Sparta Consulting, Inc. v. Copart, Inc.

Filing 246

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/2/17 GRANTING Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Copart, Inc.'s Request to Seal certain exhibits submitted in support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

COPART, INC.,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15
16
17

Case No: 2:14-CV-00046-KJM-CKD

SPARTA CONSULTING, INC., KPIT
INFOSYSTEMS, INC., and KPIT
TECHNOLOGIES, LTD.,

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF/COUNTERDEFENDANT
COPART, INC.’S REQUEST TO SEAL
CERTAIN EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.
___________________________________

18
SPARTA CONSULTING, INC.,
19
Counterplaintiff,

20
21

v.

22

COPART, INC.,

23

Counterdefendant.

24
25
26
27
28

Having considered Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Copart, Inc.’s Request To Seal Portions of
Certain Exhibits Submitted in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and the
papers filed in relation thereto, and finding compelling reasons therefor:
1

1

Copart’s request to seal is HEREBY GRANTED as explained below.

2

The court finds that the portions of the Expert Report of Michael Shamos (“Shamos

3

Report”) highlighted in Exhibit A to the Declaration of Dianne Yassa in support of Copart’s

4

request to seal disclose the detailed technical specifications, including the software source code,

5

for the Copart imaging technology that forms the basis of Copart’s trade secrets claims in this

6

action. Preventing disclosure of trade secret information is a “compelling reason” justifying the

7

sealing of documents. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.

8

2006). Copart’s request to seal is narrowly tailored to seal only the information in the Shamos

9

report that discloses Copart’s claimed trade secrets.

10

The portions of the deposition of Jayson Adair highlighted in Exhibit C to the Yassa

11

Declaration (“Adair Testimony”) discuss Copart’s confidential settlement negotiations and

12

agreement with third party Accenture, Inc. Sealing is appropriate here, particularly because the

13

confidential settlement agreement between Copart and Accenture was of a purely commercial

14

dispute that did not implicate the public interest. Salazar v. Sysco Cent. California, Inc.,

15

No. 1:15-CV-01758-DAD-SKO, 2017 WL 68114, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2017). Copart’s

16

sealing request is narrowly tailored, targeting portions of six pages of deposition testimony.

17

Therefore, the court approves Copart’s request to file under seal the portions of the

18

Shamos Report and Adair Testimony identified in Exhibits A and C to the Yassa Declaration,

19

respectively. At the same time, consistent with Local Rule 140, the parties shall file redacted

20

versions of the Shamos Report and Adair Testimony on the public docket, reflecting redactions

21

identified in Exhibits B and D to the Yassa Declaration.

22

This order does not predetermine sealing for the purposes of trial. In addition, the court

23

may revisit this order if it determines certain information should be disclosed to properly resolve

24

the motions for summary judgment in a public order.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 2, 2017

27
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2