Home/N.D. Texas/Computer Sciences Corporation v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited

Computer Sciences Corporation v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited

District Court, N.D. Texas·Decided December 15, 2023·No. 3:19-cv-00970·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

COMPUTER SCIENCES § CORPORATION, § § Plaintiff, § § Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-0970-X v. § § TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES § LIMITED, et al., § § Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are Plaintiff Computer Sciences Corporation’s (“CSC”) request to seal certain trial exhibits (Doc. 433) and Third-Parties Transamerica Corporation and Money Services, Inc.’s (collectively, “Transamerica”) motion for leave to file under seal (Doc. 467). The Court has analyzed the proposed sealed documents line-by-line and page-by-page, weighing the public’s right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure. After careful consideration, the Court GRANTS CSC’s request to seal certain trial exhibits and Transamerica’s motion. The Court will seal the admitted trial exhibits listed in Exhibit A. I. Background Before trial, CSC requested that certain trial exhibits remain under seal and filed a declaration in support of that request. (Doc. 433). The declaration provided a detailed explanation for why each trial exhibit should be permanently sealed. Transamerica also filed a motion for leave to file under seal requesting that certain additional trial exhibits remain under seal. (Doc. 467). The Court provisionally sealed the documents during the duration of trial and informed the parties that it would revisit whether the documents should permanently remain under seal

following trial. II. Legal Standard The Court takes very seriously its duty to protect the public’s access to judicial records.1 Transparency in judicial proceedings is a fundamental element of the rule of law—so fundamental that sealing and unsealing orders are immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.2 The public’s right to access judicial

records is independent from—and sometimes even adverse to—the parties’ interest.3 That’s why the judge must serve as the representative of the people and, indeed, the First Amendment, in scrutinizing requests to seal. Litigants may very well have a legitimate interest in confidential discovery secured by a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). However, “[t]hat a document qualifies for a protective order under Rule 26(c) for discovery says nothing about whether it should be sealed once it is placed in the judicial record.”4

Here, the parties conducted discovery under a Rule 26(c) protective order and marked various documents “confidential.” But to seal documents on the judicial record involves a much more demanding standard.

1 See Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2021). 2 June Med. Servs. v. Phillips, 22 F.4th 512, 519 (5th Cir. 2022). 3 Id. 4 Id. at 521. “To decide whether something should be sealed, the court must undertake a document-by-document, line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure.”5 If the Court seals information,

it must give sufficient reasons to allow for appellate review.6 Finally, “[p]ublicly available information cannot be sealed.”7 III. Analysis CSC’s sealing affidavit and Transamerica’s motion meet the heightened sealing standard. In the affidavit and motion, CSC and Transamerica were precise about what they wanted to seal: specific trial exhibits, attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Next, CSC and Transamerica did their part to explain why the risk of disclosure outweighs the public’s right to know because these exhibits disclose confidential commercial information and trade secrets and would cause competitive harm to their businesses. Upon careful review, the Court concludes that CSC and Transamerica met their burden of proving that the materials should be permanently sealed. As such, the Court orders that the trial exhibits listed in Exhibit A remain under seal. IV. Conclusion

Given that the Court finds that CSC and Transamerica met the heightened sealing standard, the Court GRANTS CSC’s request to seal certain trial exhibits (Doc. 433) and Transamerica’s motion (Doc. 467). The Court will maintain the admitted trial exhibits listed in Exhibit A under seal. The Court’s instructions are

5 Id. (cleaned up). 6 Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419. 7 June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 520. the result of a page-by-page, line-by-line analysis. Such analysis “is not easy, but it is fundamental” to securing the public’s right of access to judicial records.®

IT ISSO ORDERED this the 15th day of December, 2023.

BRANTLE A, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 June Med. Servs., 22 F.4th at 521.

EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

COMPUTER SCIENCES § CORPORATION, § § Plaintiff, § § Civil Action No. 3:19-CV-0970-X v. § § TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES § LIMITED, et al., § § Defendants. §

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Computer Sciences Corporation v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, (N.D. Tex. 2023).

Computer Sciences Corporation v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited (Computer Sciences Corporation v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

June Med Svcs v. Phillips
22 F.4th 512 (Fifth Circuit, 2022)