Thimmegowda v. Big Fish Games Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 5, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-00199
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 AT SEATTLE

5 CHERYL KATER and SUZIE KELLY, No. 15-cv-00612-RSL 6 individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ORDER GRANTING CLASS 7 REPRESENTATIVE SUZIE KELLY’S Plaintiffs, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL 8

v. 9 CHURCHILL DOWNS INCORPORATED, a 10 Kentucky corporation, and BIG FISH GAMES, 11 INC., a Washington corporation.

12 Defendants. 13 14 MANASA THIMMEGOWDA, individually and No. 19-cv-00199-RSL on behalf of all others similarly situated, 15 ORDER GRANTING CLASS REPRESENTATIVE SUZIE KELLY’S 16 Plaintiffs, UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL

17 v. 18 BIG FISH GAMES, INC., a Washington 19 corporation; ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES 20 INC., a Nevada corporation; ARISTOCRAT LEISURE LIMITED, an Australian corporation; 21 and CHURCHILL DOWNS INCORPORATED, 22 a Kentucky corporation,

23 Defendants. 24 25 26 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5(g), Class Representative Suzie Kelly respectfully moves 2 for leave to file under seal an unredacted version of the Declaration of Suzie Kelly in Support of 3 Request for Class Representative Incentive Award (the “Kelly Declaration”), which is filed in 4 support of Class Counsel’s Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses and Issuance of 5 Incentive Awards.1 Specifically, Ms. Kelly requests leave to file under seal Paragraphs 7-22 of 6 the Kelly Declaration.2 7 While there exists a “strong presumption of access to judicial records,” the presumption 8 is overcome by a showing of “good cause” to seal documents attached to non-dispositive 9 material. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-1180 (9th Cir. 2006). This 10 “good cause” standard is notably less stringent than the “compelling reasons” threshold that must 11 be satisfied for dispositive motions—and for good reason: records attached to non-dispositive 12 materials routinely “[have] little public value beyond [the] presumption” of access. Hill v. Xerox 13 Corp., No. 12-cv-0717-JCC, 2014 WL 1356212, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 7, 2014); see also 14 Hanson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc., No. 13-cv-0939-JLR, 2013 WL 5674997, at *2 15 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2013) (same). 16 Paragraphs 7-22 of the Kelly Declaration reveal substantial sensitive and personal 17 information pertaining to Ms. Kelly’s experiences during this litigation. Kelly’s request for an 18 incentive award is not a dispositive motion, and because of the nature of the information 19 contained in these portions, there is good cause to permit her to file these portions under seal. 20 See, e.g., Wagafe v. Trump, No. 17-cv-94 RAJ, 2019 WL 4673334, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 28, 21 2019) (good cause exists where the document includes “sensitive personal information”); United 22 States v. Mahoney, No. 18-cr-0090-JCC, 2019 WL 1040402, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 5, 2019) 23 1 Consistent with LCR 5(g)(1), Plaintiff has conferred with Defendants in an attempt to minimize the amount 24 of material filed under seal, and Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion to seal.

25 2 In accordance with LCR 5(g), Ms. Kelly has publicly filed a partially-redacted version of the Kelly Declaration and has attached the unredacted Kelly Declaration hereto. 26 1 (same); Miller v. Boys & Girls Clubs of Snohomish Cty., No. 15-cv-2027-JCC, 2017 WL 2 897811, at *10 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 7, 2017) (same). If these portions were made public, Ms. 3 Kelly would suffer substantial fear, anxiety, and embarrassment. Filing a limited portion of Ms. 4 Kelly’s declaration under seal is the least restrictive way to avoid this harm. 5 For the foregoing reasons, Class Representative Kelly requests leave to file under seal an 6 unredacted version of the attached Declaration of Suzie Kelly. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(6), should 7 the Court deny this motion, Ms. Kelly requests that the Court please allow her to withdraw the 8 Kelly Declaration, rather than unseal it. 9 10 Respectfully submitted,

11 12 December 14, 2020 By: /s/ Alexander G. Tievsky

13 Alexander G. Tievsky, WSBA #57125 atievsky@edelson.com 14 Edelson PC 15 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60654 16 Tel: 312.589.6370/Fax: 312.589.6378

17 By: /s/ Todd Logan 18

19 Rafey S. Balabanian* rbalabanian@edelson.com 20 Todd Logan* tlogan@edelson.com 21 Brandt Silver-Korn* bsilverkorn@edelson.com 22 Edelson PC 23 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, California 94107 24 Tel: 415.212.9300/Fax: 415.373.9435

25 26 By: /s/ Cecily C. Shiel 1

2 TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC Cecily C. Shiel, WSBA #50061 3 cshiel@tousley.com 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 4 Seattle, Washington 98101-4416 Tel: 206.682.5600 5

6 Plaintiff’s Attorneys and Class Counsel *Admitted pro hac vice 7

8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated this 5th day of January, 2021. 11

13 ROBERT S. LASNIK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14

15 16 17 18 19

21 22 23 24 25 26