Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00046/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00046-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

COPART, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SPARTA CONSULTING, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

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

ORDER 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 154 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition, the court DECLINES to “clarify” the issues raised by the objections. 

The court’s Amended Status Order speaks for itself. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

opposition to the sealing request on the docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 20, 2016 

Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 154 Filed 09/20/16 Page 2 of 2