Pro hac vice Email: lsigmond@bakerlaw.com Pro hac vice Email: jkurcz@bakerlaw.com SCOTT A. SKILES Pro hac vice Email: sskiles@bakerlaw.com One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 Pro hac vice Email: alakawicz@bakerlaw.com ROBERT P. LEESON Pro hac vice Email: rleeson@bakerlaw.com 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 568-3100 NEVADA LOCAL COUNSEL LISTED IN
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ACRES 4.0, Case No.: 2:21-cv-01962-GMN-BNW Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant, IGT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT 6 TO ITS MOTION v. TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 59) AND EXHIBIT 6 TO ITS MOTION TO IGT, EXTEND (ECF NO. 60).
Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
Acres Manufacturing Company, John F. Acres,
Counterclaim Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT, by and through its attorneys of record, hereby files this Motion to Seal. On May 10, 2022, IGT filed a Motion to Compel and a Motion to Extend. (ECF Nos. 59 and 60). On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants notified IGT that Counterclaim Defendants considered as confidential certain portions of an email between counsel, filed as Exhibit “6” of IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59) and Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60). Although the email was not previously designated as confidential, based on Acres’ representations, IGT brings this motion to the Court. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants have advised IGT that they do not oppose this Motion and that IGT may submit this Motion noting it is unopposed. This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings and papers on file with this Court, and all argument and testimony that the Court may consider at the time of hearing.
Dated: May 13, 2022 /s/ Jennifer M. Kurcz LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR. Pro hac vice Email: lsigmond@bakerlaw.com Pro hac vice Email: jkurcz@bakerlaw.com SCOTT A. SKILES Pro hac vice Email: sskiles@bakerlaw.com One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 Facsimile: (312) 416-6201 ALAINA J. LAKAWICZ Pro hac vice Email: alakawicz@bakerlaw.com Pro hac vice forthcoming Email: rleeson@bakerlaw.com BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 T Fae cle sp imho iln ee : : ( ( 22 11 55 )) 5 5 66 88 -- 33 41 30 90
-and-
David A. Carroll, Esq. (NSB #7643) dcarroll@rrsc-law.com Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Esq. (NSB #10875) adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com Robert E. Opdyke, Esq. (NSB #12841) ropdyke@rrsc-law.com RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste 1200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 732-9099 Facsimile: (702) 732-7110 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT
Under Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006), there is a strong presumption of access to judicial records. See also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 3948 Applecrest, No. 2:17-cv-01360-APG-VCF, 2020 WL 2311560, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2020). The party seeking the sealing of court records bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Id. While a “compelling reasons” standard applies to the sealing of dispositive filings (id.), the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception” for sealed materials in connection with a motion unrelated to the merits of a case. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original).1 Under this exception, a party only needs to satisfy the “less exacting ‘good cause’ standard….” Kamakana, 447 F. 37 at 1180; accord Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Pahrump 194, LLC, No. 2:12–cv– 1462–JCM–VCF, 2015 WL 1877422, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2015) (applying “good cause” standard); Frias Holding Co. v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, No. 2:11–cv–160–GMN– VCF, 2015 WL 4622591, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2015) (same). Good cause for sealing is demonstrated by “showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if the materials are not filed under seal.” Selling Source, LLC v. Red River Ventures, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-01491- JCM–GWF, 2011 WL 1630338, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011) (citation omitted). Finally, a request to seal records must be “narrowly tailored” to remove from public access only that material warranting protection. Saticoy, 2020 WL 2311560, at *2. In support of this motion, IGT states as follows: First, on May 10, 2022, IGT filed a Motion to Compel and a Motion to Extend. (ECF Nos. 59 and 60). On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants notified IGT that Counterclaim Defendants considered as confidential certain portions of an email 1 IGT submits that, even if the Court applies a “compelling reasons” standard (to the extent the Motion is deemed somewhat dispositive or determinative of this case), this Motion to Seal should still be granted because there is a compelling justification for sealing of confidential source code information (for the same reasons discussed herein), especially where a redacted version of the subject document has been placed on file with the Court. between counsel, filed as Exhibit “6” of IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59) and Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60). Although the email was not previously designated as confidential, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants represented to IGT that it considered certain portions of that email as confidential (the number of lines of source code gathered, and the name of the programming language) confidential in IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59-6) and Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60-6). Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., No. 2:12-cv-00053- GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 2302310, at *2 (D. Nev. May 24, 2013) (finding good cause to seal financial information, product specifications, and pricing information that the party treats as sensitive business information). Second, IGT does not rely on the redacted portions of Exhibit “6” for either its Motion to Compel or IGT’s Motion to Extend. Thus, based on Acres’ representations, protecting the redacted non-public information outweighs any public interest in access to this litigation’s records or understanding the judicial process in relation to this case. The proposed sealing is minimal and would not significantly hinder any public person’s ability to understand the judicial process in relation to this dispute – e.g., this Motion only seeks to seal very limited portions of Exhibit “6” to IGT’s Motion to Compel and IGT’s Motion to Extend regarding the programming language and number of lines of source code currently gathered by Acres. Thus, the filing would not significantly affect any person’s ability to understand the judicial process in relation to this case. The parties have agreed upon redacted version of the Exhibits, which are attached here as Exhibits “A” and “B.” Based on the foregoing, the applicable standard for sealing has been satisfied. It is respectfully requested that the Court enter an Order sealing the following document/docket entries: Exhibit “6” to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59-6); and Exhibit “6” to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60-6). Furthermore, IGT respectfully requests that upon granting of this motion, the Clerk replace the publicly viewable versions of ECF No. 59-6 and ECF No. 60-6 with the redacted versions attached here are Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B,” respectively. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants have advised IGT that they do not oppose this Motion and that IGT may submit this Motion noting it is unopposed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pro hac vice Email: lsigmond@bakerlaw.com Pro hac vice Email: jkurcz@bakerlaw.com SCOTT A. SKILES Pro hac vice Email: sskiles@bakerlaw.com One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 Pro hac vice Email: alakawicz@bakerlaw.com ROBERT P. LEESON Pro hac vice Email: rleeson@bakerlaw.com 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 568-3100 NEVADA LOCAL COUNSEL LISTED IN
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ACRES 4.0, Case No.: 2:21-cv-01962-GMN-BNW Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant, IGT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT 6 TO ITS MOTION v. TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 59) AND EXHIBIT 6 TO ITS MOTION TO IGT, EXTEND (ECF NO. 60).
Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
Acres Manufacturing Company, John F. Acres,
Counterclaim Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT, by and through its attorneys of record, hereby files this Motion to Seal. On May 10, 2022, IGT filed a Motion to Compel and a Motion to Extend. (ECF Nos. 59 and 60). On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants notified IGT that Counterclaim Defendants considered as confidential certain portions of an email between counsel, filed as Exhibit “6” of IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59) and Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60). Although the email was not previously designated as confidential, based on Acres’ representations, IGT brings this motion to the Court. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants have advised IGT that they do not oppose this Motion and that IGT may submit this Motion noting it is unopposed. This Motion is based on the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings and papers on file with this Court, and all argument and testimony that the Court may consider at the time of hearing.
Dated: May 13, 2022 /s/ Jennifer M. Kurcz LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR. Pro hac vice Email: lsigmond@bakerlaw.com Pro hac vice Email: jkurcz@bakerlaw.com SCOTT A. SKILES Pro hac vice Email: sskiles@bakerlaw.com One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 Facsimile: (312) 416-6201 ALAINA J. LAKAWICZ Pro hac vice Email: alakawicz@bakerlaw.com Pro hac vice forthcoming Email: rleeson@bakerlaw.com BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 T Fae cle sp imho iln ee : : ( ( 22 11 55 )) 5 5 66 88 -- 33 41 30 90
-and-
David A. Carroll, Esq. (NSB #7643) dcarroll@rrsc-law.com Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Esq. (NSB #10875) adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com Robert E. Opdyke, Esq. (NSB #12841) ropdyke@rrsc-law.com RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste 1200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 732-9099 Facsimile: (702) 732-7110 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT
Under Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006), there is a strong presumption of access to judicial records. See also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 3948 Applecrest, No. 2:17-cv-01360-APG-VCF, 2020 WL 2311560, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2020). The party seeking the sealing of court records bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Id. While a “compelling reasons” standard applies to the sealing of dispositive filings (id.), the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception” for sealed materials in connection with a motion unrelated to the merits of a case. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original).1 Under this exception, a party only needs to satisfy the “less exacting ‘good cause’ standard….” Kamakana, 447 F. 37 at 1180; accord Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Pahrump 194, LLC, No. 2:12–cv– 1462–JCM–VCF, 2015 WL 1877422, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2015) (applying “good cause” standard); Frias Holding Co. v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, No. 2:11–cv–160–GMN– VCF, 2015 WL 4622591, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2015) (same). Good cause for sealing is demonstrated by “showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if the materials are not filed under seal.” Selling Source, LLC v. Red River Ventures, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-01491- JCM–GWF, 2011 WL 1630338, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011) (citation omitted). Finally, a request to seal records must be “narrowly tailored” to remove from public access only that material warranting protection. Saticoy, 2020 WL 2311560, at *2. In support of this motion, IGT states as follows: First, on May 10, 2022, IGT filed a Motion to Compel and a Motion to Extend. (ECF Nos. 59 and 60). On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants notified IGT that Counterclaim Defendants considered as confidential certain portions of an email 1 IGT submits that, even if the Court applies a “compelling reasons” standard (to the extent the Motion is deemed somewhat dispositive or determinative of this case), this Motion to Seal should still be granted because there is a compelling justification for sealing of confidential source code information (for the same reasons discussed herein), especially where a redacted version of the subject document has been placed on file with the Court. between counsel, filed as Exhibit “6” of IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59) and Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60). Although the email was not previously designated as confidential, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants represented to IGT that it considered certain portions of that email as confidential (the number of lines of source code gathered, and the name of the programming language) confidential in IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59-6) and Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60-6). Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., No. 2:12-cv-00053- GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 2302310, at *2 (D. Nev. May 24, 2013) (finding good cause to seal financial information, product specifications, and pricing information that the party treats as sensitive business information). Second, IGT does not rely on the redacted portions of Exhibit “6” for either its Motion to Compel or IGT’s Motion to Extend. Thus, based on Acres’ representations, protecting the redacted non-public information outweighs any public interest in access to this litigation’s records or understanding the judicial process in relation to this case. The proposed sealing is minimal and would not significantly hinder any public person’s ability to understand the judicial process in relation to this dispute – e.g., this Motion only seeks to seal very limited portions of Exhibit “6” to IGT’s Motion to Compel and IGT’s Motion to Extend regarding the programming language and number of lines of source code currently gathered by Acres. Thus, the filing would not significantly affect any person’s ability to understand the judicial process in relation to this case. The parties have agreed upon redacted version of the Exhibits, which are attached here as Exhibits “A” and “B.” Based on the foregoing, the applicable standard for sealing has been satisfied. It is respectfully requested that the Court enter an Order sealing the following document/docket entries: Exhibit “6” to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59-6); and Exhibit “6” to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60-6). Furthermore, IGT respectfully requests that upon granting of this motion, the Clerk replace the publicly viewable versions of ECF No. 59-6 and ECF No. 60-6 with the redacted versions attached here are Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B,” respectively. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants have advised IGT that they do not oppose this Motion and that IGT may submit this Motion noting it is unopposed.
Dated: May 13, 2022 /s/ Jennifer M. Kurcz Pro hac vice Email: lsigmond@bakerlaw.com JENNIFER M. KURCZ Pro hac vice Email: jkurcz@bakerlaw.com Pro hac vice Email: sskiles@bakerlaw.com BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 Facsimile: (312) 416-6201 Pro hac vice Email: alakawicz@bakerlaw.com ROBERT P. LEESON Pro hac vice Email: rleeson@bakerlaw.com 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 568-3100 Facsimile: (215) 568-3439
-and-
David A. Carroll, Esq. (NSB #7643) dcarroll@rrsc-law.com Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Esq. (NSB #10875) adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com Robert E. Opdyke, Esq. (NSB #12841) ropdyke@rrsc-law.com RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste 1200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 732-9099 Facsimile: (702) 732-7110 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT 4 INDEX OF EXHIBITS—LR IA 10-3(d s| | ExnibitNo, A Replacement Exhibit for ECF 59-6 - Email Chain Re “Acres 4.0 v. 6 IGT: Acres” Source Code,” dated April 12, 2022 — May 6, 2022 Replacement Exhibit for ECF 60-6 - Email Chain Re “Acres 4.0 v. 7 IGT: Acres” Source Code,” dated April 12, 2022 — May 6, 2022 9 ll IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 63 is GRANTED for good cause shown.
> 28 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is kindly directed to keep G28 3 Exhibit 6 to ECF Nos. 59 and 60 under seal.
44 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall detach and separately file the exhibits to ECF No. 63 and label them on the docket as "Redacted 15 Versions of Exhibit 6 to ECF Nos. 59 and 60" for clarity of the record. DATED: 3:41 pm, May 16, 2022
18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
I hereby certify that on May 13, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Jennifer M. Kurcz_