9th Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Civil) 18.7

The plaintiff [name] does not have to prove that [he] [she] [other pronoun] justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentation or omission in deciding to [purchase] [sell] the [security] [securities] in question if [he] [she] [other pronoun] proves by a preponderance of the evidence that there was an active, open market in the [security] [securities] at the time of the transaction[s] in question. An “active, open market” means that there were a large number of traders, a high level of activity, and frequent trades, such that the price of the security immediately reflects all publicly available information.

If you find that the plaintiff [name] has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) an active, open market for the [security] [securities] existed at the time of the transaction[s] in question and (2) investors reasonably relied on that market as an accurate reflection of the current market value of the [security] [securities], you may find that the plaintiff [name] has proved that [he] [she] [other pronoun] justifiably relied on the defendant [name]’s statements.

If, however, the defendant [name] proves by a preponderance of the evidence either that (1) the plaintiff [name] did not actually rely on the integrity of the market or (2) the alleged misrepresentation or omission did not affect the market price of the security, then the defendant [name] has rebutted any presumption that the plaintiff [name] relied on the market. In that event, the plaintiff [name] must then prove that [he] [she] [other pronoun] justifiably relied directly on the alleged misrepresentation or omission.