Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00046/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00046-8/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.,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-0046 KJM CKD

ORDER

Pending before the court is defendant’s motion to compel further production of 

documents. The matter was submitted on the papers. ECF No. 100. Upon review of the 

documents in support and opposition, and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS 

AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Considering the factors regarding proportionality under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 26(b)(1), the motion to compel (ECF Nos. 77, 95) is granted in part.

2. No later than May 2, 2016, plaintiff shall produce high-level financial documents 

maintained by the “Financial Planning & Analysis” department, if any, as referenced in the Joint 

Statement. ECF. No. 104 at p. 8; Joint Statement at 7:24-27.

3. No later than May 2, 2016, plaintiff shall produce DAPTIV data regarding AIMOS and 

related projects through May 29, 2014.

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 106 Filed 04/21/16 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

4. No later than May 2, 2016, plaintiff shall provide tape-to-tape copies of the AIMOS 

backup tapes. Costs of production shall be shared equally by the parties.

5. No later than May 2, 2016, plaintiff shall produce CAS log information through May 

29, 2014.

6. The motion to compel to further production of documents to Defendant’s Fourth Set of 

Requests for Production, Request No. 1 is denied.1

7. In the circumstances of this case, the court finds that an order requiring plaintiff to 

identify responsive documents by Bates ranges and to identify search terms employed in 

searching for responsive documents is not warranted.

Dated: April 20, 2016

4 copart0046.def.mtc

 

1

 The court notes that the notice of motion (ECF No. 95) moves to compel further production 

only to defendant’s First, Second and Third Sets of Requests for Production. Because the merits 

have been briefed by the parties, the court has resolved the matter on the merits. Particularly with 

respect to this request, the proportionality factors weigh heavily in favor of plaintiff.

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-00046-KJM-CKD Document 106 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 2