IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
1:21-cv-05807
| S.D.N.Y. | Aug 5, 2025
           2.4470 VOUOIOU        YEP   LAULLICTIL Gost            cw   Faye □□□ 

                              The Rosen Law Firm 
                              INVESTOR  COUNSEL 
   Au gust 4, 2025                                       i □□ ania  ounce ot  antag ea cease □ 
                                                      un        &   my               □ 
   BY ECF                                              USBC SDNY 
   —                                            | DOCUMENT                □ 
   The Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan                                ELECTRONICALLY FILED  i 
   United States Judge                                      POC #:                       
   U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York              HATE FILED.  & 7S”         
   500 Pearl Street                                       qe             oe 
   New York, New York 10007                              eee   eee 
   Re:    □□ □□ Didi Global Inc. Securities Litigation, Case 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), and SDNY Local ECF Rule 6.8, we write to request permission to file under seal 
   unredacted  versions  of  Plaintiffs’  Response  to  Defendants’  Objection  to  the  Report  & 
   Recommendation on Class Certification. 
         Absent a consent  of the  designating party  or  a contrary Order from  this  Court,  the 
   Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order requires Plaintiffs to file the above-referenced 
   document under seal pursuant to DiDi’s designation. ECF 190, at {14 (“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 [djefendants.” 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 with documents exchanged in discovery than those attached to or referenced in public 
   filings. See United States v. Amodeo, 7\ 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 [I judicial power”); 
   see also Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.,
263 F.3d 1304, 1312
 (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 
   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, Inc.,
960 F.2d 1013
, 1016
THe       LawWFirav.PA.      NMapIson AVENUE. 40% FLooR  New Yore NY10016  Te: (212)686-1060  Fax: (212) 202-3897 

     Case □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□   Document       Fleg On/i04'z5   rage 4 OFo 

 (11th Cir. 1992) (stating it is “immaterial” whether the parties have agreed to seal the record 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. 
      The Appendix below lists the parties and their counsel of record who should have access 
 to the sealed documents. 

                                         Respectfully Submitted, 
                                         /s/ Laurence Rosen 
                                         Laurence Rosen 
 ce:    All counsel of record via ECF
Dmoriil aan, OA  OFF BRarecras Aureknie AMHR  mon )3 klqoaVnpov AIV ANAC  OTe:  (94 E2eR _ANKN $3 Cav: '94959N9 □□□□□□ 

  Case 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF   Document532   Filed Q8/O4/25   Page sdio 
              Appendix — 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 (US) Inc.. HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.. UBS Securities LLC, and Mizuho 
Securities USA LLC 
O'MELVENY & 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 & SULLIVAN LLP 
Renita Sharma 
Richard Corey Worcester 
Sam Cleveland 
Defendants Will Wei Cheng, Alan Yue Zhuo, Jean. Oing Liu, and Jingshi Zhu 
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 
Renita Sharma 
Richard Corey Worcester 
Defendant Zhiyi Chen 
WILSON SONSINI 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 BD. Celio

   Case 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF   Document532   Filed 08/04/25   Page 4 oro 
Defendant Kentare Matsui 
BLANK ROME LLP 
Andrew Mitchell Kaufman 
Emily Grasso 
SULLIVAN AND CROMWELL 
Jefferey T. Scott 
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 
Renita Sharma 
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 
Defendant Adrian Perica 
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 
Alexander J. Willscher 
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 
Renita Sharma 
Richard Corey Worcester 
Plaintiffs 
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 
Laurence M. Rosen 
Jing Chen

   Case 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF   Document532    Filed 08/04/25   Pages     
Daniel Tyre-Karp 
Robin Howald 
Yitzchok Fishbach 
Eric Bi 
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 
Kara Wolke 
Leanne Heine Solish 
                                          SOQ bf EREYY   /     4 
                                                              8/51 
                                                     Vila  wt, 
                                          ”     —_—        Nod   er 
                                          LEWIS A.   KAPDAW, USDI