IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:21-cv-05807
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation, Judge Kaplan granted plaintiffs’ discovery motion and ordered DiDi to produce certain unlogged documents by August 11, 2025.
The plaintiffs and DiDi Global Inc. in the securities litigation. DiDi was ordered to produce the specified responsive documents and lost the ability to assert foreign blocking-statute protection for them based on its untimely assertion.
What happened
In In re DiDi Global Inc. Securities Litigation, the plaintiffs asked the court to require DiDi Global Inc. to produce about 160 responsive documents that DiDi had identified but neither produced nor listed in a withholding log. The request arose during ongoing depositions and before expert reports and summary-judgment motions were due.
The plaintiffs argued that DiDi missed the July 24, 2025 deadline under the parties’ discovery procedures for producing or logging the documents. They said the delay prevented them from using the documents in depositions, expert reports, and summary-judgment briefing.
Judge Kaplan granted the motion. He ruled that DiDi had waived any claim that the documents were protected by foreign blocking statutes because DiDi did not timely assert those claims, and ordered DiDi to produce by August 11, 2025, all responsive documents not previously included on its China-related withholding or redaction logs.
The detailed version
- IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION · No. 1:21-cv-05807
- Lewis Kaplan
- Aug. 7, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs moved to compel DiDi Global Inc. to produce responsive documents that DiDi had identified but had not produced or listed in a withholding log. According to the motion, DiDi stated on July 1, 2025, that it expected to log 160 or fewer additional documents. The parties’ electronic-discovery procedures required withholding logs to be served within 30 days after production would have occurred. The plaintiffs said DiDi did not produce or log the documents by July 24, 2025.
The plaintiffs also stated that document discovery had involved approximately 13,500 pages and supplemental logs concerning documents withheld or redacted based on Chinese law and attorney-client privilege. They argued that DiDi’s delay prejudiced their ability to use the documents in depositions that began July 28, expert reports due September 24, and summary-judgment motions due September 23. The plaintiffs asked for production within two business days and argued that DiDi’s failure to timely provide a privilege log waived its protection claims.
Ruling
The court granted the motion. Judge Kaplan ruled that, to the extent valid protection claims existed, DiDi was required to assert them by July 24, 2025. Because DiDi provided no valid justification for failing to do so, the court held that DiDi waived any assertion that the documents were subject to foreign blocking statutes.
The court ordered DiDi to produce by August 11, 2025, all responsive documents that had not been listed on one of its China-related withholding or redaction logs before July 24, 2025. The order addressed the discovery dispute and did not decide the underlying securities claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.