Order Granting Motion to Seal Exhibits — In re Carvana Securities

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona · No. 2:22-cv-02126-MTL · Doc. 266 · 2026-01-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

An order in United Association National Pension Fund, et al. v. Carvana Company, et al., No. 2:22-cv-02126-MTL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, filed January 16, 2026 as Doc. 266. Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle rules on the defendants' motion (doc. 260) to seal eight lodged exhibits to their opposition to the lead plaintiffs' motion to compel use of proposed search terms. The order applies the good cause standard of Rule 26(c) to exhibits attached to a non-dispositive discovery motion and finds that the exhibits contain confidential business documents, financial records and communications covered by the March 12, 2025 Stipulated Protective Order. It grants the motion and directs the Clerk to file the lodged Declaration and Exhibits 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 under seal. The order runs 3 pages.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

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

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.azd.1319766.266.0.pdf

Size

131,849 bytes

SHA-256

f002622805cd04dae90398b4a54c4c9aae48ecf5ecc344e4392897f1fa706fdb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.azd.1319766.266.0.pdf

Original

archive.org