Computer Sciences Corporation v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited et al

Filing 458

Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 407 Amended Motion for Leave to File Unseal, granting 414 Motion for Leave to File Under Seal. The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk of Court to seal Doc. 398-3 but file the rest of Doc. 398 and additional exhibits on the public record. Furthermore, because TCS has already filed a public version of its Opposition and Appendix with Exhibit 12 redacted, the Court ORDERS that Doc. 414 remain under seal. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 11/6/2023) (agc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
COMPUTER SCIENCES
CORPORATION,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiff,
v.
TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES
LIMITED, et al.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-0970-X

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff Computer Sciences Corporation’s (“CSC”)
amended motion for leave to file under seal, (Doc. 407), and Defendants Tata
Consultancy Services Limited and Tata America International Corporation’s
(collectively, “TCS”) motion for leave to file under seal, (Doc. 414). The Court has
analyzed the proposed sealed documents line-by-line and page-by-page, weighing the
public’s right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure. After reviewing
the motions, the Court GRANTS both motions. (Doc. 407 & Doc. 414).
I.

Legal Standards

The Court takes very seriously its duty to protect the public’s access to judicial
records. 1 Transparency in judicial proceedings is a fundamental element of the rule
of law—so fundamental that sealing and unsealing orders are immediately

1

See Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2021).

1

appealable under the collateral-order doctrine. 2 The public’s right to access judicial
records is independent from—and sometimes even adverse to—the parties’ interest. 3
That’s why the judge must serve as the representative of the people and, indeed, the
First Amendment, in scrutinizing requests to seal.
Litigants may very well have a legitimate interest in confidential discovery
secured by a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). However,
“[t]hat a document qualifies for a protective order under Rule 26(c) for discovery says
nothing about whether it should be sealed once it is placed in the judicial record.” 4
Here, the parties conducted discovery under a Rule 26(c) protective order and marked
various documents “confidential.”

But to seal documents on the judicial record

involves a much more demanding standard.
“To decide whether something should be sealed, the court must undertake a
document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law right of
access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.” 5 If the Court seals information,
it must give sufficient reasons to allow for appellate review. 6 Finally, “[p]ublicly
available information cannot be sealed.” 7

2

June Med. Servs. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519 (5th Cir. 2022).

3

Id.

4

Id. at 521.

5

Id. (cleaned up).

6

Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419.

7

June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520.

2

II.

CSC’s Amended Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 407)
CSC seeks to seal certain portions of Exhibit 3 to the Appendix in Support of

Plaintiff’s Response to Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Leave to Take Trial
Deposition of Jeremy Frieden. 8 When CSC filed its initial sealing motion related to
its response to Defendants’ motion for Leave to Take Trial Deposition of Jeremy
Frieden, the Court denied it without prejudice for failing to meet the heightened
sealing standard. 9

The Court provided the requirements for a sufficient sealing

motion: to identify precisely what information (pages, lines, etc.) the party wants
sealed; conduct a line-by-line, page-by-page analysis explaining and briefing why the
risks of disclosure outweigh the public’s right to know; and explain why no other
viable alternative to sealing exists. 10 Further, the sealing motion must also include
a declaration or oath of a person with personal knowledge. 11 After the Court’s
direction, CSC’s second bite at the sealing apple hit the mark.
CSC’s amended sealing motion meets the heightened sealing standard. In its
second go-around, CSC was precise about what it wanted to seal: lines 5:12–13, 14:22,
15:1, 19:8, 22:8 of Exhibit 3. 12 Next, CSC did its part to explain why the risk of
disclosure outweighs the public’s right to know because these excerpts disclose CSC’s
alleged trade secrets and financial expenditures related to the development of its

8

Doc. 407.

9

Doc. 402.

10

Id.

11

Id.

12

Doc. 407 at 3.

3

alleged trade secrets and would cause competitive harm to CSC’s business. The Court
agrees.

The motion’s facts were also verified in a declaration of a person with

personal knowledge. As such, the Court orders that Doc. 398-3 remain under seal.
The redacted version of Doc. 398-3 is already filed on the public record as an
attachment to Doc. 407.
III.

TCS’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 414)

The second sealing motion the Court considers today is TCS’s sealing motion
accompanying its Opposition and Responses to CSC’s Motion in Limine (“Opposition”)
and Exhibits 1-9 and 12 of the Appendix in Support of the Omnibus Motion in Limine
(“Appendix”). 13 TCS filed this motion because the Opposition and Appendix included
information that CSC had previously marked “CONFIDENTIAL OUTSIDE
ATTORNEY EYES ONLY INFORMATION.” 14 Upon review, CSC followed up with
a declaration identifying the specific materials within TCS’s motion CSC contends
should be maintained under seal. 15 As a result, TCS filed a public version of the
portions of the Opposition and Appendix for which CSC did not seek to seal. 16 The
public version includes the entirety of TCS’s Opposition and Responses to CSC’s
Motions in Limine and Appendix in Support of TCS’s Opposition and Responses,
except for Exhibit 12 which was replaced with a redacted version. 17

13

Doc. 414.

14

Id.

15

Doc. 439.

16

Doc. 440.

17

Id.

4

The Court agrees that Exhibit 12 should be maintained under seal. CSC was
precise about what it wanted to seal: Exhibit 12. 18 Next, CSC did its part to explain
why the risk of disclosure outweighs the public’s right to know because Exhibit 12
discloses CSC’s trade secrets.

In fact, Exhibit 12 is a copy of CSC’s initial

identification of trade secrets which lists and describes many of CSC’s alleged trade
secrets related to this action. CSC also followed up with a declaration of a person
with personal knowledge verifying these facts. 19 As such, the Court orders that Doc.
414 remain under seal. The redacted version of this document is already filed on the
public record at Doc. 440.
IV.

Conclusion

Given that the Court finds that CSC met the heightened sealing standard, the
Court GRANTS the Amended Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 407) and the
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 414). Moreover, the Court INSTRUCTS
the Clerk of Court to seal Doc. 398-3 but file the rest of Doc. 398 and additional
exhibits on the public record. 20 Furthermore, because TCS has already filed a public
version of its Opposition and Appendix with Exhibit 12 redacted, 21 the Court
ORDERS that Doc. 414 remain under seal. The Court’s instructions are the result

18

Doc. 439.

19

Id.

20

The redacted version of Doc. 398-3 is already filed on the public record as an attachment to

Doc. 407.
21

Doc. 440.

5

of a page-by-page, line-by-line analysis.

Such analysis “is not easy, but it is

fundamental” to securing the public’s right of access to judicial records. 22

IT IS SO ORDERED this the 6th day of November, 2023.

___________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22

June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 521.

6