Liman denied the former defendant's motion to maintain confidentiality, finding that Saint-Gobain failed to demonstrate that public disclosure would cause specific competitive harm or interfere with ongoing government investigations.
The judge ordered the Clerk of Court to unseal docket entries 320, 326, 339, 377, 382, 385, 389, 394, 400, 420, 423, 430, 434, 437, and 442. These documents include the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Corrected Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint.
Saint-Gobain, which reached a settlement with plaintiffs on August 10, 2025, had argued that information shared under the agreement—specifically communications regarding price increases in Spring 2021, Winter 2021/2022, and Spring 2022—should remain confidential. The company cited three grounds for sealing: potential impairment of pending government investigations, protection of competitively sensitive business information, and compliance with the French Blocking Statute.
Liman rejected the law enforcement argument, noting that the only open investigation relevant to the case is by the European Commission and that the information in question had already been provided to the defendants, who are the subjects of that investigation. He distinguished the case from precedents where courts sealed documents because law enforcement authorities themselves asserted that disclosure would jeopardize their interests.
"The only open investigation relevant to this case is by the European Commission," Liman wrote. "The other investigations that previously were opened have now been closed. And, as to the European Commission, the information in sealed form has been provided to the alleged subjects of that investigation—the Defendants in this case."
On the issue of competitive harm, Liman found that Saint-Gobain failed to demonstrate how discussions about price increases from 2021 and 2022 remained relevant to its current business or would cause specific injury if disclosed to the public. He emphasized that broad allegations of harm are insufficient to overcome the strong presumption of public access to judicial documents that determine substantive legal rights.
Finally, Liman dismissed the French Blocking Statute defense, which generally prohibits the transfer of certain economic, commercial, or financial information from France to the United States for use in foreign litigation. He noted that the statute does not prevent a party in the United States from sharing information already produced to it in the U.S. with other U.S. parties.
"Saint-Gobain does not claim that Plaintiffs violated the French blocking statute by including the information in the pleadings in this case," Liman wrote. "It would have understood that the reason why it was sharing such information was for use in this litigation."
The ruling applies to the multi-district litigation originally captioned David A. Birdsall v. The Euclid Chemical Company et al., which consolidates antitrust claims against manufacturers of concrete and cement additives.