Scientific Games Corporation et al v. AGS, LLC

Filing 39

ORDER Granting in part and Denying in part 19 Motion to Seal. The Court INSTRUCTS the Clerk's Office to unseal Docket Nos. 1 -1, 1 -2, 1 -3, 1 -4, 7 , 7 -1, 7 -2, 7 -3, 7 -4, 8 , 10 , 10 -1, 10 -2, 10 -3, 10 -4, 11 , 14 , a nd 16 . The Court ORDERS Petitioners to file their motion to compel, Docket No. 1 , on the public docket, with the redactions that the Court has previously approved. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 4/27/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
5
SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION, et al.,

10

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

11

On February 1 and 15, 2017, Petitioners and Respondent filed motions to seal that the Court

12

denied without prejudice on February 16, 2017, for failure to include points and authorities. Docket

13

Nos. 3, 5, 13. On February 22, 2017, Petitioners filed a renewed motion to seal. Docket No. 17.

14

No response to that motion was filed. See Docket. Similarly, on February 24, 2017, Respondent

15

filed a renewed motion to seal. Docket No. 19. Petitioners did not oppose that motion. See Docket

16

No. 34 at 3.

6
Petitioners,
7
vs.
8
AGS LLC,
9
Respondent.

Case No. 2:17-cv-00343-JAD-NJK
ORDER

17

On March 21, 2017, the Court found that Petitioners’ renewed motion to seal failed to satisfy

18

the relevant standard. Docket No. 33. The Court therefore instructed the Clerk’s Office to keep the

19

documents at issue in that motion sealed for the time being and ordered Petitioners to submit a

20

supplemental brief. Id. at 4. On March 27, 2017, Petitioners responded to the Court’s order,

21

submitting that they need not pursue their motion to seal because Respondent’s separately filed

22

renewed motion to seal adequately protected Petitioners’ and Respondent’s interests. Docket No.

23

34. On April 3, 2017, therefore, the Court denied Petitioners’ renewed motion to seal as moot.

24

Docket No. 35.

25

On April 3, 2017, the Court issued an order regarding Respondent’s renewed motion to seal,

26

finding that it had made a particularized showing of good cause to seal certain documents, but not

27

others. See Docket No. 36. The Court therefore ordered Respondent to submit supplemental

28

briefing as to Docket Nos. 1-1 at 103-118 and Docket Nos. 7, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 10, 10-1, 10-2, 10-3,

1

10-4, 11, and 14, no later than April 11, 2017. Docket No. 36 at 4-5. The Court advised Respondent

2

that if it did not submit supplemental briefing by that date, the Court would order those documents

3

unsealed. Id. at 5. No supplemental briefing was filed. See Docket. On April 20, 2017, therefore,

4

the Court ordered Respondent to show cause, no later than April 25, 2017, why the documents at

5

Docket Nos. 1-1 at 103-118 and 7, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 10, 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4, 11, 14, and 16

6

should not be unsealed.

7

On April 25, 2017, Respondent filed a response to the Court’s order to show cause. Docket

8

No. 38. Respondent submits that the document at Docket No. 1-1 at 103-118 is a settlement

9

agreement to which it is not party. Id. at 4-6. Therefore, Respondent submits, it does not have

10

standing to request that the document be sealed and can articulate no particularized showing of harm

11

that would occur if the Court unsealed the document. Id. Respondent further submits that it does

12

not object to unsealing Docket Nos. 7, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 10, 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4, 11, and 14. Id.

13

at 5-6. Respondent does not address Docket No. 16. See id.

14

Accordingly, Respondent’s motion to seal, Docket No. 19, is hereby GRANTED in part and

15

DENIED in part for the reasons set forth in the order at Docket No. 36 and in this order. The Court

16

INSTRUCTS the Clerk’s Office to unseal Docket Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 7, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 8,1

17

10, 10-1, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4, 11, 14, and 16. The Court ORDERS Petitioners to file their motion to

18

compel, Docket No. 1, on the public docket, with the redactions that the Court has previously

19

approved.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

DATED: April 27, 2017.

22

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26

1

27

Docket No. 8 is identical to Docket No. 11, which Respondent does not oppose unsealing.
See Docket No. 8; Docket No. 11; Docket No. 38 at 5-6.

28

2