Bungie Inc v. Bansal

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 5, 2023
• Docket: 2:21-cv-01111
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 9 AT SEATTLE 10 11 BUNGIE, INC., a Delaware corporation, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01111-TL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING v. MOTION TO SEAL 13 KUNAL BANSAL, an individual, d/b/a 14 LAVICHEATS.COM, 15 Defendant. 16

17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Bungie, Inc.’s Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 18 45). Having reviewed the unopposed Motion and all supporting materials, the Court GRANTS the 19 Motion. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 With its Motion for Entry of Default Judgment, Bungie has filed an unredacted 22 declaration of James Barker. See Dkt. No. 47 (sealed). The declaration contains nonpublic 23 information about how the cheating software Bansal sold circumvented Bungie’s technological 24 measures designed to restrict access to the Destiny 2 videogame and non-public information 1 about Bungie’s anti-cheat prevention efforts. In support of the Motion to Seal, Barker avers that 2 the information in his sealed declaration contains “non-public information about Bungie’s game 3 security and anticircumvention features and specific non-public details of how the cheat software 4 sold by Bansal interacted with, and infringed upon, Bungie’s Destiny 2 video game.” Dkt. No. 46

5 ¶ 3. Barker also asserts that “[p]ublic disclosure of this information would likely cause Bungie 6 immediate and irreparable harm by exposing Bungie’s trade secrets and proprietary security and 7 anticircumvention technology to cheat manufacturers, providing them with a how-to manual for 8 attacking Destiny 2 and harming Bungie.” Id. ¶ 4. Barker also avers that “[d]isclosing such 9 technical and proprietary information to competitors would also harm Bungie.” Id. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 The party seeking to keep material filed under seal must meet either the “good cause” or 12 “compelling interest” standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 13 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). The “compelling interest” test applies if “the motion [related to which the 14 materials are filed] is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id. If not, then the

15 good cause standard will apply. 16 Here, the compelling interest standard applies to the Motion to Seal because the 17 documents at issue have been filed in support of Bungie’s Motion for Entry of Default Judgment 18 which directly concerns the merits of this action and are “more than tangentially related to the 19 merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. “Under this stringent standard, a court 20 may seal records only when it finds a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its 21 ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096–97. 22 The court must “conscientiously balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party 23 who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447

24 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and quotation omitted). Examples of compelling 1 reasons include when a court record might be used to “gratify private spite or promote public 2 scandal,” to circulate “libelous” statements, or “as sources of business information that might 3 harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon v. Warner Commnc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598– 4 99 (1978).

5 Bungie has provided sufficient compelling reasons to maintain the sealing of Barker’s 6 Declaration filed with the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. Barker’s declaration filed in 7 support of the Motion to Seal explains cogently that all of the publicly redacted information from 8 his other declaration concerns non-public information whose revelation could allow for the 9 creation of new cheats to the Destiny 2 videogame and allow Bungie’s competitors an unfair 10 competitive advantage. Allowing public access could therefore expose Bungie to the very harm it 11 claims to have suffered from the sale of the Bansal cheats. Although Barker’s declaration in 12 support of sealing is not robust or particularly detailed, the Court is satisfied that it provides 13 sufficient evidence to find compelling interests that outweigh the public’s right of access. And 14 the Court notes that the public has broad access to the majority of the filings, which allow for an

15 understanding of the merits of the issues presented in the Motion for Entry of Default Judgment. 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion and DIRECTS the Clerk to maintain under seal 18 the Declaration of James Barker filed in Docket Entry 47. 19 Dated this 5th day of May 2023. 20 A 21 Tana Lin United States District Judge 22

23 24