Sparta Consulting, Inc. v. Copart, Inc.

Filing 154

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/20/2016 ACCORDINGLY the court DENIES Copart's sealing request. Defendants are directed to publicly file their opposition to the sealing request on the docket. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COPART, INC.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

SPARTA CONSULTING, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

On August 17, 2016, the court issued an Amended Status (Pretrial Scheduling)

19

Order, which set a new case schedule and addressed other pretrial issues, including the scope of

20

discovery on the new claims added in the Third Amended Complaint. Am. Status Order, ECF

21

No. 140. On August 30, 2016, plaintiff/counter-defendant Copart, Inc. filed objections to the

22

Order, requesting that the court continue most of the deadlines in the schedule, and requesting

23

certain “clarifications” on the allowed scope of discovery. Pl.’s Objections, ECF No. 143.

24

Copart also filed a request to seal Exhibits D, E, F, G, H, and I to the declaration of Jason S.

25

Takenouchi submitted in support of the objections. Req. Seal, ECF No. 144.

26

Defendants/counter-plaintiffs responded to Copart’s objections and opposed Copart’s sealing

27

request. Defs.’ Resp. Objections, ECF No. 147. Copart replied. Pl.’s Reply, ECF No. 148.

28
1

1

Having considered the parties’ filings, the court finds Copart has not shown good

2

cause for the requested modifications to the schedule, especially in light of the recent

3

developments in discovery. See Discovery Order, Aug. 31, 2016, ECF No. 146; Llewellyn Decl.

4

¶ 4 & Ex. B. Copart’s objections are OVERRULED and the Amended Status Order is now final.

5

Any remaining and future discovery disputes shall be resolved by the magistrate judge as

6

provided by Local Rule 302(c)(1).

7
8

In addition, the court DECLINES to “clarify” the issues raised by the objections.
The court’s Amended Status Order speaks for itself.

9

Finally, although Copart has provided more support than in the past, the court

10

finds Copart still has not made a “particularized showing of ‘good cause’” for its request for

11

blanket sealing. See Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. 11-0881, 2012 WL 3638467,

12

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2012); see also Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

13

1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the court DENIES Copart’s sealing request. See Nixon v.

14

Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Defendants are directed to publicly file their

15

opposition to the sealing request on the docket.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 20, 2016

18
19
20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2