The objection, filed yesterday (8 December) in Nevada District Court, challenges Magistrate Judge Couvillier’s discovery order from 24 November that found an implied privilege waiver over Light & Wonder’s attorney-led investigation.
The news marks the latest twist in the headline-grabbing Light & Wonder/Aristocrat spat, which has in recent months seen the two parties at loggerheads over discovery.
At the heart of the most recent dispute is whether Light & Wonder waived its right to keep confidential its internal investigation into allegations that former Aristocrat game designer Emma Charles used confidential information to develop the Dragon Train slot machine game after joining Light & Wonder.
The company argues the magistrate judge’s order was “clearly erroneous and contrary to law” because it failed to honour Light & Wonder’s repeated statements that it would not rely on the investigation or any privileged information at trial.
In the filing, Light & Wonder’s attorneys wrote: “L&W has unambiguously and expressly disavowed any reliance on the investigation or privileged (or previously privileged) information at trial. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, such disavowals must be honoured and enforced.”
Dragon Train legal battle continues
The legal battle began in September 2023 when Aristocrat sent Light & Wonder a letter alleging potential trade secret misappropriation in its Dragon Train slot game.
Light & Wonder subsequently launched an attorney-led investigation, during which Charles initially denied using any Aristocrat information.
However, after a preliminary injunction was granted in September 2024, Charles admitted to taking and using information Aristocrat claimed was confidential, and she was terminated in October 2024.
Light & Wonder voluntarily produced some privileged materials in January 2025, including interview notes and communications related to the withdrawal of declarations from Charles and another employee.
The company maintained it was preserving opinion work product protections while narrowly waiving attorney-client privileges for specific documents.
The company argues the magistrate judge’s order incorrectly interpreted its interrogatory responses and failed to apply proper legal tests for waiving both fact and opinion work product.
Light & Wonder particularly contests the order’s reliance on Interrogatory No 19 – which is Aristocrat’s request for more information into its internal investigation.
The company has requested the district court sustain its objection and, if not, conduct a private review of privileged materials before ordering any disclosure. Aristocrat filed its original complaint in February 2024.
Dingnews.com 10/12/2025