LT Game International Ltd. v. Shuffle Master, Inc.

Filing 121

ORDER that 80 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that 107 Motion for Oral Argument re 80 is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that 82 Motion to File Under Seal is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that 93 Motion to File Under Seal is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that 109 Motion to File Under Seal is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/30/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
11

LT International Ltd.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Case No.: 2:12-cv-1216-JAD-GWF

v.

14

Order Denying as Moot Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 80] and Motion for Hearing
[Doc. 107], and Granting Motion to
Seal [Doc. 82], and Granting
Plaintiff’s Motions to Seal [Docs. 93,
109]

Shuffle Master, Inc.,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendant Shuffle Master, Inc., (“Shuffle Master”) previously filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment, seeking dismissal on all claims in Plaintiff LT Game International, Inc.’s
(“LT Game’s”) Second Amended Complaint. Doc. 80. Shuffle Master also requested
permission to seal portions of its motion. Doc. 82. LT Game responded to the motion, Doc. 86,
and then moved to seal portions of its response. Doc. 93. Shuffle Master also filed an objection
to some of the evidence Shuffle Master had provided to support its motion for summary
judgment, Doc. 102; LT Game filed a response to the objection, Doc. 108, and then moved to
seal its response. Doc. 109. Finally, LT Game moved for a hearing on the Motion for Summary
Judgment. Doc. 107. Of these five motions, only the motion for summary judgment has been
opposed.

28
1

1

After all of these filings were made, LT Game was granted leave to file a Third Amended

2

Complaint. Doc. 112. Shuffle Master has now moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint,

3

or alternatively for summary judgment. Doc. 119. Based on the filing of the Third Amended

4

Complaint, the Court finds that Shuffle Master’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the Second

5

Amended Complaint must be denied as moot. For the same reason, LT Game’s motion for a

6

hearing on that motion for summary judgment must be denied as moot.

7

As to the parties’ various motions to seal, Docs. 82, 93, 109, the Court finds it prudent

8

to reach their merits notwithstanding the fact they all pertain to a motion that has been denied

9

as moot, because they ask the Court to determine whether specific information already filed into

10

the record will ultimately be made part of the public record in this case. The parties previously

11

stipulated to entry of a protective order, Doc. 31, which the Court adopted. Doc. 32. The

12

stipulated protective order defines the terms “Confidential Information” and “Highly

13

Confidential Information – Attorney’s Eyes Only.” See Doc. 32 at 2-3. By agreement,

14

“Confidential Information” is:

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

[A]ny data or information that constitutes, reflects, or discloses non-public, trade
secrets, know-how, proprietary date, marketing information, financial
information, and/or commercially sensitive business information or data which
the designating party in good faith believes in fact is confidential or the
unprotected disclosure of which might result in economic or competitive injury,
and which is not publicly known and cannot be ascertained from an inspection
of publicly available documents, materials, or devices.
Doc. 32 at 2. “Highly Confidential Information – Attorney’s Eyes Only” is defined as:
[A]ny Confidential Information . . . that also includes extremely sensitive, highly
confidential, non-public information, including but not limited to, certain
business information, business dealings, dealings with customers/prospective
customers, research and development, produce development-related ideas,
concepts, and information, financial account, and inventory information, which
further includes pricing information, forecasts, budgets, customer lists,
marketing plans and analyses, whether implemented or not, and other related
and/or similar information, the disclosure of which could create a substantial risk
of competitive or business injury to the Producing Party.
Doc. 32 at 2-3.

26

In Doc. 82, Shuffle Master requests leave to seal portions of its Motion for Summary

27

Judgment pertaining to both parties’ “non-public, highly confidential information concerning

28

their business operations, structure, and finances.” Doc. 82 at 3-4. Similarly, LT Game seeks
2

1

to seal portions of Doc. 86 and 107 revealing the parties’ “non-public, proprietary data, trade

2

secrets, and commercially sensitive business information, including dealings and contracts with

3

customers and prospective customers.” Doc. 93 at 4; 109 at 4.

4

The public has a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

5

including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597

6

& n. 7 (1978). But when a party’s trade secrets and proprietary business operations are placed

7

at issue, the Court may permit sealing, so long as the requesting party overcomes the “strong

8

presumption” in favor of public access to court documents. See Kamakana v. City and County

9

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Based on the language in the parties’

10

stipulated protective order adopted by the Court, Doc. 32, and the reasons articulated in the three

11

motions to seal, Docs. 82, 93, 109, the Court finds good cause and grants all three motions to

12

seal.
Conclusion

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

It is HEREBY ORDERED that Shuffle Master, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment
[Doc. 80] is DENIED as moot.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that LT Game’s Request for Oral Argument on Doc. 80 is
DENIED as moot.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that Shuffle Master’s Motion to File Under Seal Portions of
Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 82] is GRANTED.

20

It is FURTHER ORDERED that LT Game’s Motion to File Under Seal Portions of LT

21

Game International Ltd.’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 93]

22

is GRANTED.

23

It is FURTHER ORDERED that LT Game’s Motion To File Under Seal Portions of LT

24

Game International Ltd.’s Response to Defendant’s Objections to Evidence [Doc. 109] is

25

GRANTED.

26
27
28

DATED: April 30, 2014
_________________________________
JENNIFER A. DORSEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3