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: Judge Figueredo resolved a sealing request by setting an August 29 deadline for permanent-sealing motions.
The plaintiffs, DiDi, the underwriters or other parties that designated the materials confidential, counsel with access under the protective order, and members of the public seeking access to the court documents.
What happened
In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation concerns plaintiffs’ request to file an exhibit under seal. The exhibit was designated confidential or for attorneys’ eyes only under a protective order.
Plaintiffs said they did not agree that the material should remain sealed and noted that the party seeking secrecy must justify it. They nevertheless asked to file the exhibit under seal as required by the protective order unless the court or the designating party allowed otherwise.
Judge Valerie Figueredo endorsed the filing, stating that anyone seeking to keep the documents permanently sealed must file a motion by August 29, 2025. The endorsement says this resolves the motion but does not expressly state that the request was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:21-cv-05807
- Lewis Kaplan
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
Lead Plaintiff Alaka Holdings Ltd. and named plaintiffs Shereen El-Nahas, Danul Alimov, Bosco Wang, and Njal Larson asked for permission to file Exhibit A to their letter about filing redacted expert reports under seal. The request relied on a confidentiality stipulation and protective order entered on May 22, 2024, which requires a receiving party to file confidential or attorneys’-eyes-only information under seal unless the producing party consents or the court orders otherwise.
The plaintiffs stated that DiDi had designated the material confidential or attorneys’ eyes only. They did not concede that the designations were proper or that the material should remain sealed. They also argued that the party seeking to seal court documents bears that burden, and discussed the presumption that judicial records should generally be accessible to the public. The letter noted that the access presumption may be weaker for discovery materials than for materials submitted in connection with motions requiring a decision on the merits.
Court’s Action
Judge Valerie Figueredo endorsed the filing and stated that parties interested in permanently sealing the subject documents must file a motion under the applicable public-access standard by August 29, 2025. The endorsement states, “This resolves the motion at ECF No. 516.” It does not expressly state whether the request for permission to file Exhibit A under seal was granted or denied. This was a procedural ruling concerning sealing and access to court documents, not a decision on the underlying securities-litigation claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.