IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Background

Plaintiffs allege that Didi decided to conduct a U.S. initial public offering and list its American Depository Shares on a U.S. stock exchange even though China’s Cyberspace Administration had directed Didi to postpone the offering until it completed a cybersecurity and data-security review. Plaintiffs further allege that Didi did not publicly disclose those directions, that Chinese authorities imposed penalties shortly after the offering, and that Didi’s share price fell substantially.

The underlying securities litigation was consolidated, and the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss on March 14, 2024. Discovery was scheduled to close on April 1, 2025. Plaintiffs moved to compel testimony from Didi’s designated witness under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows an organization to designate a witness to testify about specified topics. The witness had refused to answer questions concerning Didi’s interactions with Chinese regulators, and Didi argued that Chinese law prevented disclosure.

On January 22, 2025, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel. It held that it was not clear whether Chinese law barred the testimony and that, in any event, the relevant factors supported ordering disclosure. The court considered factors addressing foreign-law conflicts, as well as Didi’s claimed good faith and the possible hardship of compliance.

Didi’s Motion

Didi moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) for certification of the January 22 discovery order for interlocutory appeal. An interlocutory appeal is an appeal before the case has ended. Didi proposed asking whether a district court deciding whether to compel disclosure despite a foreign blocking statute must consider the resisting party’s good faith and the hardship that compliance might cause. Didi also sought a stay of the January 22 Order.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Kaplan held that Didi had not met the requirements for certification. Section 1292(b) requires a controlling question of law with substantial ground for disagreement and requires that an immediate appeal may materially advance the end of the litigation.

The court concluded that the cited appellate and Supreme Court decisions addressed good faith and hardship primarily when deciding whether to impose sanctions for failure to comply with a production order. They did not require courts to consider those factors in deciding whether to order production in the first place. The court also stated that deciding how to weigh the factors would involve applying law to the facts, rather than deciding a pure legal question. In addition, the court had actually considered Didi’s good faith and claimed hardship in the January 22 Order.

The court further found that an appeal and stay would interfere with the discovery and case-preparation deadlines and would postpone a potential trial. An appeal therefore would not advance the litigation; it would prolong it. The court also noted that Didi said its witness had answered nearly every question asked by plaintiffs after the January 22 Order, making the dispute largely moot and not sufficiently significant to justify certification.

Disposition

The court denied Defendant Didi Global, Inc.’s motion for certification for interlocutory appeal. The opinion’s conclusion expressly addresses the certification motion; it does not separately state a disposition of Didi’s request for a stay.