Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 32 Filed 08/04/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joseph R. Ganley (5643)
`Piers R. Tueller (14633)
`HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
`Peccole Professional Park
`10080 West Alta Drive, Suite 200
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
`Telephone: (702) 385-2500
`Facsimile: (702) 385-2086
`jganley@hutchlegal.com
`ptueller@hutchlegal.com
`
`Edward R. Nelson III (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Christopher G. Granaghan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`John P. Murphy (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Carder W. Brooks (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, TX 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`ed@nelbum.com
`chris@nelbum.com
`murphy@nelbum.com
`carder@nelbum.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant R2 Solutions LLC
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`
`
`ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`R2 SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL
`PORTIONS OF DEFENDANT’S REPLY
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 32 Filed 08/04/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`
`Defendant R2 Solutions LLC (“R2”) moves under Local Rule IA 10-5 and Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 5.2 for leave to file the following portions of R2’s Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss
`Defendant Allegiant Travel Company’s (“Allegiant”) Original Complaint (“Reply”) under seal:
`
`
`
`Item
`
`Reply
`
`Portion(s) to be Sealed
`p. 11, lines 19-21; p. 3, lines 13-18, 20-22; p. 4,
`line 4; p. 5, lines 14-15; p. 7, lines 25-27; p. 8,
`lines 1-4; p. 9, line 23
`
`
`“Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files . . . .” Nixon v. Warner
`Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). “[T]he common-law right of inspection has bowed before the
`power of a court to [e]nsure that its records” serve as a source of “business information that might harm a
`litigant’s competitive standing” by releasing confidential information. Id. A party seeking to seal
`dispositive motions and related attachments must show compelling reasons for sealing. See Kamakana v.
`City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Forsythe v. Brown, No. 3:10-cv-
`716-RCJ-VPC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125489, at *35 (D. Nev. Oct. 27, 2011).
`R2 asks that portions of its Reply be sealed, as set forth above. Certain portions of the Reply
`contain information and communications that are subject to a confidentiality agreement between the
`parties (“the Agreement”). See ECF 1.4. Under the Agreement, each party agreed that “neither the
`content of these confidential Discussions nor the fact that these confidential Discussions occurred may be
`disclosed to any third party, other than professional advisors of the Party and counsel representing any
`Party.” Id. Such non-disclosure obligations provide “obviously compelling reasons” for sealing.
`Forsythe, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125489 at *35.
`Specifically, the designated portions of the Reply quote from, describe, or summarize
`communications between the parties, such as those included in Exhibit C to R2’s Motion to Dismiss, that
`are subject to the Agreement. The Agreement defines the parties’ discussions and negotiations as
`“Discussions,” and such Discussions are defined as “Confidential Information” that are not to be “use[d]
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`1
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 32 Filed 08/04/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`or disclose[d] . . . for any reason . . . except as to carry out the Discussions.” ECF 1.4 at ¶ 3.
`Disclosure of the designated discussions and negotiations would cause competitive harm to R2 in
`its efforts to license its patent portfolio to third parties at arm’s length. The discussions and negotiations
`reveal R2’s licensing strategy, including its selection of patents for discussion and claim charting. Indeed,
`disclosure of such information could provide potential licensees with the wherewithal to challenge the
`validity of R2’s patents, design around R2’s patents, and/or otherwise evade R2’s detection of their
`infringements.
`R2 did not choose patent enforcement litigation with Allegiant. It should not, by virtue of
`Allegiant’s actions, be forced to publicize its confidential licensing strategy in its effort to demonstrate
`that this Court lacks jurisdiction.
`In view of the foregoing, compelling reasons exist for filing portions of R2’s Reply under seal. R2
`respectfully requests that the Court order that those portions be filed under seal pursuant to LR 10-5(b).
`To this end, R2 is filing concurrently a redacted version of its Reply on the public docket.
`
`Dated: August 4, 2022
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`Joseph R. Ganley (5643)
`Piers R. Tueller (14633)
`HUTCHISON & STEFFEN, PLLC
`Peccole Professional Park
`10080 West Alta Drive, Suite 200
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89145
`jganley@hutchlegal.com
`ptueller@hutchlegal.com
`
`Edward R. Nelson III (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Christopher G. Granaghan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`John P. Murphy (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`Carder W. Brooks (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, TX 76107
`Telephone: (817) 377-9111
`ed@nelbum.com
`chris@nelbum.com
`
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`2
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 32 Filed 08/04/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`murphy@nelbum.com
`carder@nelbum.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`R2 SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on August 4, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the
`Clerk of the Court for United States District Court for the District of Nevada using CM/ECF. I further
`certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document is being served via transmission of Notices
`of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF to all participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF
`users.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO SEAL
`
`3
`
`CASE NO: 2:22-CV-00828-CDS-BNW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`