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 Securities Litigation: Judge Figueredo provisionally sealed plaintiffs’ reply and maintained access restrictions.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs, DiDi and the other defendants, the Clerk of Court, and public access to the specified court materials.
What happened
In re Didi Global Inc. Securities Litigation concerns plaintiffs’ request to file an unredacted reply supporting their motion to compel DiDi’s document production under seal.
Plaintiffs said DiDi had designated the materials confidential or attorneys’ eyes only under a protective order. They did not agree that the materials should remain sealed, but filed the request to follow that order.
United States Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the provisional seal, directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at ECF No. 539, and ordered the viewing restrictions at ECF No. 540 maintained. Defendants may seek permanent sealing by August 29, 2025, by making the required showing.
The detailed version
- IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:21-cv-05807
- Lewis Kaplan
- Aug. 8, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs, represented by The Rosen Law Firm, asked to file under seal an unredacted version of their reply memorandum supporting a motion to compel DiDi’s production of documents. The request relied on a confidentiality stipulation and protective order requiring confidential or attorneys’-eyes-only material to be filed under seal unless the producing party consented or the court ordered otherwise.
Plaintiffs stated that DiDi had designated the relevant materials as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” They did not concede that DiDi’s designations were proper or that the materials should be sealed. The filing also noted that the court, rather than the parties’ agreement alone, determines whether court records should be sealed.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the motion for a provisional seal. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 539 and maintain the viewing restrictions at ECF No. 540. The order directed that, if defendants wanted the information permanently sealed, they must make the required showing under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga by August 29, 2025.
Effect
The ruling temporarily restricted access to the specified filing. The opinion does not state whether defendants later sought or obtained permanent sealing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.