Motion to Seal Reply on Search Terms — In re Carvana Securities

Record facts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · No. 2:22-cv-02126-MTL · Doc. 299 · 2026-02-03 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

ATTOR NEY S A T LA W 
 
 
 
 
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
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Andrew B. Clubok (pro hac vice) 
J. Christian Word (pro hac vice) 
Susan E. Engel (pro hac vice) 
Matthew J. Peters (pro hac vice) 
555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
Telephone: (202) 637-2200 
Email: andrew.clubok@lw.com 
Email: christian.word@lw.com 
Email: susan.engel@lw.com 
Email: matthew.peters@lw.com 
 
Jeff G. Hammel (pro hac vice) 
Kalana Kariyawasam (pro hac vice) 
1271 Avenue of the Americas 
New York, NY 10020 
Telephone: (212) 906-1200 
Email: jeff.hammel@lw.com 
Email: kalana.kariyawasam@lw.com 
 
Meryn C. Grant (pro hac vice) 
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
Telephone: (424) 653-5500 
Email: meryn.grant@lw.com 
 
[Additional counsel on signature page] 
 
Counsel for Defendants Carvana Co., Ernest Garcia 
III, Mark Jenkins, Stephen Palmer, Michael 
Maroone, Neha Parikh, Ira Platt, and Greg Sullivan
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 
 
 
In re Carvana Co. Securities Litigation 
CASE NO. 2:22-cv-02126-PHX-MTL
 
MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF 
LEAD PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY IN 
SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL 
DEFENDANTS TO USE LEAD 
PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED SEARCH 
TERMS AND EXHIBITS 19 – 25 
 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 299     Filed 02/03/26     Page 1 of 8

 
 
ATTOR NEY S A T LA W 
 
 
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
Pursuant to Local Rule LRCiv 5.6 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), 
Defendants Carvana Co. (“Carvana”), Ernest Garcia III, Mark Jenkins, Stephen Palmer, 
Michael Maroone, Neha Parikh, Ira Platt, and Greg Sullivan (collectively, “Defendants”), 
hereby file this Motion to Seal Portions of Lead Plaintiffs’ Reply in support of Motion to 
Compel Defendants to Use Lead Plaintiffs’ Proposed Search Terms and Exhibits 19 – 25 
(“Motion to Seal”).   
As explained in the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, portions of 
the Reply and certain Exhibits should be maintained under seal. The Reply and Exhibits 
contain information designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” by 
the parties’ March 12, 2025, Stipulated Protective Order, including business information 
that is confidential and proprietary to Carvana.  Dkt. 136.  As set forth in the attached 
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, compelling reasons exist for the protection of this 
information. Accordingly, portions of the Reply and certain Exhibits should be sealed.  A 
proposed form of order is submitted concurrently herewith. 
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of February, 2026. 
 
 
Dated: February 3, 2026 
Respectfully submitted,  
 
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 
 /s/ Matthew J. Peters 
 
Andrew B. Clubok (pro hac vice) 
J. Christian Word (pro hac vice) 
Susan E. Engel (pro hac vice) 
Matthew J. Peters (pro hac vice) 
555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
Telephone: (202) 637-2200  
Email: andrew.clubok@lw.com 
Email: christian.word@lw.com 
Email: susan.engel@lw.com 
Email: matthew.peters@lw.com  
 
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 299     Filed 02/03/26     Page 2 of 8

 
 
ATTOR NEY S A T LA W 
 
  
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
 
Jeff G. Hammel (pro hac vice) 
Kalana Kariyawasam (pro hac vice) 
1271 Avenue of the Americas 
New York, NY 10020 
Telephone: (212) 906-1200 
Email: jeff.hammel@lw.com 
Email: kalana.kariyawasam@lw.com 
 
Meryn C. Grant (pro hac vice) 
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
Telephone: (424) 653-5500 
Email: meryn.grant@lw.com 
 
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. 
Douglas C. Northup (No. 013987) 
Andrea L. Marconi (No. 022577) 
2394 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 
Phoenix, AZ 85016 
Telephone: (602) 916-5000 
Email: dnorthup@fennemorelaw.com 
Email: amarconi@fennemorelaw.com 
 
Counsel for Defendants Carvana Co., Ernest 
Garcia III, Mark Jenkins, Stephen Palmer, 
Michael Maroone, Neha Parikh, Ira Platt, and 
Greg Sullivan 
 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 299     Filed 02/03/26     Page 3 of 8

 
 
ATTOR NEY S A T LA W 
 
  
4
| 
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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 
Defendants submit this Motion to safeguard the confidential, proprietary, and 
business-sensitive nature of the information contained within portions of Lead Plaintiffs’ 
Reply and certain Exhibits.  The Exhibits encompass sensitive and confidential details 
pertaining to Carvana’s operations and were created during the course of Carvana’s 
business activities and are confidential to Carvana.  The information within the Exhibits is 
unique to Carvana’s business, is not disclosed outside of Carvana, and its protection is 
essential to preserve Carvana’s financial interests.  The Reply contains additional 
confidential financial information. 
For these compelling reasons, Defendants now request the Court to order that 
discrete portions of the Reply and certain Exhibits be filed under seal. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
Generally, courts’ “analysis regarding a motion to seal begins with a ‘strong 
presumption in favor of [public] access.’” Loc. 640 Trustees of IBEW and Ariz. Chapter 
NECA Health and Welfare Tr. Fund v. Cigna Health and Life Ins. Co., 2020 WL 6273409, 
at *1 (D. Ariz. Oct. 26, 2020) (Liburdi, J.) (citing Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 
447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).  However, the Ninth Circuit carved out an exception 
to the presumption of access for non-dispositive discovery motions that do not go to the 
merits of the case, as well as materials attached to such motions.  Phillips ex rel. Estates of 
Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a party attaches 
a sealed discovery document to a nondispositive motion, the usual presumption of the 
public’s right of access is rebutted.”); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 
809 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016) (“discovery-related motions are often unrelated to the 
merits of a case”) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135-36 
(9th Cir. 2003)).  “Under this exception, a party need only satisfy the less exacting ‘good 
cause’ standard.”  Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097.  “For good cause to exist, the 
party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 299     Filed 02/03/26     Page 4 of 8

 
 
ATTOR NEY S A T LA W 
 
  
5
| 
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
if no protective order is granted.”  Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210–11.  “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.”  Id. at 1213.   
Lead Plaintiffs’ Reply is a non-dispositive discovery motion that is unrelated to the 
merits of the case.  Accordingly, it and the Exhibits attached to it fall squarely within the 
exception to the preference for public access and “‘good cause’ suffices” to warrant 
preserving Defendants’ confidential and highly confidential business documents and 
communications under seal.  See, e.g., Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135.1 
III. 
GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO SEAL THE EXHIBITS AND DISCRETE 
PORTIONS OF THE REPLY 
The documents contained in the Exhibits are all appropriately designated as 
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” and are therefore covered by the 
Protective Order in this case.  See Dkt. 136 (“Protective Order”) at 3 (“Protected Material: 
any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ or 
‘HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.’”); see generally Order (ECF 266) at 1.  The Protective 
Order reflects a determination “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.”  Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213; cf. Howell v. Leprino Foods Co., 2022 WL 
705600 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2022) (granting a motion to seal portions of defendants’ training 
policies and handbook policies because they contained “proprietary and confidential 
information, and have been designated as confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective 
Order as agreed to by the Parties”).  Accordingly, the documents contained in the Exhibits 
should be maintained under seal.   
 
1 The more demanding “compelling reasons” test applies to motions to seal attached to 
dispositive motions, such as motions for summary judgment, because the information at 
issue in those circumstances has become part of the judicial record.  See Kamakana, 447 
F.3d at 1178.  Here, even were this more demanding test to apply, Defendants have met 
their burden. 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 299     Filed 02/03/26     Page 5 of 8

 
 
ATTOR NEY S A T LA W 
 
  
6
| 
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
Moreover, the Exhibits and discrete portions of Lead Plaintiffs’ Reply contain 
Carvana’s confidential and proprietary business information.  This information represents 
the same type of proprietary and confidential business information courts routinely seal.  
See Order (ECF 266) at 3 (sealing Defendants’ comparable confidential and proprietary 
information); see also Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 3d 
1096, 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (granting the parties’ motion to seal documents because “they 
contain confidential business and proprietary information relating to the operations of 
Defendant[’s]” business); Shammam v. American Honda Finance Corp., 2025 WL 
1134606, at *2 (S.D. Cal. April 16, 2025) (“AHFC has narrowly tailored its sealing request 
to [proprietary information related to internal records, coding, databases, and customer 
accounts] that, if made public, are likely to result in prejudice or a competitive 
disadvantage.”); EON Corp IP Holdings LLC v. Cisco Sys. Inc., 2014 WL 1017514, at *2 
(N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2014) (noting that in the Ninth Circuit, “detailed product-specific 
financial information, customer information and internal reports are appropriately sealable 
[even] under the ‘compelling reasons’ standard”) (citing Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 
Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1226, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2013)); Neill v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2012 WL 
6554414, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2012) (granting motion to seal proprietary information, 
including internal policies and procedures, tracking procedures, and information about 
proprietary software).  
Specifically, Lead Plaintiffs’ Reply includes references to Defendants’ current and 
expected discovery costs, found on pages 7, 8, and 9, the disclosure of which would 
irreparably harm Defendants. 
The Exhibits include the following types of confidential information, the disclosure 
of which would irreparably harm Defendants: 
Exhibit 19 contains confidential board of directors’ communications regarding 
business finances and internal financial expectations, along with additional confidential 
business information. 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 299     Filed 02/03/26     Page 6 of 8

 
 
ATTOR NEY S A T LA W 
 
  
7
| 
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
Exhibit 20 contains a slide deck that discusses confidential business and financial 
information, including operational metrics and future business plans. 
Exhibit 21 contains a slide deck that discusses confidential business information, 
including internal analyses and financial forecasts. 
Exhibit 22 contains confidential communications with the COO regarding future 
market strategy and internal financial results. 
Exhibit 23 contains confidential communications with the CEO and CFO, among 
others, regarding financial results and forecasts. 
Exhibit 24 contains a slide deck that discusses confidential business information, 
including internal analyses and financial forecasts. 
Exhibit 25 contains a spreadsheet that displays large amounts of sensitive, 
confidential financial data. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated herein, Carvana requests this Court grant its Motion and seal 
portions of Lead Plaintiffs’ Reply and Exhibits 19 – 25, which Plaintiffs have lodged 
separately.  A proposed form of order is submitted concurrently herewith.   
 
 
Dated: February 3, 2026 
Respectfully submitted,  
 
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 
 /s/ Matthew J. Peters 
 
Andrew B. Clubok (pro hac vice) 
J. Christian Word (pro hac vice) 
Susan E. Engel (pro hac vice) 
Matthew J. Peters (pro hac vice) 
555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000 
Washington, D.C. 20004 
Telephone: (202) 637-2200  
Email: andrew.clubok@lw.com 
Email: christian.word@lw.com 
Email: susan.engel@lw.com 
Email: matthew.peters@lw.com 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 299     Filed 02/03/26     Page 7 of 8

 
 
ATTOR NEY S A T LA W 
 
  
8
| 
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
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 
 
Jeff G. Hammel (pro hac vice) 
Kalana Kariyawasam (pro hac vice) 
1271 Avenue of the Americas 
New York, NY 10020 
Telephone: (212) 906-1200 
Email: jeff.hammel@lw.com 
Email: kalana.kariyawasam@lw.com 
 
Meryn C. Grant (pro hac vice) 
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100 
Los Angeles, CA 90067 
Telephone: (424) 653-5500 
Email: meryn.grant@lw.com 
 
FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. 
Douglas C. Northup (No. 013987) 
Andrea L. Marconi (No. 022577) 
2394 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 
Phoenix, AZ 85016 
Telephone: (602) 916-5000 
Email: dnorthup@fennemorelaw.com 
Email: amarconi@fennemorelaw.com 
 
Counsel for Defendants Carvana Co., Ernest 
Garcia III, Mark Jenkins, Stephen Palmer, 
Michael Maroone, Neha Parikh, Ira Platt, and 
Greg Sullivan 
 
 
Case 2:22-cv-02126-MTL     Document 299     Filed 02/03/26     Page 8 of 8

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.azd.1319766.299.0.pdf

Size

498,366 bytes

SHA-256

442f0f15e8024d94de08fa9955070a42e44fc45efb66a5c72d88a3eec180a348

Our copy

gov.uscourts.azd.1319766.299.0.pdf

Original

archive.org