Empire Technological Group Limited v. Light & Wonder, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedSeptember 18, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-00923
StatusUnknown

This text of Empire Technological Group Limited v. Light & Wonder, Inc. (Empire Technological Group Limited v. Light & Wonder, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Empire Technological Group Limited v. Light & Wonder, Inc., (D. Nev. 2023).

Opinion

1 |} Michael J. McCue (Nevada Bar #6055) Meng Zhong (Nevada Bar #12145) 2 || LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600 3 || Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996 Tel: (702) 949-8200 4 || E-mail: mmccue@lewisroca.com E-mail: mzhong@lewisroca.com 5 G. Warren Bleeker (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 6 || LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP 655 N. Central Ave., Suite 2300 7 || Glendale, CA 91203-1445 Tel: (626) 795-9900 8 || Email: wbleeker@lewisroca.com Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant 9 || Empire Technological Group Limited 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1] DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 CASE NO.: 2:22-cv-00923-MMD-BNW 13 EMPIRE TECHNOLOGICAL GROUP LIMITED, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, 15 vs. 16 LIGHT & WONDER, INC., and SG 17 || GAMING, INC., 18 || Defendants. 19 || LIGHT & WONDER, INC., and SG GAMING, INC., 20 Counter-Plaintiffs, 21 vs. 22 EMPIRE TECHNOLOGICAL GROUP 23 || LIMITED, 24 || Counter-Defendant. 25 26 27 28

1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Empire Technological Group Limited, 2 || (“Empire”) and Defendant Light & Wonder Inc. and SG Gaming, Inc. (collectively, “Light & 3 || Wonder”) (collectively with Empire, the “Parties”), by and through their counsel of record, as 4 || follows: 5 The Parties anticipate that documents, testimony, or information containing or reflecting 6 || confidential, proprietary, and/or personally or commercially sensitive information are likely to be 7 || disclosed or produced during the course of discovery in the Litigation (defined below), and request 8 || that the Court enter this Order setting forth the conditions for treating, obtaining, and using such 9 || information. 10 1. Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds

good cause for the following Stipulated Protective Order Regarding the Disclosure and

Use of Discovery Materials (“Order” or “Protective Order”). GENERAL TERMS

3 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS

14 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private 15 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other

6 than prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle the following litigation: Empire Technological Group Limited v. Light & Wonder, Inc., and SG Gaming, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-00923-MMD-

8 BNW (“Litigation”). Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the

19 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer

50 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords

from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to

confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 33 1.2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT

34 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of °° this action 1s warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding

1 || confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 2 || information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information 3 || otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 4 || from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 5 || Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 6 || over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled 7 || to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 8 || material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 9 || litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 10 || matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 11 || tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 12 || maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 13 || of the public record of this case. 14 1.3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 15 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.7, below, that this Stipulated 16 || Protective Order does not entitle them to file Protected Material under seal; Local Rule IA 10-5 17 || sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 18 |} seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 19 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings 20 }| and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown 21 || to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 22 || (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 23 || Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 24 || orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 25 || with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 26 || Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or 27 || Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES 28 |} ONLY does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that

1 || the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 2 || protectable—constitute good cause. 3 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling 4 || reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly 5 || tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 6 || F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought 7 || to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 8 || protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, 9 || for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the motion to file documents 10 |] under seal must be provided by declaration. 11 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety 12 || will not be filed under seal if the portions of the Protected Material can be redacted. If documents 13 |} can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, 14 privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any motion that seeks 15 |] to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not 16 || feasible. 17 2. DEFINITIONS 18 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 19 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 20 || information or items under this Order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Empire Technological Group Limited v. Light & Wonder, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/empire-technological-group-limited-v-light-wonder-inc-nvd-2023.