Newmont Mining Corporation v. AngloGold Ashanti Limited
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:17-cv-08065
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Newmont Mining v. AngloGold Ashanti, Judge Abrams partly granted sealing requests and ordered clarification about other exhibits.
Newmont Mining Corporation, the AngloGold Ashanti defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings were affected. The order allowed a redacted version of one exhibit to be filed publicly, required another exhibit to be filed entirely under seal, and required clarification before the court would address the other exhibits.
What happened
Newmont Mining Corporation asked to file certain exhibits under seal while opposing the defendants’ summary-judgment motions in Newmont Mining Corporation v. AngloGold Ashanti Limited. The request concerned documents that Newmont and the AngloGold Ashanti defendants said contained sensitive business information.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the request for a redacted public version of Exhibit 30 and for Exhibit 31 to be filed entirely under seal. The court did not decide which Newmont exhibits should be sealed because the request and the delivered copies listed conflicting exhibit numbers and contents.
The court ordered Newmont to clarify the Newmont exhibits it sought to seal and to send highlighted and clean copies by January 7, 2020. Judge Abrams signed the order on January 2, 2020.
The detailed version
- Newmont Mining Corporation v. AngloGold Ashanti Limited · No. 1:17-cv-08065
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 2, 2020
Background
Newmont asked for permission to file certain exhibits under seal in connection with its oppositions to the defendants’ motions for summary judgment. The request covered exhibits identified as AGA Exhibits 30 and 31 and several Newmont Exhibits. The AngloGold Ashanti defendants requested sealing of Exhibit 31 and an email attachment in Exhibit 30, asserting that the materials contained sensitive and proprietary information about AngloGold Ashanti’s operations, projections, strategic initiatives, budgeting methods, and possible mergers or acquisitions.
Newmont also sought to seal its own exhibits, including documents concerning its internal review of a transaction, its process for evaluating potential acquisitions, and its assessment of business options. Newmont asserted that public disclosure could cause competitive harm. Newmont requested permission to file a redacted version of Exhibit 30 publicly because the AngloGold Ashanti defendants had not sought to seal the email portion of that exhibit.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that AGA Exhibits 30 and 31 appeared to contain business information whose disclosure could provide competitors valuable insight into AngloGold Ashanti’s current business practices. The court therefore granted Newmont’s request to file a redacted copy of Exhibit 30 on the public docket and to file Exhibit 31 entirely under seal.
The court found the request concerning the Newmont Exhibits unclear. The first page of Newmont’s letter listed Exhibits 83–84, 131–132, and 140–143, while the second page discussed Exhibits 84–85, 132–133, and 141–144. The hard copies delivered to the court used the first set of numbers, but their contents appeared to correspond to the second set, as described in Gregory P. Szewezyk’s declaration.
Disposition
The court granted Newmont’s request concerning AGA Exhibits 30 and 31. It did not rule on which Newmont Exhibits should be sealed. Instead, Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered Newmont to clarify the exhibits it sought to file under seal and to email the court a highlighted set and a clean, unredacted set of those exhibits no later than January 7, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.