Newmont Mining Corporation v. AngloGold Ashanti Limited
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:17-cv-08065
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Newmont Mining v. AngloGold Ashanti: Judge Abrams granted Newmont’s request to seal certain business exhibits.
Newmont and the defendants in the case; the specified exhibits were permitted to be filed under seal, limiting their public disclosure.
What happened
In Newmont Mining Corporation v. AngloGold Ashanti Limited, Newmont asked the court for permission to file eight exhibits under seal. The exhibits contained internal business information, including investment reviews, post-investment memoranda, and an internal guide for evaluating acquisitions.
The court found that the exhibits appeared to contain business information that could give competitors valuable insight into Newmont’s current business practices. The court therefore granted Newmont’s request to file the exhibits under seal.
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued the order on January 6, 2020. The order addressed only the sealing request and did not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Newmont Mining Corporation v. AngloGold Ashanti Limited · No. 1:17-cv-08065
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
Newmont asked for permission to file Exhibits 83, 84, 131, 132, 140, 141, 142, and 143 under seal. Newmont described Exhibits 83 and 84 as excerpts from confidential post-investment review memoranda concerning the CC&V transaction. It described Exhibits 132, 140, 141, 142, and 143 as internal investment reviews concerning whether to process CC&V High Grade Mill concentrates off-site. Newmont described Exhibit 131 as an internal mergers-and-acquisitions process guide concerning its due-diligence process and guidelines for evaluating potential acquisitions.
Court’s analysis
The court reviewed Newmont’s exhibits and found that they appeared to contain business information that, if disclosed, could provide valuable insight into Newmont’s current business practices that a competitor might seek to exploit. The opinion also states that the court had previously ordered a copy of Exhibit 84 sealed when it was attached to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Newmont’s request for leave to file the identified exhibits under seal. This was a sealing order and did not decide the underlying claims or defenses in the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.