In re Carvana Co Securities Litigation

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United Association National Pension Fund, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Carvana Company, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-22-02126-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ “Motion to Seal Portions of Defendants’
Opposition to Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants to Use Lead Plaintiffs’
Proposed Search Terms” (“Motion”) (doc. 260).1 Defendants seek to file eight lodged
exhibits appended to their Response to Defendants Motion to Compel (doc. 258) under seal
because they “contain information designated ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ or ‘HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL’ by the parties’ March 12, 2025 Stipulated Protective Order[.]” See
(doc. 260 at 2); see also (doc. 136.)
Due to the expedited deadlines in this action, and finding no reason to delay, the
Court shall adjudicate this matter without a response. Because Defendants’ Motion
complies with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure, and is supported by good
cause, the Court will seal the eight exhibits.
I. Background.
On December 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed—with leave of Court—a Motion to Compel
1 Discovery matters in this case have been referred to this Court by the Honorable
United States District Judge Michael T. Liburdi. See (doc. 125.)
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 266 Filed 01/16/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
Defendants to Use Lead Plaintiffs’ Proposed Search Terms, which was to be briefed in
accordance with LRCiv 7.2. See (doc. 244.) Defendants filed their Response on January
13, 2026. See (doc. 258.) Portions of the Response were redacted. See (id.) Additionally,
eight exhibits in (doc. 259), referenced to in (doc. 258), were enclosed with the notation of
filed under seal. See (doc. 259.)
Contemporaneously with their Response, Defendants filed the instant Motion. See
(doc. 260.) Additionally, Defendants lodged the eight exhibits to be filed under seal. See
(doc. 261.) Further, Defendants filed a Notice of Lodging Documents Under Seal Under
LRCiv 5.6(d) and a Certificate of Service of (docs. 258–59). See (docs. 262–63.)
II. Legal Standard.
When considering motions to seal documents, courts within the Ninth Circuit
generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605
F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard derives from the common law right ‘to
inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents.’” Id. at 678 (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
However, “[r]ecords attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower ‘good
cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) . . . as such records ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially
related, to the underlying cause of action.’” Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook,
Inc., 485 F. Supp. 3d 1096, 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179).
To meet this good cause standard, the moving party bears the burden showing that “specific
prejudice or harm” will result if the information is disclosed. See Software Rights Archive,
LLC, 485 F. Supp. 3d at 1113 (quoting Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002)). “‘Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by
specific examples or articulated reasoning,’” are insufficient. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l
Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785
F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986)).
//
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 266 Filed 01/16/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
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
III. Discussion.
Because Defendants are attempting to file eight exhibits attached to a non-
dispositive discovery motion, the Court will apply the lower good cause standard. As to
each exhibit, the Court finds that Defendants have complied with Federal and Local Rules
of Civil Procedure. Additionally, the Court finds that Defendants have established good
cause to seal because the eight exhibits contain confidential or highly confidential business
documents, financial records, and communications which, if disclosed, may irreparably
harm the Carvana Defendants. See, e.g., Software Rights Archive, LLC, 485 F. Supp. 3d at
1113 (granting the parties’ motion to seal documents because “they contain confidential
business and proprietary information relating to the operations of Defendant[’s]” business).
Furthermore, because the District Court granted a Protective Order which rationally covers
the eight exhibits here, see (doc. 136), the District Court has, ipso facto, determined that
good cause exists to protect these documents. See, e.g., Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd, 307
F.3d at 1214 (“When a court grants a protective order for information produced during
discovery, it already has determined that “good cause” exists to protect this information
from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need
for confidentiality.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal Portions of Defendants’
Opposition to Lead Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Defendants to Use Lead Plaintiffs’
Proposed Search Terms (doc. 260) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall file the unredacted,
lodged Declaration and Exhibits 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13, found within (doc. 261),
UNDER SEAL.
Dated this 15th day of January, 2026.
Honorable John Z. Boyle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL Document 266 Filed 01/16/26 Page 3 of 3