Aristocrat Technologies et al v. International Game Technology et al

Filing 797

ORDER re 784 MOTION to Seal Portions of Aristocrat's Opposition to IGT's Motion for Leave to File First Supplemental Answer and Counterclaims & Exhibits to the Dec. of Jeremy T. Elman ISO Opposition. Signed by Judge Whyte on 5/6/10. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/6/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. INTERNATIONAL GAME TECHNOLOGY and IGT, Defendants. [Re Docket No. 784] ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED and ARISTOCRAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiffs, No. C-06-03717 RMW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION E-FILED on 5/6/10 ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL Plaintiffs Aristocrat Technologies, Australia PTY Limited, and Aristocrat Technologies, Inc. (collectively "Aristocrat") move to file under seal portions of its opposition to IGT's motion for leave to file first supplemental answer and counterclaims as well as portions of Exhibit 1 and all of Exhibits 2 through 6 to the Declaration of Jeremy T. Elman in support thereof. A request to seal must establish that the document, or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Civ. L. R. 79-5(a). The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing of only sealable material. Id. Having reviewed the material that Aristocrat seek to file under seal, the court has concerns about the extent of material which Aristocrat seeks to file under seal. With respect to Aristocrat's opposition to IGT's motion for leave to file first supplemental answer and counterclaims, it appears that there is no basis ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL --No. C-06-03717 RMW CCL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 for sealing lines 8-14 on page 9. As for Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Jeremy T. Elman, it appears that there is no basis for sealing the redacted portions of pages 40-43 and 50-53. The court therefore orders Aristocrat to explain why these portions are sealable. If Aristocrat does not submit an explanation establishing that this material is sealable by May 14, 2010, the motion to seal will be denied. DATED: 5/6/10 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL --No. C-06-03717 RMW CCL 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Notice of this document has been electronically sent to: Counsel for Plaintiffs: Anthony R. de Alcaeus Terrence Patrick McMahon Jeremy Todd Elman Robert J. Blanch , Jr. Phillip C. Ducker Counsel for Defendants: Jeffrey Stewart Love Daniel Justin Weinberg Gabriel M. Ramsey Garth Alan Winn Kristin L. Cleveland Laura Kieran Kieckhefer Michael J. Bettinger Patrick Marshall Bible Robert T. Cruzen Stephanie Sue Nelson Eric Lance Wesenberg jeffrey.love@klarquist.com dweinberg@orrick.com gramsey@orrick.com garth.winn@klarquist.com kristin.cleveland@klarquist.com kkieckhefer@orrick.com mike.bettinger@klgates.com patrick.bible@klarquist.com rob.cruzen@klarquist.com stephanie.nelson@klarquist.com ewesenberg@orrick.com adealcuaz@mwe.com tmcmahon@mwe.com jelman@mwe.com rblanch@mwe.com pducker@mwe.com Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program. Dated: 5/6/10 CCL Chambers of Judge Whyte ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL --No. C-06-03717 RMW CCL 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?