Konami Gaming Inc. v. PTT, LLC

Filing 85

ORDER Denying 79 Motion for Leave to File. Defendant shall filed a renewed motion that discusses only whether Defendant's new redactions meet the sealing standards no later than 10/11/16. A response shall be filed no later than 10/13/16. Any reply shall be filed no later than 10/17/16. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/4/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
KONAMI GAMING, INC.,
8
9

Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11

HIGH 5 GAMES, LLC,

12
Defendants.
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:14-cv-01483-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket No. 79)

14

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s renewed motion to file under seal. Docket No.

15

79. On August 2, 2016, the Court granted Defendant’s motion for leave to file under seal. See

16

Docket Nos. 64, 68. On August 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration. Docket

17

No. 71. Plaintiff contended that Defendant’s redactions did not meet the relevant sealing

18

standards and that the order prejudiced Plaintiff. See id. at 7-20. Defendant responded to

19

Plaintiff’s motion on August 29, 2016. Docket No. 74. Because Defendant was willing to revise

20

its redactions, the Court ordered Defendant to file a renewed motion for leave to file under seal.

21

Docket No. 76. Defendant then filed a renewed motion, Docket No. 77, which the Court denied

22

for failure to include a memorandum of points and authorities. Docket No. 78. The Court

23

ordered Defendant to file a renewed motion for leave to file under seal. Id. Defendant then filed

24

the motion currently before the Court. Docket No. 79.

25

The current issue before the Court is whether Defendant can demonstrate that its newly

26

proposed redactions meet the relevant legal standards. The result of Defendant’s renewed

27

motion, which proposes different redactions, is that Defendant’s previous redactions are no

28

longer at issue. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the prior

1

redactions are correct. Defendant’s renewed motion, however, devotes more space to disputing

2

Plaintiff’s assertions about the previous redactions than it does to explaining how the newly

3

proposed redactions meet the sealing standards. Docket No. 79 at 5-6. The Court cannot make a

4

reasoned decision based on Defendant’s limited analysis.

5

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s renewed motion for leave to file

6

under seal, Docket No. 79, without prejudice. Defendant shall filed a renewed motion that

7

discusses only whether Defendant’s new redactions meet the sealing standards no later than

8

October 11, 2016. A response shall be filed no later than October 13, 2016. Any reply shall be

9

filed no later than October 17, 2016.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: October 4, 2016

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge