Drake v. Valve Corporation

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 6, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01743
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 IN RE VALVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION No. 2:21-cv-00563-JNW 8 ORDER CONSOLIDATING 9 CASES AND SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 10 11 JOHN ELLIOTT, RICARDO CAMARGO, No. 2:24-cv-01218-JNW 12 JAVIER ROVIRA, and BRADLEY SMITH, 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. VALVE CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16

17 CONNOR HEPLER and AARON No. 2:24-cv-01735-JNW 18 LANCASTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 19 Plaintiffs, 20 v. VALVE CORPORATION, 21 Defendant. 22

23 1 BRANDON DRAKE and ERIC No. 2:24-cv-01743-JNW SAAVEDRA, individually and on behalf of 2 all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs, 3 v. 4 VALVE CORPORATION, 5 Defendant.

6 1. CONSOLIDATION 7 There are several related cases pending before this Court: (1) In re Valve 8 Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00563; (2) Elliott v. Valve Corp., Case No. 9 2:24-cv-01218-JNW; (3) Hepler v. Valve Corp., Case No. 2:24-cv-01735-JNW; and (4) 10 Drake v. Valve Corp., Case No. 2:24-cv-01743-JNW. The plaintiffs in all cases 11 include PC video game consumers, and they allege that Defendant Valve Corp. has 12 used anticompetitive restraints on trade to monopolize the PC game distribution 13 market thereby harming consumers. In re Valve Antitrust Litigation1 was the first 14 filed case, but because of a litigation stay, it and the other cases are in the relatively 15 early stages of litigation. The cases all involve a common defendant, involve 16 common questions of law, and arise from the same set of facts. 17 “If actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact, the court 18 may: (1) join for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the actions; (2) 19 consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or 20 21 1 In re Vale Antitrust Litigation is a consolidated case, and the member cases are: Dark Catt 22 Studios Holdings Inc. et al. v. Valve Corp., Case No. 2:21-cv-00872 (involving game developer claims against Valve), and Colvin et al. v. Valve Corp. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00650-JCC 23 (putative PC video game consumer class). 1 delay.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). “District courts have ‘broad discretion under this rule 2 to consolidate cases pending in the same district.’” Abbott v. Amazon.com Inc., No.

3 2:23-CV-1372-JNW, 2023 WL 7496362, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2023) (quoting 4 Investors Rsch. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 877 F.2d 777, 777 (9th 5 Cir. 1989)). In fact, “trial courts may consolidate cases sua sponte.” In re Adams 6 Apple, Inc., 829 F.2d 1484, 1487 (9th Cir. 1987). In deciding whether consolidation 7 is appropriate, courts consider “the interest of judicial convenience against the 8 potential for delay, confusion and prejudice caused by consolidation.” Denise S. v.

9 Foreman, No. 2:22-CV-09237-MEMF-PD, 2024 WL 2002217, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 10 Apr. 26, 2024) (quoting Knox v. Yingli Green Energy Holding Co.,136 F. Supp. 3d 11 1159, 1162 (C.D. Cal. 2015)); see Pecznick v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-00743- 12 TL, 2022 WL 4483123, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 27, 2022) (“Factors relevant to the 13 analysis include judicial economy, whether consolidation would expedite resolution 14 of the case, whether separate cases may yield inconsistent results, and the potential 15 prejudice to a party opposing consolidation.” (internal quotations omitted)).

16 The Court finds that given the sole defendant and overlapping factual and 17 legal issues, consolidation will promote judicial economy, ensure consistent results, 18 and streamline matters overall. The parties acknowledge and accept that 19 consolidation is the most sensible plan. See In re Valve Antitrust Lit. Dkt. No. 373; 20 Elliott Dkt. No. 49. On its own accord, the Court exercises its discretion to 21 consolidate the pending putative consumer class action cases against Valve.

22 23 1 The Court ORDERS as follows: 2 1.1 Under Rule 42(a), In re Valve Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:21-cv-00563;

3 Elliott v. Valve Corp., Case No. 2:24-cv-01218-JNW; Hepler v. Valve 4 Corp., Case No. 2:24-cv-01735-JNW; and Drake v. Valve Corp., Case 5 No. 2:24-cv-01743-JNW are consolidated for all purposes. If 6 developments in the case show that consolidation is no longer justified, 7 the parties may move for appropriate relief. 8 1.2 Since it’s the lowest-numbered case, In re Valve Anitrust Litigation will

9 constitute the main docket for the consolidated action, and all future 10 filings must be made under Case No. 2:21-cv-00563-JNW and should 11 be captioned as: 12 IN RE VALVE ANTITRUST No. 2:21-cv-00563-JNW LITIGATION 13

14 This Filing Relates to:

15 [ALL ACTIONS]

17 1.3 When filing a document that pertains to all actions, the phrase “ALL 18 ACTIONS” must appear just after the phrase “This Document Relates 19 To” in the caption. When a filing pertains to some, but not all, actions, 20 the document must list the docket number for each individual action to 21 which the document applies and the last name of the first-listed 22 23 1 plaintiff in the relevant action just after the phrase “This Document 2 Relates To.”

3 1.4 The motion to consolidate in Elliott, Dkt. No. 49, is DENIED as moot. 4 The Clerk is DIRECTED to leave the motion at In re Valve Antitrust 5 Lit., Dkt. No. 373 pending, as it includes a separate motion for 6 appointment of interim lead class counsel that has not yet been 7 decided. 8 1.5 The motion to intervene in In re Valve Antitrust Lit., Dkt. No. 377, is

9 GRANTED. 10 1.6 The motion to intervene in Elliott, Dkt. No. 33, is DENIED as moot. 11 2. INTERIM LEAD CLASS COUNSEL 12 Relatedly, Sean Colvin, Susann Davis, Hope Marchionda, Everett Stephens— 13 the putative consumer class plaintiffs in In re Valve Antitrust Litigation (“Colvin 14 Plaintiffs”)—have moved to appoint their attorneys (“Colvin Counsel”) as interim 15 lead counsel for any putative consumer class. John Elliott, Ricardo Camargo, Javier

16 Rovira, and Bradley Smith—the putative consumer class plaintiffs in Elliott 17 (“Elliott Plaintiffs”)—oppose this motion and move to appoint their attorneys as 18 class counsel (“Elliott Counsel”). 19 To ensure that all parties have their say about who should be appointed as 20 interim class counsel for the putative consumer class in light of the Court’s 21 consolidation order, and to promote efficiency, the Court ORDERS:

22 23 1 2.1 The deadline for the Colvin and Elliott Plaintiffs to amend their

9 motions to appoint interim lead class counsel for the putative 3 consumer class is December 20, 2024.

4 2.2 To date, the Hepler and Drake Plaintiffs have not filed or joined a

5 motion addressing interim lead class counsel. Thus, they may, but

G need not, file a motion to appoint interim lead class counsel by 7 December 20, 2024.

8 2.3 The response deadline for any amended motion to appoint interim lead

9 class counsel is January 10, 2025. If the moving party was entitled to

10 file an amended motion but chose not to do so, the responding party 11 may still amend any previously filed response to account for new

12 developments in Valve-related litigation. Each Party may file one, 13 consolidated response brief, not to exceed 8,400 words.

14 2.4 The deadline to file a reply, if any, is January 17, 2025. Each Party 15 may file one, consolidated reply brief, not to exceed 4,200 words.

16 2.5 The Clerk is DIRECTED to issue this Order on the dockets of Elliott v.

17 Valve Corp., Case No. 2:24-cv-01218-JNW; Hepler v. Valve Corp., Case

18 No. 2:24-ev-01735-JNW; and Drake v. Valve Corp., Case No. 2:24-cv-

19 01743-JNW.

20 Dated this 6th day of December, 2024.

21 22 bk ¢ Jamal N. Whitehead 23 United States District Judge