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

Filing 140

ORDER Granting 120 Motion to File Portions of MOTION to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 8/27/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SHUFFLE MASTER, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)
LT GAME INTERNATIONAL LTD.,

Case No. 2:12-cv-01216-JAD-GWF
ORDER
Motion to File Portions of Motion
to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint
Under Seal (#120)

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to File Portions of Motion to

15

Dismiss Third Amended Complaint Under Seal (#120), filed on April 28, 2014. No opposition was

16

filed in this matter.

17

The Supreme Court has recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and

18

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

19

589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). Unless a particular court record is one “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong

20

presumption in favor of access” is the starting point. See Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto.

21

Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d

22

1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). The 9th Circuit has held that the sealing of filings is appropriate to

23

protect the parties’ proprietary business operations and trade secrets. See Kamakana v. City and

24

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party seeking to seal a judicial

25

record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption by articulating the compelling

26

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

27

public policies favoring disclosure. Id. The public policies that support the right of access to

28

dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive

1

materials. See Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, a

2

‘good cause’ showing alone will not suffice to fulfill the ‘compelling reasons’ standard that a party

3

must meet to rebut the presumption of access to dispositive pleadings and attachments. See

4

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Starlite

5

Development (China) Ltd. v. Textron Financial Corp., 2008 WL 2705393 at 34, (E.D. Cal. 2008).

6

Here, the Court previously entered a Protective Order (#32) governing the handling of

7

documents and discovery in connection with this action. The aforementioned protective order was

8

entered pursuant to a stipulation wherein both parties acknowledged the sensitive and confidential

9

nature of certain information related to the subject matter of this action. By agreement,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

“Confidential Information” is:
[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.
Defendant indicates that its Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint an one of the

23

exhibits attached thereto reference and/or contain certain documents that were designated as either

24

“Confidential Information” or “Highly Confidential Information – Attorney’s Eyes Only” pursuant

25

to the Court’s Protective Order. Both parties stipulated to the highly sensitive and private nature of

26

this information pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order. The Court therefore finds that

27

Defendant establishes compelling reasons to file portions of its Motion and Exhibits (#120) under

28

seal. Accordingly,
2

1
2
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s File Portions of Motion to Dismiss Third
Amended Complaint Under Seal (#120) is granted.
DATED this 27th day of August, 2014

4
5
6

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3