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 DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 5 TO SEAL (ECF NO. 176) AS MOOT AND vs. GRANTING THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION 6 (ECF NO. 196) 7 Light & Wonder, Inc., et al., 8 Defendant(s). 9 10 Plaintiffs’ Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. and Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. a Motion 11 for Leave to File Under Seal Portions of Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for the Issuance of a Letter of 12 Request For International Judicial Assistance Pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of 13 Evidence (“Motion”). ECF No. 179. The parties also filed a Stipulation in light of the District Judge’s 14 Order regarding sealing. ECF No. 196. The Court DENIES the Motion as moot and GRANTS the 15 Stipulation. 16 The Ninth Circuit has emphasized a strong presumption in favor of access to court records and 17 documents. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). This general 18 right to public documents, however, is not absolute. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 19 (1978). Local Rule IA 10-5 explains that a party may file a document with the court under seal if 20 accompanied by a motion for leave to file those documents under seal. A party seeking to seal 21 documents in support of a non-dispositive motion must only show “good cause” exists to seal the 22 documents in question. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 23 2006). A party otherwise seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of presenting "compelling 24 reasons." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. 25 1 Per the parties’ agreement, the Court directs the parties to file a notice that contains unsealed and 2 unredacted versions of (1) Exhibits D and E, which is sealed at ECF No. 178-1 at Appn. 122–23, as well 3 as (2) the portions of Aristocrat’s unopposed Hague Convention motion referring to those exhibits 4 (referenced at ECF No. 178 at 2:20–22, 3:1–2). The parties also agree that the other redacted portion of 5 Aristocrat’s unopposed Hague Convention motion (see ECF No. 178 at 2:10–11, citing ECF No. 77-8), 6 should be sealed under the “good cause” standard because that portion references information the Court 7 previously sealed under the “compelling reasons” standard. See ECF No. 110 (granting motion to seal 8 ECF No. 77-8); see also ECF No. 195 at 2 The Court has reviewed the referenced information. The 9 Court finds that since L&W has met the higher compelling reasons standard, then L&W has also met the 10 good cause standard, so this information will remain sealed at this time. 11 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 12 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Portions of Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for 13 the Issuance of a Letter of Request For International Judicial Assistance Pursuant to the 14 Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence (ECF No. 179) is DENIED AS MOOT. 15 2. The parties’ Stipulation (ECF No. 196) is GRANTED. 16 3. The parties are DIRECTED to file their NOTICE that contains unsealed and unredacted 17 versions of the documents described in this Order by February 17, 2025. 18 Dated: February 11, 2025. 19 20 _________________________

21 Hon. Maximiliano D. Couvillier III

United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25