IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Filing 225

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 219 Letter Motion to CompelThe motion is granted insofar as it seeks an order requiring the Underwriters to produce documents responsive to RFPs 12 and 31 as written and otherwise denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 11/25/2024) (ar)

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

}CLi MENT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
1
noc #: -----..--~---=--,.
J
DATE FILED : - - - -""---''-:-

Document 219

Filed 11/19/24

Page 1 of 4

@_
The Rosen Law Firm

MEMO ENDORSED

INVESTOR COUNSEL

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
[e-mail]
November 19, 2024

BYECF
Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
In re Didi Global Inc. Secs. Litig. , No. I :21-cv-05807
Re:
Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiffs' 1st Set of Document Requests
Dear Judge Kaplan :
This motion pertains to Plaintiffs ' first Set of Requests for the Production of Documents
("RFPs"), served May 22, 2024, to which responses were served June 28, 2024. Ex. A hereto.
Although the parties resolved most of their differences, two issues remain. First, the Underwriters 1
refuse to search for or produce documents for a 10-week time period beyond the Class Period for
three RFPs, each of which are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case and for which the
Underwriters have made no showing whatsoever of undue burden. 2 Second, the Underwriters
refuse to produce documents responsive to several RFPs, instead excluding categories of
documents from their responses while assuring Plaintiffs that documents produced with respect to
other RFPs will suffice - despite Plaintiffs explaining the salient differences among the RFPs at
issue. The underwriters' positions are un~te~n~a~bl~e~.

---------::::::=-...:::::::-------

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs seek an order: (a) setting the relevant time period
for RFPs 1, 2, 3, and 27 to Feb. 1, 2021 through Sept. 30, 2021; and (b) requiring the Underwriters
to roduce documents responsive to RFPs 12 and 31 as written.

A. The Default Production Period Cannot Capture Patently Relevant Documents
Plaintiffs initially proposed a default period of January 1, 2024 - concurrent with reports
that Di Di Global Inc. 's ("DiDi") IPO was being planned in 2021 - through September 30, 2021,
1

Defendants Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, BofA Securities Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., China Renaissance Securities (US) Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. , HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., UBS Securities LLC, and Mizuho
Securities USA LLC are referred to herein as "the Underwriters".
2

In none of the parties ' ongoing meet-and-confer pertaining to search terms (not the subject of this
motion), have the Underwriters produced hit counts to justify their refusal to apply Plaintiffs'
proposed search terms, even though that is required by Section IV of the Court's ESI Order. ECF
194 at 7.

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA. ? Z75 MADISON AVENUE, 40™ FLOOR ? NEW YORK, NY 10016 ? TEL: [phone] ? FAX: (212) 202 - 3827

Memorandum Endorsement

In re Didi Global Inc. Secs. Litig .• 21-cv-5807 (LAK)

The motion is granted insofar as it seeks an order requiring the Underwriters to produce
documents responsive to RFPs 12 and 31 as written and otherwise denied.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 25, 2024

Lew·s A.
an
United States District Judge