“[C]ourts have refused to permit their files to 21 serve as . . . sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”
How later courts described this case
- “[C]ourts have refused to permit their files to 21 serve as . . . sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12 EPIC GAMES, INC., Case No. 4:20-cv-05640-YGR
13 Plaintiff, POSTTRIAL ORDER NO. 1 RE: (1) ORDER
GRANTING PENDING STIPULATION;
14 vs. (2) SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT
LLC’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
15 APPLE INC., CLARIFY; (3) FINAL SEALING REQUESTS;
AND (4) DEFERRED DOCUMENTS
16 Defendant.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 699, 729, 730, 731, 735, 739,
17 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 740, 741, 747
18
19 TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF RECORD:
20 The Court issues this Order with respect to several items on the docket:
21 1. Pending Stipulations
22 Having reviewed the pending stipulation on the docket, and for the good cause shown
23 therein, the Court GRANTS the following pending stipulation:
24 Dkt. No. 741
25 o Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the following exhibits are deemed
26 WITHDRAWN: PX-0009, PX-1164, PX-1165, PX-2090 PX-2118, PX-2174,
27 PX-2309, PX-2337, PX-2350, PX-2378, PX-2500, PX-2508, PX-2534, PX-
1 2. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC Administrative Motion for Clarification Re:
2 Trial Order No. 7 (Sealing Request Clarification) (Dkt. No. 739)
3 Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC has filed an administrative motion for clarification of
4 Trial Order No. 7, specifically regarding DX-3660. Having reviewed Trial Order No. 7, the Court
5 finds that there was a typographical error in Trial Order No. 7. Thus, the Court AMENDS the
6 ruling on Sony’s sealing request as to DX-3660 and the last bullet point to read as follows: “The
7 remainder of the document is otherwise appropriately sealed.” This sentence shall replace the last
8 bullet point regarding DX-3660. Accordingly, the Court clarifies that the sentence defining
9 “Competitive Platform” shall be unredacted, but the remaining proposed redactions are
10 appropriately sealed.
11 3. Final Sealing Requests
12 The Court has received several final requests to seal from the parties, as well as
13 declarations in support of these requests from the parties and non-parties. As the Court explained
14 in Pretrial Orders 7 and 9, as well as Trial Orders 1, 5, and 7:
15 Local Rule 79-5 provides that documents, or portions thereof, may be
sealed if a party “establishes that the documents, or portions thereof,
16 are privileged, protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to
protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). In general, a “strong
17 presumption in favor of access” to court records exists, especially
during trial. At times, compelling reasons which are “sufficient to
18 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court
records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for
19 improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to . . . release trade
secrets.” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
20 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. WarnerCommc’ns, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 598 (1978) (“[C]ourts have refused to permit their files to
21 serve as . . . sources of business information that might harm a
litigant’s competitive standing”).
22
Here, and importantly, the gravamen of this case is business
23 competition, including whether competition exists; if so, among
which players; and how such competition influences the market. The
24 Court understands that the standard is more lenient when the
information concerns third parties, but this is not dispositive. The
25 third-party information must be balanced with the Court’s ultimate
resolution of the instant dispute which should be transparent in its
26 analysis. Accordingly, the Court makes the following findings based
upon the current state of the record:1
27
1
(Dkt. No. 547 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 564 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 594 at 2-3; Dkt. No. 643 at 2-3; Dkt. No. 715
2
at 2-3.)2 With this prior framework in mind, the Court addresses the below administrative
3
motions to seal.
4
a. Epic Games Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Seal Re: Ex. Expert 1 (Dkt. No. 699)
5
The Court GRANTS this administrative motion except as follows:
6
Paragraph 88: these proposed redactions shall be unsealed and unredacted.
7
b. Apple Inc.’s Administrative Motions to Seal (Dkt. Nos. 729, 730, 735 ,740, 747)
8
These motions are GRANTED as to all documents except for:
9
PX-1922, PX-1017
10
o The proposed redactions are appropriately sealed at this time. Apple is on
11
notice that the Court may cite to sealed portions in these documents in any
12
final order on the merits.
13
PX-2302.
14
o 2302.12: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The first sentence
15
and the last sentence in the notes are appropriately sealed. The second and
16
third sentences shall be unredacted.
17
o 2302.22: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The notes shall be
18
19
important to disclose which has been sealed, it will provide an opportunity for the moving party to
respond.
20
2 The Court similarly stated in Trial Order No. 3:
21
Trial records enjoy a “strong presumption in favor of access” that can
22
only be overcome by “compelling reasons supported by specific
factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the
23
public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178- 79 (9th Cir. 2006). “In general,
24
‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in
disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court
25
files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the
use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,
26
circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179
(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).
27
] unreacted except that the percentage referenced shall remain redacted at this
2 time.
3 o 2302.41: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The notes shall be
4 unredacted.
5 o 2302.42: the slide redactions are appropriately sealed. The first paragraph
6 in the notes section shall be unredacted except that the referenced monetary
7 amount shall be redacted and sealed.
8 o The remainder of the proposed redactions in this document are
9 appropriately sealed at this time.
10 e The remainder of the proposed redactions are appropriately sealed.
11 c. Epic Games’ Administrative Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 731)
12 The motion is GRANTED as to the Epic Games’ request to partially seal DX-4133. Epic
13 Games is on notice that the Court may cite to sealed portions in any final order on the merits.
14 4. Previously Deferred Sealed Requests
8 15 The Court previously deferred consideration of several documents, including party specific
16 || contracts, Google LLC consumer survey reports, and other documents involving Epic Games. To
i 17 || the extent that the Court has not already ruled on these requests, these requests to seal are
Z 18 GRANTED as so requested by the parties or non-parties.
19 This Order terminates Docket Numbers 699, 729, 730, 731, 735, 739, 740, 741, and 747.
20 IT Is SO ORDERED.
21 || Dated: June 9, 2021 Loprave Hggtelflecs,——
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28