IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Ae eee ee Oe ee aur SES UMP ae a Se ee SP ee ee ee . “a _—_ et Th R fesne SDNY ne Rosen Law Fitrtoocumenr INVESTOR COUNSELELECTRONICALLY FILED | DOC #: May 16, 2025 DATE FILED: .5~/9 - The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan United States District Court, Southern District Court of New York Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Re: Jn re DiDi Global Inc, Sees, Litig., No. ]: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), SDNY Local ECF Rule 6.8, and Your Honor’s Individual Filing Practices, we write to request permission to file under seal Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel DiDi’s Production of Documents Withheld Under PRC Blocking Statutes and fourteen of the exhibits attached to the Declaration of Laurence M. Rosen filed in support thereof (“Rosen Decl.”).

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 documents under seal pursuant to DiDi’s designation. ECF 190, at 414 (‘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 [d]efendants.” 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, 71 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 III 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 THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P_A. ¢ 275 MADISON AVENUE, 40™ FLOOR ¢ NEW YorK, NY 10016 ¢ TEL: (212) 686-1060 ¢ Fax: (212) 202 - 3827 ee ee ee eee eae ee EES eee eee lll ee eS ae eee 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 (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 414 of the Confidentiality Stipulation and Protective Order.

Appendix A below lists the parties and their counsel of record who should have access to the sealed documents.

Dated: May 16, 2025 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laurence Rosen Laurence Rosen cc: All counsel of record via ECF } 3 □ (rah □□ ‘ E ED _— □□ sO ow? ; le ee □□□ J 7 Ems weOoOt 42.604 °U 0 °UYOY FMLA VE IOCiik OVS POUR VO rayo we UT Appendix A — Parties and Counsel to be Permitted Access Defendants L rities Inc., Barcel ital Inc.. Citigro b kets Inc,, Chi Renaissance Securities (US) Inc.. HSBC Securitie SA) Inc., UBS Securities LLC, and Mizuho S ities 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 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP Renita Sharma Richard Corey Worcester Defendant Zhiyi Cl WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.

Sheryl Shapiro Bassin Alexander Luhring Ignacio E. Salceda Defendant Martin Chi Ping I GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Matthew Stewart Khan Kevin James White Michael D. Celio Defendant Kentaro 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 Plaintiff THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

Laurence M. Rosen Jing Chen Daniel Tyre-Karp Robin Howald Yitzchok Fishbach Brent LaPointe GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP A et VE See Oe a er wee eee See ee ae ee ee ae ee ee ee Kara Wolke Leanne Heine Solish