Evolution Malta Limited v. Light & Wonder, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 EVOLUTION MALTA LIMITED, et al., 6 Case No. 2:24-cv-00993-CDS-NJK Plaintiffs, 7 Order v. 8 [Docket No. 91] LIGHT & WONDER, INC., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Docket No. 91. Defendants filed a 12 response. Docket No. 104. Plaintiffs filed a reply. Docket No. 109. The motion is properly 13 resolved without a hearing. See Local Rule 78-1. 14 There is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 15 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The standard applicable to a motion to 16 seal turns on whether the sealed materials are submitted in conjunction with a dispositive or a non- 17 dispositive motion. Whether a motion is “dispositive” turns on “whether the motion at issue is 18 more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” See Center for Auto Safety v. 19 Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016). 20 Courts within the Ninth Circuit are generally in agreement that a request to seal the complaint or 21 material attached to the complaint is considered “dispositive” for purposes of a sealing request. 22 See, e.g., Birch v. Delporto, 2019 WL 2298699, at *2 (D. Nev. May 30, 2019); Billman Prop., 23 LLC v. Bank of America, N.A., 2015 WL 575926, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 11, 2015) (collecting cases). 24 Parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions 25 must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 26 447 F.3d at 1180. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 27 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court 28 files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify 1 private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.’” Id. 2 at 1179 (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 3 Any request to seal must also be “narrowly tailored” to remove from the public sphere only 4 material that warrants secrecy. Harper v. Nev. Prop. 1, LLC, 552 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1040- 41 (D. 5 Nev. 2021) (citing Ervine v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016)). To the extent 6 any confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful information 7 available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing 8 entire documents. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 9 2003); see also in re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Ore., 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 10 2011). 11 Plaintiffs seek to file under seal select portions of their proposed second amended 12 complaint and select portions of Exhibits 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11 attached to the proposed complaint. 13 Docket No. 91; see also Docket Nos. 90-1, 90-2, 90-3, 90-4, 90-5, 90-6. Plaintiffs seek leave 14 because the portions include information that was designated as Confidential and Highly 15 Confidential by Defendants pursuant to their protective order. Id. at 3. Defendants submit that 16 the infringement allegations in the proposed complaint rely in part on excerpts of Defendants’ non- 17 infringement contentions and internal, non-public, and sensitive technical documents produced by 18 Defendants. Docket No. 104 at 3. The exhibits at issue contain claim charts that allege 19 infringement of the certain patents. Id. at 2-3 20 Defendants submit that denial of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal could cause competitive harm 21 because the disclosure of “commercially sensitive technical information would harm 22 [Defendants’] competitive standing by providing competitors with insight into [Defendants’] 23 internal product development and functionality that gives [Defendants their] competitive harm.” 24 Docket No. 104 at 5. Protecting trade secrets or internal information that might otherwise harm a 25 litigant’s competitive standing is a compelling reason to keep records sealed. Kamakana, 447 F.3d 26 at 1179; Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. The Court has reviewed the exhibits and portions 27 of the second amended complaint and agrees that their release could harm Defendants’ competitive 28 standing. Further, the request is narrowly tailored, as Plaintiffs are seeking to seal limited portions 1} of their second amended complaint and select portions of six out of eleven exhibits. Additionally, 2\| Plaintiffs have filed redacted versions of the documents. See Docket No. 89. The Court, therefore, 3] finds that compelling reasons exists to seal select portions of Plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint and select portions of Exhibits 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11. 5 The motion to seal seeks secrecy only as to portions of the second amended complaint and 6] certain portions of exhibits. Docket No. 91 at 3. In filing the underlying motion for leave to file 7|| a second amended complaint, however, Plaintiffs filed the entirety of the motion and all exhibits under seal. See Docket No. 90. The en masse sealing stems from filing the second amended 9}, complaint and exhibits in combined volumes. See Docket Nos. 90-1, 90-2, 90-3, 90-4, 90-5, 90- 10] 6. It is unclear why Plaintiffs filed the motion for leave under seal. See Docket No. 90. In doing 11] so, Plaintiffs violated the local rules, which require the separate filing of exhibits. See Local Rule 12] IC 2-2(a)(3)(A). By failing to comply with that local rule, Plaintiffs have filed under seal 1007 13]| pages, even though their sealing requests relates to only portions of the second amended complaint 14] and portions of six exhibits. See Docket No. 104-1 at 3-5. Plaintiffs did file redacted versions on 15] the public docket. See Docket No. 89. As a one-time courtesy, the Court will order the exhibits for Docket No. 90 to remain under seal. Any future filings must comply with the Local Rules. 17 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Docket No. 91. The Clerk’s 18] Office is INSTRUCTED to unseal Docket No. 90. The Clerk’s Office is INSTRUCTED to keep 19] Docket Nos. 90-1, 90-2, 90-3, 90-4, 90-5, and 90-6 under seal. 20 Dated: June 30, 2025 21 SASK Ze Nancy Koppe 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28