IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-05807
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In re DiDi Global Securities Litigation: Judge Kaplan grants plaintiffs’ discovery motion, allowing 27 depositions and 14 hours for each deposition using an interpreter.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs and defendants in the DiDi Global securities class action by expanding the permitted deposition discovery.
What happened
In In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation, the plaintiffs asked to increase the permitted number of depositions from the presumptive limit of ten to 27 and to allow up to 14 total hours for depositions conducted through interpreters. The defendants agreed to 15 depositions but opposed any further increase.
The court found that the size and complexity of the securities class action, the claimed damages exceeding $2.3 billion, difficulties obtaining documents from DiDi because of Chinese-law objections, and the due-diligence defenses asserted by certain underwriter defendants justified additional discovery. The court also rejected the defendants’ undue-burden arguments.
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan granted the motion to the extent that plaintiffs may conduct up to 27 depositions and may use up to 14 hours for each deposition conducted through an interpreter.
The detailed version
- IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:21-cv-05807
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 24, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs moved to enlarge the number of depositions allowed in this securities class action from the presumptive limit of ten to 27. They also asked to permit examination of deposition witnesses who testify through interpreters for up to 14 total hours. Defendants offered to agree to 15 depositions but argued that any further enlargement was unwarranted.
The court described the litigation as a complex securities class action involving 20 defendants, arising from the crash of the second largest Chinese initial public offering, which plaintiffs alleged involved $4.4 billion. Plaintiffs claimed more than $2.3 billion in damages. The court stated that the presumptive limit of ten depositions was not designed for litigation of this scope, while noting that discovery remained subject to proportionality requirements.
Reasons for the Ruling
The court identified several reasons supporting additional depositions. First, the litigation was unusually large and complex. Second, obtaining documentary evidence from DiDi had been extraordinarily difficult because DiDi invoked Chinese laws that it said prohibited disclosure of documents and provision of other discovery, including documents that appeared relevant to the central issues in the case. Third, plaintiffs asserted claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against three lead underwriting firms and nine individuals, each of whom asserted a due-diligence defense and bore the burden of proving that defense. The court stated that fairness required an appropriate opportunity to conduct discovery regarding those defendants.
The court characterized defendants’ undue-burden arguments as tending to minimize the nature and stakes of the litigation and the extent to which plaintiffs had been limited in obtaining important discovery by other means.
Disposition
The court granted plaintiffs’ motion, Docket 419, to the extent that plaintiffs may conduct up to 27 depositions and the permitted duration of each deposition conducted through an interpreter is expanded to 14 hours.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.