In re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation

Filing 428

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 344 Letter Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 366 Letter Motion to Seal; granting 376 Letter Motion to Seal; denying as moot 378 Letter Motion to Compel; granting 379 Letter Mot ion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 383 Letter Motion to Seal; granting 399 Letter Motion to Seal; granting 406 Letter Motion to Seal. The motions to seal at Dkt. Nos. 376, 379, 399, 405, and 406 are GRANTED. The motions to seal a t Dkt. Nos. 344, 366, and 383 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. By March 19, 2025, the parties may move for targeted redactions to the documents for which sealing was denied. The documents shall remain sealed pending a decision on such motion. The motion to compel defendants to run search terms, Dkt. No. 378, is DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 3/5/2025) (sgz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
IN RE TURQUOISE HILL RESOURCES LTD.
:
SECURITIES LITIGATION
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

3/5/2025

20-cv-8585 (LJL)
ORDER

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:
The parties have moved to seal certain exhibits submitted in connection with Defendants’
motion to disqualify Lead Plaintiff’s expert, Lead Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to
produce messaging documents, and Lead Plaintiff’s motion to compel Defendants to run search
terms. See Dkt. Nos. 344, 366, 376, 379, 383, 399, 405, 406. The motion to disqualify Lead
Plaintiff’s expert and the motion to produce messaging documents have been resolved by prior
orders. See Dkt. Nos. 421, 425. The motion to compel Defendants to run search terms, Dkt. No.
378, was rendered moot by Defendants’ response at Dkt. No. 398, which stated that Defendants
agreed to run all requested search terms and produce responsive documents. This order resolves
the related motions to seal.
The motions to seal at Dkt. Nos. 376 and 406 concern Lead Plaintiff’s motion to compel
production of messaging documents. “[T]he presumption of public access in filings submitted in
connection with discovery disputes or motions in limine is generally somewhat lower than the
presumption applied to material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions
such as motions for dismissal or summary judgment.” Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d
Cir. 2019). Given this lower presumption, Defendants have sufficiently shown that sealing is

appropriate to protect the personally identifiable information of third parties and maintain the
confidentiality of commercially sensitive information. Dkt. No. 406. The motions are granted.
The motions to seal at Dkt. Nos. 379 and 405 concern Lead Plaintiff’s motion to compel
Defendants to run search terms. The motion was rendered moot without Court action.
Regardless, the sealed material is minimally useful “to those monitoring the federal courts.”
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States
v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995)). The motions to seal are granted.
The motion to seal at Dkt. No. 344 concerns Defendants’ motion to disqualify lead
Plaintiff’s expert. By letter at Dkt. No. 352, the parties informed the Court that they had agreed
to unseal one of the three categories of document originally covered by the motion. Defendants
continue to seek sealing of the personally identifiable information of third parties in certain
materials, and of exhibits 3–9 to the Concannon Declaration at Dkt. No. 347. Exhibits 3 and 6–9
of the Concannon Declaration are minimally relevant to public understanding of the issues
before the Court on the motion to disqualify expert and, in any event, contain confidential
business information. They are properly sealed. See AngioDynamics, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
2021 WL 776701, at *4–5 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2021). Exhibits 4 and 5 to the Concannon
Declaration are contracts containing confidentiality provisions which are central to the issues
before the Court on the motion to disqualify expert. See Dkt. No. 425 at 3–5, 16, 25–27.
Defendants have not established a basis for sealing the contracts in their entirety. Defendants
argues that the contracts contain “commercially sensitive terms and pricing information.” Dkt.
No. 344 at 3. Such information may be redacted. However, “the role of the material at issue in
the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those
monitoring the federal courts” requires that at a minimum the confidentiality provisions and

2

information necessary to understanding them, including the parties to the agreement, relevant
definitions, and the scope of engagement, be unsealed. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (quoting
United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir.1995)).
The motions to seal at Dkt. No. 366 and 383 concern Lead Plaintiff’s opposition to
Defendants’ motion to disqualify expert. Defendants’ proposed sealing and redaction of all
exhibits except exhibits 23 and 25 to the Graziano Declaration are justified due to the need to
maintain the prevent the disclosure of confidential business information and protect the
personally identifiable information of third parties. The motions are granted as to these
documents. Exhibits 23 and 25 of the Graziano Declaration, Dkt. Nos. 384-26 and 384-27,
reflect correspondence between the parties regarding discovery in this case. This
correspondence does not focus on commercially sensitive information, and its wholesale sealing
is not justified. The motion is denied as to these documents, without prejudice to a motion
proposing more targeted redactions.
The motion to seal at Dkt. No. 399 concerns information filed in connection with
Defendants’ reply memorandum of law in support of the motion to disqualify expert. The
redacted information is minimal and “no broader than necessary” to protect the interests
identified above. Leonard as Tr. of Poplawski 2008 Ins. Tr. v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co. of
New York, 2020 WL 1547486, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2020). The motion is granted.
The motions to seal at Dkt. Nos. 376, 379, 399, 405, and 406 are GRANTED. The
motions to seal at Dkt. Nos. 344, 366, and 383 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. By March 19, 2025, the parties may move for targeted redactions to the documents for
which sealing was denied. The documents shall remain sealed pending a decision on such
motion.

3

The motion to compel defendants to run search terms, Dkt. No. 378, is DENIED as
moot. SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2025
New York, New York

__________________________________
LEWIS J. LIMAN
United States District Judge

4