IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Background

Plaintiffs moved to compel DiDi Global Inc. to respond to two interrogatories. Interrogatory 13 sought information about meetings between DiDi representatives and Chinese government agencies from February 1 through July 23, 2021, including the dates, participants, subjects, and matters discussed. Interrogatory 14 sought information about inquiries or requests from Chinese government agencies concerning DiDi’s data and security practices from January 1 through July 2, 2021, including what was requested and whether DiDi provided the requested information.

DiDi provided only the names of some of its management and government-affairs personnel in response to Interrogatory 13. It said it could not provide information responsive to Interrogatory 14 because of Chinese law. DiDi relied on Chinese data-security, state-secrets, and criminal laws, while plaintiffs argued that Chinese law did not prohibit the discovery and that the court should order disclosure even if it did.

Foreign-law analysis

The court applied a two-step analysis for discovery disputes involving a foreign law that allegedly blocks disclosure. First, it considered whether Chinese law prohibited disclosure. Second, it considered whether international comity—the principle of respecting another nation’s legal interests—nevertheless supported ordering disclosure.

The court agreed with DiDi that Article 36 of China’s Data Security Law applies to information produced in civil discovery, even though the information would initially be provided to private parties rather than directly to a court or law-enforcement agency. The court also held that Article 36 applies to “data” generally and is not limited to data classified as “important data” or “core data.”

The court found that Chinese law likely prohibited disclosure of the information at issue. It relied on a declaration stating that Chinese authorities had instructed DiDi not to disclose nonpublic communications between Chinese government agencies and DiDi, as well as nonpublic government actions. The court noted, however, that the declaration did not identify the specific legal basis for the instruction, the authority that issued it, or whether Chinese authorities had specifically objected to production of the interrogatory information. The court warned that it would not rely on a conclusory declaration in any later motion to compel and identified information that a future declaration should provide.

International-comity analysis

The court found that both the United States and China had legitimate interests. China had an interest in preventing disclosure of communications with its government agencies, while the United States had a substantial interest in fully and fairly resolving cases in its courts through complete discovery.

The court concluded that some information sought by Interrogatory 13 was relevant, but plaintiffs had not shown that a comprehensive six-month list of meetings covering many subjects was central to their claims. The approaching close of fact discovery also reduced the usefulness of the requested information because plaintiffs would have little time to pursue additional discovery based on the answers.

The court reached a different conclusion regarding Interrogatory 14. It found that requests by Chinese authorities for information about DiDi’s data and security protocols before the initial public offering were central to plaintiffs’ allegations and would themselves be probative. The court found few realistic alternative ways to obtain the information. It also did not credit DiDi’s argument that compliance would expose DiDi or its officers to severe criminal liability, although it recognized that DiDi might face sanctions from Chinese authorities for producing information contrary to their instruction.

Disposition

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel to the extent that DiDi must provide a complete answer to Interrogatory 14 on or before April 1, 2025. The court denied the motion in all other respects, including the request to compel a response to Interrogatory 13. The court stated that it would consider a request for a short extension of the discovery deadline for the limited purpose of serving requests for admission.