Internet Sports International, LTD. v. Amelco USA, LLC et al
Filing
261
ORDER. It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file excess pages (ECF No. 164 ) is GRANTED IN PART. It is further ordered that Defendants' motions for leave to file excess pages (ECF Nos. 250 and 251 ) are GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff and Defendants are each granted leave to file ONE 75-page omnibus motion for summary judgment. Responses will be limited to 75 pages and replies to 35 pages. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to seal (ECF No. 163 ) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to UNSEAL ECF No. 164 and all attached exhibits. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 10/24/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - RJDG)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
5
INTERNET SPORTS INTERNATIONAL,
LTD.,
6
Plaintiff,
v.
7
Case No. 2:23-cv-893-ART-NJK
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
FILE EXCESS PAGES (ECF No. 164),
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE
EXCESS PAGES (ECF Nos. 250, 251),
and PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL
(ECF No. 163).
AMELCO USA, LLC. et al.,
8
Defendants.
9
10
Before the Court are motions by both parties to this action for leave to file
11
excess pages. Plaintiff Internet Sports International (“ISI”) filed a motion seeking
12
leave to file two summary judgment motions, one in excess of page limits. (ECF
13
No. 164.) Defendants Amelco UK Ltd. (“AUK”) and Amelco USA, LLC (“AUSA”)
14
subsequently filed a motion seeking leave to file three summary judgment
15
motions, one in excess of page limits. (ECF No. 250 1.) Also before the Court is
16
Plaintiff’s motion to file its motion for leave under seal. (ECF No. 163.)
17
As explained below, the Court grants both parties’ motions in part. Both
18
Plaintiff and Defendant are granted leave to file one omnibus motion for summary
19
judgment at up to 75 pages. Responses are limited to 75 pages and replies to 35
20
pages. The Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion to seal.
I.
21
Motions for Leave to File Excess Pages
22
Local Rule 7-3 limits motions for summary judgment to 30 pages. LR 7-
23
3(a). A party may file a motion for leave to file a motion in excess of these page
24
limits. LR 7-3(c). Such a motion is disfavored under the local rules and will be
25
granted only upon a showing of good cause. Id. A District Court has broad
26
27
28
Defendant’s motions are docketed as ECF No. 250 “Motion for Leave to File
Document” and ECF No. 251 “Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages.” These
motions are identical and will be referred to for clarity as ECF No. 250 in this
order.
1
1
1
discretion in applying their local rules. Miranda v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 710 F.2d
2
516, 521 (9th Cir. 1983).
3
A. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (ECF No. 164)
4
ISI’s motion requests leave to file two motions for summary judgment. ISI
5
first requests to file a motion for summary judgment, within page limits, arguing
6
that the 2019 NDA and 2019 MCA are valid and enforceable contracts binding
7
on both Defendants, including arguments regarding alter ego. (ECF No. 164 at 1-
8
2.) ISI next requests leave to file a motion for summary judgment arguing “for
9
traditional and no-evidence summary judgment,” and to dismiss Defendants’
10
affirmative defenses. (Id. at 3.) ISI insists that because Defendants pleaded
11
twenty-five affirmative defenses and plan to pursue all of them, seventy-five pages
12
is necessary for this brief because it will permit approximately three pages per
13
defense. (Id. at 3-4.)
14
Given the number of affirmative defenses Defendants plead, the Court finds
15
good cause for Plaintiff to be granted leave file a motion for summary judgment
16
which exceeds page limits. The Court grants Plaintiff leave to file ONE omnibus
17
motion for summary judgment, up to 75 pages. Responses will be limited to 75
18
pages and replies to 35 pages.
19
B. Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (ECF No. 250)
20
Defendants motion requests leave to file three motions for summary
21
judgment. First, Defendant requests leave to file a motion for summary judgment
22
on Plaintiff’s contract and trade secret claims related to Defendants’ purported
23
breach, misappropriation and/or use of ISI’s alleged confidential information
24
and/or trade secrets (Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8), in excess of page limits at up to 45
25
pages. (ECF No. 250 at 2-3.) Defendants argue that excess pages are necessary
26
because ISI has provided a lengthy log of alleged trade secrets and/or confidential
27
information, which Defendants will be required to refute. (Id.) Defendants also
28
seeks leave to file two motions within the page limits set by the local rules; a
2
1
motion for summary judgment on ISI’s claims related to formation, breach and
2
conduct pertaining to the “Kiosk Agreement” (Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, and
3
12), and a motion for summary judgment on the issue of alter ego liability. (Id. at
4
3-4.) In the alternative, Defendants request leave to file one omnibus motion for
5
summary judgment. (Id. at 3.)
6
Given the large number of arguments and evidence Defendants must
7
address, the Court finds good cause for Defendant to be granted leave file a
8
motion for summary judgment which exceeds page limits. The Court grants
9
Defendants leave to file ONE omnibus motion for summary judgment, up to 75
10
11
pages. Responses will be limited to 75 pages and replies to 35 pages.
II.
Motion to Seal (ECF No. 163)
12
The Court previously approved the parties’ stipulated protective order.
13
(ECF No. 66.) The Court’s subsequent November 20, 2023 order reminded the
14
parties of the presumption of public access to judicial records and that all
15
motions to seal must comply with Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447
16
F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). (ECF No. 67.) The Court’s order further stated:
17
18
19
20
21
“If the sole ground for a motion to seal is that the opposing party (or
non-party) has designated a document as confidential, the
designator shall file (within seven days of the filing of the motion to
seal) either (1) a declaration establishing sufficient justification
for sealing each document at issue or (2) a notice of withdrawal
of the designation(s) and consent to unsealing. If neither filing is
made, the Court may order the document(s) unsealed without further
notice.”
22
(ECF No. 67 at 2) (emphasis added). Plaintiff filed its motion to seal the
23
motion for leave to file excess pages in accordance with this directive. (ECF No.
24
163.) Plaintiff states that while it consents to public filing of the motion and all
25
supporting
26
information which Defendants have designated as confidential. (Id.) Defendants
27
respond that the entirety of Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, as well as pages 69-76 and
28
page 249 of Exhibit 3, and pages 97-108 and 317-318 of Exhibit 4 were not
documents,
the
motion
and
3
supporting
documents
include
1
designated as confidential, and do not need to be sealed. (ECF No. 204 at 1-2.)
2
While Defendants indicated their consent to unsealing parts of ECF 163,
3
Defendants failed to provide any justification for why the rest of the motion or
4
exhibits should remain under seal. As was stated in Judge Koppe’s November 20,
5
2023 order, “The fact that a court has entered a blanket stipulated protective
6
order and that a party has designated a document as confidential pursuant to
7
that protective order does not, standing alone, establish sufficient grounds to seal
8
a filed document.” (ECF No. 67 at 2) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
9
331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003); Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966
10
F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)). As neither party has provided any justification for
11
sealing Plaintiff’s motion to file excess pages, the Court will deny the motion to
12
seal (ECF No. 163) and unseal ECF No. 164 and the attached exhibits in entirety.
13
14
15
16
17
III.
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file excess pages
(ECF No. 164) is GRANTED IN PART.
It is further ordered that Defendants’ motions for leave to file excess pages
(ECF Nos. 250 and 251) are GRANTED IN PART.
18
Plaintiff and Defendants are each granted leave to file ONE 75-page
19
omnibus motion for summary judgment. Responses will be limited to 75 pages
20
and replies to 35 pages.
21
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 163) is DENIED.
22
The Clerk of Court is directed to UNSEAL ECF No. 164 and all attached
23
24
exhibits.
Dated this 24th day of October, 2024.
25
26
27
28
ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?