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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?