Aristocrat Technologies, Inc., et al v. Light & Wonder, Inc., et al

Opinion

3 Aristocrat Technologies, Inc., et al, 2:24-cv-00382-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION vs TO AMEND DISCOVERY PLAN AND 6 SCHEDULING ORDER (ECF NO. 320) AND GRANTING THE MOTIONS TO SEAL 7 Light & Wonder, Inc., et al, (ECF NOS. 322 AND 331) 8 Defendant(s). 9 10 The Court has reviewed plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order (ECF 11 || No. 320) and related briefs. 12 IT IS ORDERED that the related Motions to Seal at ECF Nos. 322 and 331 are GRANTED. 13 || The documents sought to be sealed are unredacted portions of briefs and exhibits that concern discovery, 14 || non-dispositive matters, and the parties have shown good cause to support filing such unredacted 15 || documents under seal. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and 16 || its progeny. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion to Amend Discovery Plan and Scheduling 18 || Order (ECF No. 320) is DENIED. The Court finds the parties did not meaningfully meet and confer. 19 || In addition, the parties shall comply with the Court’s 8/26/24 Standing Order (ECF No. 97), particularly 20 || engaging in meaningful and earnest meet and confer, to address this discovery dispute. 21 Dated: December 5, 2025. 22 Z eo a a iF a 23 (fp ix 04 tee = Hon. Maximilfatio D. Couvillig# TI 25 L United 1 ) Jytige