IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-05807
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In re DIDI Global Securities Litigation, Judge Kaplan received plaintiffs’ request to seal deposition-related materials; the text contains no ruling.
The plaintiffs and their counsel sought to seal a deposition-related letter motion and seven exhibits; DiDi and other defendants could be affected by whether those materials become public. The text does not show a court ruling.
What happened
In re DIDI Global Inc. Securities Litigation concerns a request by the plaintiffs’ lawyers to file a letter asking to compel additional depositions, along with seven exhibits, under seal. The letter says DiDi designated the materials as confidential or for attorneys’ eyes only under a protective order.
The plaintiffs asked permission to seal the materials because the protective order required them to do so unless DiDi agreed otherwise or the court ordered a different filing. They said they did not agree that the materials properly qualified for confidential treatment or that sealing was justified.
The provided text does not show a ruling on the request. It is a letter dated June 19, 2025, filed in the case, and it discusses the court’s authority over sealing; Judge Lewis A. Kaplan’s ruling is not included.
The detailed version
- IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:21-cv-05807
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 23, 2025
Document and Request
The supplied document is a letter from counsel for Lead Plaintiff Alaka Holdings Ltd. and named plaintiffs Shereen El-Nahas, Daniil Alimov, Bosco Wang, and Njal Larson. The letter asks the court for permission to file under seal the plaintiffs’ letter motion to compel additional depositions and seven attached exhibits.
Basis for the Request
The plaintiffs state that a confidentiality stipulation and protective order required them to file the materials under seal because DiDi had designated them “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” The letter cites the protective order and court rules concerning sealed filings. The plaintiffs expressly say they do not concede that DiDi’s designations are proper or that the materials should remain sealed.
Legal Discussion
The letter discusses the presumption that the public may access judicial records and the court’s discretion to decide whether sealing is appropriate. It also states that the party seeking to seal court documents bears the burden of showing that sealing is justified, and that the parties’ agreement alone does not determine whether documents should be sealed. The letter notes that the public-access interest may be weaker for discovery materials than for materials used to resolve the merits of a dispute.
Disposition
The provided text contains no order granting, denying, or otherwise deciding the sealing request, and it contains no ruling on the request to compel additional depositions. Accordingly, no court disposition can be stated from this text. The letter is dated June 19, 2025, while the case metadata identifies June 23, 2025, as the filing date. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan is identified as the judge, but no ruling by him appears in the supplied document.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.