IN RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

WOODS 1.24°0CV "U0" PT LA vr MAJLUNICTIL GOL thas oe Wd ae MI oO “SDC SDNY IC UMENT “LECTRONICAL OC py. LY FILED “ALE MLED: The Rosen Law Firm >=.

INVESTOR COUNSEL May 22, 2025 A.

30 ORDE The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan United States District Court, Southern District Court of New York <i ie UA Pearl Street =e lf; PLY: New York, NY 10007 LEM SA ne Re: In re DiDi Global Inc. Secs. Litig., No. 1:2]-cv-05807 Z. □□ Dear Judge Kaplan: We represent Lead Plaintiff Alaka Holdings Ltd. and named plaintiffs Shereen El-Nahas, Danuil 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 Exhibits 1-4, 6, and 16 to Plaintiff's Letter Motion to Compel Production of Documents Withheld Based on Assertions of Attorney-Client Privilegeand Attorney Work Product and exhibits attached thereto.

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 DiD1’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 [dJefendants,” 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 LAWFIRM, P.A. 275 MADISON AVENUE, 40™ FLOOR New YORK,NY 10016 TEL: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 wOAQS 41.24°R0 PPL VE LAU Pie Vole Lo Faye £UI Qo 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 22, 2025 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Laurence Rosen Laurence Rosen cc: All counsel of record via ECF Wedoe LéLCvevooUP-LARRK VE QOL LO Faye OU Appendix A — Parties and Counsel to be Permitted Access Defendants Defendants Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C.. Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, BofA Securities Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., China Renaissance Securities (US) Inc.. HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., UBS Securities LLC, and 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 Defendants Will Wei Cheng, Alan Yue Zhuo, Jean Qing Liu, Jingshi Zhu, and Adria Perica QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP Renita Sharma Richard Corey Worcester Defendant Zhivi C} WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.

Sheryl Shapiro Bassin Alexander Luhring Ignacio E. Salceda Defendant Martin Chi Ping I GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Net Gh oh Oe eh POO PUL EN OUT er PI A POTD he Nd Oe ee Ld Tea OT Med 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 Plaintiffs THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

Laurence M. Rosen Jing Chen Daniel Tyre-Karp Robin Howald Yitzchok Fishbach Brent LaPointe GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP wast L.424°UVUU0U /TLAN VE VVULUTHICITIL GOL Pueu 4zi2 Faye vvisg Kara Wolke Leanne Heine Solish