memorandum that cite or discuss Dr. Cain’s deposition testimony; two footnotes in Dr. Denis’s expert report that quote that testimony; portions of Dr. Denis’s report and related footnotes discussing Lead Plaintiff’s trading records; and excerpts from Dr. Cain’s deposition transcript.
Parties’ Positions and Protective Order
Defendants stated that Lead Plaintiff had designated the entire deposition transcript as confidential on June 16, 2025, the deadline for Defendants’ opposition brief. They also stated that Lead Plaintiff had previously designated certain investment-account statements as confidential. Defendants relied on the protective order, which requires a party seeking to disclose confidential information to ask the court for permission to file it in redacted form or under seal. The letter states that the party designating information as confidential bears the burden of showing that the information qualifies for confidential treatment or sealing.
Defendants argued that they could not publicly file the proposed materials without violating the protective order, but also said they were not well positioned to explain Lead Plaintiff’s confidentiality interests. They requested temporary sealing for five business days, or for another period the court might require, to give Lead Plaintiff an opportunity to explain why some or all of the materials should be protected from public disclosure. The letter also notes the public’s qualified right to access judicial documents and the court’s careful review of sealing requests.
Disposition
The provided text does not say that Judge Denise L. Cote granted, denied, or otherwise decided the sealing request. Accordingly, no disposition of the motion appears in the text provided.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.