IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Filing 328

ORDER granting 325 Letter Motion to Seal. Granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 3/12/25) (yv)

Case 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF

Document 325

Filed 03/11/25

Page 1 of 3

: USDC SDN Y

I DOCUMENT
I ELECTRON ICALLY FILED
VIA ECF
\ DOC #:
The Honorable Lewis A. Kapla ATJi: FILF:0:
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York -:::-- 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007
Re:

March I I, 2025

4-

,·? · /:J -,p

In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:2 l -cv-05807-LAK:
DiDi Global Inc.'s Motion to Seal

Dear Judge Kaplan:
Pursuant to this Court's Standing Order, 19-mc-00583, Your Honor's Individual Rules of
Practice, and the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order (ECF No. 190) ("Protective
Order"), Defendant DiDi Global Inc. ("DiDi") respectfully requests penni ssion to file its
opposition ("Opposition") to Plaintiffs ' Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories
("Motion"; ECF No. 313) and attached exhibits under seal.

I.

Standard

Any sealing of a court filing must be narrowly tailored to serve whatever purpose justifies
the sealing and must be otherwise consistent with the presumption in favor of public access to
judicial documents. See, e.g., Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 11 9-20 (2d
Cir. 2006). Although the parties' consent or the existence of a confidentiality agreement between
litigants is not, by itself, always a valid basis to permit sealing, there are circumstances in which a
party's interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs such a presumption. See, e.g., In re Gen.
Motors LLC Ign ition Switch Litig., 20 15 WL 4750774, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. I I, 2015).
In particular, a party's interest in preserving sensitive business operations is an example of
the type of confidential information that merits sealing. See, e.g., In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 258
F.R.D. 236, 244 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (''Notwithstanding the presumption of public access to judicial
records, courts may deny access to records that are 'sources of business information that might
harm a litigant's competitive standing.'" (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc 'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
598 (1978)); Apple Inc. v. Samsung £lees. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1225-26 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(concluding that district court abused its discretion by denying request to seal confidential financial
information). " [D]ocuments may be sealed if specific, on the record findings are made
demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve
that interest." Lugosch, 435 F.3d 120; see e.g., Fairstein v. Netjlix, Inc., 2023 WL 6164293, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2023) (granting request to seal "proprietary and confidential materials about
business operations"); see also Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2021 WL 1222122, at *7
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2021) (granting in part motion to seal confidential technical information to
extent the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored).
To this end, courts grant motions to seal documents that implicate "personal privacy
interests, public safety, the preservation of attorney-client privilege, and the protection of
competitively sensitive business information." In re ~ifetrade Litig., 2023 WL 6211 958, at *2

sgORD

Case 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF

Document 325

Filed 03/11/25

Page 2 of 3

(S.D.N.Y. Sept. 25 , 2023); see also Royal Park lnvs. SAINV v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2018 WL
739580, at *19 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2018) (finding as sufficient to defeat presumption favoring
disclosure those documents that "contain proprietary, competitively sensitive business information
or are related to internal procedures, the disclosure of which would put [the moving party] at a
competitive disadvantage."); Standard In v. Chartered, In c. v. Fin. Indus. Regulatory Auth., Ind. ,
347 F. App ' x 615, 617 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order) (upholding ruling that party's " interest in
protecting confidential business information outweighs the qualified First Amendment
presumption of public access").
Courts also permit sealing where, as here, the documents at issue implicate international
comity concerns. See In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 2019 WL 3296959, at *5
(S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2019) (finding international comity justified sealing of documents related to
Saudi officials); see also Omari v. Ras Al Khaimah Free Trade Zone Auth., 2017 WL 3896399, at
* 14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug 18, 2017) (sealing report containing "highly sensitive, traditionally
nonpublic ... information ... of a foreign government" (internal quotation marks omitted));
Straus v. Credit Lyonnais, S.A., 2011 WL 4736359, at *5-6 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2011) (sealing
documents prohibited from disclosure by French law).
II.

Materials to be Sealed

DiDi's Opposition and the exhibits attached thereto contain commercially sensitive and
confidential information about its business and operations, as well as sensitive information
pertaining to PRC regulatory and governmental matters, which bas been properly designated as
confidential pursuant to the Protective Order. These exhibits include: Exhibit A, the Third Expert
Report of Professor Wang Jingbo; Exhibit B, DiDi's Response to Interrogatories; Exhibit C, the
February 22, 2025 Deposition Transcript of Jimin Pang; and Exhibit D, the March 10, 2025
Declaration of Calvin Liu. Any disclosure of these documents may violate principles of
international comity and may cause harm to DiDi. Further, the documents to be filed include or
reference filings that have already been sealed. See, e.g., ECF Nos. 314-3, 314-4, 314-5.
Accordingly, DiDi respectfully requests the Court grant its request to file under seal the
following documents that have been designated confidential under the Protective Order, should be
designated confidential under the Protective Order, or contain discussion of such confidential
information: (i) DiDi's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories;
and (ii) the exhibits attached thereto. DiDi's request to seal these documents is narrowly tailored
to protect its interests and the interests of third parties and will not significantly impair the public's
right of access to judicial documents or the Court's ability to publicly adjudicate the Motion.

2

Case 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF

Document 325

Filed 03/11/25

Page 3 of 3

Respectfully submitted,
Isl Corey Worcester
Corey Worcester
Renita Sharma
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
295 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10016
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
coreyworcester@qui nnemanuel.com
[e-mail]
Scott Musoff
Robert Fumerton
Michael Griffin
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
One Manhattan West
New York, New York 10001
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Defendant DiDi Global Inc.

cc: All counsel of record via ECF

3