In re Carvana Co Securities Litigation

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United Association National Pension Fund, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Carvana Company, et al.,
Respondents.
No. CV-22-02126-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions, in which Plaintiff
accuses counsel for the Carvana Defendants, Latham & Watkins LLP, of obstructing
discovery. (Doc. 661.) The Motion is fully briefed, and the Court heard oral argument.
Plaintiffs move for sanctions based on Defendants’ conduct in discovery over the
past year. They argue that Defendants’ rolling productions of documents pertaining to an
investigation and successive revisions to their privilege log reflect bad faith and lack
substantial justification. Plaintiffs contend that sanctions are therefore warranted under
Rules 26(g)(3) and 37(c)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., and the Court’s inherent authority.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not established that Defendants have acted in
bad faith or that Defendants’ conduct lacked substantial justification or was interposed for
an improper purpose. The record does not support Plaintiffs’ contention that Defendants
actively 	concealed 	documents. 	The 	timing 	of 	each 	of 	Defendants’ 	productions 	of
documents reflected Defendants’ reasonable and voluntary reassessment of the scope of
discovery, particularly in light of Judge Boyle’s January 14, 2026, Order (Doc. 264) and
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 743 Filed 09/23/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Special Master’s assessments of privilege designations. Defendants’ delay in producing
certain documents and voluntary revisions to its privilege designations do not demonstrate
bad faith or a lack of substantial justification; they reflect the ordinary difficulty of
responding to numerous discovery requests and applying privilege in a complex case of
this 	magnitude. 	See 	S.G.D. 	Eng’g 	Ltd. 	v. 	Lockheed 	Martin 	Corp., 	Inc.,
No. CV-11-02493-PHX-DGC, 2013 WL 2297175, at *8-9 (D. Ariz. May 24, 2013). The
Court therefore finds that sanctions are unwarranted under the Federal Rules or pursuant
to the Court’s inherent authority.
The Court, however, finds that relief is nonetheless appropriate to address the
consequences of late-produced discovery on the eve of the fact discovery cutoff. The Court
will allow Plaintiffs to reopen the deposition of certain individuals who have already been
deposed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions
(Doc. 661) is DENIED insofar as it seeks the imposition of sanctions. The Motion
(Doc. 661) is GRANTED insofar as it seeks the reopening of certain depositions.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are permitted to re-depose six of the
following individuals that have already been deposed: Teresa Aragon, Wilson Munsil,
Jonathan Greer, Mark Murphy, Josh Johnson, Stephen Keim, Brian Boyd, and Paul Breaux.
Depositions are limited to two hours on the record and must be conducted no later than
October 23, 2026. Questioning must be limited to information produced to Plaintiffs after
the deponent was originally deposed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs and the Carvana Defendants must file
a joint notice, no later than September 24, 2026, indicating which six individuals will have
their depositions reopened.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motions to Seal (Docs. 679, 711, 733) are
GRANTED. The Clerk of Court must file Docs. 668, 669, 670, 671, 672, 673, 675, 680,
712, and any enclosed exhibits UNDER SEAL.
. . . .
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 743 Filed 09/23/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, no later than October 9, 2026, the parties must
file a joint motion to seal or unseal the lodged documents identified by the Court during
oral argument (Docs. 378, 408, 462, 491, 492, 520, 539, 540).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Citigroup’s Unopposed Motion to
Modify 	the 	Scheduling 	Order 	(Doc. 683) 	is 	GRANTED. 	Defendant 	Citigroup’s
Rule 30(b)(6) representative may be deposed after the October 2, 2026, fact discovery
cutoff, but no later than October 21, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification (Doc. 356) for November 5, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., before United States District
Judge Michael T. Liburdi, in Courtroom 504, Sandra Day O’Connor United States
Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003. Counsel presenting
argument must appear in person.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the parties must file a joint notice, no later than
October 9, 2026, indicating whether the parties request that the Court hold an evidentiary
hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 356).
Dated this 22nd day of September, 2026.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 743 Filed 09/23/26 Page 3 of 3