In re Carvana Co Securities Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United Association National )
Pension Fund, et al., ) CASE NO. CV-22-02126-PHX-MTL
)
Plaintiffs, ) SPECIAL MASTER COHEN
)
v. ) RESPONSE REGARDING
) CARVANA’S SUBMISSION AT
Carvana Company, et al., ) DOCKET NO. 581
)
Defendants. )
On July 20, 2026, the undersigned filed an Updated Ruling In Light of Carvana’s Objection
to Prior Tranche One Document Rulings (docket no. 574). In footnotes 2 and 3 of that Updated
Ruling, the Special Master identified unacknowledged changes in Carvana’s redactions to two
documents it had submitted to the Special Master. Specifically, when Carvana first submitted, for
review by the undersigned, Exhibits 7 & 8 to docket no. 562, Carvana set forth certain proposed
limited redactions; but when Carvana submitted the same documents to the Court with its Objection,
Carvana included additional proposed redactions without declaring any changes. See Updated Ruling
at 7 n.2 & 9 n.3 (detailing these facts); see also Decl. of M. Peters at 2 (docket no. 581-1, ¶7) (“The
unintentional result of this error was that the versions of the documents submitted to Judge Boyle
contained broader redactions than the versions submitted to the Special Master.”).
In the Updated Ruling, the Special Master characterized these modifications as “confusing”
and wrote it appeared the change in redaction “was not simple inadvertence and is troubling.” Id.
at 9 n.3. The Special Master added that the Court’s Order directing the undersigned to re-review the
documents at issue “cannot be read to permit Carvana to add new redactions that were not asserted
previously.” Id.
After the undersigned filed the Updated Ruling, counsel for Carvana contacted the Special
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 585 Filed 07/28/26 Page 1 of 2

Master (with permission to do so ex parte) to explain what happened. The Special Master suggested
Carvana should file on the Court’s docket an explanatory declaration, which it did. See docket no.
581-1.
In light of the oral and written explanations provided by Carvana, the Special Master is
satisfied that the changed redactions in Exhibits 7 & 8 were, in fact, inadvertent, and Carvana was
not trying to add new redactions it had not previously asserted. The Special Master’s original
conclusion was misplaced, as it was based on the incorrect belief that Carvana had only one version
of redacted documents on its privilege log, which it had already produced to plaintiffs.
That said, it remains true “that, if the Court had simply reviewed Carvana’s Objection
without referring the matter back to the undersigned, the Court could not have known it was being
asked to review different redactions than what had been originally presented to the Special Master.”
Updated Ruling at 9 n.3. And it is clear this mistake, while apparently honest, nonetheless avoidably
consumed the time and attention of counsel for both sides and the undersigned.
Given that Carvana is in the midst of a re-review of all of the documents listed on its
privilege log, which may lead to creation of yet another version of redactions for many documents,
the Special Master is confident Carvana will be more careful going forward when it submits
challenged documents and ensure it is providing the correct version to the Special Master, the Court,
and plaintiffs.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
/s/ David R. Cohen
David R. Cohen
Special Master
Dated: July 28, 2026
2
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 585 Filed 07/28/26 Page 2 of 2