1 LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR. 2 Pro hac vice Email: lsigmond@bakerlaw.com 3 JENNIFER M. KURCZ Pro hac vice 4 Email: jkurcz@bakerlaw.com SCOTT A. SKILES 5 Pro hac vice Email: sskiles@bakerlaw.com 6 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 7 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 8 ALAINA J. LAKAWICZ Pro hac vice 9 Email: alakawicz@bakerlaw.com ROBERT P. LEESON 10 Pro hac vice Email: rleeson@bakerlaw.com 11 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 12 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 568-3100 13 NEVADA LOCAL COUNSEL LISTED IN 14 SIGNATURE BLOCK BELOW
15 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 18 ACRES 4.0, 19 Case No.: 2:21-cv-01962-GMN-BNW Plaintiff and 20 Counterclaim
21 Defendant, IGT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT 6 TO ITS MOTION 22 v. TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 59) AND EXHIBIT 6 TO ITS MOTION TO 23 IGT, EXTEND (ECF NO. 60).
24 Defendant and Counterclaim 25 Plaintiff,
26 v.
27 Acres Manufacturing Company, John F. Acres,
28 Counterclaim 1 Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT, by and through its attorneys of record, 2 hereby files this Motion to Seal. 3 On May 10, 2022, IGT filed a Motion to Compel and a Motion to Extend. (ECF 4 Nos. 59 and 60). On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants notified IGT that 5 Counterclaim Defendants considered as confidential certain portions of an email between 6 counsel, filed as Exhibit “6” of IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59) and Motion to 7 Extend (ECF No. 60). Although the email was not previously designated as confidential, 8 based on Acres’ representations, IGT brings this motion to the Court. 9 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants have advised IGT that they do not oppose this Motion 10 and that IGT may submit this Motion noting it is unopposed. This Motion is based on the 11 following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings and papers on file with 12 this Court, and all argument and testimony that the Court may consider at the time of 13 hearing. 14
15 Dated: May 13, 2022 16 /s/ Jennifer M. Kurcz LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR. 17 Pro hac vice Email: lsigmond@bakerlaw.com 18 JENNIFER M. KURCZ Pro hac vice 19 Email: jkurcz@bakerlaw.com SCOTT A. SKILES 20 Pro hac vice Email: sskiles@bakerlaw.com 21 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 22 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 23 Facsimile: (312) 416-6201 ALAINA J. LAKAWICZ 24 Pro hac vice Email: alakawicz@bakerlaw.com 25 ROBERT P. LEESON Pro hac vice forthcoming 26 Email: rleeson@bakerlaw.com BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 27 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 1 T Fae cle sp imho iln ee : : ( ( 22 11 55 )) 5 5 66 88 -- 33 41 30 90
2 -and-
3 David A. Carroll, Esq. (NSB #7643) dcarroll@rrsc-law.com 4 Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Esq. (NSB #10875) adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com 5 Robert E. Opdyke, Esq. (NSB #12841) ropdyke@rrsc-law.com 6 RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP 7 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste 1200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 8 Telephone: (702) 732-9099 Facsimile: (702) 732-7110 9 Attorneys for Defendant and 10 Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 Under Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 3 2006), there is a strong presumption of access to judicial records. See also Wells Fargo 4 Bank, N.A. v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 3948 Applecrest, No. 2:17-cv-01360-APG-VCF, 5 2020 WL 2311560, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2020). The party seeking the sealing of court 6 records bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Id. 7 While a “compelling reasons” standard applies to the sealing of dispositive filings 8 (id.), the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception” for sealed materials in connection 9 with a motion unrelated to the merits of a case. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 10 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original).1 Under this exception, 11 a party only needs to satisfy the “less exacting ‘good cause’ standard….” Kamakana, 447 12 F. 37 at 1180; accord Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Pahrump 194, LLC, No. 2:12–cv– 13 1462–JCM–VCF, 2015 WL 1877422, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2015) (applying “good 14 cause” standard); Frias Holding Co. v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, No. 2:11–cv–160–GMN– 15 VCF, 2015 WL 4622591, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2015) (same). Good cause for sealing is 16 demonstrated by “showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if the materials are 17 not filed under seal.” Selling Source, LLC v. Red River Ventures, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-01491- 18 JCM–GWF, 2011 WL 1630338, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011) (citation omitted). Finally, 19 a request to seal records must be “narrowly tailored” to remove from public access only 20 that material warranting protection. Saticoy, 2020 WL 2311560, at *2. 21 In support of this motion, IGT states as follows: 22 First, on May 10, 2022, IGT filed a Motion to Compel and a Motion to Extend. 23 (ECF Nos. 59 and 60). On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants notified IGT 24 that Counterclaim Defendants considered as confidential certain portions of an email 25 1 IGT submits that, even if the Court applies a “compelling reasons” standard (to 26 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 27 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. 1 between counsel, filed as Exhibit “6” of IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59) and Motion 2 to Extend (ECF No. 60). Although the email was not previously designated as confidential, 3 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants represented to IGT that it considered certain portions 4 of that email as confidential (the number of lines of source code gathered, and the name of 5 the programming language) confidential in IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59-6) and 6 Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60-6). Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., No. 2:12-cv-00053- 7 GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 2302310, at *2 (D. Nev. May 24, 2013) (finding good cause to seal 8 financial information, product specifications, and pricing information that the party treats 9 as sensitive business information). 10 Second, IGT does not rely on the redacted portions of Exhibit “6” for either its 11 Motion to Compel or IGT’s Motion to Extend. Thus, based on Acres’ representations, 12 protecting the redacted non-public information outweighs any public interest in access to 13 this litigation’s records or understanding the judicial process in relation to this case. The 14 proposed sealing is minimal and would not significantly hinder any public person’s ability 15 to understand the judicial process in relation to this dispute – e.g., this Motion only seeks 16 to seal very limited portions of Exhibit “6” to IGT’s Motion to Compel and IGT’s Motion 17 to Extend regarding the programming language and number of lines of source code 18 currently gathered by Acres. Thus, the filing would not significantly affect any person’s 19 ability to understand the judicial process in relation to this case. The parties have agreed 20 upon redacted version of the Exhibits, which are attached here as Exhibits “A” and “B.” 21 Based on the foregoing, the applicable standard for sealing has been satisfied. It is 22 respectfully requested that the Court enter an Order sealing the following document/docket 23 entries: 24 Exhibit “6” to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59-6); and 25 Exhibit “6” to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60-6).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR. 2 Pro hac vice Email: lsigmond@bakerlaw.com 3 JENNIFER M. KURCZ Pro hac vice 4 Email: jkurcz@bakerlaw.com SCOTT A. SKILES 5 Pro hac vice Email: sskiles@bakerlaw.com 6 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 7 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 8 ALAINA J. LAKAWICZ Pro hac vice 9 Email: alakawicz@bakerlaw.com ROBERT P. LEESON 10 Pro hac vice Email: rleeson@bakerlaw.com 11 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 12 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 568-3100 13 NEVADA LOCAL COUNSEL LISTED IN 14 SIGNATURE BLOCK BELOW
15 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 18 ACRES 4.0, 19 Case No.: 2:21-cv-01962-GMN-BNW Plaintiff and 20 Counterclaim
21 Defendant, IGT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBIT 6 TO ITS MOTION 22 v. TO COMPEL (ECF NO. 59) AND EXHIBIT 6 TO ITS MOTION TO 23 IGT, EXTEND (ECF NO. 60).
24 Defendant and Counterclaim 25 Plaintiff,
26 v.
27 Acres Manufacturing Company, John F. Acres,
28 Counterclaim 1 Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT, by and through its attorneys of record, 2 hereby files this Motion to Seal. 3 On May 10, 2022, IGT filed a Motion to Compel and a Motion to Extend. (ECF 4 Nos. 59 and 60). On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants notified IGT that 5 Counterclaim Defendants considered as confidential certain portions of an email between 6 counsel, filed as Exhibit “6” of IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59) and Motion to 7 Extend (ECF No. 60). Although the email was not previously designated as confidential, 8 based on Acres’ representations, IGT brings this motion to the Court. 9 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants have advised IGT that they do not oppose this Motion 10 and that IGT may submit this Motion noting it is unopposed. This Motion is based on the 11 following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings and papers on file with 12 this Court, and all argument and testimony that the Court may consider at the time of 13 hearing. 14
15 Dated: May 13, 2022 16 /s/ Jennifer M. Kurcz LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR. 17 Pro hac vice Email: lsigmond@bakerlaw.com 18 JENNIFER M. KURCZ Pro hac vice 19 Email: jkurcz@bakerlaw.com SCOTT A. SKILES 20 Pro hac vice Email: sskiles@bakerlaw.com 21 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 22 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 23 Facsimile: (312) 416-6201 ALAINA J. LAKAWICZ 24 Pro hac vice Email: alakawicz@bakerlaw.com 25 ROBERT P. LEESON Pro hac vice forthcoming 26 Email: rleeson@bakerlaw.com BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 27 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 1 T Fae cle sp imho iln ee : : ( ( 22 11 55 )) 5 5 66 88 -- 33 41 30 90
2 -and-
3 David A. Carroll, Esq. (NSB #7643) dcarroll@rrsc-law.com 4 Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Esq. (NSB #10875) adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com 5 Robert E. Opdyke, Esq. (NSB #12841) ropdyke@rrsc-law.com 6 RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP 7 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste 1200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 8 Telephone: (702) 732-9099 Facsimile: (702) 732-7110 9 Attorneys for Defendant and 10 Counterclaim Plaintiff IGT
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 Under Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 3 2006), there is a strong presumption of access to judicial records. See also Wells Fargo 4 Bank, N.A. v. Saticoy Bay LLC Series 3948 Applecrest, No. 2:17-cv-01360-APG-VCF, 5 2020 WL 2311560, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2020). The party seeking the sealing of court 6 records bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Id. 7 While a “compelling reasons” standard applies to the sealing of dispositive filings 8 (id.), the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception” for sealed materials in connection 9 with a motion unrelated to the merits of a case. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 10 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis in original).1 Under this exception, 11 a party only needs to satisfy the “less exacting ‘good cause’ standard….” Kamakana, 447 12 F. 37 at 1180; accord Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Pahrump 194, LLC, No. 2:12–cv– 13 1462–JCM–VCF, 2015 WL 1877422, at *1-2 (D. Nev. Apr. 23, 2015) (applying “good 14 cause” standard); Frias Holding Co. v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, No. 2:11–cv–160–GMN– 15 VCF, 2015 WL 4622591, at *3 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2015) (same). Good cause for sealing is 16 demonstrated by “showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if the materials are 17 not filed under seal.” Selling Source, LLC v. Red River Ventures, LLC, No. 2:09-cv-01491- 18 JCM–GWF, 2011 WL 1630338, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 2011) (citation omitted). Finally, 19 a request to seal records must be “narrowly tailored” to remove from public access only 20 that material warranting protection. Saticoy, 2020 WL 2311560, at *2. 21 In support of this motion, IGT states as follows: 22 First, on May 10, 2022, IGT filed a Motion to Compel and a Motion to Extend. 23 (ECF Nos. 59 and 60). On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants notified IGT 24 that Counterclaim Defendants considered as confidential certain portions of an email 25 1 IGT submits that, even if the Court applies a “compelling reasons” standard (to 26 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 27 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. 1 between counsel, filed as Exhibit “6” of IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59) and Motion 2 to Extend (ECF No. 60). Although the email was not previously designated as confidential, 3 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants represented to IGT that it considered certain portions 4 of that email as confidential (the number of lines of source code gathered, and the name of 5 the programming language) confidential in IGT’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59-6) and 6 Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60-6). Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., No. 2:12-cv-00053- 7 GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 2302310, at *2 (D. Nev. May 24, 2013) (finding good cause to seal 8 financial information, product specifications, and pricing information that the party treats 9 as sensitive business information). 10 Second, IGT does not rely on the redacted portions of Exhibit “6” for either its 11 Motion to Compel or IGT’s Motion to Extend. Thus, based on Acres’ representations, 12 protecting the redacted non-public information outweighs any public interest in access to 13 this litigation’s records or understanding the judicial process in relation to this case. The 14 proposed sealing is minimal and would not significantly hinder any public person’s ability 15 to understand the judicial process in relation to this dispute – e.g., this Motion only seeks 16 to seal very limited portions of Exhibit “6” to IGT’s Motion to Compel and IGT’s Motion 17 to Extend regarding the programming language and number of lines of source code 18 currently gathered by Acres. Thus, the filing would not significantly affect any person’s 19 ability to understand the judicial process in relation to this case. The parties have agreed 20 upon redacted version of the Exhibits, which are attached here as Exhibits “A” and “B.” 21 Based on the foregoing, the applicable standard for sealing has been satisfied. It is 22 respectfully requested that the Court enter an Order sealing the following document/docket 23 entries: 24 Exhibit “6” to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 59-6); and 25 Exhibit “6” to Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend (ECF No. 60-6). 26 27 1 Furthermore, IGT respectfully requests that upon granting of this motion, the Clerk 2 replace the publicly viewable versions of ECF No. 59-6 and ECF No. 60-6 with the 3 redacted versions attached here are Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “B,” respectively. 4 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants have advised IGT that they do not oppose this 5 Motion and that IGT may submit this Motion noting it is unopposed.
6 Dated: May 13, 2022 7 /s/ Jennifer M. Kurcz 8 LEIF R. SIGMOND, JR. Pro hac vice 9 Email: lsigmond@bakerlaw.com JENNIFER M. KURCZ 10 Pro hac vice Email: jkurcz@bakerlaw.com 11 SCOTT A. SKILES Pro hac vice 12 Email: sskiles@bakerlaw.com BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 13 One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4500 Chicago, IL 60606-2841 14 Telephone: (312) 416-6200 Facsimile: (312) 416-6201 15 ALAINA J. LAKAWICZ Pro hac vice 16 Email: alakawicz@bakerlaw.com ROBERT P. LEESON 17 Pro hac vice Email: rleeson@bakerlaw.com 18 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1735 Market Street, Suite 3300 19 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7501 Telephone: (215) 568-3100 20 Facsimile: (215) 568-3439
21 -and-
22 David A. Carroll, Esq. (NSB #7643) dcarroll@rrsc-law.com 23 Anthony J. DiRaimondo, Esq. (NSB #10875) adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com 24 Robert E. Opdyke, Esq. (NSB #12841) ropdyke@rrsc-law.com 25 RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP 26 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste 1200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 27 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 10 ORDER 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. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: 3:41 pm, May 16, 2022
18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 13, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing document with 2 the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all 3 counsel of record. 4
6 /s/ Jennifer M. Kurcz_ 7
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27