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

Opinion

3 Aristocrat Technologies, Inc., et al., 2 : 2 4 -cv-00382-GMN-MDC 4 Plaintiff(s), ORDER TO FILE A STIPULATION 5 vs. 6

7 Light & Wonder, Inc., et al., 8 Defendant(s). 9 10 The undersigned is considering plaintiffs’ Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. and Aristocrat 11 Technologies Australia Pty Ltd.’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Portions of Plaintiff’s 12 Unopposed Motion for the Issuance of a Letter of Request For International Judicial Assistance 13 Pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence (“Motion”). ECF No. 179. The Court 14 notes that the District Judge recently ruled on multiple motions to seal, denying sealing for some groups 15 of information and granting sealing for others, using the compelling reasons standard. See ECF No. 190, 16 citing to Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 17 At least some of the information that the plaintiff’s move to seal in the instant Motion is 18 duplicative or relates to groups of documents that the Court has ruled on under the higher compelling 19 reasons standard. Since this is a discovery issue, the lower “good cause” standard applies in this instance 20 to seal the information in question. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 21 (9th Cir. 2006). Given that the District Judge denied sealing for some groups of information, the Court 22 also recognizes that some of the issues raised in the instant Motion might be moot, as some information 23 is now part of the public record. 24 It would be helpful to the Court if the parties met and conferred, in light of the District Judge’s 25 1 Order (ECF No. 190), and filed a stipulation that outlines, as it pertains to the instant Motion only: (1) 2 exactly what documents and information the parties’ believe should still be filed under seal under the 3 good cause standard despite the District Judge’s Order and (2) what documents and information can now 4 be unsealed per the District Judge’s Order. The Court defers ruling on the Motion until after the parties 5 file the Stipulation. 6 IT IS ORDERED THAT the parties have until February 6, 2025 to file a stipulation pursuant to 7 this Order. 8 Date: January 23, 2025. 9 10 _________________________

11 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III

United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25