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 Plaintiffs’ “Motion to Compel Defendants to Use Lead
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Search Terms” (doc. 244).1 Plaintiffs seek an order requiring
Defendants to run a search with 44 proposed search terms against all 25 of Defendants’
Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) custodians’ ESI collections. See (doc. 244 at 2.)
Between March 2025 to December 2025, the parties have been in communication
over which search terms Defendants were required to run against their ESI custodians’
collections. See (doc. 145-7 at 6); see also (doc. 245-10 at 2.) While these communications
have not been wholly unsuccessful—considering Defendants implemented 76 search
strings proposed by Plaintiffs—they likewise have not been wholly successful. Because of
this, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion on December 30, 2025. (Doc. 244.) After this matter
was fully briefed on January 20, 2026, this Court held a discovery hearing on January 29,
2026. See (docs. 258, 271, 279, 288.)
Upon review of the parties’ oral and written submissions, seeing as the parties have
1 Discovery matters in this case have been referred to this Court by the Honorable
United States District Judge Michael T. Liburdi. See (doc. 125.)
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 31

- 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
substantially completed discovery, and weighing Plaintiffs’ need for meaningful discovery
against any undue burden faced by Defendants, the Court holds as follows. First, the Court
will compel Defendants to run the following numbered search terms against 15 ESI
custodians’ collections: 1–2, 4–11, 13–17, 23–31, 35–43. These search terms are relevant
to Plaintiffs’ underlying allegations, and while burdensome, are not so unduly burdensome
for a complex class action involving voluminous ESI collections. The remaining search
terms are excised.
Second, the Court will bifurcate the deadlines upon which production shall be
completed by. Specifically, on or before March 15, 2026, Defendants shall produce
relevant and non-privileged emails, documents, and family units that are responsive to the
search terms for five (5) ESI custodians.2 Plaintiffs may choose the five ESI custodians.
Thereafter, on or before June 12, 2026, Defendants shall produce relevant and non-
privileged emails, documents, and family units for ten (10) additional custodians. Plaintiffs
may choose the ten ESI custodians. Plaintiffs shall not be permitted to select any additional
ESI custodians in this action. Finally, the Court shall not require Defendants to provide
Plaintiffs with discovery into their discovery process.
I. BACKGROUND.
On August 3, 2022, Plaintiffs initiated this action by filing their Complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. (Doc. 1 at 2, 33.) On December 12, 2022, this matter was transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. (Docs. 25–26.)
Following transfer to this District, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint which
was dismissed as impermissible puzzle pleading on February 29, 2024. (Docs. 36, 70.)
Thereafter, on March 29, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the now-operative Amended Consolidated
2 The Court is mindful of the April 6, 2026, class certification deadline. See (doc. 239
at 5.) The Court is also aware that Defendants could not complete full discovery by March
15, 2026. Consequently, the Court finds the only reasonable solution between upcoming
deadlines and discovery production is the bifurcation of deadlines here. In any event, the
Court finds that substantial completion of discovery will be complete by the February 27,
2026, deadline, and that this production of documents will be complete well before the
August 18, 2026, deadline for fact discovery. See (id. at 4.)
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 31

- 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
Compliant (“ACC”). (Doc. 71.) Portions of Plaintiffs’ ACC were dismissed by the District
Court on December 12, 2024, by the District Court. See (doc. 105.) However, the
allegations underlying Plaintiffs’ claims remain unchanged:
In 2012, father and son, Ernest Garcia II (“Garcia Senior”) and
Ernest Garcia III (“Garcia Junior”), founded Carvana as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Garcia Senior’s used-car business, DriveTime Automotive
Group, Inc. (“DriveTime”). (Doc. 71 ¶¶ 4, 35.) Carvana then went public in
2017. (Id. ¶ 37.) Carvana described itself as “the Amazon of the used car
industry” and promised investors its “business gets better as it gets bigger.”
(Id. ¶ 2.) But investors grew wary of Carvana’s self-proclaimed growth and
profitability when its stock price fell in early 2020. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5.) The ACC
alleges that, to deceive investors into believing Carvana’s growth was
sustainable, Defendants Garcia Junior—the chief executive officer (“CEO”),
Garcia Senior—a controlling shareholder, and Mark Jenkins—the chief
financial officer (“CFO”), implemented a scheme to artificially “pump”
Carvana’s stock price. (Id. ¶ 6.)
This scheme required Carvana to: (1) enter into a “sham pass-through
sales arrangement” with DriveTime to increase its reported sales; (2) flout
state motor-vehicle title and registration laws and regulations; (3) abandon
its purchasing and verification standards; (4) obscure critical metrics relating
to its Retail GPU; (5) implement an unsustainable nationwide expansion; (6)
conceal critical information relevant to its average days to sale measure; and
(7) misrepresent its per-vehicle profitability. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 10–16, 126–72.)
Plaintiffs allege Defendants accomplished this scheme through a series of
material misstatements and omissions. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 173–260.)
According to the ACC, Defendants’ scheme produced its desired
results, and Carvana’s stock price reached a high of $376.83 per share in
August 2021. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 327 n.169.) From May 6, 2020, to February 23, 2023
(the “Class Period”), Plaintiffs purchased a significant number of shares of
Carvana Class A common stock at these artificially inflated prices. (Id. ¶ 1.)
With the stock sufficiently “pumped,” the ACC further alleges that
Defendants manipulated their 10b5-1 trading plans and began dumping their
shares. (Id. ¶¶ 8, 160–65.) Defendants Garcia Senior and Jenkins purportedly
dumped around 14.3 million shares for profits of nearly $3.76 billion. (Id. ¶¶
9, 163–65.) When Defendants’ falsehoods came to light, Carvana’s stock
dropped 98% from its Class Period high to $8.01 per share, causing
substantial monetary harm to investors. (Id. ¶¶ 166–72, 307–28.)
(Id. at 2–3.)
On March 11, 2025, the District Court issued an Order governing ESI discovery in
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 31

- 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
this action. (Doc. 137.) Regarding search terms, the District Court envisioned a
collaborative process between the parties, whereby the parties would meet and confer on
what search terms would be run in this action. (Id. at 4.) Only where a dispute of terms
existed would the parties seek Court assistance. (Id. at 4–5.)
Between March 19, 2025, to December 16, 2025, the parties submitted proposed
and counter-proposed search terms. See (doc. 145-7 at 6); see also (doc. 245-10 at 2.)
During this time, the Court issued two orders impacting the current discovery dispute. The
first was the Court’s August 21, 2025, Order, which set the relevant class periods for the
parties. See (doc. 196.) For the Carvana Defendants, the class period is between January 1,
2020, to February 28, 2023. (Id. at 5–6.) For the UW Defendants, the class period is
between July 1, 2021, to October 31, 2022. (Id. at 6.) The second order was this Court’s
November 19, 2025, Order, which raised the number of ESI custodians from 18 to 25. See
(doc. 212.)
On December 23, 2025, the District Court issued an order modifying the Scheduling
Order (doc. 128) in this action. (Doc. 239.) Particularly relevant here, the District Court
advanced the deadline to “substantially complete document productions” to February 27,
2026, and extended the class certification deadline to April 6, 2026. (Id. at 4–5.)
On December 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed—with leave of Court—a Motion to Compel
Defendants to Use Lead Plaintiffs’ Proposed Search Terms, which was to be briefed in
accordance with LRCiv 7.2. See (doc. 244.) Defendants filed their Response on January
13, 2026. See (doc. 258.) On January 20, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their Reply. See (doc. 271.)
After full briefing, this Court conducted a discovery hearing on January 29, 2026. See (doc.
288.)
II. THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS.
The parties’ arguments—written and oral—are briefly summarized below.
A. Plaintiffs’ Arguments.
Plaintiffs assert the following five main points. First, Plaintiffs assert that
Defendants’ production from the already-used search terms is overwhelmingly skewed
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 31

- 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
towards Title and Registration (“T&R”) matters. (Doc. 244 at 8.) Specifically, Plaintiffs’
note that “[n]early 100 search strings of the 155 Defendants employed (i.e., nearly 65%)
relate to [T&R] issues,” which has translated to “nearly 90% of Defendants’ 68,757
produced documents hit[ing] on the terms ‘title’ or ‘reg,’ confirming that the vast majority
of the alleged scheme remains untouched.” (Id.)
Second, Plaintiffs contend that the search terms are overly formalistic. (Id. at 10.)
Plaintiffs argue that the current search terms “assume employees speak in formal . . .
terminology rather than the shorthand used in real-world internal communications.” (Id.)
(citation omitted). Because of this, terms such as “sales” or “units” are not captured by the
current search terms unless that are contained in the phrases “retail unit” or “retail sale.”
(Id.)
Third, Plaintiffs assert that of the 69,757 produced documents, “nearly 24,000 of
those are low-to-no value embedded images” such as logos. (Doc. 271 at 7); see, e.g., (docs.
273-4 to 273-9.)
Fourth, Plaintiffs assert in oral arguments that, because of Defendants’ minimal
production of documents, they should be permitted to gain discovery into how Defendants
conduct discovery regarding their ESI custodians. (Doc. 288.) Specifically, Plaintiffs
appear to request the metrics used by Defendants in their internal ESI discovery searches.
(Id.) Plaintiffs do not provide legal support for this argument, nor discuss how such
‘discovery into discovery’ could be done.
Fifth, Plaintiffs avers that Defendants’ elusion test finding that only 7 out of every
1,000 documents collected by Defendants are responsive is faulty and unreliable. (Doc.
271 at 14.)
B. Defendants’ Arguments.
Defendants assert the following four main points. First, Defendants contend that
requiring additional search terms would be disproportionate to the needs of this case and
unduly burdensome. (Doc. 258 at 5–6.) Specifically, Defendants note that they have
collected over 2.5 million documents from all 25 ESI custodians, expended an exorbitant
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 5 of 31

- 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
amount of time and dollars reviewing those documents, and have produced nearly 70,000
documents consisting of over 350,000 pages. (Id. at 5.) Defendants assert that requiring
additional search terms would cause great burden and would, in effect, permit Plaintiffs to
embark on a fishing expedition. (Id. at 6); (doc. 288.)
Second, Defendants assert that its search terms have sufficiently provided Plaintiffs
with the documents they seek. (Doc. 258 at 12–13.) In particular, Defendants note that the
150 search terms already employed cover all the theories of liability Plaintiffs assert,
negating the need for any additional search terms. (Id.)
Third, Defendants assert that, through their own statistical testing, its search terms
are not deficient as they have a recall rate of 93%. (Id. at 12.) Instead, the relevancy rate is
at 0.651%, meaning that out of every 1,000 documents collected through the search terms,
only 7 would be responsive. (Id. at 11.) This means, in Defendants’ view, that were they
required to employ additional search terms, they would face a massive burden in having to
review extra documents.3 (Id. at 11–12.)
Fourth, Defendants refute any argument that Plaintiffs should be permitted to
conduct discovery into their discovery metrics and procedures. (Doc. 288.) In particular,
Defendants assert that neither caselaw nor practice supports such a process. (Id.)
III. LEGAL STANDARDS.
The court has broad discretion regarding whether to permit or deny discovery via a
motion to compel. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). Generally,
discoverable evidence is “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant4 to any party’s claim
or defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (emphasis
added).
While a party’s right to discovery is broad, that does not mean that it is limitless.
3 In essence, Defendants assert the proverbial ‘needle in a haystack’ defense.
4 Evidence is considered relevant if: “(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or
less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in
determining the action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. “Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.” Fed.
R. Evid. 402. Further, a court may exclude relevant evidence where its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing the issue in the present case. Fed. R.
Evid. 403.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 6 of 31

- 7 -
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
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). Courts will limit discovery where:
(a) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be
obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome,
or less expensive; (b) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity
to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed
discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)–(iii).
Generally, the party seeking to compel additional discovery bears the burden of
showing that the additional discovery is relevant under Rule 26(b)(1). See Soto v. City of
Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995). Thereafter, the opposing party carries “a
heavy burden” in showing why such discovery request should be denied. Blankenship v.
Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975).
IV. DISCUSSION.
At the request of the parties, the Court will analyze whether each proposed search
term is permissible under Rule 26’s liberal standard in order to determine whether
Defendants shall be required to employ them. Thereafter, the Court will address the matter
of discovery into Defendants’ discovery process.
A. Proposed Search Terms.
The Court shall now address each proposed search term individually to determine
whether Defendants must use them against their ESI custodians’ collections. The Court
shall proceed this way to safeguard Plaintiffs right to discovery while avoiding any
arbitrary imposition of an undue burden upon Defendants.
The Court does not embark upon this course lightly, especially considering the
warning our sister court announced nearly two decades ago:
Whether search terms or ‘keywords’ will yield the information sought is a
complicated question involving the interplay, at least, of the sciences of
computer technology, statistics and linguistics. . . . Indeed, a special project
team of the Working Group on Electronic Discovery of the Sedona
Conference is studying that subject and their work indicates how difficult
this question is. . . . Given this complexity, for lawyers and judges to dare
opine that a certain search term or terms would be more likely to produce
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 7 of 31

- 8 -
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
information than the terms that were used is truly to go where angels fear to
tread.
United States v. O’Keefe, 537 F. Supp. 2d 14, 24 (D.D.C. 2008) (cleaned up). However,
the parties’ exigent need, paired with their request that the Court analyze each search term
independently, necessitates the Court’s term-by-term analysis here.
a. Search Term No. 1.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Retail Sales
Growth
(sale* OR unit* OR retail OR vehicle* OR car OR cars) w/20 (grow*
OR grew OR increas* OR decreas* OR guid* OR projection* OR
trend* OR drove OR driv* OR demand OR “on track” OR behind
OR ahead OR slip* OR gap OR reforecast* OR variance OR bridge
OR plan* OR target OR goal OR forecast OR “YOY” OR
“year*over*” OR higher OR unsustain*)
Plaintiffs’ first proposed search term seeks documents related to retail sales growth.
Plaintiffs assert that this search string is highly relevant for their “Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933 (‘Securities Act’) claims.” (Doc. 272-3 at 2.) Plaintiffs
note that this term has a high hit count of 469,319. (Id. at 3.) But, because of the centrality
of these search terms and the high unique hit rate of 146,954, Plaintiffs argue that this
search is proportional. (Id.)
Defendants argue that this search string is disproportionate in light the 49,000
documents produced containing “Retail Unit Sale*” and “RUS[.]” (Doc. 258 at 13.)
Defendants also, under seal, evince a hefty fiscal burden in being required to run this search
as to all 25 ESI custodians. (Doc. 261-2 at 2.)
Although the Court notes that 54% of the documents Defendants have produced
touch on retail sales growth, and that such a string would entail a sizeable fiscal and
temporal burden, the Court does not find that these factors overcome the relevancy and
proportionality of this search term. See SinglePoint Direct Solar LLC v. Solar Integrated
Roofing Corp., No. CV-21-01076-PHX-JAT, 2023 WL 2585296, at *3 (D. Ariz. Mar. 21,
2023) (“A voluminous ESI case is always going to be burdensome. This is an unfortunate
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 8 of 31

- 9 -
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
reality of ESI heavy, high-dollar commercial cases.”). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is
granted as to search term no. 1.
b. Search Term No. 2.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Purchasing
and Verification
Standards
customer* w/15 (purchas* OR buy* OR bought OR sourc* OR trad*
OR acquir* OR acquisition OR offer*) w/15 (condition OR
standard* OR inspect* OR rating OR rate* OR verif* OR criteri*
OR low* OR poor OR quality OR wholesale OR volume OR lower
OR bad OR trash* OR worth* OR shit* OR junk* OR “any car” OR
“all cars” OR “all vehicles” OR grow* OR grew OR more OR up
OR formula* OR algorithm* OR procedure* OR *valu* OR
*demand OR inventory OR salvag* OR beat* OR wreck* OR scrap*
OR damage* OR inoperable OR market OR inflat*)
Plaintiffs’ second search term “[t]argets the quality of vehicles purchased from
customers, which is central to the allegations that Defendants lowered standards to
artificially inflate growth.” (Doc. 272-3 at 3.) Plaintiffs’ assert that this search term
“represents a modest and manageable review burden. (Id.) Defendants assert that the search
term is “facially overly broad[.]” (Doc. 258 at 15.)
Considering the unique hit count of 6,492 and the relevancy towards Plaintiffs’
assertion of a scheme to lower standards to artificially inflate growth, the Court will grant
Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 2.
c. Search Term No. 3.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Purchasing
and Verification
Standards
(quality OR condition OR grade OR appearance OR standard* OR
“sell to carvana” OR STC) w/10 (track* OR monitor* OR assess*
OR inspect* OR confirm* OR check* OR analy* OR manag* OR
eval* OR test* OR low* OR poor OR bad OR trash* OR worth* OR
shit* OR junk* OR verif* OR reject* OR approv* OR formula* OR
algorithm* OR procedure* OR data OR criteri* OR offer* OR fit
OR valu* OR *demand OR inventory OR salvag* OR wholesale OR
wreck* OR scrap* OR damage* OR inoperable)
Plaintiffs’ third search term seeks to discover documents related to the tracking
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 9 of 31

- 10 -
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
metrics used by Defendants regarding quality of cars purchased from customers. (Doc.
272-3 at 4.) Plaintiffs assert that a unique hit count of 38,973 is not disproportionate. (Id.)
Defendants likewise argue that this term is overly broad, (doc. 258 at 15), asserts that this
search term would cause a massive fiscal burden, and notes that it would have to search
through 217,017 to even find the unique hits. (Doc. 261-2 at 3.)
The Court, considering that “[a]pproximately 54% (37,844) of Defendants’
previous production hit on this string,” (Doc. 272-3 at 4), finds this search term overly
duplicative and burdensome. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i) (“On motion or on its own,
the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules
or by local rule if it determines that . . . the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative
or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive[.]”). Consequently, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion as
to search term no. 3.
d. Search Term No. 4.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Purchasing
and Verification
Standards
Lemon*
Plaintiffs’ fourth search term relates to low quality cars—commonly known as
lemons. (Doc. 272-3 at 4.) Plaintiffs assert that this search would have a de minimis burden,
which may be further mitigated using operators such as “NOT” in its search. (Id.)
Defendants assert that this search is overbroad and may produce such absurd results as “a
receipt referencing Schweppes Lemon[.]” (Doc. 258 at 15.)
While the Court understands that “Lemon*” may result in several absurd results, it
does not find that such absurdity overcomes the relevancy of potential results—with a
prospective unique hit rate of 4,943—Plaintiffs may obtain. See SinglePoint Direct Solar
LLC, 2023 WL 2585296, at *3 (“[T]he fact that a search term is relevant does not eliminate
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 10 of 31

- 11 -
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 possibility that it will produce irrelevant documents. Conversely, the fact that a search
term will produce irrelevant documents does not mean the term should not be used such
that the party seeking discovery will not receive relevant responsive documents merely
because the term produced documents that were not relevant.”). Additionally, the Court
finds Plaintiffs’ argument that using operators in the search will mitigate the return of any
absurd results. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term 4.
e. Search Term No. 5.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Purchasing
and Verification
Standards
inspect* w/15 (poor OR fail OR “not done”)
Plaintiffs’ next search term relates to the quality of vehicles and Defendants’ alleged
failure to inspect vehicles. (Doc. 272-3 at 4.) Plaintiffs argue that, with only 73 unique hits,
the burden on Defendants is “trivial.” (Id.) Defendants assert that this search term is overly
broad. (Doc. 258 at 15.)
Due to the minimal burden upon Defendants considering the size of this class action
case, and considering the relevancy of the prospective documents Plaintiffs will receive,
the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 5.
f. Search Term No. 6.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Purchasing
and Verification
Standards
“no standard*”
Plaintiffs’ next search term relates to the standard—or lack thereof—of vehicles
purchased. (Doc. 272-3 at 5.) Because the Parties’ arguments on search terms nos. 5 & 6
are nearly identical, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 6 for the
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 11 of 31

- 12 -
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
same reasons.5
g. Search Term No. 7.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Purchasing
and Verification
Standards
“kick” or “kicks” or “kick rate*”
Plaintiffs allege that their seventh search term is relevant because “Defendants’
internal documents use these specific terms to track vehicles ‘kicked’ from retail to
wholesale due to poor quality.” (Doc. 272-3 at 5.) Plaintiffs contend that this search term,
which has a potential unique hit count of 29,608, creates a “manageable” burden for
Defendants. (Id.) Defendants assert that this search term is overly broad and would require
them to incur a large fiscal burden in having to run such a search term.
While the Court notes that this search term may return 81,834 total hits, the large
hit count does not overcome its relevancy. Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ prior
statements regarding the usage of operators such as “NOT” informative here because using
such operators would preclude absurd results—i.e., ‘kick a ball.’6 Accordingly, the Court
will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term 7.
h. Search Term No. 8.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Purchasing
and Verification
Standards
customer w/15 (purchas* OR buy* OR bought OR sourc* OR trad*
OR acquir* OR acquisition OR offer*) w/15 (meter OR logistic* OR
profit* OR margin* OR expens* OR “cut back” OR IRC* OR
recondition* OR network* OR wholesale OR volume OR capacity
OR constrain* OR overflow* OR storage OR “third party” OR
“third-party” OR transport* OR pickup* OR “pick up” OR ship* OR
“unit economic*” OR haul* OR distance* OR mile*)
Plaintiffs’ assert that search term 8 is “highly relevant” because it relates to
Defendants’ alleged lowering of purchase and verification standards it employed when
5 See supra section IV.A.f.
6 See supra section IV.A.d.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 12 of 31

- 13 -
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
purchasing vehicles. (Doc. 272-3 at 5.) Plaintiffs assert that, as to proportionality, the 546
unique hits out of 16,112 presents a “manageable burden.” (Id. at 6.) The Court agrees.
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted as to search term no. 8.
i. Search Term No. 9.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Nationwide
Expansion
[For Sell to Carvana Custodians:] meter OR logistic* OR profit* OR
margin* OR expens* OR “cut back” OR IRC* OR recondition* OR
network* OR wholesale OR volume OR capacity OR constrain* OR
overflow* OR storage OR park* OR “third party” OR “third-party”
OR production OR transport* OR pickup* OR “pick up” OR ship*
OR “unit economic*” OR haul* OR distance* OR mile*
Plaintiffs argue their ninth search term is relevant as it “[t]argets highly relevant
documents concerning [Defendants’] alleged relaxing of its purchasing and verification
standards. (Id.) Plaintiffs assert that, as to proportionality, this search term’s return of
48,046 unique hits, alongside its “central importance,” militates against any finding of
undue burden. (Id.)
The Court, seeing that of the 48,046 total hits, all are considered unique hits, finds
this search term relevant and proportional. (Doc. 259-2 at 4.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’
Motion is granted as to search term no. 9.
j. Search Term No. 10.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Nationwide
Expansion
logistic* w/15 (wholesale OR volume OR capacity OR constrain*
OR *”third party” OR “third-party” OR production OR transport*
OR haul OR pickup* OR “pick up” OR ship* OR distance OR mile*
OR expens* OR “unit economic*”)
Plaintiffs assert that their tenth search term is relevant because it “[t]argets
allegations that Defendants spearheaded nationwide expansion without regard to
profitability, stretching Carvana’s logistics network to the breaking point.” (Doc. 272-3 at
7.) Plaintiffs’ assert, because this search term is “exceptionally narrow,” that requiring
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 13 of 31

- 14 -
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
Defendants to run this search term would not be disproportionate in this action. (Id.)
The Court, finding that this search term would return relevant documents at the heart
of Plaintiffs’ nationwide expansion allegation, will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search
term no. 10.
k. Search Term No. 11.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Nationwide
Expansion
(market* OR state* OR region* OR northwest OR pacific OR
nationwide) w/15 (launch* OR new OR expan*)
Plaintiffs’ eleventh search term is aimed at finding ESI documents related to
Defendants’ expansion efforts. (Id.) Plaintiffs argue that requiring Defendants to search
through 280,632 total hits—with a unique hit rate of 60,411—is proportional “given that
expansion was a primary driver of the alleged fraud.” (Id.) Defendants assert that such a
search term would create a heavy fiscal burden and would produce numerous irrelevant
documents to Plaintiffs’ underlying allegations. See (doc. 258 at 16); see also (doc. 261-2
at 5.)
While the Court is sympathetic to Defendants’ arguments regarding burden, the
Court does not find that this search term imposes a disproportionate burden. It should be
of no surprise that in a large ESI-focused litigation, discovery would be vast. See Garner
v. Amazon.co, Inc., No. C21-0750RSL, 2022 WL 16553158, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31,
2022) (“While the scope of the production is undoubtedly vast, so too are the claims and
damages at issue.”); see also SinglePoint Direct Solar LLC, 2023 WL 2585296, at *3
(“However, the Court cannot say, given what is at stake, that the burden of document
review is so high as to warrant denying Defendants relevant discovery.”). Because search
term no. 11 would discover evidence that is highly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims, the Court
overrules Defendants’ objection and grants Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 11.
//
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 14 of 31

- 15 -
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
l. Search Term No. 12.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Nationwide
Expansion
((market* OR state* OR region* OR northwest OR pacific OR
nationwide) AND (launch* OR new OR expan*)) w/15 (distan* OR
mile* OR transport* OR logistic* OR network* OR hub OR IRC
OR “third part*” OR “third-part*” OR profit* OR cost* OR margin*
OR expense* OR inventory OR far OR transport* OR haul OR
pickup* OR ship* OR meter* OR constrain* OR “cut back” OR
decreas* OR strain*)
Plaintiffs’ next search term covers similar grounds as search term no. 11. See (doc.
272-3 at 7–8.) Because of this finding, the Court is unwilling to require a search term that
would be “unreasonably . . . duplicative[.]” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). Accordingly,
the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 12.
m. Search Term No. 13.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Nationwide
Expansion
ADESA*
Plaintiffs’ next search term “[t]argets the $4.5 billion acquisition used to ‘fix’
Carvana’s broken infrastructure—a central event in the Class Period.” (Doc. 272-3 at 8.)
Defendants assert that this search term is sufficiently covered by “six broad search strings
designed to return documents concerning Carvana’s business strategy of nationwide
expansion, including, for example, . . . ADESA[.]” (Doc. 258 at 15.)
Although the Court takes note of the fiscal burden Defendants would incur by
having to run this search term, the burden does not appear to be disproportionate to the
needs of this case. Additionally, considering the relevancy of ADESA in the timeline of
the class period, the Court finds that the scale weighs in favor of Plaintiffs on this matter.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted as to search term no. 13.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 15 of 31

- 16 -
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
n. Search Term No. 14.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Nationwide
Expansion
“MTCon*” or “Midterm contribution*” or “Mid-term
contribution*”
Plaintiffs’ fourteenth search term appears to be relevant to Plaintiffs’ nationwide
expansion claims. Furthermore, it appears to present a de minimis burden on Defendants,
considering that the search term returns only 2,264 total hits, of which 327 are unique hits.
(Doc. 259-2 at 5.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted as to search term no. 14.
o. Search Term No. 15.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Sham
Transactions
with DriveTime
Automotive
Group, Inc. and
Other Related-
Party
Transactions
with Ernest
Garcia II
DriveTime* OR DT* OR “Drive Time*”
Plaintiffs’ fifteenth search term targets “related-party deals with Garcia Sr.’s
DriveTime . . . [which] are central to Plaintiffs’ claims.” (Doc. 272-3 at 9.) Plaintiffs
contend that such a search is proportional due to the 27,460 unique hits based off of the
search term. (Id.)
Defendants assert that this search term is “facially overbroad,” seeking about
193,085 total hits plus families—which, in Defendants position, is disproportionate and
amounts to an unduly burden (Doc. 258 at 17.) Defendants further contend that they have
already produced 2,459 documents and are reviewing another 4,336 to potential hand over.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 16 of 31

- 17 -
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
(Id. at 16–17.)
Considering Plaintiffs’ broad right to discovery, the highly relevant nature of the
search term to Plaintiffs’ related-party transaction allegations, and Defendants’ “heavy
burden” to establish why discovery should be denied, Blankenship, 519 F.2d at 429, the
Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 15.
p. Search Term No. 16.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Sham
Transactions
with DriveTime
Automotive
Group, Inc. and
Other Related-
Party
Transactions
with Ernest
Garcia II
Bridgecrest*
Plaintiffs’ sixteenth search term similarly relates to Plaintiffs’ related-party
transaction allegations. (Doc. 272-3 at 9.) The search term here relates to a related-
transactions that—Plaintiffs allege—“were admittedly not negotiated at arm’s length . . .
with Garcia Sr.’s Bridgecrest.” (Id.) Plaintiffs further assert that, because out of 21,796
total hits, there is expected to be 3,886 unique hits, it is a proportional and “manageable
burden.” (Id. at 10.) Defendants respond that “search strings includ[ing] the terms
‘Bridgecrest*’ and ‘Verde,*’” are irrelevant because they are non-parties to this action.
(Doc. 258 at 17.)
Because this search string seeks relevant related-party transactions with a limited
number of total hits, Defendant has a heavy burden in seeking to prevent this search term’s
implementation. Defendants do not meet their heavy burden here. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’
Motion is granted as to search term no. 16.
//
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 17 of 31

- 18 -
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
q. Search Term No. 17.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Sham
Transactions
with DriveTime
Automotive
Group, Inc. and
Other Related-
Party
Transactions
with Ernest
Garcia II
Verde*
The Court, for the same reasons as search term no. 16,7 will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion
as to search term no. 17.
r. Search Term No. 18.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to T&R
(“NC”) w/5 (“situation*” OR issue* OR “suspen*” OR “penal*” OR
“problem*” OR “fine*” OR “investigat*” OR “violat*” OR
complain* OR TOP OR TOPS OR complian* OR noncomplian* OR
comply* OR goodwill OR reputation* OR privilege* OR fraud* OR
probat* OR revocat* OR revok*)
In light of the parties’ filings, the Court need not scrutinize Plaintiffs’ T&R search
terms in-depth. Because Plaintiffs note that 89% of the documents Defendants have
produced relate to T&R, to require any further T&R search terms would be
disproportionate and “unreasonably cumulative[.]” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 18.
//
///
//
///
7 See supra section IV.A.p.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 18 of 31

- 19 -
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
s. Search Term No. 19.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to T&R
“IL” w/3 (situation* OR issue* OR “suspen*” OR “penal*” OR
“problem*” OR “fine*” OR “investigat*” OR “violat*” OR
complian* OR noncomplian* OR comply* OR goodwill OR
reputation* OR privilege* OR fraud* OR probat* OR revocat* OR
revok*)
For the same reason as the preceding search term,8 the Court will deny Plaintiffs’
Motion as to search term no. 19.
t. Search Term No. 20.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to T&R
((risk OR risks) w/3 disclos*) AND (10-K OR 10K OR 10-Q OR
10Q OR SEC OR “annual report” OR investor*)
For the same reason as search term no. 18,9 the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion
as to search term no. 20.
u. Search Term No. 21.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to T&R
Buffer* OR cushion*
For the same reason as search term no. 18,10 the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion
as to search term no. 21.
//
//
8 See supra section IV.A.r.
9 See supra section IV.A.r.
10 See supra section IV.A.r.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 19 of 31

- 20 -
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
v. Search Term No. 22.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Motive
(Ernie* OR Ernest* OR Garcia* OR Mark* OR Jenkins* OR CEO
OR CFO) w/25 (compensat* OR salar* OR bonus* OR severance
OR incentive* OR award* OR eligib* OR *equit* OR option* OR
performance OR “RSU*” OR “PBU*” OR KPI* OR claw* OR
grant* OR target* OR vest* OR defer* OR pension OR parachute*
OR perk*)
Plaintiffs’ twenty-second search term relates to Garcia Jr.’s and Jenkins’s motive,
asserting that it is relevant and proportional because “[a]pproximately 29% (20,236) of
Defendants’ previous production hit on this string[.]” (Doc. 272-3 at 12.) Defendants assert
a high time and dollar burden in having to run this search string. See (doc. 259-2 at 8); see
also (doc. 261-2 at 8.) The Court finds Defendants’ objection well founded. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ Motion is denied as to search term no. 22.
w. Search Term No. 23.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Motive
[For Garcia Jr. and Jenkins:] (compens* OR comp OR salar* OR
bonus* OR severance OR incentive* OR *equit* OR
“perform*based” OR “performance based” OR “RSU*” OR
“PBU*” OR KPI* OR “key performance” OR pension OR “key
strategic goal*” OR parachute* OR perk*)
Plaintiffs assert that their twenty-third search string is “highly relevant” to their
security fraud claims as it is relevant to establishing Garcia Jr.’s scienter—an element of a
security fraud claim. (Doc. 272-3 at 13.) Defendants assert that such a search string
amounts to “an impermissible fishing expedition[.]” (Doc. 258 at 20.) The Court agrees
with Plaintiffs here. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted as to search term no. 23.
//
///
//
///
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 20 of 31

- 21 -
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
x. Search Term No. 24.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Motive
[For Garcia Jr. and Jenkins:] (sell* OR trade* OR trading OR
transact*) w/ 20 (stock OR share*)
Because this search string likewise relates to scienter of Garcia Jr. and Jenkins, the
Court finds—for the same reason as search string no. 23—that this search string is highly
relevant and proportional to Plaintiffs’ claims and defenses.11 Therefore, the Court will
grant Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search string no. 24.
y. Search Term No. 25.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Motive
[For Garcia Jr. and Jenkins:] “10b5*1” OR “trading plan*”
Because this search string likewise relates to scienter of Garcia Jr. and Jenkins, the
Court finds—for the same reason as search string no. 23—that this search string is highly
relevant and proportional to Plaintiffs’ claims and defenses.12 Therefore, the Court will
grant Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search string no. 25.
z. Search Term No. 26.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Motive
[For Garcia Jr. and Jenkins:] Plan* w/10 ((chang* OR terminat* OR
cancel* OR outside) AND (stock* OR share* OR sell* OR sale* OR
trad*))
Because this search string likewise relates to scienter of Garcia Jr. and Jenkins, the
11 See supra section IV.A.w.
12 See supra section IV.A.w.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 21 of 31

- 22 -
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
Court finds—for the same reason as search string no. 23—that this search string is highly
relevant and proportional to Plaintiffs’ claims and defenses.13 Therefore, the Court will
grant Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search string no. 26.
aa. Search Term No. 27.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Motive
[From September 1, 2022 through February 1, 2023:] (Levin*) w/20
(fir* OR terminat* OR leave* OR canned OR dismiss* OR resign*
OR sacked OR retir* OR (step* down) OR oust* OR “let go” OR
depart* OR “for cause” OR “without cause” OR separat* OR boot*)
Plaintiffs’ twenty-seventh search term relates to Mike Levin, who was Carvana’s
“head of Investor Relations during the Class period . . . [and] was also the speaker for one
of the upheld title-and-registration misstatements.” (Doc. 272-3 at 13.) As to
proportionality, Plaintiffs assert that this search term creates a de minimis burden on
Defendants. (Id.) Defendants’ assert undue fiscal burden in objecting to this request. See
(doc. 258 at 20); see also (doc. 261-2 at 9.)
The Court finds that this search term is relevant, proportional, and does not result in
an undue fiscal burden on Defendants considering this high-dollar securities class-action
case. Accordingly, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 27.
bb. Search Term No. 28.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Motive
[For Mike Levin, from September 1, 2022 through February 1,
2023:] (“separation agreement” OR leave* OR retir* OR resign* OR
severance OR fir* OR terminat* OR “step* down” OR “for cause”
OR “without cause” OR quit*)
For the same reasons as search term no. 27, the Court does not find that fiscal burden
overcomes the search term’s relevancy and “manageable burden” on Defendants. See (doc.
272-3 at 14.) Hence, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 28.
13 See supra section IV.A.w.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 22 of 31

- 23 -
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
cc. Search Term No. 29.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Carvana’s
April 2022
Offering
(Offering OR Cactus) w/20 (“solicit*” OR “issue*” OR “sell*” OR
“dilig*”)
Plaintiffs assert that their twenty-ninth search term is “highly relevant” because it
concerns “Carvana’s 2022 secondary stock offering, which the [Defendants] referred to
internally as ‘Project Cactus.’” (Id.) Plaintiffs assert that, with a unique hit count of 437,
this amounts to a trivial burden on Defendants. (Id.) The Court agrees that this search string
is relevant and proportional. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted as to search string
no. 29.
dd. Search Term No. 30.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Carvana’s
April 2022
Offering
[For the period January 1, 2022 to April 30, 2022:] (Offering or
Cactus) AND (underwrit* OR “bring down” OR roadshow*)
For the same reasons as the preceding search string, the Court grants Plaintiffs’
Motion as to search string no. 30.
//
///
//
///
//
///
//
///
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 23 of 31

- 24 -
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
ee. Search Term No. 31.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Carvana’s
April 2022
Offering
[In any of the To, From, CC, or BCC fields:]
christian.anderson@citi.com OR brian.yick@citi.com OR
andrew.cuthill@citi.com OR nicholas.landi@citi.com OR
ryan.bott@citi.com OR alan.dockeray@citi.com OR
christian.berardo@citi.com OR salman.karim@citi.com OR
paul.abrahimzadeh@citi.com OR brian.deleo@citi.com OR
alex.zelinski@citi.com OR tyler.shaw@citi.com OR
patrick.korth@citi.com OR richard.chand@citi.com OR
gabriel.xia@citi.com OR janelle.c.mosley@citi.com OR
juliette.lagasi@citi.com OR matthew.donovan@citi.com OR
ronald.josey@citi.com OR nicholas.jones@citi.com
Plaintiffs’ thirty-first search string attempts to gain relevant communications with
personnel from “[D]efendant Citigroup . . . who served as an underwriter of Carvana’s
2022 secondary stock option.” (Id. at 15.) Plaintiffs assert that, with a unique hit count of
472, this search presents a de minimis burden on Defendants. The Court agrees. Therefore,
the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search string no. 31.
ff. Search Term No. 32.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Carvana’s
April 2022
Offering
(Carvana* OR CVNA*) AND (“Davis Polk” OR *davispolk.com
OR Denenberg* OR Gould* OR (Travis* w/3 Mitchell*) OR Lian*
OR Azzopardi* OR Kipnis* OR (Brad* w/3 Sherman*) OR
Verdolini*)
Plaintiffs’ thirty-second search string seeks communications with personnel from
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP who were involved in Carvana’s 2022 secondary stock
offering. (Id.) The Court notes that this search string seeks communications from attorneys,
which almost certainly encompass attorney-client privileged communications and
documents. The Court, because this search string seeks privileged and potentially irrelevant
communications and documentation, will accordingly deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search
string no. 32.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 24 of 31

- 25 -
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
gg. Search Term No. 33.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Carvana’s
April 2022
Offering
(Carvana* OR CVNA* OR *@carvana.com) AND (“K&E” OR
*Kirkland.com OR Goedert*)
Because this search string likewise seeks communications with attorneys,14 the
Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search string no. 33.
hh.Search Term No. 34.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Stock Price
Movements and
Analyst
Communications
(stock* OR share*) w/10 (up OR down* OR price OR target* OR
consensus)
Plaintiffs’ thirty-fourth search string seeks information related to the impact of
Defendants’ alleged fraud on their stock price. (Id. at 16.) The Court finds that this search
term is facially overbroad and would unduly burden Defendants both fiscally and
temporally. See (doc. 261-2 at 11.) Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as
to search term no. 34.
ii. Search Term No. 35.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Stock Price
Movements and
Analyst
Communications
(market OR analyst* OR Street) w/10 (react* OR disappoint* OR
surpris* OR downgrad* OR ((lower* OR reduc*) w/3 rating*) OR
miss*)
Plaintiffs’ thirty-fifth search string likewise seeks information related to the impact
of Defendants’ alleged fraud on their stock price. (Id. at 16.) However, because this search
14 See supra section IV.A.ff.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 25 of 31

- 26 -
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
string is narrower and presents a smaller fiscal and temporal burden on Defendants, the
Court finds it proportional to Plaintiffs’ needs in this action. Therefore, the Court will grant
Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 35.
jj. Search Term No. 36.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Stock Price
Movements and
Analyst
Communications
john.blackledge@cowen.com OR william.kerr@cowen.com OR
james.kopelman@cowen.com OR logan.whalley@cowen.com OR
sdyer@craig-hallum.com OR ryan.sigdahl@craig-hallum.com OR
matthew.wegner@craig-hallum.com OR mbaker@dadco.com OR
khallberg@dadco.com OR kcox@dadco.com OR
MHayes@dadco.com OR james.musker@davyuk.com OR
david.reynolds@davyuk.com OR alex.short@davyuk.com OR
christopher.allan@davyuk.com
The court will apply the following analysis for search term no. 36 to search terms
nos. 37–43. Plaintiffs’ search term targets “securities analysts who covered Carvana stock,
and the reports detailing analysts’ reactions to Carvana’s disclosures, which are highly
relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.” (Id. at 17.) Plaintiffs note that this search term presents a
manageable burden—regarding this search string, it results in 207 unique hits. (Id.)
Defendants assert that this search string amounts to a “fishing expedition,” and in any
event, they have already handed over documents that detail “robust market-reaction and
analyst terms,” so this string is cumulative. (Doc. 258 at 19.) The Court finds that, due to
the minimal burden and relevancy to this case, the search term is permissible here.
Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 36.
//
///
//
///
//
///
//
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 26 of 31

- 27 -
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
kk. Search Term No. 37.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Stock Price
Movements and
Analyst
Communications
berickson@needhamco.com OR cpierce@needhamco.com OR
bmcternan@needhamco.com OR emmanuel.rosner@db.com OR
edison.yu@db.com OR conor-e.walters@db.com OR
Brian.Nagel@opco.com OR William.Dossett@opco.com OR
Andrew.Chasanoff@opco.com
For the same reason as search term no. 36,15 the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion
as to search term no. 37.
ll. Search Term No. 38.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Stock Price
Movements and
Analyst
Communications
Naved.Khan@truist.com OR Youssef.Squali@truist.com OR
Robert.Zeller@truist.com OR Daniel.Speed@truist.com OR
Nicholas.Cronin@truist.com OR Kibin.Kim@truist.com OR
Anthony.Hau@truist.com OR Zachary.Fadem@wellsfargo.com OR
Sam.Reid@wellsfargo.com OR David.Lantz@wellsfargo.com OR
John.Parke@wellsfargo.com OR Seth.Basham@wedbush.com OR
Nathan.Friedman@wedbush.com OR
matthew.mccartney@wedbush.com OR szackfia@williamblair.com
OR tanderson@williamblair.com OR
gbadishkanian@wolferesearch.com OR clee@wolferesearch.com
OR tharbauer@wolferesearch.com OR jmoser@wolferesearch.com
OR sstringer@wolferesearch.com
For the same reason as search term no. 36,16 the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion
as to search term no. 38.
//
///
//
///
//
///
15 See supra section IV.A.jj.
16 See supra section IV.A.jj.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 27 of 31

- 28 -
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
mm. Search Term No. 39.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Stock Price
Movements and
Analyst
Communications
Michael.Montani@evercoreisi.com OR
brandon.dempster@evercoreisi.com OR
greg.melich@evercoreisi.com OR
Daniel.Solomon@evercoreISI.com OR jcolantuoni@jefferies.com
OR bthill@jefferies.com
For the same reason as search term no. 36,17 the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion
as to search term no. 39.
nn.Search Term No. 40.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Stock Price
Movements and
Analyst
Communications
alexander.potter@psc.com OR ben.johnson@psc.com OR
winnie.dong@psc.com OR jack.kessler@psc.com OR
brad.erickson@rbccm.com OR logan.reich@rbccm.com OR
vincent.caintic@stephens.com OR daniel.imbro@stephens.com OR
rnelson@stephens.com OR mward@benchmarkcompany.com
For the same reason as search term no. 36,18 the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion
as to search term no. 40.
oo. Search Term No. 41.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Stock Price
Movements and
Analyst
Communications
chris.bottiglieri@exanebnpparibas.com OR
stephen.mcmanus@exanebnpparibas.com OR
ian.davis@exanebnpparibas.com OR
nathaniel.schindler@bofa.com OR vincent-peer.huebner@bofa.com
OR jen.shi@bofa.com OR garrett.nelson@cfraresearch.com
For the same reason as search term no. 36,19 the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion
as to search term no. 41.
//
//
17 See supra section IV.A.jj.
18 See supra section IV.A.jj.
19 See supra section IV.A.jj.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 28 of 31

- 29 -
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
pp. Search Term No. 42.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Stock Price
Movements and
Analyst
Communications
njones@jmpsecurities.com OR tshubsda@jmpsecurities.com OR
rjosey@jmpsecurities.com OR aboone@jmpsecurities.com
For the same reason as search term no. 36,20 the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion
as to search term no. 42.
qq. Search Term No. 43.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to Stock Price
Movements and
Analyst
Communications
Adam.Jonas@morganstanley.com OR
Armintas.Sinkevicius@morganstanley.com OR
Evan.Silverberg@morganstanley.com OR
Daniela.Haigian@morganstanley.com OR
Matias.Ovrum@morganstanley.com
For the same reason as search term no. 36,21 the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion
as to search term no. 43.
rr. Search Term No. 44.
Area of
Coverage Proposed Search Term
Terms Relating
to
Communications
with the SEC
[in To/From/CC/BCC Fields:] *@sec.gov
Plaintiffs’ final search string “[t]argets information regarding the SEC’s
investigation into Carvana’s related-party transactions with DriveTime and other entities
owned by Garcia Sr.” (Doc. 272-3 at 19.) The Court, finding this search term to be overly
generic and encompassing documents already provided by Defendants after this Court’s
January 14, 2026, Order (doc. 264), will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as to search term no. 44.
20 See supra section IV.A.jj.
21 See supra section IV.A.jj.
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 29 of 31

- 30 -
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
B. Discovery-On-Discovery.
During oral arguments, Plaintiffs requested discovery into Defendants’ discovery
process, such as the metrics used in running search terms through Defendants’ ESI
custodian’s ESI collections. See (doc. 288.) Defendants objected to this request, asserting
that neither caselaw nor the facts of this case would permit such a request. (Id.) The Court
agrees with Defendants. As our sister court has held, “Discovery into another party’s
discovery process is disfavored” and should only be granted “where there is some
indication that a party’s discovery has been insufficient or deficient.” Jensen v. BMW of N.
Am., LLC, 328 F.R.D. 557, 566 (S.D. Cal. 2019). Because Plaintiffs have not made the
requisite showing that Defendants’ discovery has been insufficient or deficient, the Court
will sustain Defendants’ objection.
V. CONCLUSION.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Defendants to Use Lead Plaintiffs’ Proposed Search Terms (doc. 244) in part and deny
the motion in part. Specifically, the Court will require Defendants to run search terms 1–
2, 4–11, 13–17, 23–31, 35–43 through 15 ESI custodians’ ESI collections. This process
shall be bifurcated, whereby 5 ESI custodians’ collections shall be searched, and
Defendants shall produce responsive and non-privileged documents, emails, and family
units, on or before March 15, 2026. Thereafter, 10 ESI custodians’ collections shall be
searched, and Defendants shall produce responsive and non-privileged documents, emails,
and family units, on or before June 12, 2026. Plaintiffs shall choose the 15 ESI custodians
whose collections shall be searched, including the ability to choose the 5 ESI custodians
whose collections shall be searched first.
Plaintiffs shall not be permitted to select any additional ESI custodians in this
action. Furthermore, the Court shall not require Defendants to provide Plaintiffs with
discovery into its discovery process.
//
//
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 30 of 31

- 31 -
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
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants to Use Lead
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Search Terms (doc. 244) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL RUN SEARCH TERMS
1–2, 4–11, 13–17, 23–31, 35–43 through 15 ESI CUSTODIANS’ ESI COLLECTIONS.
Plaintiffs SHALL select the 15 ESI custodians to be searched on or before FEBRUARY
6, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL PRODUCE responsive
and non-privileged documents, emails, and family units, on or before MARCH 15, 2026,
for FIVE ESI CUSTODIANS’ COLLECTIONS. Plaintiffs shall select the five ESI
custodians to be searched on or before FEBRUARY 6, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants SHALL PRODUCE responsive
and non-privileged documents, emails, and family units, on or before JUNE 12, 2026, for
TEN ESI CUSTODIANS’ COLLECTIONS. Plaintiffs shall select the ten ESI
custodians to be searched on or before FEBRUARY 6, 2026.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs SHALL NOT be permitted to select
any additional ESI custodians in this action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if a dispute arises as to the production of
documents and communications in response to this Order, the parties SHALL MEET
AND CONFER IN GOOD FAITH to resolve the dispute. AS A LAST RESORT, the
parties MAY submit their dispute to this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in all other respects, Plaintiffs’ Motion is
DENIED.
Dated this 2nd day of February, 2026.
Honorable John Z. Boyle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 298 Filed 02/02/26 Page 31 of 31