In re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Sec. Litig.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-08585
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In re Turquoise Hill v. Rio Tinto: Judge Liman granted Defendants’ motion to seal and ordered specified filings maintained under seal.
The ruling affects the Defendants, the nonparty individuals whose personal information appears in the exhibits, the third-party contractor whose information appears in Exhibit N, the parties to the securities litigation, and members of the public seeking access to the sealed filings.
What happened
In re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Sec. Litig. concerns Defendants’ request to redact personal identifying information and commercially sensitive information from four exhibits supporting Plaintiffs’ class-certification motion.
Defendants sought redactions for information including names, email addresses, phone numbers, internal project analyses, business strategies, financial details, and a third-party contractor’s proposal. They argued that disclosure could harm negotiations and reveal sensitive information, while the unredacted material was not needed to understand the dispute because the motion and the portions of the exhibits cited in it would remain accessible.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Defendants’ motion to seal. He directed the Clerk to close Dkt. No. 423 and maintain Dkt. Nos. 414 and 424 under seal.
The detailed version
- In re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Sec. Litig. · No. 1:20-cv-08585
- Lewis Liman
- Sept. 24, 2025
Background
Defendants Rio Tinto plc, Rio Tinto Limited, Jean-Sébastien Jacques, and Arnaud Soirat moved to redact personal identifying information and commercially sensitive business information from Exhibits L, M, N, and O to a declaration supporting Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The opinion states that an earlier motion to seal had been denied without prejudice.
Requested Redactions
The requested redactions included individuals’ names, email addresses, and phone numbers. Defendants also sought to redact internal reports and analyses concerning the Oyu Tolgoi Underground Project, including development schedules, development strategy, technical analyses, and expenses. Exhibit N included a confidential proposal from a third-party contractor, including financial information and details about the proposed engagement.
Defendants argued that disclosure could harm Rio Tinto in negotiations with contractors and others involved in construction and production efforts, and could reveal proprietary strategies and processes to competitors. They also argued that the information they sought to redact was not necessary for the public to understand the parties’ dispute because Defendants did not seek to redact the motion itself or the portions of the exhibits cited in the motion.
Ruling
Judge Liman granted Defendants’ motion to seal. The order directed the Clerk of Court to close Dkt. No. 423 and maintain Dkt. Nos. 414 and 424 under seal. The text provided does not separately identify which specific redactions correspond to each docket entry.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.