The opinion
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
8 AT SEATTLE
9 CASE NO. C21-0563-JCC
IN RE VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
10
ORDER
11
12
13
14
15 This matter comes before the Court on three motions to seal by non-parties Epic Games,
16 Inc. and Microsoft, Inc., along with Plaintiffs Dark Catt Studios Holdings, Inc. and Dark Catt
17 Studios Interactive, LLC (collectively “movants”) (Dkt. Nos. 189, 193, 201). Having thoroughly
18 considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS the motions for the
19 reasons explained herein.
20 Plaintiffs Wolfire Games, LLC, Dark Catt Studios Holdings, Inc., and Dark Catt Studios
21 Interactive, LLC (collectively “Plaintiffs”) recently moved the Court for the certification of a
22 class of game developers and/or game publishers who paid Defendant for the use or sale of the
23 developers/publishers’ games on Defendant’s game platform. (See generally Dkt. No. 181.) That
24 motion, along with various supporting exhibits, included information that the movants now
25 describe as trade secrets, non-public business records, and other confidential information—the
26 dissemination of which would be harmful to movants’ businesses. (See Dkt. Nos. 189 at 2–3; 192
1 at 15, 21; 193 at 2; 182-27; 182-48.) This information was produced in accordance with the
2 protective order in this matter (Dkt. No. 95) and was designated for attorneys’ eyes only. (See
3 generally Dkt. Nos. 196, 197.) In addition, an exhibit to the class certification motion contained
4 what Plaintiffs Dark Catt Studios Holdings, Inc. and Dark Catt Studios Interactive, LLC assert is
5 personally identifiable information, specifically, a gamer’s username. (See Dkt. Nos. 201 at 2,
6 182-74 at 3.) Accordingly, the movants ask the Court to maintain all of this information under
7 seal. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 189, 193, 201.)
8 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
9 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
10 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
11 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). As a result, one “seeking to seal a judicial record . . . ‘must articulate
12 compelling reasons [to keep a record sealed] supported by specific factual findings.’” Id. at 1179
13 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).
14 However, courts have created an exception to this standard for materials contained in or
15 referenced in a motion only “tangentially related to the merits of the case,” which is often true
16 for non-dispositive motions. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097
17 (9th Cir. 2016). In such an instance, only “good cause” need be demonstrated, rather than
18 “compelling reasons.” Id.
19 Here, no party has lodged an opposition to the movants’ motions to seal. Therefore, the
20 Court concludes that each have merit, regardless of which standard need be applied. See LCR
21 7(b)(2). Accordingly, the motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 189, 193, 201) are GRANTED. The Clerk is
22 DIRECTED to maintain under seal the portions of Docket Numbers 192, 182-27, 182-48, and
23 182-74 described in the movants’ motions.
24 //
25 //
26 //
1 DATED this 19th day of April 2024.
A
2
3
4
John C. Coughenour
5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26