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 Inc. Securities Litigation: Plaintiffs sought to seal discovery-motion materials, but Judge Kaplan’s text states no disposition.
The plaintiffs, DiDi, the parties’ counsel, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In In re Didi Global Inc. Securities Litigation, the plaintiffs asked permission to file under seal materials supporting their motion to compel DiDi to produce documents.
The requested sealed materials were a legal brief, a declaration by Laurence Rosen, and exhibits. Plaintiffs said DiDi had designated them confidential or for attorneys’ eyes only under a protective order, but plaintiffs did not agree that sealing was proper.
The document is addressed to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan and discusses the court’s discretion and the public’s presumptive access to judicial records. The text provided does not state that the court granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on the request.
The detailed version
- IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:21-cv-05807
- Lewis Kaplan
- July 29, 2025
Document and request
The 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. Plaintiffs asked for permission to file under seal their memorandum supporting a motion to compel DiDi’s production of documents, a declaration by Laurence Rosen, and related exhibits.
Reason for the request
Plaintiffs stated that a confidentiality and protective order required them to file the materials under seal unless DiDi consented or the court ordered otherwise. Plaintiffs said DiDi had designated the materials either “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Plaintiffs expressly did not concede that DiDi’s designations were proper or that the materials should remain sealed.
Legal principles discussed
The letter states that the party seeking to seal court documents bears the burden of showing that sealing is justified. It also recognizes a presumption that the public may access judicial records, while noting that the public interest can be weaker for materials exchanged in discovery. The letter emphasizes that the court—not the parties’ confidentiality agreement—decides whether sealing is appropriate.
Disposition
The text provided contains the plaintiffs’ request and legal discussion but does not state a ruling on the request. It does not say that the motion to seal was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.