Order on Hyperlinked Documents — In re Carvana Securities

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · No. 2:22-cv-02126-MTL · Doc. 196 · 2025-08-21 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

An order in United Association National Pension Fund, et al. v. Carvana Company, et al., No. 2:22-cv-02126-MTL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, dated August 21, 2025 and signed by Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle as Doc. 196. It resolves two joint discovery motions, Doc. 177 on hyperlinked documents and Doc. 178 on the relevant time period, granting each in part and denying each in part. On hyperlinks, the order lets plaintiffs select up to two custodians for a test production of point-in-time Google Drive documents, due on or before December 1, 2025. On timing, it sets a Carvana Defendants discovery period of January 1, 2020 to February 28, 2023, and an Underwriter Defendants period of July 1, 2021 to October 31, 2022. The order is six pages.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

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., 
 
Defendants. 
No. CV-22-02126-PHX-MTL 
 
ORDER  
 
 
 
 
Pending before the Court is the “Joint Discovery Motion” regarding the collection, 
review, and production of hyperlinked documents (“Joint Discovery Motion Regarding 
Hyperlinked Documents”). (Doc. 177.) As discussed in more detail below, Plaintiffs 
request a copy of Google Drive hyperlinked documents as they existed at the time when 
emails were sent. Defendants assert that Google Drive documents are designed to be 
modified by users over time, so it is highly unlikely any technology (including Plaintiffs’ 
program called FEC) will find them as they existed at a certain point in time. The Court 
has reviewed the motions, the competing expert affidavits, and arguments. The Court 
concludes that a smaller sample size of discovery using Plaintiffs’ requested program 
(FEC) will demonstrate whether historical, hyperlinked documents can be retrieved in a 
manner proportional to the discovery needs of the case. 
  
Also before the Court is a “Joint Discovery Motion Regarding Relevant Time 
Period.” (Doc. 178.) The Court will address each motion in turn. 
 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 196     Filed 08/21/25     Page 1 of 6

 
- 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 
 
I. 
Joint Discovery Motion Regarding Hyperlinked Documents (doc. 177). 
Plaintiffs state that Defendants refuse to produce versions of hyperlinked documents 
contemporaneous to emails that were sent during the relevant period. (Doc. 177 at 2.) 
Defendants only offer the current versions of those documents that may differ from what 
the parties to the emails saw at the time because of edits made over the course of the ensuing 
months and years. (Id.) This inhibits Plaintiffs’ ability to establish “who knew what and 
when.” (Id.) Plaintiffs also note, “Defendants propose to sever modern attachments from 
their parent emails and review them independently for relevance[.]” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiffs 
assert it is well-settled that “where responsive emails are produced, a party must also 
produce any linked attachments, notwithstanding its contentions that those attachments 
may be irrelevant.” (Id.) (quotations and citations omitted). 
Defendants argue they have “adhered to eDiscovery industry standards, using tools 
native to Carvana’s Google Workspace to collect emails, documents, and other data.” (Doc. 
177 at 3.) Defendants further argue that the limitations of Plaintiffs’ proposed eDiscovery 
tool—the Forensic Email Collector or “FEC”—would cause it to collect inaccurate 
documents; that those documents would be incapable of authentication and without 
evidentiary value; and that such efforts would be unnecessary, unduly burdensome, and 
disproportionate to the case’s needs. (Id. at 4.) Defendants state they are “independently 
reviewing [their] Drive documents, including Linked Documents, for production alongside 
emails[,]” which they assert are critically different from traditional email attachments. (Id.) 
The Court’s March 11, 2025, Order “govern[s] how the parties and the Court [will] 
manage the production of documents, exhibits, electronically stored information (“ESI”), 
and other materials or information (collectively, “Documents”) in the [ ]case” (“the ESI 
Order”). (Doc. 137 at 1.) The Order memorializes the parties’ agreement that “if any part 
of a communication or its attachments is responsive, the entire communication and 
attachments will be produced, except any attachments that must be withheld or redacted on 
the basis of privilege.” (Id. at 8.) With respect to hyperlinked documents, the Order 
provides as follows: 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 196     Filed 08/21/25     Page 2 of 6

 
- 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 
 
The parties understand that hyperlinked documents will be 
collected and produced in this case. The parties shall use their 
reasonable best efforts to collect documents that are links in 
documents and communications, including, but not limited to, 
Google G Suite, Microsoft 365, etc. Where the automatic 
collection of the hyperlinked document is technologically 
feasible, reasonable, and not unduly burdensome, the 
hyperlinked document will be collected. The parties will work 
diligently and collaboratively to come to a common 
understanding as to the scope of the collection, review, and 
production and any other issue that arises. In addition, the 
parties will work diligently and collaboratively to come to a 
common understanding as to what is reasonable, technically 
feasible, and not unduly burdensome (e.g., showing the 
hyperlinked relationship between documents and producing 
point-in-time version[s] of hyperlinked documents). To the 
extent the parties are not able to come to an agreement, any 
disputes will be promptly raised with the Court. 
(Id.) 
The parties make contrasting representations regarding the potential feasibility and 
utility of implementing the proposed FEC tool to collect versions of hyperlinked 
documents contemporaneous to the emails sent. The Court recognizes that the collection 
of hyperlinked documents existing as they did at the time of the email presents challenges. 
The Court acknowledged the potential for these challenges in the ESI Order. While 
Defendants insist the process will be difficult and that whatever documents FEC collects 
may lack evidentiary value, the Court finds a “diligent” and “collaborative” solution in the 
spirit of the ESI Order requires a compromise. The Court will not excuse Defendants from 
any efforts to produce contemporaneous hyperlinked documents outright simply because 
they elected to use a suite of cloud-based web applications that would make that process 
difficult. 
In 
re 
Uber 
Techs., 
Inc., 
Passenger 
Sexual 
Assault 
Litig., 
No. 
23MD03084CRBLJC, 2024 WL 1772832, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2024) (“[T]he 
potential limitations and pitfalls with respect to production of hyperlinked documents from 
Google Vault have been widely known for many years, yet Uber has elected to transfer and 
retain its electronic data using this service.”). Other courts confronting the issue have 
elected a compromise, allowing the party seeking discovery to identify a subset of 
documents for which the responding party must produce point-in-time versions. Id. 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 196     Filed 08/21/25     Page 3 of 6

 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
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 
 
(“Plaintiffs may identify up to 200 hyperlinks for which they seek the contemporaneous 
referenced document even though the email or message has been archived with Google 
Vault. Uber shall identify and produce the likely contemporaneous versions that Plaintiffs 
have requested.”); Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., No. 16-CV-05314-JST (SK), 2018 WL 
5735176, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2018) (“The Court is mindful of the burdens to 
Defendants but also notes that Plaintiffs have a right to determine if an electronic message 
refers to a document, then Plaintiffs should be able to access that document. Given the 
competing needs, the Court ORDERS that Defendants must produce documents referenced 
in a hyperlink for 200 documents that Plaintiffs choose . . . .”). 
The Court will permit Plaintiff to select up to two custodians comprising a small 
subset of the overall scope of emails and corresponding hyperlinked documents at issue in 
the case. Defendants must produce responsive documents—i.e., the versions of any 
documents as closely contemporaneous to, but preceding, the email communication as is 
feasible—on or before December 1, 2025, absent further order of the Court. The Court 
assumes FEC will be used, but the parties may agree to other methods. If this limited test 
is successful in producing point-in-time hyperlinked documents of evidentiary value 
without undue burden or expense, the parties may raise the issue of conducting additional 
discovery into point-in-time hyperlinked documents by filing a motion with the Court. 
II. 
Joint Discovery Motion Regarding Relevant Time Period (doc. 178). 
Plaintiffs argue that discovery before and after the Class Period (May 6, 2020, to 
October 7, 2022) is relevant to establishing Defendants’ knowledge and the context of their 
actions. (Doc. 178 at 2.) Plaintiffs request the Court adopt a Relevant Period beginning 
November 1, 2019, and ending April 1, 2023. (Id. at 3.) The beginning date is six months 
before the Class Period. (Id.) Plaintiffs note Defendants Jenkins and Garcia Jr. were 
discussing Carvana’s violation of state title and registration laws as early as July 2020 (doc. 
71 at 55) and, if discussions were occurring in July 2020, “logic dictates the violations were 
already occurring.” (Doc. 178 at 2.) As for the end date, Plaintiffs note that April 1, 2023, 
is 37 days after the last in a chain of events contributing to a decline in Carvana’s stock 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 196     Filed 08/21/25     Page 4 of 6

 
- 5 - 
 
 
 
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 
 
price they believe is relevant to their Securities Act claims, and is less than six months from 
the final “corrective disclosure” relevant to the Exchange Act claims—the Michigan 
Department of State’s suspension of Carvana’s dealer’s license in Novi, Michigan on 
October 7, 2022. (Doc. 178 at 2.) 
Carvana Defendants assert that the Relevant Period should begin in May 2020, as 
that is when Plaintiffs allege Defendants’ scheme began. (Doc. 178 at 4.) Defendants “draw 
the line at Plaintiffs’ disregard of the Court’s MTD Order with respect to discovery past 
2022.” (Id. at 5.) Defendants note that “[e]ach additional month implicates tens of 
thousands of documents in review burdens[.]” (Id.) The Underwriter Defendants (“UW 
Defendants”) add that Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery end date occurs over one year past 
the April 2022 public offering of Carvana Class A common stock (“the Public Offering”) 
that is central to Plaintiffs’ Securities Act claims. (Id.) UW Defendants propose an end date 
of October 31, 2022, which is over six months past the offering. (Id.) 
Discovery for a discrete period before and after the Class Period is necessary to 
establish context for events relevant to the case. In re Dockers Roundtrip Airfare 
Promotion Sales Pracs. Litig., No. CV092847CASFMOX, 2010 WL 11515318, at *5 
(C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2010) (“In general, courts allow discovery to extend to events before 
and after the period of actual liability so as to provide context.”). With that in mind, the 
Court finds that the period set forth below (“the Discovery Period”) is supported by 
Plaintiffs’ allegations relevant to claims that survived the MTD Order (doc. 105), 
proportional to the needs of the case, and reasonable, considering the discovery burdens 
and expense. 
For the Carvana Defendants, the start date for the Discovery Period will be January 
1, 2020. This date precedes, by approximately six months, allegations that Defendants 
Garcia Jr. and Jenkins were discussing states’ actions to investigate Carvana for violations 
of state title and registration laws. (Doc. 71 at 51.) This date precedes by approximately 
one year the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles’ suspension of Carvana’s temporary tag 
issuances for the State in December 2020, and the Michigan Department of State’s 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 196     Filed 08/21/25     Page 5 of 6

 
- 6 - 
 
 
 
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 
 
investigation of Carvana around February 2021 and meeting with Carvana executives in 
March 2021 regarding its investigation. (Doc. 71 at 66, 68.) 
For the Carvana Defendants, the end date of the Discovery Period shall be February 
28, 2023. The parties agree that the final corrective disclosure occurred in October 2022. 
(Doc. 71 at 286-87.) This end date post-dates the final corrective disclosure by nearly five 
months and post-dates the final event Plaintiff alleged is relevant to the April 2022 Public 
Offering and the subsequent declination in Carvana’s stock price—Carvana’s 
announcement of unfavorable Fourth Quarter 2022 financial results on February 23, 
2023—and this is sufficient to allow the parties discovery into the context of these events 
and Defendants’ negative causation defense, i.e., “‘that the depreciation in value of [the 
stock] resulted from factors other than the alleged material misstatement.’” (Doc. 105 at 
69) (quoting Hildes v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 734 F.3d 854, 860 (9th Cir. 2013)). 
Plaintiffs and UW Defendants agreed to a July 1, 2021, start date that the Court 
adopts. (Doc. 178 at 2.) Discovery for the UW Defendants shall conclude on October 31, 
2022. The end date post-dates the Public Offering by approximately six months. 
Accordingly, 
IT IS ORDERED the Joint Discovery Motion Regarding Hyperlinked Documents 
(doc. 177) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as set forth in this Order. 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Joint Discovery Motion Regarding Relevant 
Time Period (doc. 178) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part, as set forth in this 
Order. 
Dated this 21st day of August, 2025. 
 
 
Honorable John Z. Boyle 
United States Magistrate Judge 
 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 196     Filed 08/21/25     Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.azd.1319766.196.0.pdf

Size

112,460 bytes

SHA-256

13a108f3e40e599172a650d56169567d1467d004f7fa1433feea442eec7e76cd

Our copy

gov.uscourts.azd.1319766.196.0.pdf

Original

archive.org