*1 @_ USDC SnNY
The Rosen Law Fir DOCUMENT INVESTOR COUNSE ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: ----.;::,,--...,..,.,..,__...-1 May 16, 2025 DATE FILED: --~-J-....::::::.:::::._ The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan
United States District Court, Southern District Court of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re: In re DiDi Globallnc, Secs. Litig" No, 1;21-cv-05807 Dear Judge Kaplan:
We represent Lead Plaintiff Alaka Holdings Ltd., and named plaintiffs Shereen El-Nahas, Daniil Alimov, Bosco Wang, and Njal Larson (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), in the above-referenced matter. Pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order, entered on May 22, 2024 (ECF 190), SDNY Local ECF Rule 6.8, and Your Honor's Individual Filing Practices, we write to request permission to fi le under seal Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel DiDi's Production of Documents Withheld Under PRC Blocking Statutes and fourteen of the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Laurence M. Rosen filed in support thereof ("Rosen Deel.").
Absent a consent of the designating party or a contrary Order from this Court, the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order requires Plaintiffs to fi le the above-referenced documents under seal pursuant to DiDi's designation. ECF 190, at ,i14 ("Absent the consent of the producing party under this Section or order of the Court, the receiving party shall file the Confidential or Attorney's Eyes Only Information under seal.") DiDi has designated the materials at issue "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" pursuant to the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order. Plaintiffs do not concede the propriety of maintaining this material under seal and note that " [t]he burden of demonstrating that a document submitted to a court should be sealed rests on the party seeking such action, in this case [ d]efendants." DiRussa v. Dean Winter Reynolds Inc., 121 F.3d 818,826 (2d Cir. 1997). There is a presumption favoring access to judicial records, but "the decision as to access is best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case." Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U .S. 589,599, 98 S. Ct. 1306, 1312, 55 L.Ed.2 570 (1978). The public interest (and thus, the presumption of access) may be weaker in connection w ith documents exchanged in discovery than those attached to or referenced in public filings. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048-49 (2nd Cir.1995) (measuring weight of presumption of access by "role of material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power"); see also Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 13 12 (11th Cir. 2001) (stating that the rule that "material filed with discovery motions is not subject to the common-law right of access, whereas discovery material filed in connection with pretrial motions that require
1 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA. ♦ 275 MAolsoN AVENUE, 40™ FLOOR ♦ NEW YORK, NY 10016 ♦ TEL: (212) 686- 1060 ♦ FAX: (212) 202 -
judicial resolution of the merits is subject to the common-law right."). However, the determination as to whether to seal remains with the Court; the agreement of the parties, is irrelevant to the propriety of granting a motion to seal. See Brown v. Advantage Eng 'g, In c., 960 F.2d IO I 3, 10 16 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating it is "immaterial" whether the parties have agreed to seal the reco rd when determining whether a document should be publicly filed).
While Plaintiffs do not concede (or agree) that DiDi has established a basis to designate these materials as Confidential or Attorneys' Eyes Only- let alone to support sealing of judicial records- we submit this Motion, to the Court's sound discretion, in accordance with the ~14 of the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order.
Appendix A below lists the parties and their counsel of record who should have access to the sealed documents.
Dated: May 16, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
Isl Laurence Rosen Laurence Rosen cc: All counsel of record via ECF
-----
...
Appendix A - Parties and Counsel to be Permitted Access Defendants
Defendants Goldman Sachs <Asia} L.L.c., Morgan Stanley & co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, BofA Securities Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China Renaissance Securities ros} Inc., HSBC Securities (USA} Inc., UBS Securities LLC, and
Mizuho Securities USA LLC
O'MEL VENY & MYERS LLP
Jonathan Rosenberg
Abby F. Rudzin
Defendant DiDi Global Inc,
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
Michael Charles Griffin
Robert Alexander Fumerton
Scott D. Musoff
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLN AN LLP
Renita Sharma
Richard Corey Worcester
Sam Cleveland
Defendants wm Wei Cheng, Alan Yue Zhuo, Jean Oing Liu, Jingshi Zhu, and Adria Perica
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLN AN LLP
Renita Sharma
Richard Corey Worcester
Defendant Zhiyi Chen
WILSON SONSlNl GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
Sheryl Shapiro Bassin
Alexander Luhring
Ignacio E. Salceda
Defendant Martin Chi Ping Lau
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
Matthew Stewart Khan
Kevin James White
Michael D. Celio
Defendant Kentaro Matsui
BLANK ROME LLP
Andrew Mitchell Kaufman
Emily Grasso
SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL
Jefferey T. Scott
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
Renita Shanna
Richard Corey Worcester
Defendant Daniel Yong Zhang
SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
Bo Bryan Jin
Stephen Patrick Blake
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVANT LLP
Renita Sharma
Richard Corey Worcester
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
Ziwei Xiao
Plaintiffs
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Laurence M. Rosen
Jing Chen
Daniel Tyre-Karp
Robin Howald
Yitzchok Fishbach
Brent LaPointe
GLANCY PRONGA Y & MURRAY LLP
Kara Wolke
Leanne Heine Solish